Windows Without Buildings Notes, 5

1.       If a drawing ‘approaching’ a building can be actually, in performance or reception, like a building, are there other types of representations, approaching their ends, which can be received as possessing or enabling certain characteristics of those ends?

1.1.    The real correlations will have to have movement from representation or preparation to spatial or plastic manifestation

1.1.1. Also it is not as much an analogous relationship as it is a surrogation

1.1.2. But, as with PK’s drawings, this surrogation takes place not merely through the representation or object’s existence, but through its presentation

1.1.2.1.              I think it is more probably that productions that are not aspiring to have an analogous relationship with their progeny are more suitable, so that that eradication of disbelief does not take place, does not stall you in thinking this is all the piece has to offer, or move it into a servile position in which it fails to stand on its own

1.1.2.2.              A window is not a stand-in for something else, it is for itself, the presupposition (drawing, etc.) must be of itself in order for it to be ‘confused’ with something else

1.1.2.2.1.                     This involves an identity disorder, but perhaps an external one, it inflects a perceptual or spatio-sensory disorder on the viewer, what would that be?

1.1.2.2.2.                     Or it has to do with virtuosity, impenetrability, foreignness

1.1.2.2.2.1.   It is not a ‘naming’ or language misconception, it is actually a ‘this-is-this’ flaw

1.1.2.2.2.2.   Does it occur in the moment or in the recollection?

1.1.2.2.2.3.   Does it require reflection beyond the layman’s reception of the artifact in its presentation?

1.1.2.2.2.3.1.          Absolutely, but there should be a sense even at its essential level that there is some slippage, if only in the representation or object’s inability to be forwarded to a more reasonable context or purpose

1.1.2.2.2.4.   The perceptual aspect must trump the informational value as well, because the perceptual value is what creates the illusion of the building (or fragment, or space, or vista, window, etc.) as being something beyond its informational fog of calculations, decisions, and performance, becoming historyless and immediate

1.2.    The statue of Caesar in front of the mirror, called ‘The Etruscan’ by Michelangelo Pistoletto, is a sculpture that approaches life through its staging, it eschews or destabilizes or demotes the functions that its original fabrication bore, those being conveyance of a historical point of view, power, the information of propaganda, through its presentation and staging, where the whole function and raison d’être of the sculpture had been those propagandistic communications rather than the evocation of life, which was the vehicle, that ‘perception’ of the sculpture as being ‘living’ not ‘like life’ is the result of its placement in front of the mirror, this imbues it with its own quality of self-discovery, its own capacity for humility and reflection (introspection) that literally allows it to step out of itself and become a man, or at least an aspect of man, his self-consciousness, as PK’s drawings in the gallery were windows out of a space

1.2.1. The propagandistic information is what is supposed to approach the completeness of ‘a life’, it has shaped pose, tone, and impetus, it is the vehicle by which it approaches life, never intending to surrogate it, it is only through the subjugation of this vehicle that it can claim to ‘live’

2.       Paper more like Sebald novel, dénouement at the modern in Fort Worth ‘The Etruscan’ then reflection at Kimbell to close, after being sent back out to feel the texture of the front doors after they closed

2.1.    Disembodied, floating, lucid first person, hypnotically

3.       Look at markedly different conceptions of what ‘architecture’ is capable of and what does or should limit it between conventional practice (construction) and paper projects, or those that eschew capitalism as their vehicle

4.       ‘Plot’ (also see 13 above)

4.1.    Kimbell

4.2.    Coffee in the morning in Austin

4.3.    Meetings

4.4.    Walking to UT

4.5.    Meeting Leach

4.6.    PK show

4.7.    Coffee in UT courtyard

4.8.    Next morning drive to Ft Worth

4.8.1. Waco

4.9.    Meeting

4.10.The Modern, ‘The Etruscan’

4.11.Kimbell

 



Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/ereiamjh/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-comment-query.php on line 399

Critical Response:

« | »