[-empyre-] Fwd: interval. Enter the figural.

[naxsmash]

This post from Simon Taylor was lost. Mailman software denied it.  As  
a field becomes visible so does this.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: simon <swht at clear.net.nz>
> Date: March 4, 2011 1:55:03 PM PST (CA)
> To: empyre-owner at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Subject: post deemed inappropriate: reasons sought
>
> Dear moderator,
> May I ask why my message was deemed inappropriate?
>
> I include it below and look forward to your response.
>
>> in the figure drawing class.
>
>
>
> interval. Enter the figural.
>
>
>> Suspect, the sense that my mind sees only what it knows.
> Capture the essence of a departure.
>>> "We see what we know and what we are conditioned to see"
> annexed also indexically by the matheme hallucinated to predate it.
>> problem of ontology, a rat-race in a cage
>> twitching annex-indexically
>>> "participants are all making marks of what they know"
> triangulation of mark know repression. Oedipus, can it still be  
> unstill? Still it.
>> really  can 'a subject' be 'rendered'?  dream of many yet,
>>  she  escapes site even as I draw,
> from Bacon via Plateau via Celan: a rendering of fat into soap, soap  
> into RJF - soapstone;
> foundation... (here comes the liquefaction cf. Christchurch, New  
> Zealand now)...
> but I suppose what escapes sight is site, outside of the deep things  
> of society,
> like myth and culture.
>> her body's charge an energy field, her consciousness resists mere
>> countenance, her eyes look back at you not cameras, her body is not  
>> a room.
>> neither raum nor noun.
> But leben? Lebenswert?
>>> "viewer (a human) that places the image within a complex symbolic or
>>> imagined system of language "
> Widened onto a mixture, collecting individuals, materials,  
> institutions on its horizon.
>> she is not not human not in rendition like a  prisoner of war
> Perforce.
>> who is this programmer, if there were indeed instructions in the
>> programmer's wake, after his death, would she, the 'model' have to
>> be instructed, truly rendered?
> Or has the annexation included an anatomy, an amortization, and gone  
> before
> as a given of the...
>> Tats, tucks, surgically, inscripted,  'culturally conditioned' ,
>> emulated, becoming-something,?
> ...
>> may i propose, that drawing and rendering are not equivalent,
> ... finding it a leap not necessary to take from the drawing's trope  
> of a
> tapping into virtuality, to the rendering, which cannot any which way,
> witch way, be any other than every rendering inside representation,  
> rendered
> similar, deadly, but nonetheless able to be traversed.
>>
>> ...
> then the field where it opens in prolepsis. A probe-head, if ever  
> any was.
>>
>> -c
> +s
>
>>
>> On Mar 3, 2011, at 6:35 PM, Alex Gibson wrote:
>>
>>> The concepts and relationships developed in the program are
>>> considered ... a human.
>>>
>>> Agency ... strange idea ... difficult to place.
>
>
>>> We rarely talk about the agency of pencil and paper,
> Let's.
> Speculating on the complexity of other machines is always to ignore
> those closest to us and most in use, no less complex.
>>> Computer vision algorithms are breaking down an old specialisation
>>> that we humans pride ourselves on, namely being able to recognise
>>> stuff within a field of vision and related it to other stuff.
> If we are to believe Deleuze, Leibniz had this covered.
> Abandon the human.
>>> Visibility is the organisation of sense data into inter-subjective
>>> and social realities.
> Or the distribution ... organs may come hereafter.
>>> anatomy, gesture, feeling, perspective, proportion, etc. The  
>>> subject is
>>> isolated, framed and rendered according to the skill and limit of  
>>> the
>>> artists. A computer drawing is no different, except part of the
>>> mechanical act of looking is deferred. The wet camera of the human
>>> eye and its relational brain to the dry obscura of the cam and its
>>> various wares. The machine is programmed with the instructions of  
>>> the
>>> programmer, and these instructions betray prejudices', preferences,
>>> aesthetic whims and other culturally conditioned limits that are
>>> visible, if we decide to look.
>
> The wet to the dry. Instructions. Prejudices. Preferences. Whims. And,
> with precipitous seriousness, limits that are visible, if we decide  
> to look.
>
> An erotics exactly of looking and the amortizing of a rendering. Where
> looking establishes limits. Aesthetics come later as a matter of
> manners.
>
> How to open the place of field
> to the future -
> identity intent on stating its
> past -
> the every place of the present
> so keen on cutting its image
> as a knife.
> (1,2,3, the last case draws from
> (the second, drawing;
> (the first, an undrawn - maybe
> (a name, a singularity, escape;
> (the first, predicated on a middle
> (term, mid-flight, where the pluses happen)
>
>
> Best,
>
> Simon Taylor
>
> www.squarewhiteworld.com
> www.brazilcoffee.co.nz
>