home_large_image

Writing Under Influence (2-28-2017): On Love, Documenting before the fact

Love needs two bodies, but desires to become one. Like sex or eating, becoming one with the other is erotic but if this is really accomplished, the necessary condition for eros is lost. Love double-binds the desire to be one with the necessity to be distant (different).

The problem of observer in systems theory (second-order cybernetics) is ultimately is the problem of love. In cybernetics one observes a system and try to account for its self-regulating behavior. But people like Bateson etc had problem with this because it doesn’t account for the role of the observer. So in second-order cybernetics they tried to depict the system with the observer of the system as part of the system. This then proceeds to become autopoiesis where they try to depict the system from the system’s own point of view. All of that revolves around the problem of love (need to be one yet apart).

Object oriented ontology’s basic claim is that objects withdraw. But in order for that to be true, there needs to be at least one external observer observing the withdrawing object. For otherwise, when one object withdraws, how do we know that there is only one withdrawal? If there are multiple withdrawals, that pluralizes the object itself. The account of withdrawal is therefore predicated on the one-ness of the object, but this one-ness must necessarily be accounted by something external to itself who counts it as such. In order for objects to withdraw from other objects, something external to the object must participate in that process. In other words, withdrawal is always a drawing-with. It is a collaboration, to with-draw.

Duchamp, in his last work, quoted Durer’s print (depicting the function of perspective), and placed the female body in the position of as it would have been seen by Durer’s drawer. But now the object of his drawing is placed behind a closed door with a tiny hole so that only one person can see it, and removed at a distance. Duchamp was always dealing with the problem of eroticism. There is a whole lineage traversing the history of art as human constructed systems, where the relationship between the system and its creator/observer has been problematized in terms of love/desire. This lineage focuses on the fact that a system always revolves around the body (incorporates the body). The condition of with-drawal (which presumes and is the extremety of an object’s oneness) is the other.

Object oriented ontology fails because it ultimately cannot explain why one wants to write books. Why one wants others to see the world according to one’s own perspective. That’s not an issue of ontology, and it can never be. It is always the problem of epistemology–the implant of your particular oneness to the other. Which is to say that one only write books out of love. Otherwise, the object ontologists could have just withdrawn for real, into their parent’s basements, without writing and selling books–a home body.

Pedagogy is nothing but love and thats why it is also violent. Because its based on the desire to make the other one with yourself. To incorporate.

There is the stupid discussion of “how to document performance art.” But actually, (the process of) documentation comes before, not after, the enactment of work. As you make work, you are also documenting the process. Most often, in lieu of the act itself, which is both fleeting and seen by a handful of people, the future consults sketches, notes, etc that were left in the process of making the act.
The idea that understanding X is understanding how X is made (the process of creation)–but this process of making X necessarily happens/takes place before the enactment of X. Sketches, notes from rehearsal, etc: document an act before it takes place. Many times, the only thing that survives is this documentation that took place before the act/event. It documents the making of a future (the work, act, event), a projection of future in the process of its making. Always already restoring X before it materializes.

And there is necessarily a gap between this projected future/event/act that these materials document and the event/act that actually materialized. Hence: Past Future Perfect.

These documents are materialization of Past Future Perfect. The irony is that future readers often only refer to these materials, than the actual happenstance, in order to reenact the act/event. Thus, instead of pointing towards the actual(ized) past, they resurrect the future that was perfected in the past. Not what took place but what was projected to take place. Think of the Rite of Spring notebooks (cf: Vesna’s Fall) The future (reenactment) is derived more from the Past Future Perfect than the mere past.

Done Idea: To exhibit documentations of still-unbuilt-works. Describes a mechanism already at work in the transmission/reenactment of artworks while also presenting a peculiar theory/view of temporality of artworks. To talk about the forthcoming 2nd issue of Matters of Act (on Past Future Perfect), as something that already happened (as a future that has been perfected). As if we were talking in 2018. Instead of reflecting back on the 1st issue, we reflect back on the 2nd issue that actually hasn’t taken place yet, with the people who were already (would have been) involved in that now-future publication.