[-empyre-] glitch device/divide

[mbell at visibleweather.com]

please remove me from list


-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Navas [mailto:eduardo at navasse.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 06:43 PM
To: 'soft_skinned_space'
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] glitch device/divide

In the end,I guess this tangent is not so off topic, given that part of the issue beingdiscussed about glitch art is that glitches appear to be "designed" as partof a performance/object of art, etc. What recurs in the debate so far isthat this sort of approach places the element of error in glitch in a stateof simulacra for some, while others argue against this.In this regard, the issue at hand with the symbolic is pivotal. We couldleave behind the lingo of postmodern thought. So, I won't make anyreferences to theorists and just write a basic argument.Let's search for a pre-discursive element. But, what does this imply? Itimplies that a pre-discursive element may exist outside of the symbolic.The symbolic in this case is the way in which we communicate and come tounderstand ourselves: language. So, we decide to rely more on our feelingsand sensibilities, intuition, and the slippages of meaning that take placewhen we may experience things in life that are unexplainable--beyondlanguage. The conundrum is that the contemplation of these moments oftranscendence are remembered through the symbolic, our ability to think.In a way, then, we cool the unexplainable moments in order to make sense ofthem and to maybe eventually call them "transcendent" "sublime" or "beyondlanguage." We come to call them as such through language itself. We mayreflect on the issue and begin to negotiate them as part of a paradigm thatfits a certain criteria that we have developed in our minds to be beyondlanguage, and beyond this world, which we may again experience to be more intouch with nature, earth, god, etc. And at this point we are no longerexperiencing that moment anymore, but our negotiation of that moment as partof our self-awareness; and, that moment, which may have been pre-discursive,has entered the symbolic.This is what happens to glitch and any other acts that may appear to escapereason. Once we recognize an element with potential of slippage beyond thesymbolic into some pre-discursive realm, we find a way to negotiate it tomean something to us according to some elusive definition of thepre-discursive that we create for ourselves.Now, Kurt, I am well aware of your position on postmodern thought, andcompletely understand that you disagree mainly out of principle, because ofyour belief in a higher being. This is not the first time you confront mewith this issue. I understand your position, and expected that you mightrespond to my post as you had in the past. This is what you did. There isnot much else I could add in this regard.But given that this discussion is bigger than the two of us, I will addthis: the issue with art practice is that as a field of practice, ti triedto implement methodologies of science, yet somehow many practitioners wantto conveniently to dismiss the responsibility that comes with theimplementation of such methodologies.It is my position to argue that there are slippages of meaning in the world,and the constant evaluation of such moments is what makes art practiceworthwhile. But to claim that I will search for a pre-discursive elementthat will be beyond the field in which I function, for me, would limit myown art practice. What artists actually do whenever they appropriate anelement or develop a situation for an audience to contemplate is to point tothe limits of the symbolic; the power of the work emerges when such tensiondoes not diminish but recurs to remind people of the certain tensions thatgo unresolved. I guess this is the only element of art that keeps artistsinterested in their practice, while also fueling the institution of art.For me, effective glitch art, like other art forms, is able to deliver thisone element: the exposure of unresolved tension that is worth pursuing.The very best,Eduardo On 12/9/11 3:52 PM, "Curt Cloninger"  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"  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 forumempyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.auhttp://www.subtle.net/empyre
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20111212/79ee118d/attachment-0001.htm>