In Nomine Nihilo
patrilineal descent what!
So I says to 'em, I says, "Hey"
And he was all: "Fuck you"
So we left.
This is my poem, and the lyrics to a song by my band.
And I'm getting to know you.
And it's cut and pasted, and there are even spelling errors.
It will make me friends.
I will gain stature.
And softlink insults.
How do you like that?
I win at everything2
I win the best!
Champion of winning supreme.
Together, with our internet (e-)community
- What is it about theory that attracts me.
- Divorced from the world.
here are some things i would like to write
about, and, in writing
It's not about beauty or the sublime at all. Destruction
, creation, location, movement, motion, rapid, violent, quiet, hidden. It can't be discussed in terms of economics (perhaps in the vaguest
of terms: waste? excess? I don't know...). It's outside. Criminal and disgusting
Why theorize art?
- Theory as objectifying its object? Terrible.
- Theory as erasing the distinction? Maybe.
- Theory as furthering goals, opening new avenues? Yes.
- Theory as a rail: limited transportation, to be supplemented? Certainly.
The thing about it is: theory, aspects of theory at least, can offer up new planes, new avenues, new escapes, new avant-gardesqueness for the artist-theorist. But if adhered to, dogmatically or otherwise, theory becomes a rail, a protracted, prolonged, argument. It becomes less art more debate. It becomes meditation on what is and what is not. Noise is not music, music is just noise, harmony is not music, anything that is not 12 tone is not music, etc. etc.... Leads to eclecticism? Maybe, but not necessarily...and anyway: inherent evil in eclecticism? I don't know.
301. An image is not a picture, but a picture can correspond to it. (LW, PI)
Similarly: our expression of pain is not the pain, but can correspond to it. The problem for 'philosophers of pain' (and other unsavory types) just is this correspondence. The problem of other minds, even. How do we 'know' that someone else is in pain? Well, they tell us (OW! AHHHHH! I am in great pain, sir, etc. etc.). And how do we know they aren't lying? Well...isn't this less about pain than it is about our definition of the word 'know'? It's hard to doubt that someone is in pain, in a real case... And this (right here) is where I understood the walls of philosophy.
303. (...) Just try-- in a real case-- to doubt someone else's fear or pain. (LW, PI)
You can't. Philosophy is so many hand gestures describing a sculpture, it can only ever
assymptotically approach reality.
(Look at me, with my assured attitude, how about we replace "it can only ever" with "in my limited readings, and with some (many) exceptions". That would be more 'realistic' and I'm nothing if not a diehard realist...right?)
310. I tell someone I am in pain. His attitude to me will then be that of belief; disbelief; suspicion; and so on.
Let us assume he says: "It's not so bad." --Doesn't that prove that he believes in something behind the outward expression of pain? ----- His attitude is proff of his attitude. Imagine not merely the words "I am in pain" but also the answer "It's not so bad" replaced by instinctive noises and gestures.
My attitude: "It's not so bad"
I'm overly centralized
, and desensitized to the pain of others. Oh, you have a headache
? Well, let me go buy something for myself. What do you think of that? I'm selfish? How's that? Sorry, my new cd was playing too loud from the speakers of my new auto-car. Terribly sorry, perhaps you can medicate yourself? It's terminal? Have a good day, madamsir.
see also: pain
Why am I socially unhopeful? Mostly it's a dogmatic theoretical stance adopted from my reading of Michel Foucault and the feminist critique of science. It's like this: things change, quickly, slowly, however you want. Things change dramatically (French Revolution, the printing press..etc.) but things also change slowly (evolution, the English political system)... but none of these changes can be seen objectively, outside a particular, and situated, socio-political framework. So.... whether or not we think these changes are beneficial. Who is to say whether something is better or not? But...recent leanings of mine: of course certain things are good and certain things are bad. Just because you can't say (categorically/absolutely) that something is progressive or better for society (in part or as a whole..it doesn't matter) does NOT mean that it isn't progressive or better.. it may be that it is situatedly/historically/temporally better or progressive... but that doesn't make it any less so. But... (here comes my Nietzshce/Feyerabend tangentiality) the situatedness of any particularly 'progressive' social goal/movement, etc. means that it comes from a particular perspective, which means that it is not 'progressive' for a number (large or small) of other perspectives. So... if say... privatized health care (to use a poor, and mundane, example) is good for one group (rich, white folk) it is bad for about a million other groups (oh...everyone else, for instance). So...really I'm no more satisfied that social hope is 'possible' with a good conscience than I am that it is not.
structures, large and small
the connection between theory and my life
the history of books, and of writing
my disinterest in religion
my need to feel engaged by certain things, structuralism for one, christianity another
there is evidence you exist
people and things
the disconnection between most aspects of my life
And it involves stealing from pop machines.
What does it mean to look at someone. Everything we do or say is surveillance. We're always prodding and poking, with our eyes or our words. We stab around in the dark, looking for what we know is there...
We walk down alleyways and hop up onto window ledges. Peering inside, getting a grisly look into a grisly scene. We steal other peoples lives jam them in our pockets and run away to count their experiences. Our lives are piles of dust; collated, stored, but never dwelled upon.
Everything we look at, we steal. We are so much filth silting through fine grained cotton, left at the bottom of a sewer drain. The first time you caught us looking was the last time we did it, in a lengthy series. The serial GAZE. We've become insane with our appetite for self-divorce. Remain in my own company? What would I do that for? I can lose myself, sell myself, destroyo myself. It's miserable, but I'll never know, I'm detached, yes yes: OBJECTIVE. I'm everything you've wanted to be, but couldn't build foundations for.
Join a Violence Gang!
It's taking all the deconstructionist theorizing, all the self-effacement, all the impermanence of hypertext, and putting it into action, it's all that talk about the death of the author, it's killing the author, killing the viewer, it's a confrontation with the utterly meaningless.
Above all that: it's such a shocking indifference to signification that the 'outsider' would be surprised.
Why do you write graffiti?
"I don't know"
What does it mean?
Is that your name?
"It's a name I gave myself"
"I don't know"
In the face of this, what can you SAY that will change anything? The thing about it is: it's only about the 'art' or 'beauty' of it for about 30 percent of writers, even the 'fame' aspect of it doesn't determine everyone's motive. It's almost amotivational, there is no reason. It's writing to survive.
Why don't you stop?
"I don't know"
Stop what and why? It's like: "You don't know me! (with head roll) and a barrel of fucking punches to the dome. Grills and ice, makes icy grills, if you ditint know! Shot clocking: We clock all these shots on YOUR time, and you're still sleeping. While you were sleeping, we painted your windows cold shut, sucka.
You will get arrested.
2002.08.02 No, I'm not in school. It might be safer if you don't know much about me... Safer FOR YOU I mean! How about you? Are you a student? I'm so irritated by the paternalistic attitude of so many of the editors here! It's bunk! I'm all pissed off again at this stupid place!
Why still do it?
"Because I have to"
It's not political, it's almost apolitical. Nihilistic? Maybe, but it's not completely empty. Contradictory? Entirely. Buddhistic? No. It's tilted towards the destructive, it isn't seeking a middle path. It's an attempt to destroy all the paths while allowing all paths to remain. It's destroying the equation, but letting everything remain. It's a system of remainders.
2\002.08.01 at 13:13 kareneliot says I'd be interested to know your take on Art is not reducible to text if you feel like it. -K.
20\02.08.02 at 10:53 kareneliot says don't knock mishmashed quotations and poorly written pseudo poetry; they're the lifeblood that lubes the gears of everything2 after all!
200\2.08.02 at 11:04 re: art text, bla bla: do you think that 'text' is reducible to 'text'? you know what i mean: like is text itself JUST messages from sources and so forth. it seems that even if art is reduced to these sorts of textual-messages originating from a unitary
2002\.08.02 at 11:04 source (the capital a artists..) then those messages are still further collapsible anyway, so you can reduce ad infinitum or something... yakkety yak: ps: disneyland is excellent. ive never been but i heard the tiki room is rather crazy and disconcerting
2002.\08.02 at 11:41 despite yr disclaimer, I think that's true (text is not reducible to text); it has occurred to me that there are similar problems in the interpretation of text... But I think that there is a drive to analyse visual things verbally...>>
2002.0\8.02 at 11:46 there isn't a way to analyse things OTHER than verbally, after all... I think my problem isn't so much with approaching art in that way as it is in the sort of pervasive notion that textual interpretation is somehow the most legitimate way of apprehending
2002.08\.02 at 11:46 the artwork... Frinst in art museums, curators write these pompous little things about what a piece of art "means" etc. Maybe it has to do with a desire to desubjectify the experience so that hierarchical position can be determined? I.e. a reason why a
2002.08.\02 at 11:46 particular person is more qualified to make judgments of the "meaning" of art or its "place" in history... Dunno! Thanks for the compliment on Disneyland . Baudrillard said that theme parks are "reality anchors" serving to demonstrate to the rest of
2002.08.0\2 at 11:46 Los Angeles that it is real (by opposition to their obvious fantasy)...
how is anything related? never. never, never.">
2002.08.02\ at 13:11 no I don't. Thinking about getting one though maybe. It would be a great thing to have... I'm a little privacy-conscious though. I would rather buy it anonymously if possible.
2002.08.02 \at 13:25 It's okay to sound pretentious. Are you feverish?
Always expanding. The sun never rises on the empire of jumping-over-fences. Criminal? Crime is a construct. In the strict sense. Strict as in... draconian? Hardly. Strict as in strictured, tightened, controlling. The tightening vise only holds our shadows, though. It's not that we've escaped, it's that we've always just moved along, hidden behind that last thing you said, evaded your prowling.
re: art is not reducible to text
You said "i like it. but... it seems to rely on a notion of art NECESSARILY as communication, and art as something unitary. i'd like to think of art as something that can't really be talked about not because it is unverbalisable but because it isn't one thing (one way or another, its gonna get ya get ya get ya) i like the way you talk about non-verbal structures: to me it seems to get most of the way there; like the linguistic turn in arts and philosophy of the last 50 or so years seems to make people forget that there is a whole other non-linguistic world out there: we have bodies (some people forget!)" to kareneliot.
you said "i dont know what i think at the moment, im tired and sick but i think the term (and the thing) art both need reworking, and i dont think that 'reducing' art to text is necessarily a 'bad' thing, but it has been done and redone so many times that its", "just BORING nowadays i think people need to get beyond language, well not beyond but just get over it and let it be one of a number of different types of analysis, styles, etc" to kareneliot (sent 2 message parts to 1 noder)
o clouds of noise
goes all the way...