[-empyre-] glitch device/divide

[IR3ABF]

Hi Julian et al

As an example have a look at these images:

Cigarette Girl - Before and After unpacking, micro-graffiti in public  
space

http://nictoglobe.com/new/room/New%20Room/ma201111b.html (Before) &
http://nictoglobe.com/new/room/New%20Room/ma201111a.html (After)

In these works I try to expose/comprehend the underlying 'field of  
affects & addictions' caused by my and others depencies on  
'stimularica', where the particular nicotine addiction is both viewed  
from a personal and from a societal/consumerist point of view

By making these works I feel as if the shadows of deathly intoxants  
are revealed, not only by the act of drawing but also by - literrally  
- seperating the 'Package' from the 'Contents', by handdrawing and  
scratching with a knife on the 'surface' of the package - which is  
transparant and translucent - and afterwards seperating the  
transparency from it, leaving only the transparent package imprinted  
with / written on with a subverted 'meaning' of the original 'empty'  
product

Resulting in residual artifacts pointing to the rupture from being  
part of an affect/addiction  - as a person - and the more broader  
field of 'being' affected /addicted by a consumer oriented society


Sent from my eXtended BodY

On 12 dec. 2011, at 14:01, Julian Oliver <julian at julianoliver.com>  
wrote:

> ..on Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:15:24PM +0100, IR3ABF wrote:
>>
>> A glitch or a rupture should or can reveal the contents through the  
>> package,
>> whether the package is an art/philosophical societal/political or  
>> an otherwise
>> rigid authoritarian systemic world constructing machinic device
>
> Hehe super. Can you explain how your own glitch art, or glitch art  
> you like,
> achieves this?
>
> Or does it just point to this, as a sort of a signification of  
> intended rupture
> (if ever given the chance)?
>
> Curious,
>
> Julian
>
>>
>> On 9 dec. 2011, at 21:52, Curt Cloninger <curt at lab404.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Eduardo (Andreas, and all),
>>>
>>> The apparant paradox of "The void is all there is" merely reveals  
>>> the prejudice toward "presence" which is built into predicative  
>>> language systems. It doesn't really prove anything other than  
>>> language is unable to access The Artist Formerly Known As The Void  
>>> (which seems to be Andreas' point).
>>>
>>> Just because a concensus of post-post-structuralist people have  
>>> agreed to use language to reduce the entire world to language,  
>>> that doesn't mean all contemporary people have to drink that same  
>>> flavor of cool aid. There are other plateaus of immanence besides  
>>> language (that "exists" in "realms" other than ascii-centric  
>>> listservs). Yes, a romantic quest ideed (but hopefully rigorous);  
>>> within and without language.
>>>
>>> Way Off and/or On Topic,
>>> Curt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 10:11 PM -0500 12/8/11, Eduardo Navas wrote:
>>>> 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 "pre-discursive," 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 "pre- 
>>>> discursive."  A search for such an element may closely appear to  
>>>> be romantic.
>>>>
>>>> To this effect, your statement: "The void is *all* there *is*"  
>>>> 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*"
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> -- 
> Julian Oliver
> http://julianoliver.com
> http://criticalengineering.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111212/8919e151/attachment.htm>