[-empyre-] First Postings
anocek at uw.edu
Fri Sep 6 12:55:04 EST 2013
Thanks, Adam, for these helpful reflections.
I'd like to try to tie together some threads while also encouraging some
discussion. It seems to me that Rob's concern over death and affirmation--
or what he's expressed so far-- can be related to Adam Z's experiences with
biomedia and their politics ."Life is uncontained, oozing revelry and
consuming lewdness… this is a question of affirmation. Can we be all
accepting"? This question strikes me as absolutely critical since using
biomedia is, as both Adam and Rob suggest, messy and uncontained -- it is
slimy, oozing, rotting. What are the politics of rot? (Incidentally, I
couldn't help but think of Nick Land's critique of philosophies of life
[for those of you familiar], and whether there are certain practices of
bioart that offer a thanatropic/accelerationist rejoinder to bioart's
preoccupation with life from a typically neo-vitalist perspective.)
In an earlier post I invoked Whitehead's remark that "life is robbery" in
order to suggest, as Whitehead himself does, that there is not a
straightforward opposition between life and organismic death. My sense is
that bioart is, or at any rate, could be an absolutely critical site for
complicating the life/death relation in the biopolitical landscape.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Adam Zaretsky <emu at emutagen.com> wrote:
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> Thanks Adam N. for having a mind meld on these topics. Good crew! Off the
> top, Bioart is living-materials-first in my addled brain. No offense to the
> object oriented animism of listmania but tinkers and tailors of life feel
> the experience differently than illustrators. The use of biomedia for
> aesthetic projection is the ethico-political stake we wield. The blood on
> the hands is part of the sacrificial rite, neh? That being sort of put out
> there bare, I am more interested in the debate being started in terms of
> potentials for positive declension in the moulding of populations.
> I have to say that optimism in biopolitics, even in terms of
> for novel feelings, is not a total ruse. A trajectory from Charles Fourier,
> to Willhelm Reich, to Buckmister Fuller, not to mention the Bronx cheer of
> Charles Fort, trace the potential for a river of amorous flows. But can we
> really limit the emphasis on the work of the negative in Foulcault to that
> of a gore hound, netcasting for yet another Gilles de Rais? We have to
> remember that philosophy is caught up in the industrial confessionary. We
> may be parrahesiac cheerleaders, spreading liturgy for liturgy¹s sake, but
> the toying with fascism is just an armchair away from the radiation's leak.
> Mayr's migrating populations shower us with difference, but population
> genetics is being marketed as a post race identity politics for those in
> need of a new origin story from which to promulgate neo-superiorities (see
> http://www.ancestry.com/). In terms of affirming affirmation, to distort
> echo Cary, I can only find it through that deep ecospheric indiscriminacy
> that Rob mentioned.
> Is the work of the positive to posit a function of the organism,
> orgasmically in optimismÉ in every direction? I hope so. Life is
> uncontained, oozing revelry and consuming lewdness. A snail-like acting is
> wet and slap-happy and on itÕs way. This is the question of affirmation.
> we be all accepting. This is a more systemic question, which should be
> looked at a variety of magnifications: The Panspermic Cosmos, The 'Gaia at
> Werk' Planetary Organism, Populations/Variations/Migrations/Meshing, The
> Crust Operas of Vitality (Spartan/Hedonism of Being inCorporate), The
> without a Body (BatailleÕs Big Toe), The Selfish life of Cells, Subcellular
> Congeniality (hanging out on the sofas of the Endoplasmic Reticulum,
> alternative conformating).
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the empyre