Member 1724
25 entries

Contributor to projects:
The Total Library
Curator of becoming, Artist, Writer, Urban Tiger
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Xaos’ favorites
    From Wildcat
    Shaan, the gift of Eiyse....
    From Wildcat
    The jest of Onann pt. 1(...
    From Rourke
    The 3D Additivist Manifesto
    From Wildcat
    There is no perfect Enso.....
    From Wildcat
    Some nothings are like...
    Recently commented on
    From Xaos
    A becoming on the line:...
    From Xaos
    The Aesthetic Ground (the...
    From Xaos
    The Aesthetic Ground (part...
    From Xaos
    The Aesthetic Ground
    From Xaos
    Suitcase For The Future
    Xaos’ projects
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    Lately I found myself walking the streets of Rome; it has been a while since my last encounter with the muse of old, and it was clear from the first gaze that Rome’s beauty is unbeatable, effortlessly portraying my limits in appreciation of beauty… after all how many ‘moments’ can one have in duration?

    Walking in Rome is like no other landscape I know, while roaming I meet an urban palimpsest that invites the beholder to extract the narratives that are the ‘makers’ of human history. Moving between the ‘Roman Forum’ to Michelangelo’s Piazza del Campidoglio, across a renaissance courtyard and into a modern city junction, reveals architectural structures as reflective-organs that both protect and maintain across time the unique desire-modes, the beating hearts of the narratives of which Rome is made of.

    Yes, walking in Rome is like coursing within a library, the contents of which are a milieu of desire-modes, acting as engines of poiesis, generatively creative of the ‘human’ by the human. As if there was a silk thread to connect all these manuscripts of desire. The flow of an endless number of minds along the Tiber and through the river of time, looking forward, deep into the “not-yet” and calling for a difference in the aesthetics of everydayness.

    Encapsulated in the city ruins, a swarm of desire-modes, of many time-threads, join to interface the actual with the mounting intensity of times-past. The whole extruding towards the not-yet, towards the arousal of consciousness. There, at the folds of consciousness awaits poiesis – the event of reconstructing the horizon of intelligence.

    Yet, while walking I think that the current brings now a profoundly new factor in the timeless flow, in the big-transition that we are, the map of desire-forms is expanding beyond the human, we are not anymore (if ever) the exclusive source of dreaming. Today, the map unfolds multiple sources of desire-forms: Technology, Nature, Corporate Business, Finances, Nation-states and processes like cyborgization and urbanization, and more.

    The understanding infiltrates that the makers of history, are beyond human control. The more we progress, it is not Gods that we become, not at all… but children again, in this weird and new world, occupied by the need to learn how to navigate and orient ourselves with and in this emerging world.

    This reflective thread recalls not unsimilarly to the description of the human individual as a superorganism, composed by the diverse entities that for all practical purposes constitute us, while pursuing their own interests, such as microbes, viruses, foreign strains of DNA and human cells. In the light of such sights , the “I” is basically a complex that defines in a joint fashion who we are, (as in: Humans as Superorganisms: How Microbes, Viruses, Imprinted Genes, and Other Selfish Entities Shape Our Behavior” by Peter Kramer and Paola Bressan (Padua).

    The Technium proposed by Kevin Kelly is another version of Superorganism, very much pursuing and further developing Marshall McLuhan’s stance in ‘Understanding Media, 1964:

    “Physiologically, man in the normal use of technology (or his variously extended body) is perpetually modified by it and in turn finds new ways of modifying his technology. Man becomes, as it were, the sex organs of the machine world, as the bee of the plant world, enabling it to fecundate and evolve ever-new forms.“

    Kevin Kelly in ‘What Technology Want’, 2011, writes:
    “Humans are the reproductive organs of technology. We multiply manufactured artifacts and spread ideas and memes. Our society is as dependent on this technological system as nature itself. Yet, like all systems it has its own agenda. Like all organisms the technium also wants.”

    And Susan Blackmore in her recent article ‘The Third Replicator’ is enlarging the Milieu of ‘Things that want”, in adding a new term to the pool of Genes and Memes:

    “The third is that now, in the early 21st century, we are seeing the emergence of a third replicator. I call these temes (short for technological memes, though I have considered other names). They are digital information stored, copied, varied and selected by machines. We humans like to think we are the designers, creators and controllers of this newly emerging world but really we are stepping-stones from one replicator to the next.”

    In all of our related existential spheres: The biological, the cultural, the technological, the social and the network of eventful processes, we start to recognize underneath our becoming the same (un)convenient pattern and emerging truth. We are walking upon new grounds and under the influence of a new set of Meta-forces.

    We should learn and fast what every God eventually learns the hard way, that openness means separating origination from directionality. Or better put as a paraphrase upon the uncertainty principle – it is impossible to know at once origination and directionality of a system, open system that is.

    So yes, the project called man ignited and originated all that is emerging around us and in us, but those forces that are radically and irrevocably rearranging the world, self and mind, are not under our control.

    To recalculate orientation is our new task and wonder, because possibly this time the key(s) are not contained by the past, nor are they a fully developed promise engraved in the bowels of the future(s).

    Once more, not differently from 10,000 years ago, man is like a child again, facing forces greater than our scope of imagination, with no sufficient language to think, to act and to dream the rapidly transforming times.

    And so the times-past seem to whisper, we need to reconstruct our horizon… again… and maybe it is our first (serious) sign of success.

    *From the series Cogitating Ferocities
    *Art works by J.D Doria

    Image 1 - Sun Waves
    Image 2 - Reconstructing the Horizon.. Again
    Image 3 - The Green Fairy
    Sun, Aug 16, 2015  Permanent link
    Categories: conciousness, aesthetics
    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
      Promote (12)
      Add to favorites (3)
    Create synapse
    What Aesthetics dictates is the political act of infiltrating the sign; to infiltrate and to reprogram the commonplace of language.

    (From notes in black & white)

    Noun, in function of a verb.

    ‘Apocalypse Now’ by Francis Ford Coppola took 16 months to shoot, “Fitzcarraldo” by Verner Herzog was shot in 4 years, and ‘Dau’, a movie by Ilya Khrzhanovsky, has been shooting for 5 (five) years and still in the process of making.

    “The set of Dau is an enclosed bubble called the Institute; Khrzhanovsky came up with the idea of the Institute not long after preproduction on Dau began in 2006. He wanted a space where he could elicit the needed emotions from his cast in controlled conditions, twenty-four hours a day. The institute is where thousands of actors have been living the lives of their characters 24 hours a day, ever since production began, using Soviet passports and money, in a world that is exactly as things were in the 1950s”. (Edited from an article by Michael Idov, rest of the article is here)

    In language as in common sense the ‘making of’ (shooting) is a function of the ‘product’ (movie). In this story the line blurs as to what is in function of what? The making becomes a volume in itself, overlapping, intersecting and generating a value that may or may not end up being encased in the movie itself.

    There is no room in language for ambiguity in terms of directionality of function; the verb (the making) belongs to the noun (the movie), so that the process is a function of the form and the becoming is a function of being.

    The unidirectionality of the function (the verb) towards the noun is a basic precept of our perception. Thus language suggests a hierarchy between noun and verb, such that the verb is always an instrument of the noun, which is the axis around which the coherency of language rotates.

    The consequences of this are two-fold, a colonization of values towards one preferred structure - process as function of product and verb as function of the noun -, and the domestication of all flows of migration into a fictional unity directed by the noun.

    And yet, isn’t it in fact that:

    Form is function of a process?
    Noun is function of a verb?
    Being is function of becoming?

    “What are we longing for? Where does all this yearning come from?”

    Pina Bausch


    Form, in function of a process.

    Pina Bausch did not tell stories about life, or humans or relation, She tried in her work to make the ‘matter’ of being a human - the stuff that becomes, visible through dancing.

    She arranged that stuff in a political way – as an agent for social change, which was her way to assign meaning to Art. The beauty of her performances was undeniable, but it was never alien to human emotions, it was in actuality a stage upon which human emotions honorably become dance.

    Editing on the verge of chaos, this was the magic of Pina Bausch when in the creative process with her dancers. She guides them, without a clear frame of direction, into a ‘zone’ and a ‘darkroom’, in which the stuff they where made of could come out without being framed by a regime of domestication.

    When those shapes of raw stuff were interesting enough, real enough, She would ‘cut’ it into a dance through the dialogue with her dancers. This unique process unfolds a set of values different from the performance itself, the aesthetic of it lying in a sweating raw motion-sentence as a sign of realness.

    Dancing was not at the center, nor was art, it was the human in the action of becoming which clearly took the center, so that the making, the process, could stand out on its own account. Enveloping the axis of value was the impossible action of real and undomesticated becoming.

    Unlike in language, the stage of honor is given and belongs to the making, to the verb, to becoming. The noun is always in the periphery, surrounded by the aesthetic action of curating the (undomesticated) becoming.

    In Art the noun can indeed be a function of the process. It is the noun that is an instrument of the verb and not the opposite.

    “Fitzcarraldo is close to my heart. It’s not only just a movie, it’s really my life.”

    Werner Herzog


    Being, in function of becoming

    “Shooting Fitzcarraldo, Werner Herzog undertook the most insane project of his entire career as a filmmaker. Everything in Fitzcarraldo is real. No camera tricks, no special effects, no miniatures - Herzog insists on framing nothing else but the truth. In a way, Fitzcarraldo is a film that Herzog made mostly for himself.

    “Pulling a ship of this size over a real mountain in the jungle in the middle of nowhere creates a great many moments of unexpected texture and wildness and ferocity,” he points out enthusiastically. The stress, the fatigue, the breaking of branches and ropes, the sounds of the jungle, the sweat and everything around the scenes is what ultimately makes them so alive and intense. “I pulled the ship over the mountain not for the sake of realism,” he confides. “What you actually see is a very stylized thing. It looks like an operatic event, like a dream-event, and that’s what’s so strange about it. It’s not really a paradox.” (edited from site of Wener Herzog)

    In Fitzcarraldo Werner Herzog brought the becoming of a dream into the ‘Frame’. It could not be a story about a dream, or about becoming. It was ‘the becoming itself’ and not a story of ‘Aboutness’ that the camera revealed, naked and real.

    It is the singularity of becoming putting the impossible in the frame of the possible, the value of it, the commitment and integrity that goes with it, the madness that slides, the ways life opens or closes the roads in front of it, and all that of which Fitzcarraldo is a real portrait of.

    The story of Fitzcarraldo and the extremes that overflow bring into presence lucidity in exposing a state of affairs different from the ideologies embedded in the commonplace of language. A state of affairs in which being is a function of becoming, the noun is a function of the verb and form is a function of the process.

    It is through these stories that the nature of our language is exposed, making its reality limits visible.

    The history of beauty is the history of our language; the future of beauty is captured in the evolution of our language. (From notes in Black and White)

    Oscillation between modes of language

    There is a correlation between language and visibility; the visible is what is expressed, dressed with a manifest and by that earning a momentary permanence; thus any Encounter is being ‘cut’ (made visible) through language.

    Beauty is a reminder of the inherent non-similarity between the encounter and the available linguistic maps. It exposes the relation of tension existing between any encounter and the language that describes it, so that minding the tension between the encounter and language creates an infinite game of approximations.

    In the world of cinema that which is under the light and seen by the camera is the visible, the making in its fullness is the production of the visible. In fact, Cinema is art because the movie in all of its layers is a totality of designed visibility (including that which is ‘out of the frame’).
    Indeed, cinema, the art in and of it, lies in the immersive experience of a total designed visibility, which is proposed as a function of a further becoming (this time of the beholder).

    Art leverages the passage between ‘out of the frame’ to 'visible' as a membrane of discontinuity, to bootstrap becoming, decomposing and recomposing the coherency of process to a new and elated plane of freedom. Yet it knows the membrane to be fictional and not a structured separation. The mutual function of visible and invisible is an oscillating directionality, never structurally encased. And look around we have a multiplicity of such live, breathing membranes that have been colonized by language, encased in pre-set structures of value, the flow of passage through them domesticated to a preferred functional direction. Thus functionally: process to product, verb to noun, chaos to order.

    Cinema provokes oscillation between modes of language, so that it is not just ‘lingua’ that leads the unfoldment of the visible. This oscillation between modes of descriptive languages (light, image, sonic just to name a few) is ‘natural’ to our minds.

    It is in fact essential to our mind-flow, the switching between different modes of visibility and types of signs allows the yield of our enriched mind ecology. Thus our understanding of becoming that is not arrested in language, but rather seeks to infiltrate the sign and reprogram it, altering the reality that the common place dictates.

    Minding the sign is a poietic instance

    Beauty is a ‘Dreamware’ for the evolution of language, in which the sign is pregnant with approximations. A sign thus is a pointer to a space of exploration; a sign enfolds interesting, expressive and inexhaustible shape of becoming.

    It is after all Language that stands between our insights and our perception of the world, it is language that stands between thought and thinking, between sign and meaning; beauty is a reminder that the imperceptible awaits our evolution.
    Being language the medium of in between, the sign sets the syntax of engagement, language in this sense is political - the politics of embedding models of reality. Beauty is a reminder that the syntax of engagement (sign) is open-ended and inexhaustible.

    Minding the sign is an open poietic instance, multiple styles of composition awaits, minding a sign enfolds opportunities of becoming, to infiltrate and reprogram the sign means to alter the ready-mades.

    Infiltrate the sign

    Beauty reminds that the ‘what’ is not separated from the ‘how’, nor from the ‘who’, the sign is an interplay (of minding).

    Thus, to curate becoming, hence, aesthetic, means at first not to fall prey to the separation between form and becoming.

    Curating becoming begins by infiltrating the sign, while consenting to the understanding that our language has evolved in tandem with the need for form.

    Thus all our signs, while being a triumph in our thrive to grasp and occupy the realms of space-time encounters, are “infected” with an underlying agenda of coming to a hold. A hold, which best suits our needs by taming our many speeds and stabilizing the event of encounter at a consistency of sorts.

    The speed of our cognitive event isn’t one. Yet the speed of coherency in which signs are stepping stones of stability takes advantage a-priori. It is that tendency, to sustain this particular advantage that gives political power to signs.

    A language of ataraxia (a lucid and free state according to the Greeks) is a language with which we are not bending our cognitive knee to the determinacy of form. On the contrary, it is a language with which we open up the ‘end-station’ regime of our pragmatically shaped perception. A language with which we taste the ambiguous non-saturated nature of becoming. In which allowance for simultaneity of noun and verb adds rather than subtracts from clarity.

    Beauty. Again.

    Language seems the undercurrent basis of history. Now, in seducing futures, we cannot afford to think of grammar and syntax as any farer than our own flesh.

    Beauty, unlike the stories of old, always was and is the site of the edge of language, there, oscillation between modes of language, between visible and invisible, unfolds an inexhaustible encounter. Whose entities (signs) are a composition of form and becoming immersed in silence.

    A composition of process and snapshot, of verb and noun, of participation and observation, of individual and collective, of self interest and collaborative pleasure, of one and multiple. That breath into each other, whisper into one another and flow into one another, like my little daughter and old age, like longing and me, like this lighted screen - a form and becoming on a plane of silence.

    Image 1 - “Only when I break this language can I speak”—Susan Hiller
    Image 2 - Mel Bochner, Language Is Not Transparent,
    Image 3 – Pina Bausch
    Image 4 – Klaus kinski in Fitzcarraldo
    Image 5 – C.E.B Reas, process Compendium
    Image 6 – Joseph Kosuth, box, 1965
    Image 7 - Marco de mutiis - "ʌnˈrɛst" - video installation
    Sat, Dec 3, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: language, aesthetics, Sign, curating becoming
    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
      Promote (16)
      Add to favorites (6)
    Synapses (4)