Working under the aesthetic premise that it is the context of some physical thing that charges it with meaning, I would like to say a few words about music.  It’s actually quite simple and not that profound at all, but frequently looked over by musicians and other artists.  Music is simply a way for cultures to communicate with one another.  Any other discussion about music is merely talking about taste in some ungrounded theoretical way.  The context of a song at a particular venue is what charges the tune with cultural power, similarly to the way the context of a symbol can charge it with meaning, like in natural languages.  It is the language of inter-cultural discourse.  In a phrase, tone or rhythm, musical histories that extend into socio-political histories are summoned to the venue.  It doesn’t matter if you’re playing Metal or Punk-Classical.  You are inevitably continuing the historical inter-cultural dialectic, either through an embrace or rejection of musical sensibilities throughout history.  If you accept the premise and follow it through, as a musician, you are the voice of a people in a vast history of cultural dialectics.  Musical traditionalists that adhere to strict tonal, rhythmic and emotional limitations are as mute to cultural discourse as a Cubist painting hanging on a white wall in a museum. Image

My Paintings

October 21, 2010

Robert Smithson, (digitally “preserved”) photograph of a partially buried woodshed


“I should now like to prove the irreversability of eternity by using a jejune experiment for proving entropy. Picture in your mind’s eye the sandbox divided in half with lack sand on one side and white sand on the other. We take a child and have him run hundreds of times around clockwise in the box until the sand gets mixed and begins to turn grey; after that, we have we have him run anti-clockwise, but the result will not be a restoration of the original division, but a greater degree of greyness and an increase of entropy.

Of course, if we filmed such an experiment we could prove the reversability of eternity by showing the film backwards, but then sooner or later the film itself would crumble or get lost and enter the state of irreversibility. Somehow this suggests that the cinema offers an illusive or temporary escape from physical dissolution. The false immortality of the film gives the viewer an illusion of control over eternity – but “the superstars” are fading.”

– Robert Smithson, “A Tour of the Monuments of Passaic , New Jersey” (1967)

The importance of jejune, I think, lies in the regression to a childlike state of a lack of enculturated knowledge. The jejune is a possibility-space free from the illusionistic confines of the predominant cultural biases and attitudes. Before the abuse of power enculturates a child through inversions of metaphors, calling illusions “structures”, fantasies “concrete”, etc., the child is allowed to roam free from the biased cultural confines. Sure, they lack knowledge – but this is where the play and vividness of imagination comes from. Without social responsibilities, or cultural confinement, the child’s unenculturated imagination takes control of it’s experience. It is that powerful. Haven’t you ever seen a child run around in a “rampage” interacting with apparitions of thier own imaginations, almost to the point of mentaly transforming the architecture underneath a table, into the underside of a mountain? Scale, to the child is no longer a restriction. Tables can be mountains. Mountains can be tables. The concept of a “structure” to the child is interchangeable with “illusion”. There are no fantasies of “concreteness”, or “stasis” masquerading as real. The child is closer to the entropic realities, than some adults might think themselves to be. Some children have no mania for preservation, not because they have a concept of it, but because they lack the concept of it. They evolve along with cultural attitudes, and once the threshold of free inversion and interchangeability is passed into “locked” illusionistic metaphors determined scales, they slowly die out in a cultural dreamscape, they think is a landscape. We all do.

The jejune, then – regardless if this experiment still holds true with servers, and hard-drives today – is a telling expression of the power of both the imagination, and the cultural sublimation of it through metaphorical magic tricks.

Material Synaesthesia:

Language is a synaesthetic metaphorical material behavior (i.e. written symbolic metaphors, acoustic symbolic metaphors) of humans in a dialectical relationship with the actual material landscape. It is a culturally emergent, evaluative process that evolves along with the actual landscape – a “thing-for-us”. This landscape (a “thing-for-us”) is “under” the entropy of our evaluative, culturally emergent physical laws (like thermodynamics). It is an irreversable entropic eternity. In other words, this process never ends.

An example:

I think it is the synaesthetic transformations from one sense to another that is what, sensationally, distinguishes us from other creatures – the degree of detail to which we are able to transform one sense into another. This, I think, is really what metaphor is – synaesthesia manifested. The convergence of the patterned frequencies heard by the ear, and the (different in type) patterned frequencies recieved by the eye occurs in the imagination. Even the first representative sound uttered by a human being was a metaphor for, say a rock. It was a synaesthetic translation from the range of some sense(s) into sound. The metaphor was waving in the air. The rock, from then on had been essentialized, and reduced into an acoustic metaphor wobbling in the ether and resonating in the bodies of the community.

The rock could be synaesthetically moved around away from the rock to the campfire, or on the hunt. The rock was now mobile, as a reductive metaphor.

Concealed conceptual synaesthetic abstractions within a literal context (metaphor):

Even a literal statement can conceal a metaphor. This is a type of syneshesia, where the seemingly literal “surface” is only literal because it has within it abstractions. These abstractions are only rendered with power in a context of varying disparieties. As contextual relations are established, the the degrees of abstract oppositions emerge. They emerge as synaesthetic conceptual metaphors, where a word in a context that is a seemingly topographical literal statement conceals an image, taste, and even sound. Location turns into, through conceptual synaesthesia, an imaginative experience.

An example:

The context in which the word “potato” is placed determines its power and meaning. Concealed within words in a context are abstractions, like color, taste, sound, line etc., that enlivens the imagination. However, it is only through the concealed abstract oppositions in a sentence, pragraph etc., that make a potato what it is. It is made what it is by the contextual degrees of oppositions. For instance:

The potato is in a ceramic bowl next to an apple on a wood table.” In this case, the red of the apple might bring to mind the flesh color of the potato… taste, texture soforth with degrees of abstract opposition.

The potato is in a quantum pool of particles going through entropy.” In this context, potato may no longer have a taste, or a (relatively) specific color, but an animated abstraction.

The actual potato – the landscape – is in a dialectical relationship with the maps of the potato. The actual potato is inseperable from the social, political, and natural activities of culture. It is intertwined in a dialectical relationship. The evaluative interpretations (maps) of the actual potato change along with the actual potato “underneath” the culturally emergent physical laws.


January 28, 2009


What does it feel like?


The dots penetrate the body. I’d say this feels more like acupuncture than saying, “acupuncture penetrates the body with needlelike precision. It is a simultaneous multiplicity of bodily sensations.” I think the visual metaphor is more powerful.

Losing Your Mind

January 21, 2009

Lose your symbolic mind in its own representation:

“[” “]“
[ ]
] [
[ [
] ]
[ [ [
] ] ]
[ ] [
[ [ ]
] ] [
[ [ [ [
] ] ] ]
[ [ [ ]
] ] ] [
[ ] ] ]
] [ [ [
[ ] [ ]
] [ ] [
[ [ [ [ [
] ] ] ] ]
[ [ [ [ ]
] ] ] ] [

… etc.

If you read this as a logical sequence, you will read the point. If you see it as a pile of abstract symbols, you will not see the point. The abstractness of the jagged angles, piled on top of one another, some lines or layers being more powerful than others in the unresolved disparities causes you to lose your interpretive mind in an embrace of the abstract power of the representation of it.  At least, that’s my hope.


I’m interested in abstract representations right now. I set up some limits using some figures (“[” “]”), and created a logical sequence that could “reach into infinity” (although I messed a few things up).

I find it interesting because it is an abstract representation of the symbolic (or interpretive) mind, for myself at least. It can be read as a logical sequence with a number of points (like “it could potentially be infinite” etc…) or it can be looked at as a bunch of shapes that don’t trigger the interpretive (symbolic) mind into conjuring up any points… but rather, you (or I do) lose my mind, because in it’s an abstract power play of multi-directional inferences (e.g. “[” might be like an “—->”), that point to nothing other than the abstract mind. It is a way of losing ones mind and entering the body of experience, I guess you could say.

Some Art to Look at

January 21, 2009

Some art = “< I >

“… …         ..   …….   .    …..      .   ([ : : : : : :] [ : : : : : :])([ : : :] [ : : :]) , + < I >, that … … … < I > … .. < I > = ([ : : : : : :] [ : : : : : :])([ : : :] [ : : :]) I >


“… .  ..     ……  . ..

  • “[” “]” “]” “[“
  • [[
  • ]] 
  • []
  • ][
  • [] ][
  • ][ []        

 +       < I >  


  •  “[” “]” “]” “[“
  • [[
  • ]] 
  • []
  • ][
  • [] ][
  • ][ []





    The Body Without the Mind

    January 21, 2009


    As I see it, the artist is one that sets thier own irrational limits.  However, it is a logical irrationality. By “logic” here, I mean after setting up limits within (meaning “inside”) a field of study, like optics. The creation of limits within a field (like optics) is irrational, yet after certain concepts, and/or things are irrationally taken out of the field, and placed elsewhere, the logic can resume with the removed concepts or things. It creates a whole new set of irrational limits, that the artist then has to work with. He must find logic in the new limits, and extend it towards it’s irrationally logical end (for instance – stereoscopic vision, where the focal point is removed, and what is left are two images). The artist does this, I think, not to simply create for creations sake, but to create a logical three-dimensional object (sculpture) that contains a (sometimes) violent metaphor that seeps through the glass body with a potency like that of music. It is a way for the artist, in a sense, to progress the human body, and bring it further to reality, and away from analytical thinking of the mind.

    In a few words, the artist is an agent of the real, manifesting powerful sculptures that enter the glass body of experience, bringing culture back to their senses.

    It is the metaphysical notion that what is irrational, is dogmatic.  The artist, I think, does not see it this way at all, but rather in reverse.  Metaphysics is a prison to the artist, that keeps within its walls a old set of untenable doctrines that lock culture into a dogma of fallable, fictional, untenable pre-suppositions, that when challenged, inverted, or thrown in the trash, give warrancy to the metaphysician to bark like a gaurd-dog at the irrationality of the artist.  It is not rationallity the artist is interested in, but the logic involved in irrationality.  The artist is manifesting a powerful bodily experience, that in some cases flattens the the mind into a one-dimensional point, where the object is pointless.  The mind is a series of points, and the art “object” an array of metaphorical matter that, sometimes, obliterates the mind into submission of the glass body of experience. 

    The ice crystals above, are the glass body.  It’s penetrated, and transformed by light and entropic matter.  This is the body.  It doesn’t live without the mind, but it can be experienced without the mind.  Smithson’s indoor earthworks are a fiddling of matter by an agent of the logic of the body without the mind.

    (For those that don’t understand the non-understandable:  )

    Allow me to define a few things first, rendering the my words into 2-dimensional maps:

    enantiomorphic reflections – This means to reflect the three dimensionality “out there” into the chambers of the three-dimesnional “inner eye” without antropomorphizing it with the analytical mind. Allowing the many reflections to remain abstract.

    causality of the scales – Think about it in terms of Scientific scales of the micro and macro worlds – QM and General relativity respectively. Now, the way I see it, there is a scale in-between those scales which is what the instruments of the eye and ear detect. Not unlike a microscope or a telescope. At this scale, there are varying degrees of zooms (like on a camera). If one “zooms in” so to speak, on the structure of language with a “zoom scope”, it becomes a One-way causal “structure”. However, if one “zooms out” and widens the scope to the Eye and the ear, there is this “thing” we can do that Smithson calls seizing the spiral of the “combinatory” sensations of the eye and ear. This is achieved through the senses distancing themselves from the morphology (transformations) of the interpretive mind that can only account for the one-way causality of the subtle scale change, or “zoom” that we experience analyzing language through syntax.

    perception as lattices – No. Perception (enantiomorphic reflections) are not “erected” from a lattice, or grid. The analytical one way causal mind is “erected” from a grid that has been detected by the analytical mind, that functions on a different scale than the eye or the ear. So it would be more appropriate to say, “analytical emergence from grids.”

    pictures of scales – When one analyizes, with the mind, a “syntactical structure”, it becomes a two-dimensional, very precise picture of language.

    round earth to become a potentially infinite flat earth – We need ground to walk on. This is a metaphorical three-dimensional picture of the “temperament” about the relations between the analytical mind (flat earth), and the enantiomorphic three-dimensional reflections (round earth). The analytical mind is encroaching and breaching the enantiomorphic chambers, and distancing us from apprehending the reality around the eye and ear. So, the mind is calibrated at a different scale than the eye and ear.

    Site – the experience of an open landscape.

    Metaphysics – (in this sense) a transcendent set of limits that restricts the map to rules and the map-maker to rule-following. Whereas art is enantiomorphic reflections, not maps. Metaphysics falls apart in the seizure of experience. (see “Site” below)

    –  Literacy works at a scale that is not the scale of the eye and ear. It is uni-directional (one way) causality.

    –  The scale of the eye and ear, is a poly-directional, paradoxical scale, that doesn’t “fit” within metaphysical confines.

    –  The epistemology you are confined by, if at all metaphysical, is because of the scales “above” and “beneath” (i.e. uni-directional scales) the disassembled array of poly-directional experience.

    Metaphysicians confine artists by thier limits in the form of what Smithson would call a “Wardon-Curator” in the metaphysical limits of a gallary, as opposed to letting artists set thier own limits.

    Now, take this into consideration:

    Site (my interpretations of Smithson)

    1. open limits (metaphysics falls apart; Epistemic limits have no merit)
    2. A series of points (displaced abstract reflections)
    3. Outer coordinates (what is beyond the map)
    4. Subtraction (ambiguity)
    5. Indeterminate Certainty (no categorical containment)
    6. Scattered information (enantiomorphic reflections)
    7. reflection
    8. Edge
    9. Some place (physical)
    10. Many

    The paradoxes of experience at the scale of the Eye and Ear:

    It is a mania for two-dimensional literacy distancing us from the actual. Language is seized by the enantiomorphic chambers (smithson) of the eyes. “Enantiomorphic” means “unchanged”, “not exposed to the anthropomorphic tendencies of the psyche”. Poetry is not to be read, but experienced in three-dimensions through the enantiomorphic chambers of the eye, or the “inner eye”, or the imagination. Language is both expressively and impressevly (or “embedded”) relating to the expressive and impressive experience. Simultaneous enantiomorphic (unchanged) expressive-impressive “dialogue” “constitutes” the experiential seizure of language, where one seizes language and language becomes a seizure. It is not unlike the three-dimensional “inner ear” where sound is an enantiomorphic reflection into the body of experience, where textures, lines, shapes, colors make a three-dimensional reproduction that animates the body into dance. It is unhindered by the literary mania in anthropomorphizing “lifeless waves”, or “dead letters” into an assemblage of categorical content. If language is looked at, and not read, the dead letters make nonsensical reflections in the eyes’ enantiomorphic chambers. So language “itself” is a false notion you hold. There is no “itself’. It is all a relational, process between the “foreground” (landscape), “middleground” (enantiomorphic reflection), and “background”(two dimensional mapping).

    Robert Smithson, Enantiomorphic Chambers

    The minds of some, in the “mania for literacy” (Smithson) is a frozen picture of memory, where anything that causes an animation, or even a tug into another spatial dimension is something to be weary of. It is intellectual agoraphobia at “play” here with the open spaces of the enantiomorphic (or “non-morphed, unchanged, letting be abstract”) chamber of displaced reflections. These frozen two-dimensional pictures are “filled”, or pasted with fictional anthropomorphic two-dimensional facts-of-language. Literacy is bounded by rules, and one abides by those rules. The syntactical “sifting through”, or reading of language is a “structure” that is “erected” not by the poly-dimensional scale of the eye and ear, but the uni-directional scale “beneath” the “dead letters”, or “meaningless sound-waves”. Language, if read through the technology of logical two-dimensional pictures only works at a uni-directional causal scale. This is the level of literacy that has caused the actual (or the “foreground”) to move beyond the horizon of the enantiomorphic seizures of this “eye and ear middle scale” into an unseen dip over the infinitely approaching, never obtainable horizon. These frozen two-dimensional pictures of the mind are a result of the fictionally internalized God-of-reason. The uni-directional causality of the scales above and below sense perceptions are the lattices of where technology was erected into three-dimensions. The micro and macro scales of physics are multi-dimensional, unidirectional short films, where the film reel, screen, and projector are not accounted for. In other words, the pictures of other scales are neglecting the poly-directional paradoxical “causation”of experience.

    This neglect of the enantiomorphic three-dimensionally displaced reflections has caused the scale of literacy to become “actuality”. It has resulted in the round earth to become a potentially infinite flat earth. The ground we walk on as literate language-followers is a fictional two-dimensional “surface” far removed from the actual (or the “real”, or “foreground”). The actual is beyond the horizon of thought, in the three-dimensional enantiopmorphic reflections of the scale of the sensationally scattered experience.