it takes centuries for words to separate themselves
from the human that produced them, from the accidents of the living body, and become free. So our judgements of contemporary writers are
unstable and we must leave it to the yet-to-be-born to see the words apart from
flesh’s faults.
heresiarch uzasoz
hallucination is a form of biographical transformation
why don’t you write sensible books
that people can understand?
ill-informed
anyone who would announce himself his own contemporary
the only
people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad
to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn
or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman
candles exploding like spiders across the stars, and in the middle, you see the
blue center-light pop …
my drawings inspire,
and are not to be defined. They place us, as does music, in the ambiguous realm
of the undetermined.
i can’t understand why people are frightened of new forms. I’m frightened of the old ones.
it is the pen which dreams
apologia
Do i need an apology for the pieces that will follow? No, of course not. Creation, like its destructive twin, doesn’t apologize. It presents.
I do not need one, but one is required, so please accept this disingenuousness authentically, as we do the endless artifices we live within. A caprice on my part does not have to be a caprice on yours, for those on opposite sides of what is pleasantly called the communication chasm rarely share intent, aspect, or effect, but only signs. Signs, and a certain mood.
queneau’s exercices de style
baudelaire’s le spleen de paris
foucault’s sexuality and solitude
bataille’s literature and evil
chevrier’s l’hallucination artistique
wood’s beyond the simulacrum of religion versus secularism: modernist aesthetic “mysticism” (in religion and literature)
de lautréamont’s les chants de maldoror and poems
Here are but a few of its intents—
- to proclaim my passionate unshatterable love for the detached compassionate capricious divinity coursing through human flesh—tappable, growable, limitless, renewable—and my faith in its ability to transform devouring flesh (not its mortal attributes but its fear of the infinite finite mortalities), not primarily through technology (though using it), but through itself.
- to create forms that go nowhere, surprised, surprising; dramas that emerge from outside routine human drama, from these things themselves, from their forms—forms of the marrow of language: not of us, our marrow, our gains and losses, the palpitations of our hearts, but of language’s anxieties, its holiday gatherings, family dysfunctions, its incests and love affairs and lonelinesses, quests and deserts, madnesses and laboratories, prizes and ecstasies, drugs and highs and suicides, its laughter … not about inhumans, aliens, but about humans – to modify the dominance of the human.
- to map a land without borders, names or technologies: uninhabitable, uninhabited, infinite and beautiful and eternally empty; to map quests for maps for such a land.
- to build language pieces as abstract paintings, building them up with layers, achieving an effect, a mood, a collectivity of sensations and ideas, a loose confederate of images: for all art is abstract, abstraction simply being the aesthetic term for interiority—or the perception of lived experience.
- to attempt to reflectively sound out what most societal sounds (which we euphemistically call communication) sound like to me.
- to describe the process by which we are forced to accept the process by which we are forced to accept living within ourselves …
- to be frustrating pieces to learn to read, in the way that the goldberg variations are frustrating pieces to learn to play. One might say, Well, with the gv at least once one has learned to play them they at least sound good but your exercises—they clunk like nepalese trucks falling off the mahendra highway. But this is not true. You have just not learned to read. Even if you learn to read, you may yet say, Well, ok, i have learned to read, but, still, i don’t know what it means. Sure. But what do the goldberg variations mean?
- one could say i’ve sought a space that is uncrowded, undesirable – desserts of deserts.
- isn’t it at some point less that we care about ending life and more that we care about joining the dead—that’s where the action is?
the
difference between a tylenol 500, a gerund, and glory
hanaϡelah and the chair
the story of of
haar lof and the space and twējē
At HP, we don't just believe in the power of
technology, we believe in the power of people when technology works for you. We
believe in applying new thinking and ideas to improve the way our customers
live and work.
If you are going to do something, Make it Matter
(or
[or and] ‘the fifty-move rule’)
(or athpwe)
hallibl and molok
ulica lutk
wawn wakes up
my əld leigh
goshe
andre the giant and the strawberry
gilberta tedeschi eats her man
- The positive central idea of exercises is that the human psyche, or soul, really believes in itself, and in nothing else.
- The author is simultaneously a terrorist of the plastic soul and a supervisor in its factories.
- These nothing stories find resolution in different keys, at different pitches, than routine narratives, resolution revealing itself when sufficient pointers have begun pointing, when a sufficient web has been spun for literary spiders to run across and catch prosaic prey.
- I cannot help but be reminded of rimbaud’s the poet makes himself a seer by a long, immense and reasoned unsettling of all the senses and mallarme’s i have no wish to pander to a reader’s need for simplification.
- Much of this would have to do with the grammar of hiding, of hiding in itself, and of hiding in hiding. Communicating in poetic caesuras, executive falters, journalistic gaffes, sleeps of the tongue, these exercises are prophetic—the only future grammar is a grammar of hiding.
- At best, a clandestine subjectivity; at worst, turds in a boardroom – as if lou gehrig’s disease had become spiritualized in the author.
- During the late second and early third millennia, the task of interpreting the psyche and art through the written word was restricted to professional technocrats (the spiritual descendants of medieval patriarchy), specifically sanctioned as scholars, therapists and psychiatrists; to interpret the psyche and art through the senses and the body became the domain of artists. Artists (the spiritual descendants of medieval female mystics) directly experienced the psyche and art in three classical ways: first, bodily visions, meaning to be aware with one's senses—sight, sound, or others; second, ghostly visions, such as spiritual visions and sayings directly imparted to the soul; and lastly, intellectual enlightenment, where one’s mind came into a new understanding of itself and so world. These exercises belong to all three categories and transgress in the way that all mystics transgress when they futilely attempt to translate mystic experience into language.
- Whitman’s song of myself has been changed to sign of myself – to what end? to what sign? to what self? to what song?
- I see these exercises as exercises in saying it is as if—
- It is as if the author is translating from, say, ancient Hebrew to modern English, but trying to keep the grammar and cadences of the former.
- It is as if the author were given a set of random rules for each piece to establish a game inside a game inside a game – matryoshka dolls of language.
- It is as if Bobby Fischer came to me for advice, I certainly would not discourage him—as if anyone could—but I would try to make it positively clear that he will never have any money from chess, live a monk-like existence and know more rejection than any artist ever has, struggling to be known and accepted.
- These nothing pieces are obviously attempts to translate communicative human experiences—superficially common but emotionally bizarre—into a precise emotional language, avoiding (while pointing to) the emotional shorthand which is expected. These are rupturous rapturous expressions which stuff emotional clichés where they belong—in toilet tanks in museums.
- The irony being that what is said in society that is supposed to say something says nothing and these exercises which appear to say nothing (and about which it is said they say nothing and may very well say nothing) say something. What do they say? They say that a formalism that says that language is not the servant of thought but thought the servant of language is not necessarily a formalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment