27 September
class
1999.09.27 09:19
1999.09.27 17:25
Fisher House
Academy of the New Church
1999.09.27
Re: from a camera found onsite
2001.09.27 08:27
2001.09.27 10:47
Diana's Sentiment[?]
2002.09.27 12:18
Zipless, Zipthingy, and Maytag: enduring the hell of artforum/talkback
2003.09.27 13:14
Artifact of Ottopia No. 74
Artifact of Ottopia No. 75
Artifact of Ottopia No. 76
I Can't Wait To Paint the Rest of My Mother's Hummel Collection
2004.09.27
philly.
2005.09.27 15:53
quaestio abstrusa absurdum
2007.09.27
| |
quaestio abstrusa absurdum
2007.09.27
You come upon a fork, but take the knife and the spoon. Spook Country hasn't provided any new inspiration, and maybe Empire will. All the same, Inland Empire already has.
First there was seeking the concealed, and now there's seeking the concealed absurdity [in architecture].
Yes. you come upon a fork, but take the knife and the spoon.
"The great Western metaphysical tradition has always abhorred the immeasurable. From Aristotle's theory of virtue as measure to Hegel's theory of measure as the key to the passage from existence to essence, the question of measure has been strictly linked to that of transcendent order. Even Marx's theory of value pays its dues to this metaphysical tradition: his theory of value is really a theory of the measure of value. Only on the ontological horizon of Empire, however, is the world finally outside measure, and here we can see clearly the deep hatred that metaphysics has for the immeasurable. It derives from the ideological necessity to given a transcendent ontological foundation to order. Just as God is necessary for the classical transcendence of power, so too measure is necessary for the transcendent foundation of the values of the modern state. If there is no measure, the metaphysicians say, there is no cosmos; and if there is no cosmos, there is no state. In this framework one cannot think the immeasurable, or rather, one must not think it. Throughout modernity, the immeasurable was the object of an absolute ban, an epistemological prohibition. This metaphysical illusion disappears today, however, because in the context of biopolitical ontology and its becomings, the transcendent is what is unthinkable. When political transcendence is still claimed today, it descends immediately into tyranny and barbarism."
--Hardt and Negri, Empire, p. 355.
When architectural transcendence is still claimed (or at least still often hoped for) today, might it too descend immediately into tyranny and barbarism?
And as to 'unthinkable":
Volumes of Unthinking an Architecture may include Remove, Lacunae, Nimiety, Sagacity, Chronosomatics, Atypical, Domestic, but not necessarily in that order. The order really doesn't matter. I'm now thinking of UAA as a kind of xxxxxxxxx xxxxx, essentially a multi-part vehicle for product generation and placement. There is also the notion of being purposefully obsurant [toward absurd], thus allowing all kinds of non sequitors and an overall lack of presupposed cohesion.
--note, 2003.02.04
|