PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
I think, theorize, and write about highly irrelevant matters.
Re: RHIZOME_RARE: Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.
> So, did you get the meaniing of what I wrote or was you distracted by
> language?
I'm not sure what you mean. Did you post something before this one?
-Dyske
> language?
I'm not sure what you mean. Did you post something before this one?
-Dyske
Re: Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolianpositioning
Hi Are,
"This is why the binary "do" or "don't" forms the root of the exercise, not
the ultimatum for its eventual absolution. Hence the limit is not in
question, but limitations invoked by the beginning and end of this limit
are."
This part, you lost me. Please elaborate.
"I think the only way of resolving this is to stop thinking in terms of
three dimensions and consider deconstruction an agent, also, of the
constantly vanishing and reappearing fourth."
This is a very interesting way of describing it. (It is a good piece of
bricolage.) What it is like to think in four dimensions, or even to see the
fourth dimension is not something our language is capable of describing. Yet
we try. That is the poetic side of our brains speaking. My use of the
expression "pushing the limit" refers only to this sort of poetic device
where something is not said, but shown. Derrida's use of language often
relies on the effect it shows, not what it says. At the same time he wants
to communicate something specific, he does not want his readers to see it as
something specific. That is, at the same time he wants to communicate what
deconstruction is, he doesn't want you to define what it is. Hence, any
attempt at fixing the meaning of deconstruction is undesired by him. I was
not aware of the fact that he regretted the idea of "differance", but I can
see why.
The following is addressed also to Fee:
As for the state of the art world: Yes I agree with you both, especially
with Fee. Artists should unlearn everything they've learned about art
history and look straight into their hearts. This was the root my criticism
towards Marc. Any effort to quantify the value of art--why this one should
be in this museum as opposed to that one--should not be a business of an
artist. It would only support the very structure that is hurting them. If
someone likes something, who cares? Do not give any reasons, or try to
explain or argue. You'd only be fueling the fire. Even as a curator, one
should simply go by whether you like it or not. Don't ask why. Then museums
or galleries will become places where you can see what other people like,
not what presumably have more historical significance than others.
In this sense, it really should not matter if all art is "incestuously
boring." The question that matters is: are you enjoying making art? In the
East, art is a ladder that you climb and throw away. What matters is what
art does to you, not what it does to others. In the west, art is
fundamentally different, and in turn what artist is, is different as well.
Art in the west is a historical discourse. In this game, there is no choice
but to join the others who are involved in the discourse. Part of this
requires that you make marketing efforts in order for your voice to be heard
in the discourse. Even though you use the same word "art" to describe
Eastern art, it is fundamentally different like apples and oranges. If you
do not enjoy being involved in the western art, then you may want to look
towards more Eastern practice of art where on the surface everything is
repeated over and over again in history.
Regards,
Dyske
P.S. Are, please do send me your essay when you are ready.
"This is why the binary "do" or "don't" forms the root of the exercise, not
the ultimatum for its eventual absolution. Hence the limit is not in
question, but limitations invoked by the beginning and end of this limit
are."
This part, you lost me. Please elaborate.
"I think the only way of resolving this is to stop thinking in terms of
three dimensions and consider deconstruction an agent, also, of the
constantly vanishing and reappearing fourth."
This is a very interesting way of describing it. (It is a good piece of
bricolage.) What it is like to think in four dimensions, or even to see the
fourth dimension is not something our language is capable of describing. Yet
we try. That is the poetic side of our brains speaking. My use of the
expression "pushing the limit" refers only to this sort of poetic device
where something is not said, but shown. Derrida's use of language often
relies on the effect it shows, not what it says. At the same time he wants
to communicate something specific, he does not want his readers to see it as
something specific. That is, at the same time he wants to communicate what
deconstruction is, he doesn't want you to define what it is. Hence, any
attempt at fixing the meaning of deconstruction is undesired by him. I was
not aware of the fact that he regretted the idea of "differance", but I can
see why.
The following is addressed also to Fee:
As for the state of the art world: Yes I agree with you both, especially
with Fee. Artists should unlearn everything they've learned about art
history and look straight into their hearts. This was the root my criticism
towards Marc. Any effort to quantify the value of art--why this one should
be in this museum as opposed to that one--should not be a business of an
artist. It would only support the very structure that is hurting them. If
someone likes something, who cares? Do not give any reasons, or try to
explain or argue. You'd only be fueling the fire. Even as a curator, one
should simply go by whether you like it or not. Don't ask why. Then museums
or galleries will become places where you can see what other people like,
not what presumably have more historical significance than others.
In this sense, it really should not matter if all art is "incestuously
boring." The question that matters is: are you enjoying making art? In the
East, art is a ladder that you climb and throw away. What matters is what
art does to you, not what it does to others. In the west, art is
fundamentally different, and in turn what artist is, is different as well.
Art in the west is a historical discourse. In this game, there is no choice
but to join the others who are involved in the discourse. Part of this
requires that you make marketing efforts in order for your voice to be heard
in the discourse. Even though you use the same word "art" to describe
Eastern art, it is fundamentally different like apples and oranges. If you
do not enjoy being involved in the western art, then you may want to look
towards more Eastern practice of art where on the surface everything is
repeated over and over again in history.
Regards,
Dyske
P.S. Are, please do send me your essay when you are ready.
Nuclear Family - Strategy of International Diplomacy
Nuclear Family - Strategy of International Diplomacy
Relatively recent studies have shown that men and women indeed think and
perceive differently especially in the area of interpersonal relationship.
Men would fight and argue with each other about anything without concealing
their emotions. It often involves throwing insulting remarks at each other.
But to women's surprise, many of these confrontations will end with their
friendship staying intact. This is because, to men, everything is a game,
even human relationship.
Naturally, this is not always the case. Men's friendships can fall out as a
result of these heated arguments, but the difference here is that men simply
have no interest in preserving relationship for its own sake. Women on the
other hand are naturally inclined to preserve any given relationship. From
the perspective of evolutionary psychology (if this is your cup of tea), it
makes sense that women instinctively want to preserve their given
relationship, because they were in charge of holding their families and
their immediate communities together.
Family is a unit of survival. Especially in the old days, it was an absolute
necessity. No one chooses to be born into any family. Your family is given
to you whether you like it or not. Women have acquired a delicate skill of
diplomacy that enables them to keep together any given group of people. Men,
on the other hand, would not work with anything that was simply given to
them. They form their own groups by wielding their own power.
This traditional male strategy of winning at any cost is becoming an
international problem. In our post-nuclear era, the world has become an
increasingly small place. The world, in a way, is becoming one big family
where we cannot survive without the cooperation of each other. Ironically,
what helped to reach this state are the nuclear bombs. Nations can no longer
afford to say to other nations, "Screw you guys."
Despite this predicament, the politicians around the world, most notably
George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, and of course Saddam Hussein,
are insisting on using the barbaric male strategy of winning at any cost,
throwing insults and threats at each other. Their tactlessness has been one
of the most astonishing aspects of this whole Iraq problem. And, seeing
someone like Condoleezza Rice play a role of a background singer for Bush
using the same tactless strategy is even more disconcerting.
Obviously "feelings" do matter as women have always insisted. Bush and
Chirac have been going at each other more to protect their own egos than to
be concerned about the welfare of the human race. Much time has been wasted
simply because they hurt each other's feelings by insulting each other. This
is quite ridiculous if you consider the positions they hold, and the high
degree of education that they presumably have.
And, this childishness have been manifesting at every level. The pro-war
people and the anti-war people have been yelling and screaming at each other
also by throwing a barrage of insults at each other. This is no way to solve
a problem within a family.
Today, more than ever, we need to observe our own behaviors, especially men,
and realize that, whether we like it or not, we were all born into this
small earth as a part of one big family. What we need for world peace is not
barbaric male strategy of winning at any cost, but more tactful female
diplomacy where feelings do matter (as gay as it may sound).
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
Relatively recent studies have shown that men and women indeed think and
perceive differently especially in the area of interpersonal relationship.
Men would fight and argue with each other about anything without concealing
their emotions. It often involves throwing insulting remarks at each other.
But to women's surprise, many of these confrontations will end with their
friendship staying intact. This is because, to men, everything is a game,
even human relationship.
Naturally, this is not always the case. Men's friendships can fall out as a
result of these heated arguments, but the difference here is that men simply
have no interest in preserving relationship for its own sake. Women on the
other hand are naturally inclined to preserve any given relationship. From
the perspective of evolutionary psychology (if this is your cup of tea), it
makes sense that women instinctively want to preserve their given
relationship, because they were in charge of holding their families and
their immediate communities together.
Family is a unit of survival. Especially in the old days, it was an absolute
necessity. No one chooses to be born into any family. Your family is given
to you whether you like it or not. Women have acquired a delicate skill of
diplomacy that enables them to keep together any given group of people. Men,
on the other hand, would not work with anything that was simply given to
them. They form their own groups by wielding their own power.
This traditional male strategy of winning at any cost is becoming an
international problem. In our post-nuclear era, the world has become an
increasingly small place. The world, in a way, is becoming one big family
where we cannot survive without the cooperation of each other. Ironically,
what helped to reach this state are the nuclear bombs. Nations can no longer
afford to say to other nations, "Screw you guys."
Despite this predicament, the politicians around the world, most notably
George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, and of course Saddam Hussein,
are insisting on using the barbaric male strategy of winning at any cost,
throwing insults and threats at each other. Their tactlessness has been one
of the most astonishing aspects of this whole Iraq problem. And, seeing
someone like Condoleezza Rice play a role of a background singer for Bush
using the same tactless strategy is even more disconcerting.
Obviously "feelings" do matter as women have always insisted. Bush and
Chirac have been going at each other more to protect their own egos than to
be concerned about the welfare of the human race. Much time has been wasted
simply because they hurt each other's feelings by insulting each other. This
is quite ridiculous if you consider the positions they hold, and the high
degree of education that they presumably have.
And, this childishness have been manifesting at every level. The pro-war
people and the anti-war people have been yelling and screaming at each other
also by throwing a barrage of insults at each other. This is no way to solve
a problem within a family.
Today, more than ever, we need to observe our own behaviors, especially men,
and realize that, whether we like it or not, we were all born into this
small earth as a part of one big family. What we need for world peace is not
barbaric male strategy of winning at any cost, but more tactful female
diplomacy where feelings do matter (as gay as it may sound).
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
Re: Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning
Hi Are,
I'm glad to have found someone to discuss this with. Let's get to it:
What you are saying is true and I concur. However I do not see anything that
I said contradict what you are saying. By "analyze text in a very specific
fashion", I do not mean a specific method or formula that you follow. That
would indeed be another form of logocentrism. You read text with a specific
mindset is what I mean here, and what this mindset is, defies definition. I
certainly do not mean to analyze text in order to create yet another
logocentric structure.
The point about "limitation": I don't see any issue with describing it as
"pushing the limit", that is of language. Take a look at his word inventions
like Differance. Now, this word does not function in an ordinary way our
language does. In fact, it does and it doesn't. It is actually not possible
to have a word like this where it defies defining. If you understand what he
means by Differance, then you do, otherwise, you don't. Here, I would say he
is pushing the limit of language, albeit UNsuccessfully.
I express what I want to express also within the limitations of language.
You interpreted my sentence as if Derrida's ideas "enabled" me to say
something that was otherwise impossible. What I said was: "he has
established a certain vocabulary in our culture that I can now take and use
to express what I want to express." It is just a matter of convenience that
he has provided for me. And, I also clarified that even without his
vocabulary, I would express them anyway.
I always say that I only preach to the converted, and that all my writings
are works of fiction. I aim only to do whatever I can do with whatever I
have (bricolage). I do not expect anything more than that.
<quote>
I am increasingly of the persuasion that the institutionalized projects
centered around disciplines lead to an impoverished expression that is full
of meaning through repetition, within the confines thus draw, but ultimately
void of surprises and, well, a certain joie de vivre. In fact, this
suppression of possibility is perhaps the very definition of a discipline or
an institution; it's like an organism devouring the new and instantly
turning it into the old to suppress the potential dangers harbored by the
future, by youth. We thus have a reversal of the historical process, where
new games follow old rules as progress.
</quote>
This paragraph is very interesting. Have you read Robert C. Morgan's "The
End of the Art World"? If so, is what you are conveying here a similar
sentiment?
I personally feel that history has been reverse-engineered by the artists.
Since the 20th century, artists have become increasingly conscious of
history. Rather than letting history tell its own story, artists are trying
hard to write it. Art history has become an active product, not a passive
one, like McLuhan's reversal of over-heated medium. The cause and effect are
reversed. In a way, history as an institution is the transcendental
signified by which every element that belongs to it gets fixed, such as
museums, galleries, magazines, artists, critics, etc.. The reversal of
natural relationship is pervasive at every level. Artists create art that
would please critics. Artists make art in order to get museums or galleries
to show it. Art is no longer made as a product of their passion, so if they
see no chance to succeed, they are able to simply give up. In this sense,
working within this structure, it is only natural that the reversal of the
historical process happens also, as you pointed out.
As I said before, this is a very unfortunate phenomenon. Artists are
subordinating their passion for historical significance. This is Alienation
by a strict Marxist's sense of the term. They are literally alienated from
their own art and their activities by the effect of art history. That is,
they are no better than mundane office workers who are alienated by the
effect of Capitalism.
Dyske
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
I'm glad to have found someone to discuss this with. Let's get to it:
What you are saying is true and I concur. However I do not see anything that
I said contradict what you are saying. By "analyze text in a very specific
fashion", I do not mean a specific method or formula that you follow. That
would indeed be another form of logocentrism. You read text with a specific
mindset is what I mean here, and what this mindset is, defies definition. I
certainly do not mean to analyze text in order to create yet another
logocentric structure.
The point about "limitation": I don't see any issue with describing it as
"pushing the limit", that is of language. Take a look at his word inventions
like Differance. Now, this word does not function in an ordinary way our
language does. In fact, it does and it doesn't. It is actually not possible
to have a word like this where it defies defining. If you understand what he
means by Differance, then you do, otherwise, you don't. Here, I would say he
is pushing the limit of language, albeit UNsuccessfully.
I express what I want to express also within the limitations of language.
You interpreted my sentence as if Derrida's ideas "enabled" me to say
something that was otherwise impossible. What I said was: "he has
established a certain vocabulary in our culture that I can now take and use
to express what I want to express." It is just a matter of convenience that
he has provided for me. And, I also clarified that even without his
vocabulary, I would express them anyway.
I always say that I only preach to the converted, and that all my writings
are works of fiction. I aim only to do whatever I can do with whatever I
have (bricolage). I do not expect anything more than that.
<quote>
I am increasingly of the persuasion that the institutionalized projects
centered around disciplines lead to an impoverished expression that is full
of meaning through repetition, within the confines thus draw, but ultimately
void of surprises and, well, a certain joie de vivre. In fact, this
suppression of possibility is perhaps the very definition of a discipline or
an institution; it's like an organism devouring the new and instantly
turning it into the old to suppress the potential dangers harbored by the
future, by youth. We thus have a reversal of the historical process, where
new games follow old rules as progress.
</quote>
This paragraph is very interesting. Have you read Robert C. Morgan's "The
End of the Art World"? If so, is what you are conveying here a similar
sentiment?
I personally feel that history has been reverse-engineered by the artists.
Since the 20th century, artists have become increasingly conscious of
history. Rather than letting history tell its own story, artists are trying
hard to write it. Art history has become an active product, not a passive
one, like McLuhan's reversal of over-heated medium. The cause and effect are
reversed. In a way, history as an institution is the transcendental
signified by which every element that belongs to it gets fixed, such as
museums, galleries, magazines, artists, critics, etc.. The reversal of
natural relationship is pervasive at every level. Artists create art that
would please critics. Artists make art in order to get museums or galleries
to show it. Art is no longer made as a product of their passion, so if they
see no chance to succeed, they are able to simply give up. In this sense,
working within this structure, it is only natural that the reversal of the
historical process happens also, as you pointed out.
As I said before, this is a very unfortunate phenomenon. Artists are
subordinating their passion for historical significance. This is Alienation
by a strict Marxist's sense of the term. They are literally alienated from
their own art and their activities by the effect of art history. That is,
they are no better than mundane office workers who are alienated by the
effect of Capitalism.
Dyske
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
Re: Thesis about Fluxus and Deconstruction!
> pls help me to find something about deconstruction in
> plastic arts and john cage's art.i'm a researcher and
> art historian thats why i don't want something
> general.
Hi Seda,
I occasionally played chess with Cage when he was alive, and one day, I
asked him if he had read any French post-structuralist literature
(specifically mentioning Derrida's name), and he simply said, no, and
nothing more. It appeared that he wasn't even interested in the idea.
As you know, he was a big fan of McLuhan and Zen. Though he wasn't aware of
Deconstruction, everything he did was already deconstructed (decentered). As
much as I like Derrida's writing, what seems odd is how much attention he
gets in the field of philosophy, when there have always been people who were
perfectly aware of the problem of logocentrism, and sought to decenter. The
only difference is that Derrida was able to explain it within the framework
of the Western academic philosophy.
-Dyske
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
> plastic arts and john cage's art.i'm a researcher and
> art historian thats why i don't want something
> general.
Hi Seda,
I occasionally played chess with Cage when he was alive, and one day, I
asked him if he had read any French post-structuralist literature
(specifically mentioning Derrida's name), and he simply said, no, and
nothing more. It appeared that he wasn't even interested in the idea.
As you know, he was a big fan of McLuhan and Zen. Though he wasn't aware of
Deconstruction, everything he did was already deconstructed (decentered). As
much as I like Derrida's writing, what seems odd is how much attention he
gets in the field of philosophy, when there have always been people who were
perfectly aware of the problem of logocentrism, and sought to decenter. The
only difference is that Derrida was able to explain it within the framework
of the Western academic philosophy.
-Dyske
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything