[-empyre-] glitch device/divide

[Eduardo Navas]

Dear Andreas,

I think others have moved past my comment on to more complex ground, but I
should follow up to a couple of points you make.

On discourse: the very fact that we are communicating about the specificity
of glitch as an art form is proof enough that we are dealing within a
specialized field.  This is all my statement means.

Regarding your statement on the ³pre-discursive,² it is safe to say that in
our times, it is common knowledge, at least based on what is left to us
after poststructuralism, that it is impossible to function outside the
symbolic.  There is no such thing as ³pre-discursive.²  A search for such an
element may closely appear to be romantic.

To this effect, your statement: ³The void is *all* there *is*² exposes that
through negation existence is confirmed.

Best,

Eduardo Navas

On 12/8/11 6:19 AM, "Andreas Maria Jacobs" <ajaco at xs4all.nl> wrote:

> hmm
> 
> I wonder why discourse should have relevance at all, I think what matters is
> to uncover a field which is *inherently* pre-discursive and *existent but not
> known* and consequently *before* any possibility of interpretation.
> 
> Artists task is to observe - from their own subjectivities - a *probable* -
> because not yet commonly perceived - future understanding of the phenomenal
> appearances of perceived/sensual *reality*
> 
> Also I do think that just that makes it possible to (re)gain *truthful*
> insight in *reality*, wether technological, political, societal or personal
> and where aesthetics plays no role. (i.e. whether it is boring or not, does
> not matter, because that again is discursive and supposedly based on previous
> knowledgeability of the mental gestalts of being bored, surprised, touched etc
> etc )
> 
> The conservative - literary - *art worlds* collect, maintain and indeed
> conserve quasi-religious fetishized material forms, which are but indicators
> of what lies beyond them
> 
> Andreas Maria Jacobs
> 
> "The void is *all* there *is*"
> 
> On Dec 7, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Eduardo Navas wrote:
> 
>> ........
> 
>> I think that if we really thinkg about the term ³intrinsic² it only functions
>> once we accept a specific context in which to discuss a thing to which an
>> extra value based on discourse is added.  Glitches have values that are
>> material (before that are recognized as glitches) and these values once
>> recognized within the field of glitch art allow people to add on their own
>> interpretations and develop a discourse.  This is what is relevant.
>>  
>>  Eduardo Navas
>>  
>>  On 12/6/11 10:33 PM, "Evan Meaney" <emeaney1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  
>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  so, my point. 
>>>  if glitches depend on specified contexts to function in the moment
>>>  and if they are functions of re-presentation and curatorial (or
>>> curator-as-artist)
>>>  intent, then any critical work about a glitch is really critiquing the
>>> context and
>>>  the curator, and not the glitch itself.
>>>  
>>>  tl:dr - we appropriate glitches to our own purposes. let's stop pretending
>>> that they
>>>  have intrinsic value when we classify them.
>>>  
>>>  xo. 
>>>  evan
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20111208/ff360eda/attachment.htm>