[-empyre-] just a book ref (Re: glitch device/divide)
Yann Le Guennec
y at x-arn.org
Sat Dec 10 09:06:55 EST 2011
i did not read all the thread, maybe already mentioned :
glitch error continuum
Le 09/12/2011 04:11, Eduardo Navas a écrit :
> 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.
> Eduardo Navas
> On 12/8/11 6:19 AM, "Andreas Maria Jacobs"<ajaco at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> 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
>>>> 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.
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Yann Le Guennec
More information about the empyre