Paolo Crepet Tickets

The crime of thinking is an imperceptible barbed wire that inhibits the minds of those who would still like to imagine without fear of what they are thinking about. Since time immemorial despots, powerful people, dictators, and even ordinary citizens-just think of romantic and family relationships-have feared free thinking. History teaches that conflicts have arisen to eradicate, prevent, punish anyone who has tried to express his or her opinions. Language-any form of expression-is the easiest tool to control; not thought, which often remains concealed, fueling suspicion, paranoia, doubts about loyalty and obedience, willingness to subservience, propensity to betrayal. This is why imagination is always richer than words, thus insidious and potentially dangerous. Yet, after centuries of civilization a substantial part of humanity had lapped up some idea of freedom. Many are convinced that the near future will allow new frontiers, advances, civilizational achievements. Despite new wars and massacres many continue to be convinced that the space for freedoms will continue to expand. Instead, this play arises from a different feeling: we are lapping at an almost paradoxical unforeseen, a limitation that is silently regressing civilization instead of ensuring its progress. An invisible wall for centuries has challenged the bravest humanity; now it seems to delude it. Something has gone wrong, now obvious even to those who do not want to admit it and worry about it: we are living a lacerating contradiction. I see around me confused people partly looking for new words, while others perceive a vision thinned by their own, boundless individual needs. As if, in tearing down new walls and uttering words that only a few decades ago would have seemed blasphemous, we are suddenly dominated by the silent echo of new fears generated by the anguish that those same new forms of freedom have suddenly become blunders, dangers, dangers, unusual forms of anxiety and disquiet. The idea is advancing that freedoms must be fragmented, restricted within new vocabularies, patterns. Taming words, thus the thought that generates them, leads to the normalization that is part of a rule of the new ideological marketing. I fear that something more may happen: that the need for a new “code” governing thought will come forward. It will no longer be morals, ethics or guilt, but a return back to the idea that words, but especially the inspiration that generates them, should be self-inhibited. A form of self-induced censorship that allows for mass subjugation. To achieve this requires an effective method, a queen rule to prevent the libertarian river from overflowing and returning the exhibition community to a mass of individuals controllable not by their choices but by what generates them, thought. The crime of thinking will affect reciprocity, so cultural, emotional, relational contamination vanishes. One comes to be appalled by one's ideas, by the idea and the need to expose them.

At the root of all forms of freedom is thought, the exercise of free will. If for the first time in the history of mankind we decide, without even being embarrassed about it, that in order to follow the rules of the market and politics we must prohibit it, inhibit it, dissolve it until it fragments to insignificant splinters, what will become of our imagination, of our genius that comes from disobedience to standardization? Limiting the formation of thought will allow one to control the future. It is a fantasy that not only many companies have, but also politicians, spiritual leaders, intellectuals. Are these the people who would like a humanity gripped by fear of the very idea of reflection? Instead of a fantastic and joyful future, there are those who would like to induce everyone to imprison their minds, becoming replicants, inhibited in criticism and doubt. The crime of thinking does not need new laws, not least because upon closer inspection it already exists without our being aware of it. How many forms of “political correctness” are distorting the formation of ideation, how many ideological and counter-ideological vetoes are building new invisible but paralyzing cages, how many censorships and self-censorships are we imposing on ourselves thinking they are new forms of freedom? Already today it has become difficult to write, speak, express an opinion freely having to take into account a censorship that, already at the roots (or rather in the software of our digital technology) is mothballing the great tree of individual freedom. If the free expression of thought becomes an obstacle to a future based on new dogmas, ideological fences, algorithms invented to control every syllable, what will happen to the innovation, the prodigy, the creativity that does not rely on replication? Who will discover the New Indies? Who will find the courage to seek the originality of our minds?