We are fantasies who are trying to become real, but who can become real only because of fantasy. Same logic in art, sign, experience, self, presence, etc. They are dreams of their opposites, their nonselves.
Art is the ironic revelation of experience as already art. Like the mirror stage, a metaphor for the arrival of metaphor. If in psychoanalysis this is given an etiological weight, in art it is simply the counterweight offered by self reflexive design as the archeology of the art of experience. In information theory, it is driven by the emergence of complexity from noise, from difference.
Hence, language is like art: it is a form of recognition of recognition, of self-reflexive consciousness in which its other is a built-in function of its self-constitutional emergence. The fact that it can designate itself and yet efface itself in this act of designation displays its double logic of opacity and transparency, of presence and absence, of materiality and ideality.
The art of experience and the experience of art are one and the same experience as self-reflexive difference.
 |
M.C. Escher, Hand with Reflecting Sphere, 1935, lithograph. |
Each object performs the minimum order of art in that an object carries with it an instruction of how bodies should behave toward it. This is the heart of design in the sense that objects are a reading of us, rather than they being our reading of them. The uses of objects are basically a transcription of the uses of us.
Objects are rhetorical devices.
The philosophical, historical, and formal analyses of representational economies can't be possible without looking at the material and pragmatic bases of their social production. They also circulate as 'noetic' goods no different from branded produce with attached images for consumption. The logic of capitalism has permeated intellectual products.
3.
The formal mode of the meaning that allegedly inheres in an artefact is seen primarily as a systemic code carrying the logic of its perceptibility.
We should have already posed the question of the nature of reading today and decades ago, ie since the advent of the digital age, a question that the majority of writers/artists have posed each time within their epochs, and is a major question today in the comparative studies in the confluence of new media and reading as self-reflexive emergence of reading. It is thus a question inseparable from the practice of media in which the perception of perception is posed as the central thematic dynamic of aesthetic praxis.
There has been a separation of the materiality of media from the phenomenality of perception. Perhaps in one scenic sense, they belong to the same informational field, as mutually constitutive embodiment of emergent cognition and perception, as a certain dynamical materialist aesthesis.
We are all media, that is the point. There is no real ontological border between us and things. This border itself is part of the operationality of media as the dynamical environment in which perceptibility itself emerges.
4.
Asemic writing is a materialist execution postdating the collapse of the imaginary space of representation. Knowledge doesn't exist in a void, but is inseparable from material organization of signifying forms and formats. To such a degree that knowledge is the function of artefactual design as memory retrieval technology practice, as exterior mind prosthesis.
The focus shifts from the search of some inherent message or meaning as some kind of 'content' toward the exploration of the material processes of meaning-making or sense-production. Hence, by not having an inherent content to discover, the asemic artefact shifts our attention to the socio-pragmatic dimensions by which meanings are determined via interactions with the artefact, as a social event of meaning processing, and not as meaning essentialism.
Because of this, all objects are incomplete, are partial object-signs. Everything requires a user-reader as completion process, which then loops into greater partiality requiring chains of completion acts. A completion makes gaps, which needs completion. Thus, the cycle.
An archaeology of communication technologies and ritualized habits of semiotic practices.
5.
Narrativity or semioticity as a rehearsal of psychical reinitiations.
De-essentialize reading, and return it to a multilinear process mixing guesswork and method, where the code is reading, not a transcendent translation machine distributing equivalences all throughout the semiotic design ecology. Instead of objects to be read, today's media poetics are metapoetics of reading as a semi-arbitrary voyage among non-essential signs and nonsigns.
6.
Text / image divide as discursive/institutional divide, a historical contingency, not natural state of perception.
Thing in itself gone in philosophy, but retained in analogous version as meaning in itself contained within textual objects.
Language-oriented leads to language-disoriented writing art.
Materiality means process, dynamics of becoming. The signform does not pre-exist the reading, but an emergent differential element.
It is the form of recognition in which recognition itself emerges as the recognition of its own form.
7.
Metagrammic, or at the threshold of the recognition of the signifying, the emergence of informationality, of recognizeability itself.
The return of the mechanism of gesturality as embodied extension of expressive desire or fantasy. Writing as fantasy fulfillment, or the utopia of the sense of utopia, of possibility.
The marks or markers don't diminish the unknown; the text, like any geographic field, orients toward the unknown and less toward the known. This ground where my feet tread on, it is sure and solid, but is merely the edge of the infinite.
No comments:
Post a Comment