10
Atkinson
We have described the position regarding logics before the epoch in
the phenomenological event as being absent and non foundational, and
the dangerous consequences of theory, the old syntactic and semantic
rules etc., the use of which is so fatal to subjects which could be
described as being empty ,i.e. the history of art and language. With
the empty subjective space the free play can and does allow the
'whatever it means to you is what it means' approach, typically cited
in post-modernity, which occurs for what may be a number of reasons,
which however is not a singular approach if we regard the ethics
which are in very simple terms present in the very act of
intentionality, seeing, destabilization, instability,
phenomenological presence, as presence of a wish or desire ,want,
need, etc.
We are then in being honest open to judgment, and in turn offering
judgment which communicates prior to meaning and theory etc, prior to
symbolic evaluation, which is a significant externality, as well as
an internality and such judgments being ethically based are free of
tautology, are flexible, unstable themselves, which is here a good,
not a bad thing. We can now see how fixed rules, old syntactic and
semantic rules, etc, simply wont do in regards to the world. The
alternative pragmatic free play - anywhere- but especially throughout
all of what is called post modernity is essentially hedonistic, the
'whatever it means to you is what it means' of post-modernity, is
hedonistic. In placing ethics before this, it forces a limit on the
pragmatic and opens a space in the hedonistic pragmatic field in which
once again perhaps we can communicate, that is recognize the
difference, the instabilities, between others but primarily first in
establishing ourselves, as subjective, dynamic entities, and so
remember and so avoid the downside of the 'whatever it means to you is
what it means', a kind of eventual chaos from which one is unable to
escape, to the extent that even the subject becomes lost. There can be
no art here even as absence, (want, need, etc which elsewhere is
called instability) for what may or may not be possible, as even when
non realization is concrete the wish, desire etc, is effectively dealt
with by the propositions of pragmatism.
The morality of intention, position, description, state, desire, wish
etc, without which it wouldn't be is yet another parallel thread.
i should note - though personally there is no need- that the status of
"can", is sufficient, a possibility is sufficient, as even its
provisional state attributes itself, this problem then doesn't arise,
the pragmatic response if it chooses, is to ignore this, to completely
remove it, and so effectively removes everything, and this is why
Post-modernity is amoral, it seeks stability and attempts to fix
itself, even in its free play. This ethics arises from this, lack of
permanent presence, intention, position, description, state, desire,
instability, wish etc. ,it is there, as an ethics, a morality, but
one which is self aware.
Does this then impose itself on us. i don't think it does - for then
it would destroy this, its own instability .This morality is from
outside. The best name.. A society - is this? .. It is irrelevant to
...the actuality of each day, each deconstruction, lack of permanent
presence, etc.
Any text tries to stabilize this instability and so it is not
ethical, as is any text which opens itself to free play etc. Meaning,
answers, questions, provide solutions and these are not moral
activities. You can not do anything with this given instability. It
destabilizes itself yet fails to remove itself - replaces itself with
something else which is itself unstable, incapable of Becoming form,
as each form materializes it remains, as an instability.
Bainbridge
The problem of art is not simple, simplistic notions just wont do. The
phenomenological activity, the epoch, is internal and in all cases is
yet to open itself to logic, or philosophical problemizing, it is then
a complex problem. It is a problem of intention. To intend to
problematize is the causality of modernity, within our work now there
is no causality, there is non I think generally in phenomenology
anyway. The intention and the problem coexist, in a manner which is
not causual, non teleological. The coexistence outside of causality
avoids the conclusion of an object. Such complex parallism avoids the
lack of dimensionalities of logic. But this is getting prescriptive or
descriptive of the very unfixed problematic state. We do not need to
use words in new ways. We need to avoid prescriptive logics and clever
tricks. External ideas. we are still in the wrong mental set, still
looking
but what we can do is a decisive step away from even intention and
problem, otherwise we are bound to these by some causal logic, some
ethics of empiricism, of phenomenologism.
And here we can as it were we use language differently.
tatkin...@yahoo.co.uk
8
intentionality is the product of a primitive instability. It follows
that all texts are provisionally unstable. what is it then which
singles this out. Firstly its reluctance to take this on, secondly its
own intention as an intention. This looks like tautology, but it isn't
in that it distances itself from itself and differentiates itself from
itself.
The moment of recognition of the problematic of distancing in
intention is a phenomenological event before the decisive act, which
in this case aprori will not become decisive, the decision is this
recognition of what becomes, what always is unrecognizable what is not
accurately casually describable.
I can see a potential criticism in a lack of difference,and such a
problematic might be considered as a new subject, a good thing , a new
source of discussion, however its really a kind of metaphysical
criticism, and we are operating beneath this, before it. And so the
first answer, a metaphysical answer, is that we are not doing
metaphysics, though there might Be an analogous opportunity in
metaphysics. There are I think however other answers which do not
depend on any metaphysical critique.
I suppose a logical one is simply that we will only find identity in
an ideality,
and we are seeing the destabilization of our intention as not a
consequence of our intentionality towards an ideality but as a
deliberate act, of a phenomenological epoch which subjectively is
always different.
The refusal to give in to logical difference, or not, is a refusal to
engage with the metaphysics of logic or the logic of logic.
There are others, from elsewhere we know that the play of difference
de stabilizes a status quo, the signified , the signifier is the play
of difference.
That identicalities are, is an aporia,
The identity of indecernables maybe like wise and the contradictions
of the eternal return etc. Our difference however lies in the
relation of our problematic towards itself, firstly recognizing it as
described as an internal destabilizing source and so deliberately
before this logical - empirical destabilization takes place, intending
a prior destabilization as a phenomenological intention, and this
has to Be different. even before logic establishes its difference, or
the phenomenological realization does as we intended it in the first
place, destabilization is always present, always different. If it
were not then we have an ideality, which is firstly impossible, but
more importantly not wanted, not present, as its presence would remove
the problematic. That is the old mistake.
Bainbridge
The space in which this specific language describes its subject is
uncertain, as is the ability for any descriptive process to take
place. This was termed our problem, and by others seen as a final act
of some reductionist step. The examination or re-examination of such
texts is another activity in its self. A text may have to have a
subject - a pre text - and yet in itself can develop other subjects,
this is where we might differentiate ourselves from some
deconstructionist program of making something new. Our pre textual
intention is art as not a reductive questioning, which borrows much
from analytical philosophy, but as a destabilizing process,
recognizing itself and it simultaneous subject. the goal here is not
an ontological destabilization, and not the destabilizing of
something, anything else. Its fairly obvious why this should be so,
the move towards abstraction is as good an example as any where
Destabilizing the ontology may well be seen as the problematic. Or in
conceptualism... But as soon as we realize the problematic the artwork
is realized and completed. Yet a repetition or copy of this work is no
longer considered art is perhaps the result of the removal of the
problematic and not the primacy of a solution. The primacy of solution
paradigm was effectively removed by the failure or success of
conceptualism which in effect nullified the idea of art. It became an
ideality. Anyway without the problematics of art there would be no
art. This very thing is after all what we want, what the whole thing
is about. The insight is sufficient to see how then it is possible to
continue. Historically but not presently Each time we find a problem
it is a case or possible site for how we deal with its actuality.
Modernism mistakenly attempted an analysis , a kind of enlightenment
ethic, one in which understanding mapped the limits of the cosmos, we
could do art, the evidence of this is still in the museums. A
conceptual critique of this only refined art into the problem of art
to be dealt with. Not other problems for Intentional activities do not
occupy physical spaces and problems within them are not concepts or
theory. We do not have to prove our questioning here, or is it an
empty question, remember we had an intention, a motive for doing this.
This problem may well be an indication of the scale, an infinite
scale, of the difference between the ideality and the intention. I am
not concerned with the ontology of the ideality, or any special
supposition which we can place in the most pessimistic of places, but
with the danger of some self satisfied description. This simply will
not do, is disrupted by all kinds of externalities, but the artistic
move here is our intention to disrupt it ourselves. Or better at the
same time finding this.. Ontology, of any kind, has absolutely nothing
to do with art from our point of view, as an artist. The
phenomenology of the question -not why we question - is the artistic
act. The question has a content not based around this ideality of art
and our attitude towards it, it is there already fully developed. Our
attitude towards it is not as an ideality, we simply cant compare,
it's another's problem, with no stable epistemological framework, no
doubt as serious a problem as ours is. The framework itself appears
as a transcendental question. And this is wrong from an art practice
point of view, it must be reversed, we are again attempting to say
something about art as ideality, yet what is actually happening is
something to do with our intentionality, it's the cause of our
problem, its obvious that it is, we feel it so. There could be all
kinds of reasons for these problems, as exposed by analysis,
philosophy etc. and there might in principle be a way of dealing with
them, from outside, or we could simply pragmatically ignore them, but
here is our move as artist, we want a particular problem to be a
phenomenological instance, we intended this to be so. Any acceptance
stops our activity. There is no need to underline this act as a kind
of objective framing. All previous ideas of transcendence, overcoming,
re-stating, refining, making, etc are not questioned, but the
intentionality is so framed as to open itself to itself , and not some
other problem. That is our aim is not an arbitrary questioning or
revision, our aim moves no further than itself as question. This is a
very particular kind of question empty of any content except itself,
and that is why it cant be answered and that is why is can be
validated if it needs to be. Each time the moment of this question is
realized we have another site for an art work. It is never though some
intention at ideality, it has been realized in pos-reductionism terms
that it is itself which is the only possibility.
tatkin...@yahoo.co.uk
Elsewhere texts have attempted a critical and positive step from a
multiplicity of possibilities- which are not considered as objects,
writing, communications, internalities, and these texts have exposed
these themes. To reexamine these would be like going backwards to
synthesize an object out of its fragments. But already we have fallen
victim to objectivity. What we have discovered as essential is a
critical subjectivity of destabilization. Superficially it might be
difficult to see anything wrong with this , however in not doing so
we might be seen to be replacing its move, one of destabilization
with another objectivity, or attempted objectivity, or illusion of an
objectivity. We might once again find ourselves in a determinist
descriptive world trying to do things such as figure out what art is.
the powerful lessons learnt, the significant discoveries of the
absence of the art object was a reductionism and objective fact. Its
the nature of this fact which can despite its apparent negativity
ensure the very thing we want. A destabilizing activity, a
subjectivity attaching itself to subjectivity in order to objectify
itself. The condition of pseudo theories such as other texts, is such
that they can appear to objectify themselves in order to be effective
and so their very success is a failure. Inhibiting other texts, and
being essentially now a dead object. Such writing as other art before,
essentially closes down everything. And we can dream up any number of
sentences of the kind which point things out , even negatively. Self
destabilization might be thought to be an ideal, but only in the sense
that idealities are simply not allowed. A trite recourse to failed
idealities misplaces or replaces the dynamics of non textual, non
prescriptive discussion, activities etc. That something is said
actualizes a destabilizing feature is only a logical and not artistic
process. That offering meaning or abdicating it is also I think wrong.
To ask What are your intentions is the response to this,
intetionalization cuts things off, stops them straight away, what
things of course, neither. Both. Not neither but not in some middle
ground, there has to be a radical use of language here which avoids
certain placements, maybe all placements.
To cite something else is a grounding and therefore a bad move, a
halting move. What's wrong then is this, this very agreement.
We should not cite the... as pun on site. There is no site. Neither
is there a non-site. Such sentences are difficult and potentially
dangerous. We need something not closed off, open , dynamic, non
coding in a fixed way. The very play of codability non codabilty is
not our business, it is just that we find this is a potential problem
in misunderstanding the kind of structure we have, and how the word
structure is being used. perhaps It is the non objectivity of the
texts focus and not the texts non objectivity, disability, which is
important. Any textual disability is besides the point. The real
de-stability here - is here already, and wanted , but here already..
There are numerous things of uncertainty here. Intention, reality,
subject, aporia of action. We break open the question, we don't
question it in some hall of mirrors fashion, or remove it. We have
radicalized the geography of the sentence and its causal chains, as
they are responsible for placing stability as a universal. and we are
then in this new place. Such a position has no relation to an object,
is neither outside or inside the object, the object becomes not
unbounded but its boundaries are no longer binding. It is the
essential activity which only appears contradictory if we regard words
such as 叢roblem' as meaning something quite specific, i.e. Not
problematic. This fault is to be sorted out elsewhere, but here it
does not name but generates the problem as itself. The record of
this, the reading of this is not a de coding , problem to solution,
which implies a set possibilities of success, yet the success of this
here now has been assured in its own intention , and its own
uncertainty is the guarantee and proof. We move on to uncertainty and
intention.
tatkin...@yahoo.co.uk
Intentionalities may be regarded as some objective ideality, but I
would not like to do so here. There is no value in this, what I want
is not a foundation building exercise, this quickly looks like
tautology if it keeps to some set of consistent rules. This new space
is uncertain, the process disruptive. And neither do we want imaginary
objects, if everything is provisional then its that which we need to
destabilize. It appears I am doing something I cant do, not just
setting up things to be knocked down or are we making progressive
systems.
Language is once again at the service of experience, and not supplying
any donotic insight or bags of rules. The mistaken confusion was
elaborated so that the method became the arbiter, the confusion was
and is real, the problematic also, and the interplay between the
various significant systems something quite other, the problematic is
both pre and post linguistics, things like meaning and use. The
awareness of the problematic was never intended first as being useful,
it is after all a morphological feature in the past. How meaning,
words, work here is radicalized and not random. Syntactically if
allowed to run its course language eventually empties itself. But
these problematic of meaning exposed the remaining phenomenology of
the real, and what well call the intentional subjective problematic of
art, once the structures of meaning in language are removed. That is
this is not a question but the presence of absence, elsewhere
described as instability, absence of ideality, recognition of the
possible presence of an ideality yet still intending it. The criteria
for impossibility and contradiction being removed not by the failure
of language but by the continuation of our wish to hold on to this
unresolved, unresolveable.... A captured image of a movement which
removes itself in its movement.
We have moved beyond process of destabilization as casual
intentionality into actual destabilization as an apriori. So we have
removed the worry of what to do, the difficulty of what to do,
causality is planning and planning gives rise to causality, and
causality gives rise to objects, whether material or not as signifiers
of something which cannot be signified, in a field of truth mapped by
untruths.
Language as meaning is only one object among others, and meaning is a
finality. An excuse. The reuse of it in evidencing these unstable
phenomenologist could be described as representing a new abstraction
of representationalism. It is then seen philosophically, where old
philosophy looked for meaning and stability, as negative
phenomenology, a negative philosophy though not anti-philosophical.
The philosophical here is used as another analogy of what we are
doing. We talk about the problems of philosophy , the problems of art,
as something to be solved, something to be dealt with, yet the word
arises after the fact and logic after the word...
This is not to dismiss logic or language as a pragmatic structure. No
matter how well it accounts something remains which is not a wish,
romantic, mystical presence, but can be described as a problematic
presence towards which our intentionality can not causally be
placed. They remain layered together outside of a, the, sentence
with absent ideality etc etc, in no conceptual chain. The problematic
destabilizing itself, its ontology, its epistemology, etc etc. . After
all surely it must do that.
tatkin...@yahoo.co.uk
Any text sets out to say something in a certain denotative way must be
suspect with regards to art activity.
We do not want to talk about the problematics of text, or texts, here.
Art has consistently refused to engage in the problematics of any
given text, theme or subject. In particular it seems to locate only to
draw attention to what it is not, only to displace these objects, text
or not. From an art point of view the textual structures like any
other structures are of no concern in themselves, in their histories,
this is even at the extreme of ignoring the truth, or radically not
having any serious regard for the technicalities of any science,
semiotics etc, such as even the status of the signifier and the
signified. Their relationships, status, histories etc. This is why I
have said elsewhere we have in comparison a radicalization of the use
of language. However the text here, is not through its formalities
in error regarding art, its error must be elsewhere, actually in its
stability. This does not mean that the textual move was a mistake,
those who have called such a move a blind alley were I think mistaken.
It was the only possible route away from the physical object art
object paradigm. The so called failure in textuality was in a way to
be expected the same kind of thing happened elsewhere when chasing
such absolutes. So also To engage in semantic meaning, or nonsense, or
poetics is mistaken even if it is not a blind alley, as is analysis of
any kind whatever, psychological, philosophical, metaphysical etc.
Formally the texts records - badly - but its the best we can do - the
art practice, its properties then are irrelevant, relevant is, or
better was, the ability to pose in text a question. Distinguishing
itself as text was irrelevant to art, so text is mere pragmatics, and
that is why it becomes radicalized. What can be said as a detailed
questioning, critical, responsive process etc cannot be achieved in
other media, where we see the - you see what you want attitude
regarding gallery objects, the gallery situation was only ever a
very primitive formal presentation of completed stable objects. The
objects here are closed, anthropomorphically dead, and speechless. But
another possibility is that of speech, the relationship of text to
speech need not concern us - in the face of other media the questions
that are raised are phonetic, whether speech or writing, it is the
structural purpose as use which was important and still is, that is
significant in pushing the problematic of art further, we could look
at the question, the thought, But not to- again- question its process
but to show its failure. to phrase this positively, this becomes what
art is, as seen, experienced.
the radicalization of this language is the result of the
radicalization of the art activity,
How is it that idealities became a problem is resolved in their
position as problems. Art - as art may function as some semiotic /
philosophic or pseudo-philosophic tool, whatever art as art means,
outside yet defending this tendency and such an activity might be
socially very useful, but so might be our radicalization. we are
after all trying. Whatever, I am not heading towards some wonderful
derridaian autonomy, even if , and I doubt it, it happens. Ones own
psychological position is difficult; which is symptomatic but in no
way conclusive. Whatever. Is it like this or like that, whatever, it
is specific. And here is something someone might say is an original
and positive statement. Although specification is kind of boundary
drawing. We must move on. we must avoid solutions, why? Why cant
these equally become radicalized. This after all could be called a
solution. this activity - which is art - is fundamentally
illuminating in the nature of things. It might from outside validate
its morphology.
So if we are not satisfied with this, how psychologically fatal this
would be.
Bainbridge
Intentionality and the exposure of is problematic could be described
as a descriptive attempt which does not engage in art activity, but
this is a naive approach, if the activity was to set itself as the
area for the problem to exist in it would play a role.
However when we focus on this problem we see it is not a problem at
all in any ordinary sense. Or is it a casual process. Now I am not
engaging in a kind of metaphysics about this non objective non
subjective intended, having dismissed the ideality as an impossible
intention, it is no longer the impossibility of the intention towards
an ideality which is a cause of failure. Only historically. An
historical naivety which is beside the point, we cant really say
anything like this, as its about this that we do not concern
ourselves without concerning ourselves with ontology. Or are we
drawing up lists, we are engaging in the actual activity of an
intention towards art. Other things of course appear, we are not naive
purists, or boring tautologists. Or can we abstract some kind of
formulae- such as ……... Its not a question of epistemology. There is
neither a multiplicity or a singularity. This not a pre chaotic state
of undifferentiates which appears post analytically, but the result of
an intentional act towards a ideality. Not (a subjectification of the
object or attempt at objectivity, the ideal remains an impossibility,
the subjective remains as a totality. But there is no point to this.
We have chaos- subjectivity, pragmatics, wishful thinking, and the
impossible idealality. We regard the ideality as a site of failure of
both subject, and object. However we are not bothered with (this)
failure.
The event around idealities and language, of pragmatics and their
limits regarding idealities has first pragmatically removed idealities
from consideration by some, but by others placed them in an
unreachable location, and importantly opened up the ground between the
absolute of the ideality and the pragmatics of the subject. This has
to be a generalized ground at its limits- at the ideal, but between
such convergent idealities we have an intentional space which can have
titles such as art philosophy science , mathematics etc. The
intentionality moves us from the pragmatics of a null subjectivity
into this field. There is no reason for this to be a negative field
but we need to be aware of the nature of this fields instability, it
is essentially unstable, neither a subjective pragmatic, which can be
fixed, a decision, or an actual impossible ideality. The metaphysics
of this instability is interesting but surely it is undecideable as to
their causalities.
What we have are the intentional spaces which we have described
above, spaces which are essentially unlimited.
It now requires us to see how such essentialities can themselves be
destabilized, are destabilizing. This is relatively simple, an simple
intentionality will do.
Bainbridge
From a causal point of view and ignoring (I can I think borrow a term
here - under erasure) both matter, and media* , we can move on to
examine the play of logic and meaning, and here we can question
meaning as it relates to art, or, and art practice , we should return
to this and or.... what occurs …… here at this point is a splitting,
as opposed to a synthesis, (a very non dialectical move, an
alternative dialectical move subsumes everything into the
absolute...There art and every specificity disappears ) and at such a
split the opportunity to move in two directions occurs, we have choice
rather than a synthesis, yet perhaps only one of these can now
validate the artist and art. .. Only one of these non synthetic
choices is now - has now become - or is becoming - the artistic move.
A separating out of a particular intention. (Later and elsewhere
the meaning of meaning is itself split, deconstructed, etc.) What is
left on the other side of our question of the meaning of art from the
question of meaning could be called a place for art activity to take
place. Is always the place it takes place. A conditional hiving off is
a disruptive destabilizing activity in which where the one side
relates to a move towards art is questionably art, the other to other
objects etc. We pursue , now historically, the process through
ontology towards a negativity, but this too can be destabilized,
fragmented, questioned. And again a split occurs and a choice has to
be made. This now appears like an endless and logical causal chain, it
is perhaps the play of logic into meaninglessness, an exposure of
meanings inability to mean anything- even nothing- a metaphysics of
nothing, and or a metaphysical failure, it is always attempting to
capture what is outside, and a decisive choice here has to be based
on our initial and continued intention- and it this in causal terms
which is what accounts for its non-philosophical move, away from
problems of being - Metaphysics etc
A move which was not a move but an exposure of what was already
present, and the intentionality which remains in this presence. I
would call this a non pragmatic move as it does not any longer have
any ideas about solutions.
In this non pragmatic move into a space outside of pure subjectivity?
Or not - in the senses or arbitrariness, pure objectivity or
intentional objectivity, we do not become involved in philosophy,
even a radical philosophy - a philosophy which perhaps can also occupy
such a space, or become involved with trivial objects. Dead cows for
instance. I make these points here to avoid any confusion as to what
we are doing or better intending,; intention is here may well be
crucial.
Where we are now is beyond the word itself as something stable, and
beyond the instabilities which Modernity either failed to deal with,
or discovered, such as how things and substances differentiate
themselves, that there is here a particular thing before its name
could be particularized. How this coalesced how it can be de-
coalesced, and through ideas of instability in communication
taking place, how these are questioned etc. Therefore the position of
the word the text, the before or after the word as something definite,
we do not single out, or use this as a critique or a methodology or
better an intentionality that we already had, this itself, is now
not as it was, an imaging, a means of producing a set of
propositions.
Numerous structures now disappear, which can be, have and are being
critically considered, this as opposed to a negation, a negative
reductionist move, there dissapperance leaves a presence. (Without
meaning, meaningless too disappears, nihilism is the product, a result
of logic.)
The ideas that are essentially against this negative, reductionist
move need not be followed, we can consider these structuralist,
outside art with their own problematics. If we consider all
reductionist moves might arrive at dead ends, they destabilize reading
and logic, and this removes them, does not put them under erasure,
regarding art activity, the move in art which apparently arrived at a
dead end, is removed. This is one removal, from outside. The second
more radical removal is internal and simply rejects reductionisms
conclusion, after allowing it, on the empirical evidence, there is
something still present. Even if it were not we could intend it.
what was exposed in reductionism was a displacement of idealities, now
the location of these may be regarded as a dead end if one regards
the absolute ideality as a possible reality, or as achievable, but now
its removal or arrival has not removed our intention or ability to do
so. Its removal, or arrival has made it possible to defend ourselves
from being called unreasonable, or meaningless, as in it total
presence there is something else, or a possible intention, and in its
absence there is a presence or possible intention.
And so we have a very limited pretext in which to work, because of
the removal of certain spaces, structures, logics et al. Spaces
between perfect - (and non realizable) idealities, and complete but
pragmatic subjectivities.
Any number of destabilizing texts may appear, and appear possible
and we can admire these, appreciate these but we are now as it were
underneath them. They are destabilized by our intention - which we now
see which is neither pragmatically fixed or ideally fixed. The very
failure of modernity which produced such an instability such un
certainty gave us a methodology - and importantly showed an
alternative, perhaps in its own confusion gave us the opportunity to
see that the problematic of art remained, and we wanted it to remain,
we actually liked and like it.
As for the pragmatics of stabilization, justification within
post-modernism, these old forms are ok, they have in the face of the
destabilization chose to ignore what was empirically exposed, which I
think in effect has been to ignore art as an intentional activity.
It may be a legitimate move to not become involved in other activities
- but certainly if we avoid the problematics regarding art, we avoid
art altogether.
*This ignoring is a token for a complex activity of analysis perhaps
best regarded from other disciplines. The term is not pejorative
either externally or internally. But importantly we are not ignoring
our particular intentionality.
Bainbridge
"doubt can exist only where a question exists" Ludwig Wittgenstein,
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Firstly and historically, 'art' is the instability of its own
definition, the instability of its signifier and the instability of
its signified. Secondly art in late modernism - in conceptualism, is
the instability of the ideas around its ontology.. Whether this
reflects a cultural, philosophical , biological , or even cosmological
- metaphysical - fact, is besides the point from an art point of view.
The artist engages in the instability, is its actor. The mistake, and
part of the de-stabilization , is looking for final definitions. And
of course now here is such a mistake. But allusions to philosophy
-biology - history - art history - culture - parody - humor - politics
are even more besides the point. we do not define either negatively
or positively, but create the instability, or rather point it out in
the now present, now present text. This text's status as art is (then)
essentially unstable?
Critically we are caught between logical certainties and
methodologies - we note Nietzsche - heidegger and derrida's
challenges, questioning of truth, logocentricism et al. - or something
nonsensical, even poetic.
That there is a general epistemological instability is
interesting,(outside or above and so inclusive of art), if art was to
be descriptive it would certainly define this general - philosophical-
metaphysical instability - elsewhere called deconstruction. I might
even criticize the term if I was not principally interested here in
art, and not here! interested in philosophy, ontology etc.. The
prima-facie case I will go on to make isn't the historical instability
but the inherent instability here now, and the nature of this, its
proper naming, or inability to do so. The status of this work as art
does not lie in its willingness to be uncertain, unstable, any
critical position is in itself challengeable, I could imbed such a
challenge here, but that it attempts to indicate that the problematic
remains no matter what. Why this defacto or de jour cannot be realized
is obvious- though maybe it should be re stated, its restatement can
again be challenged. Remember Russell's remarks regarding the
tractatus - it throws up an uncertainty as to truth. Yet here we don't
even have any given criteria as to the significance of truth, or
whatever. We are left with the art and its ontology having a greater
uncertainty, instability - if you like than philosophy, in Russell's
sense, but perhaps not elsewhere. However its only psychologically
reassuring to find oneself in company, there is no internal assurance
as to right or wrong. Both absolute positions and any other are
questionable. And so on and so on.
Perhaps at this point we need to say more about materials, however
such a discussion would be a kind of anthropological investigation,
texts as signs are simple in pragmatic terms. Specifically its the
conceptual instability and not the physical instability which makes us
artists and not physicists, galleries and objects represent places for
the physics of instability to be demonstrated. And restoration does
not restore art back to the object. so I would consider the method of
writing firstly as pragmatic, though there are difficulties with this,
in how we write, with regard to meaning as expressed in language as
being casual or logical, problems with the idea of equivalents etc.
The legitimating of the art practice has to be in the first place with
the artist, how do you know you are doing art unless you are
questioning the activity , other wise you are probably doing
something quite different and allowing some external definition- and
so some external person as artist.
modern day impressionist painters are painters, modern day
conceptualists are conceptualists
so we need to reject the idea of concept as art, but still accept the
discussion. The Judd dictum about anyone calling anything art is an
excellent example. It relates to a specific historical destabilizing,
and the product of a new- and Judd's- position, which is a new
definition, or art object. Its truth or not is not as important as the
ability to take up views about it. That is destabilize its
objectivity. In a way he doesn't know what he is talking about.
The recognition here is that we cant get answers which are in anyway
fixed. Consumerism maybe demands a pragmatic art, and that has been
typical of post-modernism but in our definition it isn't art at all,
as its taken the pragmatic step of making a decision, it enters the
gallery- or re-enters- and so there is nothing more to be said ,
nothing more to see, nothing more to do, the artistic move here was -
if any - the moment of curatorial decision, however in reality the
curatorial position has already presupposed art and its objects. One
does not re-discover America these days. One might discover something
of it, but any object based curatorial or artist- move is now about
objects, and I include concepts, politics, feminism, et al. And
others. In other words not art. As artists brought in by questioning
other things, so they are excluded - or else everything is included.
the point of the pragmatic inclusive decision is we then have to
either discuss it or not. The objects then are if we do, clearly not
the same, we then maybe wish to back down from this position, but
again so long as we are doing the thinking its us that is realizing
the art. The object once this process is over returns to it original
and pre-artistic state. Just as in aestheticism, once no longer
beautiful the object returns to its original state. Once the Beautiful
is separated from art by a questioning process, a raising of doubt in
modernity of the qualification of a objects properties as art we move
to other considerations. However even when the aesthetic was concerned
as being an attribute its nature was also unstable. The de-stabilizing
of the material object-art paradigm was the achievement of
conceptualism.
This was only one in a series of destabilizations, of representation,
of subject, of content etc which was modernity.
Conceptualists first engaged with the concept as object. Objectivity
followed to a collapse in the ability to find a stable conceptual
object at all. All this is history, and as such Belongs in a museum.
The move was not made in which Not the concept as object but concept
as process before the object was arrived at. Such a destination is of
course outside of art, which explains why it was avoided.
But the alternative seemed to put an end to any activity at all, other
than subjective and empty gesture. However if the radical move was
made and the subjectivity of post modernity's rush to make objects,
again, is avoided we are not, as it was thought left with nothing,
left with nothing to do. In removing the historical edifice of
modernity we actually do expose something. At the very minimum a space
for intentionality, which is not the excuse for objects.
The destabilizing process at this point does not collapse into
nothing, for the same reason as the removal of a philosophical system
does not remove its cause, there was a cause and before this cause
gained its causality a presence, and in the absence of a presence the
space for an intention. The failure of a logical system due to
internal inconsistencies does not necessarily remove the reasons , the
intentions for its use, and these need not be some other
inconsistency. Logical, metaphysical, biological, cosmological etc.
Its possible still to want to do something and until we say what it is
we cant say its a mistake.