* Although this end result is realised as impossible.
=> Assumption of universality
Derrida: that the text has no exceeding coherence. There remains, beyond coherence, excesses/dissonances/eruptures.
Gadamer: even though we achieve understanding it is NEVER definitive.
+> there will always be excess meaning that will escape interpretation.
---> this is why interpretation is always ongoing,
+ texts contain a latencey of meaning
---> that is that meaning within a text may retreat beyond a specific interpretation and shows itself to another. Elements of meaning lie in different recesses to be brought into light from different angles of interpretation.
Therefore...there are limits to interpretation.
DIFFERENCE: those limitations DO NOT constrain understanding according to Gadamer.
*If we know that our interpretation is never complete then we continue to learn.
BUT: we still aim for (complete) understanding
=> (an ideal becomes the motivating factor) that there is a disclosed meaning in text.
Gadamer: the text itself is a grounding commonality for all interpretations. the text has an inherent coherent style arranged to be understood.
Gadamer: That all texts are making a claim for reality (a point of the human condition).
-. this is a (the) reason why people read texts and (attempt to) interpret texts.
Baitaille's reading of Hegel is an attempt to break free of Hegel. However Derrida questions whether it is anti-hegelian.
Derrida: Gadamer's concept to unify meaning (interpretation of text) is totalising. A violent conquest of the other.
That Hegel should be understood as a dialectic of contradictions. The system of understanding that Hegel proposes is a machination of contradictions in which everything is contained.
-----> key term; Aufhebung: lifting while supressing -> sublation
Differance: articulates differences in a pattern that we may understand. we can never get a synthesis that wholly contains meaning. Understanding is derive from the whole - acknowledging the differences in dialectics.
Derrida: can re-read philosophical texts to show the ruptures => re-insert instability.
That the present is not a necessary synthesis of the past but a derivation of instability.
Bataille oppposes Hegel's notions of negativity and labour. Suggesting that there exists a non-knowledge -> that which cannot be incorporated into the machine of contradictions because they do not function in oppositions.
* Not functioning as oppositions but as disruptors - installing instability. Such things as emotion and leughter do not have oppositions, and are subjectively known to their subject.
Derrida: enjoys Baitaille because it challenges the core of Hegel without breaking free of the Metaphysics of Presence (the system) => which you cannot escape rom because you are situated with meaning.
READ _ "For What Tommorrow" - Derrida *Dialogues and discussion
Derrida: Every act involces my past, and (the) my re-evaluation (disruption) of my past to make a decision (the decision is a disruption in itself).
~> this must take place for experience to take place.
Labels: philosophy
¶ 7:55 pm 0 Comments
This morning i was made aware that my bicycle had been forcibly removed from its home. I am upset by this misappropriation; as the bicycle and i had grown fond of each other. A great shared history stood with us. I never viewed our relationship as one of authoritian power but a mutual one in which both parties gained advantages.
I am sad because i feel as though i have let the bicycle down. I should have taken greater care. I kept it in good condition - repairs were carried out after the MVA - and i kept it secure. Obviously not secure enough. There are many bicycles on my street that are secured by a bike chain on the front of their respective houses. Upon purchasing a high quality chain we agreed that it could be kept in a similar position. Alas, security is an illusion.
Obviously there is a sense of victimisation. i dislike theft. Especially personal theft. Even personal theft from the wealthy (which i do not deem myself to be a part of - priviledged over the great majority of the world yes, but within the society i inhabit i am far from wealthy). Nevertheless, nothing hits home like personal experiences. They delude the mind and shape one's attitude to a great extent. i am trying to examine this instance not so personally, so that i do not guide my hatred derived from my personal loss (affect) toward the individual who stole (this would be unnecessary and pointless - it was to be done and has been) but rather toward the apparent social conditions that manifest theft.
I arrived home at 2am this morning and the bicycle was still happy in its humble home. However when i finally slept i had terrible dreams of the disembodiment of this wonderful creature, the cycle, and its disappearance. A bald man appeared in that very dream. The bicycle cried out to me in terror, but i was in a deep sleep - the message passed to me in a dream only.
Now it is gone. But a memory. I will keep its precious chain. A useless object, brazenly razored with a sufficient instrument. Go gently into the dark night oh brave steed. Let no one rule you...and perhaps in time you will find peace.
Labels: art
¶ 12:06 pm 0 Comments
Wednesday 191005 – 211005
In response to the 2nd Year Photomedia Exhibition, Bleed To The Edge, a different exhibition was born by artists for the art-world. First Amendment: Neutrality is that exhibition. Opening simultaneously, the juxtaposition of the two exhibitions is to highlight to the art-world the differences between “produced” art and the manifestation of an artistic endeavour.
“Produced” art is the label we have placed upon the exercises that are falsely exhibited as an artist’s work. The work being presented as Bleed To The Edge is an ostentatious display of technical ability.
The COFA students worked to a fixed brief drawn together for the purposes of evaluation within the course. The parameters are clear in this intention of student evaluation.
A1 digital print:
Can use a medium/large format camera -
Can scan a high-resolution image -
Can use Photoshop to touchup image -
As the list continues the cost incurred by the student, or artist, grows also. A conservative estimate of the costs involved for one student is $196. One Roll of Film - $16. Film Development - $20. Digital Printing - $50. Mounting - $110. That brings the entire collection of A1 prints to just under $6000.
This scale is conservative because this is the basic necessity and prices would be in bulk. Optional costs that were not listed include: Multiple rolls of film, professional scanning, and printing colour test strips.
Perhaps one should also consider the university fees as cost incurred due to the free access to photographic equipment necessary and the free use of an exhibition space.
As a subversive political act a small number of artists have self-funded and self-organised a counter exhibition within the residence of the President of the Cofa Student’s Association (in his absence). The works have been self-initiated and are not being exhibited for the purposes of examination.
First Amendment: Neutrality has been from its very first concept a self-purporting venture. Everything about the exhibition, from its grassroots origin to its neo-political artworks, has been achieved by the work of individual emerging artists.
A number of artists contributing are a part of Three Words. The Three Words team is a body that aims to help the emersion of new artists and grassroots, low-budget, exhibition spaces.
We, as artists, believe that the existence of an exhibition such as this is an affirmation of the continued liveliness of Sydney’s art-world. Future artists DO NOT have to be produced from university courses.
Most importantly is the continued self-directed aim of an artistic endeavour that counters the financial draw of the commercial sector. Cezanne felt he imparted the scent of a scene in his work; the Dadaists challenged modernism; Warhol believed in art for art’s sake.
First Amendment: Neutrality is proposing just that. A set of amendments to the way, the method, that Cofa students approach art via the cold examination briefs and course outlines as dictated by a greater authority. First Amendment: Neutrality is a voice against instutionalized art.
Labels: art
¶ 4:54 pm 0 Comments
DH
Labels: art
¶ 11:30 am 0 Comments
I understand why there are tyrants and monopolies. I understand the driving parrallel shifts within the free market economy of the free western world. I tell you know, for a reason, that all this exists in a way to protect people for the own sakes. From their own self-piety and idiocy. The eastern world may have had its philosophies, and the middle east has its religion. Even the African nations, before colonialism, had a way-of-life that was dependant and protected by the land. The white men, the free white men - oh how they were born as slaves to freedom. Everything they ever wanted was foiled by there inherent freedom. Everything they had to gain was gained by the individual. So it was logical that in a collective were so few had an idea of what needed to be done and how to go about it a leader must be present. Why it is so obvious. Since these people have so little idea. Blinded by being free. Why can't the people who know what they are doing, the greater powers that be, not the lightning rods, but the power stations, why, can they not be able to squeeze (manipulate, veil) a few bonuses out of the mass. In the end the mass do not realise what they are missing out on, neither do they care.
I tell you they do. The free-market economy allows the pricing of service and goods to refelct a supposed demand and availability to all consumers. So i something is required - or let us say that a resource is becomes a commodity - then the price and service of that resource is dictated by market forces. Market forces are unswayable, unpredictable - uncotrolled by any one person or corporation, it is a figuritive representation of the mood of the social populus.
I put it to you. Just to ponder. Just imagine - hypothetically - for a moment, that a body tells the social populus what is a required resource.
Labels: art
¶ 2:40 pm 1 Comments