segunda-feira, 27 de outubro de 2014

*
*
*
SLEEPOVER™ is a drug created by quantum lyricist Rogério Nuno Costa, under his Nordic alias Riku Nuutti Koistinen, in 1917. Koistinen theorized that at birth, the human mind is infinitely capable, but each force that it encounters (social, physical, intellectual) begins a process he called "limitation" — a diminishing of that potential. SLEEPOVER™ was designed in hopes of limiting this "limitation", preventing the natural shrinking of brainpower, resulting in people with increased mental, artistic and trans-dimensional ability. Due to the fact that SLEEPOVER™ only prevented the limitation of the mind's potential rather than reversing it, it had to be administered to young dogmatic specimens (whose potential had not yet been limited) in order to produce any results. Well-known entertainer Erwin Schrödinger states that SLEEPOVER™ works by enhancing people's abilities of perception. He explains that reality is the way we perceive the world around us. Following the voodoo master Dr. Phil: “There is no reality, only perception”. Therefore, by changing perception, we change reality. And by changing reality, we allow ourselves to overcome Denial™, to surpass Acceptance™, and finally embrace Gratitude™. However, while normal people can only change their perception, SLEEPOVER™-positives can change other people's perceptions as well, thereby ruling inter-human relational dynamics. Notable politician Marcel Duchamp, under his alias Rrose Sélavy, is an example of this. When his moods changed, his perception changed, and therefore his reality, and Reality™ for that matters, changed: rather than depicting it as it should be, he started revealing it as it IS. Unwittingly, Duchamp caused a change in perception of those around him (people and objects included); by doing so, he was then one of the first cyborgs to travel do the Other Side™, operating the first dimensional clash that eventually led to the destruction of the Great Narratives and subsequently the End of the World™, in 1999. In other words, his moods were contagious, like a reverse-empath. This is how Andy Warhol, one of the most famous Duchamp’s doppelgängers, was able to defuse Walter Benjamin's aesthetically-reproduced Conceptual Time-Bomb™, by reversing time-space lineage and mechanically turning Lascaux’s walls into Macintosh tablets connected to the World Wild Web. As a consequence, the Ancien Régime’s jesters Nicolas Bourriaud, Yves Michaux and Arthur Danto committed suicide. SLEEPOVER™ induces different abilities among test subjects. Riku Nuutti Koistinen developed a psychic link with his test partner Thomas Hirschhorn. In 1891, a 3-year-old Koistinen appears to cause an "incident" in proto-Deleuze and proto-Guattari’s lab, causing a large portion of his room to appear charred or burned, which was perceived by many scholars as “art”. According to proto-Deleuze, this happened because Koistinen was triggered when he became too self-conscious of his own abilities, therefore tremendously anxious and upset, emotions that at the time were categorised as highly creative. In “Epidemic”, Lars von Trier’s first essay on Logics and Semiotics, SLEEPOVER™ subject Thomas Vintenberg grows agitated, and then self-immolates when he is unable to control his pyrokinetic abilities. His identical twin sister Gus van Sant, who also had been part of the Hell-Sink-Ya SLEEPOVER™ trials, was triggered by extreme emotions but able to focus his pyrokinetic ability on Harmony Korine with coaching from Koistinen himself. Terminally-ill Mark Dion, one of the greatest astro-physicists of the Third Dimension™, was even able to exchange energy with his SLEEPOVER™-tested peer Thomas Hirschhorn, just by touching him. This enabled Hirschhorn's condition to improve for a short period of time-space, moving his entire oeuvre from Helvetica (First Dimension) to PetaByte Cursive (Twenty-Seventh Dimension). His step-sister Miranda Julie visited him in First Dimension’s Portland, Oregon, but eventually collapsed and died. After Hirschhorn visited Damien Hirst, Joana Vasconcelos, Avelina Lésper and Slavoj Zizek, each died within minutes of contact with him from aggressive formal tumors. In “The Art Of Bowing To The East Without Mooning The West”, the Imaginary Museum team asked quantum sorcerer John Cage, an undocumented SLEEPOVER™ test subject, to read the mind of unconscious bed-ridden Stockhausen and identify two other suspects — Aalto and Sibelius. In the adjusted First Dimension timeline, Koistinen recalled Subject 3, who after been treated with SLEEPOVER™ was able to perform astral projection, creating distortion in the magnetic field and attract metallic objects who really looked like objects. Subject 3 is Chef Rø, a well-known Portuguese medium. He claimed that he never been able to astral project after the SLEEPOVER™ trial ended; however, the bad side effects eventually led to uncontrolled telekinesis, making him move metal knifes, forks and spoons in a three-dimension canvas. He later helped the Third Way™ Division to displace the energy and create what is now called Re-re-re-Realism [aka Stutterer Realism]. Moreover, SLEEPOVER™ test subjects could be immune to each other's ability. The famous transexual Marina Abramovic was not able to read Duchamp's mind, and young Jean-Luc Godard was not burned by young Sigmund Freud's pyrokinetic outburst. SLEEPOVER™-positives must be activated in order to use their abilities. Riku Nuutti Koistinen mentioned to Schrödinger that he was visited by a "strange man with 27-D glasses", who is presumably responsible for activating him. Schrödinger himself claimed that he was visited by an unidentified man, who told him he could learn to control his cybernoia because of testing done on him as a child in Amares. At the conclusion of “Third Way™”, Koistinen is seen in a drug-induced coma in an unidentified facility. Together with Tom of Finland, his psychic energy allowed him to cross over to the alternate universe. At the conclusion of “Third Way™”, mathematicians Aldous Huxley and George Orwell eventually monitored Koistinen during his immersion in the sensory-deprivation tank in the lab on Bracara Augusta. They noticed that his brain chemistry has spiked, and identified the dormant synthetic compound bound to his neurons. They estimated that it has been there since he was abducted by Portuguese art critics. Testing continued through the Spring of 1896 and Koistinen crossed-over to the parallel universe several times. A combination of love and terror is attributed to inducing his ability. While disintegrating his abusive critics, seven year-old Riku Nuutti Koistinen [aka Rogério Nuno Costa] transitioned to a large forested field, fell in love with a 24-light years old literary robot, and immediately froze. This process was then called Global Cooling™. A spinal tap administered to Koistinen by Samuel Beckett boosted the patient’s residual abilities, who later on appeared to be intertwined with Orson Wells’ code of Aesth(Ethics). From that moment on, he decided not to leave the Twenty-Seventh Dimension ever again, developing a powerful ability to detect fakeness, trickery and fraud.




domingo, 27 de abril de 2014

Residências Artísticas

A PREGUIÇA™
COMO NOVO AVANT-GARDE

®





Há uma elite que se autopromove através da arte que define, e vende, como mercadoria internacional. A actividade desta produção é mistificada através de todos os meios de promoção mercantil, e os seus operários — os escravos das indústrias criativas —, tornaram-se manipuláveis e marginalizados através da construção da sua identidade em torno da noção de “artista”, e tudo o que ela implica: residências, festivais, concursos, plataformas de programação e outras feiras de gado. Chamar a alguém artista é negar a outra pessoa a capacidade de visão semelhante; assim, o mito do “génio” é apenas mais um rosto da justificação ideológica da desigualdade, repressão e fome. O que o artista considera ser a sua identidade não passa de um conjunto burocrático de atitudes e preconceitos semelhantes aos que aprisionam a Humanidade ao longo da história. Devemos rejeitar os papéis construídos em torno destas identidades falsas, assim como os produtos concebidos para a sua promoção. O nosso intento é questionar o papel do artista e a sua relação com a dinâmica do poder e da economia, dentro da nossa cultura.


Toda a gente sabe o que está errado!


Sabemos também que esta preguiça falhará por várias razões, a primeira das quais porque é uma má ideia. Mas levantará várias questões pertinentes. Em termos relativos, a preguiça só pode afectar as pessoas que optam por ser afectadas por ela. A preguiça é, nesse sentido, tão impotente como qualquer outra acção artística contemporânea. Para aqueles que ignoram a arte, ela poderia muito bem já ter desaparecido. A preguiça edifica outro novo momento da História da Arte: o término lógico da trajetória que começou quando os artistas se afastaram do universo ao qual pertenciam, e conseguiram não apenas alienar a maior parte da população em relação às artes, mas também alienar as artes em relação à cultura. A preguiça como novo avant-garde pretende penetrar no último acto desta comédia auto-destrutiva. Nós não podemos viver preguiçosamente neste mundo sem falar sobre isso. Cabe-nos comentar longamente a tentativa vã de justificar a nossa posição em relação à preguiça criativa, ao ócio antónimo de negócio, mas isso equivale à tentativa de justificar a nossa contínua "criatividade". O que permanece obscuro em tudo isto consiste em não requerermos qualquer tipo de justificação; SER é para nós suficiente. A necessidade de expressão parece-nos apenas sintoma da mais terrível insegurança. Através das mais variadas expressões artísticas, apenas procurámos a relação perdida, porque toda a nossa expressão natural foi destruída (por inúmeras razões civilizacionais). É esta ânsia de conexão com o outro que impulsiona a expressão. Mas que conexão real existe entre o artista e o público, ou entre as pessoas, de forma a justificar a arte, quando o alheamento entre o artista, o público e a sua cultura se tornou tão completo? Todos nós queremos ser amados. Mas consideramos a arte coisa inútil para esse fim. Exigimos pois que a “preguiça d’arte” se torne unânime e permanente.


Texto-manifesto escrito por Nuno Miguel para o programa do espectáculo "Residência (Artística)", em Março de 2012, e assinado pelos seus criadores: Rogério Nuno Costa, André Santos, David Bernardes, Diana Coelho, Marta Coelho, Roger Madureira e Tânia Figueiras Ribeiro.




quarta-feira, 25 de setembro de 2013

TERCEIRA VIA™/KOLMAS TIE™






































The art of bowing to the East
Without mooning the West

Or about Third Way™ Ethics & Aesth(Ethics)



Visita e-guiada aos Headquarters do Partido + Conferência de Imprensa




Projecto inserido no programa "Cuidados Intensivos - Tempo e Fricção"
Curadoria: Joclécio Azevedo



“Para uma nova ordem ética, estética, política, sociológica e filosófica global, a Terceira Via™ erradica a ética do gosto, a ambiguidade, a narrativa (des)instituída, a criatividade, a originalidade, a ironia, a tretologia, todos os coming backs, "trendsectarisms" e respectivos novos pretos, a gaseificação da arte, a solidificação industrial da mesma, o conceito genérico (logo, comercial) de "performatividade", a hipsterização das práticas artísticas (ou seja, a redução da arte, e do resto, à disciplina do Design), a responsabilização do espectador, o sistema de "castas", a relação do eu com o outro, a confusão secular entre Arte e Desporto (também conhecida por "medalhização" mediática do art-leta), a arte que se parece com arte e a que se parece com coisas que não são Arte e, de um modo geral, todas as práticas para-artísticas (da recepção à crítica, da produção à promoção) que se inscrevem em regimes de primeira ou de segunda via. Ou seja, a Terceira Via™ erradica o Século XX. E todos os séculos para trás. E todos os séculos para a frente. A Terceira Via™ também erradica o Presente — é quanticamente a-temporal, a-espacial, a-histórica e a-moral. Ou seja, a Terceira Via™ é a-estética, porque est(ética): o copo não está nem meio cheio nem meio vazio — é só um copo! A Terceira Via™ subscreve uma triplicidade céptica e desacreditada. Céptica e desacreditadamente.”


in ‘A Lei da Terceira Via™’


Depois de "Residência (Artística)" e "Realpolitik" (2012), "Terceira Via™" fecha oAno Zero (biénio 2012/13) do macro-projecto "Universidade/Yliopisto". Estreia final em Dezembro de 2013, com lançamento do Plano de Intervenção para o Ano Um (biénio 2013/14). Esta será a segunda intervenção pública, logo política, do projecto “Terceira Via™”; a primeira ocorreu no passado mês de Março, enquanto resultado da residência 6x6 proposta pelo Núcleo de Experimentação Coreográfica (Porto). Nessa altura, a intervenção constitui-se enquanto “instauração de um macro-partido trans-universal, pós-dogmático e finlandizado, com epicentro no Báltico e abalos mais significativos na €uropa Periférica”. Agora, no contexto do projecto “Cuidados Intensivos”, o atendimento a futuros simpatizantes (instalação) será e-personalizado e duracional; paralelamente, três conferências de imprensa serão apresentadas ao vivo e difundidas via satélite para Helsínquia.

TERCEIRA VIA™ propõe um saneamento est(ético), logo profil(árctico), da "doença mediterrânea" (em Latim: Azeitegeist™). Para assistir às conferências, solicita-se a apresentação de um qualquer elemento de identificação do tipo PIIGS e a leitura atenta das normas de higiene (ISO 1+1=3) contidas no seguinte link.


[Performance falada em Português, Inglês e Finlandês]


TERCEIRA VIA™/KOLMAS TIE™

Instalação/Performance: Rogério Nuno Costa
Colaboração: Cátia Pinheiro
Fotografia/Artwork: António MV
Apoio a residências: Núcleo de Experimentação Coreográfica (Porto), HIAP (Helsínquia) 

Agradecimentos: Joana Ribas, Mika Palo, Ana Fradique, Jaakko Kiljunen, Mika 
Christian Tissari, Eva Malainho, Toni Ledentsa, Diego Barros, Diana Bastos Niepce, Klaus Ittonen, José Capela, Susana Mendes Silva, Mickaël Oliveira, Cristiana Rocha, Ulla Janatuinen, Elina Satu Maria Manner, Mafalda Couto Soares, Filipa Alves, Paulo Vasques, Plano Geométrico, Vera Mota, Gabriela Vaz-Pinheiro, José Nunes, Paulo Mendes.

Co-produção: Circular Associação Cultural, Curtas Metragens CRL
Solar Galeria de Arte Cinemática
Apoio: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian




Horário Exposição:
Terça-Sexta / 14h30-18h00
Sábado-Domingo / 10h00-12h30/14h30-18h00


Horário Performances:
21 Setembro | Sábado | 19:00-21:00
27 Setembro | Sexta | 22:00-00:00
4 Outubro | Sexta | 22:00-00:00






Mais info:



terça-feira, 7 de maio de 2013

YHTEISKIELI — LINGUA FRANCA




So, why join the navy if I can be a pirate? 


I.e.: the annulment of every sterile interrogation concerning Art and the art’s practice — ”originality” being the most important (and irritating) of them all! Hence, my work is about the dialectical destruction of millennial binomials and other false issues: form vs content, process vs result, good vs evil. It proposes, instead, a romanticized tripartition of the “Real”: utopian, yet concrete; insistently announced, never attainable… My work is an everlasting bande-annonce. It is about being eternally in-progress, so it doesn’t matter where the process started and/or when it’s gonna end. That means this text, actually this list, is permanently under construction and constantly being changed. My work is about making lists. Furthermore, my work is about having ideas, and never care if they will ever be achievable. The process is already a result. The project is always better than its concretion. Because there is no film, only the making of (of that same film!). My work is about adding accurate prefixes to the word “realism”, endlessly: New-Realism, Proto-Realism, Sub-Realism, Hyper-Realism, Avant-Realism, Meta-Realism, Über-Realism, A-Realism, Alter-Realism, Infra-Realism, Inter-Realism, Intra-Realism, Re-re-re-Realism [aka Stutterer Realism]. My work is about documents, archives, categorizations, labels, taxonomies, plug-ins & plug-outs, inside-the-boxes & outside-the-boxes. My work is more ontological than anthological, which means it cares less about History, and more about his’story: the best story to be told is the one related to the project itself. My work is about meta-discursivity: the scientific method turning into an art’s dogma — Molecular Art. My work is about being a fan, loving things, hating things, praising things, following/unfollowing things, such as: reality shows, german techno, rural terrorism, blank pages, IKEA ethics & aesthetics, Spanish delicatessens, Portuguese schlagerism, relish’ious dogmas, extreme makeovers, teen-emo-culture, finlandized political science, happy hardcore, non-artistic artists, notebooks, trash-tastic philosophy, megalo-physics, progressive folklore, power ballads, Scandinavian weirdism, Oprah-look-a-likes & Big-Brother-wannabes, cook books & cook looks, blood-based food recipes, recycle bins, colored paper, mashup culture, science fiction, national anthems, emotional geography, informational architecture, quantum psychology, dinner parties, rave parties, birthday parties, Eurovision Song Contest parties, Jeux Sans Frontières parties, eurotrash parties & political parties, i.e., the 1990s’ Stuckism corrupted by 2000′s Idiotism™. My work is about the creation of one (or more) -isms for each new project. Idiotism™ is also known as Roger That!’ism [in Portuguese: "rogerices"]. My work is about considering Laziness™ the new Avant-Garde. And about elevating Art to the level of Gastronomy (the opposite has already been done). My work is about F for Faking and about F for Fooding. Sometimes, it is about T for True’ing. My work is about telling the truth, even if by means of coercion. My work is about surveillance systems, invasion of privacy, Bentham-Orwellian philosophy, dictatorial curatorship, art manifestos, self-imposed obstructions, alter-egos and altercations. My work is about reaching art without using the means of art itself. My work is about social communication, social networks and social policies, but in a sociopathic kind of manner. My work is not poetic, it is journalistic. I follow the “Code of Ethics for Journalists” strictly and blindly. Because my work is about formulating the right questions: What? Who? When? Where? How? Why? Without expecting any answer whatsoever. My work is about trickery and fraud, appropriations and confiscations, reinterpretations and re-enactements, readymades and other artistic prêt-à-porter’s, so it steals directly from the oeuvres of Abramovic, Acconci, Baudrillard, Beckett, Benjamin, Beuys, Debord, Duchamp, Emin, Foucault, Godard, Hegel, Heidegger, Hsieh, Huxley, Jakobson, Kosuth, LeWitt, McCarthy, McLuhan, Nauman, Orwell, Sade, Schwitters, Sekula, Shelley, Sierra, Sloterdijk, Smithson, Trier, Van Sant, Vila-Matas, Virilio, Wagner, Warhol, Wells, Zizek [the order is alphabetical]. Along with Hirschhorn, my work usually states: “The best is not necessarily good”. So far, all the “best things” I’ve ever been in touch with are actually not “good”. My favourite artist, however, is Mark Dion, not because of the things he does, not even because of the things he says, surely because of he’s being an obsessive-compulsive hermeneutical freak. My work is about being a nerdy child who never grows old. My work is obviously about procrastination. My work is about despising all the misleading confusions between Art and Tourism, but also Sports, Culture (and Cultural Heritage), Aesthetics, Design, Anthropology, Sociology, Museology, Art History, Art Criticism, Curatorship, Handicraft, Childcare, Spirituality, Religion, Therapy, Pedagogy, Engineering, Psychology, Drama, Economy, Gender Studies, Political Propaganda, Merchandising or Advertising. By despising the aforementioned, my work is usually confused with them. My work is not “conceptual”. My work is about conceptualization, that is, my work is conceptual. And undisciplined. And unformatted. And cynical. And altermodernist. And post-relational. My work is about the ethics of participation, that is, about the ethics of the observer. Along with the ghost of Marcel Duchamp, my work usually states: “The work of art is 100% made by the spectator“. My work is about finding points in a world’s map where 3 or more countries meet. My work is about cooking, food essentially. That is, my work is about despising all metaphors, specially the literary ones. My work is about creating trademarks, at least one for each Project™; that is, my work is about the building of a Macro-Irony™ operating on the concepts of copyright, intellectual property, piracy, and “freedom”, or Freedom™. My work is about building prisons with no walls. Universitas magistrorum et scholarium. Also, my work is about the creation of titles that are trademarks. Titles™. In my work, the title usually says everything. In my work, the title is usually more important than the project itself. My work is about memory. Better said, my work is about remembering. In other words, my art is about the negation of art itself [along with De Duve and other bored theorists]. My work was born in 1917. Better said, my work is about enunciation. Although, my work is an excuse for something that needs to be done, which has absolutely nothing to do with Art, or art, or whatever. It’s a PRETEXT, that is, something that comes before the -text. My work is highly collaborative, but never in a pacific way. My work is about war. A war made from scratch. My work is about corruption, fear, arrogance and opportunism. My work is about everything that should not be done/said. Nevertheless, my work is about being happy. My work is neither “real” or “politic”; my work is Realpolitik. But it is also about human encounters, little secrets, love letters, home cooking and unexpected daily-life events. My work is about the superiority of the ephemeral. My work is not about intimacy, but it appears that nudity plays a major role in my performances, for one reason only: pure onanist exhibitionism. Better said, my work is about egocentrism, but sometimes also about egoperipheralism. In that sense, my work is ‘auto’, and ‘bio’ and ‘graphical’, but never ‘autobiographical’. My work is truly about the universalization of the particular and the particularization of the universal. Back and forth. My work never accepts; still, my work never denies. It thanks. My work is about assuming Gratitude™ as a new avant-garde. My work is about Third Way™ ethics and aesth(ethics). My work is about Finland, the best country in the world. About bowing to the East without mooning to West. My work has no specificity, but it is highly specific, and Specification is one of its main subjects. My work is not specialized, but it deals with Specialization, and the Epistemology of the Specialization. My work specializes in such subjects as: Anti-Anti-Pop Culture, Airs du Temps, Autophagy, Viral Culture, Finlandization, Applied Interdisciplinarity, “Lo-Fi Sophy“, ‘Making Of’ Aesthetics, ‘Mash Up’ Ethics, End of History, Parcs Humains, Non-Artistic Pedagogy, Petabyte Age, Non-Human Creativity, Post-Human Medievalism, Proto-Academic Studies, 21st Centuries, among others. My work is about word games. My work is about “using your mentality, waking up to reality”. My work is nouveau. And portable. And shareable. And spreadable. My work is about finding sexiness in being an underdog. Is about cheeziness, and pretentiousness, and boredom. My art is about everything that doesn’t look like Art. My art doesn’t look like “art”. Or “Art”. Its major inspiration comes from Scooter’s music, Girl Talk’s mashups, Banksy’s terrorism, Brazilian tecnobrega, Japanese synthesized pop stars, anti-fashion brigades, hipster lexicon, and the ultimate televised shameful attempts to be cool. My art beats more than 150 PM! To cut this long story short: I truly believe that my work is the art povera of the future. It is always about my Name, and the infinite possibilities of someone like me “naming” Art after every move, every word, every gaze, every breath I take: 



FASTER, HARDER, ROGER! 







domingo, 3 de março de 2013

Taito kumartaa itään, pyllistämättä länteen.



Suomettuminen (saks. Finnlandisierung) tarkoittaa voimakkaamman valtion vaikutusvaltaa heikomman naapurimaan asioihin. Käsite esiteltiin alun perin Itävallassa jo 1950-luvulla, mutta sitä alettiin käyttää ahkerasti Saksan liittotasavallassa 1960-luvun lopulla. Termiä käyttivät alun perin liittokansleri Willy Brandtin vastustajat kritisoidessaan hänen uutta, Ostpolitik-nimellä tunnettua ulkopoliittista linjaansa liian neuvostomyönteisenä. Brandt tuomitsikin termin käytön suomalaisia loukkaavana. Se merkitsi sananmukaisesti Suomen kaltaiseksi tulemista.


Suomessa suomettumisen ydinaikaa oli Kekkosen hallintokausi. Kekkosen ensimmäisellä presidenttikaudella alkanutta poliittista kehitystä Suomessa on myöhemmin kutsuttu suomettumiseksi. Tavallisesti suomettumisella tarkoitetaan sellaista poliittista kehitystä, jossa pieni demokraattinen maa alistuu suuremman, totalitaarisen naapurivaltion tahtoon. Myös etenkin 1960-luvun alkupuolen Noottikriisi ja 1968–1982 eli jakso Tšekkoslovakian miehittämisen jälkeisestä Brežnevin opin mukaisesta neuvostopolitiikan tarkistuksesta Mauno Koivistontuloon presidentin sijaiseksi 1981 ja presidentiksi 1982 olivat yhä väkevää suomettumisen aikaa. Esimerkiksi Max Jakobson on pitänyt Suomen sisäpolitiikkaan 1980-luvun alkupuolelle saakka merkittävästi vaikuttaneen ministerineuvos Viktor Vladimirovin paluuta vuonna 1984 Neuvostoliittoon merkkitapauksena suomettumisen ajan vähitellen päättyessä. Mutta vielä 1985 Koivisto pyrki estämään Juho Kusti Paasikiven päiväkirjojen julkaisemisen ja lopullisesti suomettuminen alkuperäisessä merkityksessään päättyi vasta Neuvostoliiton hajoamiseen 1991. Suomalaisesta poliittisesta keskustelusta käsite ei kuitenkaan ole täysin hävinnyt 2000-luvullakaan, ja suomettuneisuuden tai "uussuomettumisen" käsitettä on viljelty milloin puhuttaessa Suomen suhteista Neuvostoliiton seuraajavaltio Venäjään, milloin Euroopan unioniin, milloin Yhdysvaltoihin.


Tarkka suomennos olisi "suomettaminen". Rinnakkaistermi suomettaminen tarkoittaa sitä, että pyritään saamaan valtio tai ihminen suomettuneeksi ja suomettuminen taas, että suometutaan itsenäisesti. Käsitteellä tarkoitettiin negatiivisesti Suomen joutumista Neuvostoliiton valtapiiriin. Suomessa Neuvostoliiton vaikutusvalta ulottui myös sisäpolitiikkaan ja ilmeni mediassa ns. itsesensuurina. Uuden Suomen entinen päätoimittaja Lauri Aho kirjoitti suomettumisen tarkoittavan "tilaa, jossa maa ilman Neuvostoliiton miehitystä, ilman kommunistikaappausta ja ilman demokraattisten laitosten poistamista on tietyn asteisessa riippuvaisuussuhteessa Moskovasta" (Uusi Suomi 14. marraskuuta 1971).


Kun suomettumiskeskustelu alkoi levitä, presidentti Urho Kekkonen yritti antaa käsitteelle myönteistä sisältöä yhdysvaltalaiselle Newsweek-viikkolehdelle syyskuun alussa 1973 antamassaan haastattelussa: "Jos suomettumisella tarkoitetaan todellista tilannetta, sitä että sodan hävinnyt pieni eurooppalainen maa on säilyttänyt itsenäisyytensä ja omanarvontuntonsa, päässyt jaloilleen ilman ulkopuolista apua, luonut hyvät ja luottamukselliset suhteet suurvaltanaapuriinsa ja kehittänyt oman puolueettomuuspolitiikkansa, niin pidän sanontaa imartelevana! Mutta näinkään määriteltynä ei suomettuminen ole vientitavaraa."


Historiantutkijoista suomettumisen aikaa ovat selvitelleet etenkin Hannu Rautkallio ja Timo Vihavainen. Vihavainen julkaisi aiheesta vuonna 1991 huomiota herättäneen teoksenKansakunta rähmällään (Otava). Myös suomettumisen ajan huomattava ulkopoliittinen vaikuttaja Max Jakobson on varsinkin teoksissaan Vallanvaihto (1992) ja Tilinpäätös (2003) ruotinut 1970- ja 1980-lukujen ulkopolitiikkaa ja Suomen ja Neuvostoliiton tuolloisia suhteita. Tuoreeltaan suomettumisilmiötä käsitteli laajasti virolais-ruotsalainen toimittaja Andres Küng vuonna 1976 ilmestyneessä teoksessaan Vad händer i Finland (Mitä Suomessa tapahtuu).