September 27, 2006 at 04:07 | Posted in Documentation of things, new york, Performances/Exhibitions, Things related to critical theory, Things related to John Cage | Leave a comment
What you will read below–after this paragraph–is the logistical
information for a
performance that I will be taking part in Thursday night. I will be
performing a new work titled, (I don’t know how to set italics in
gmail) Years Later Starfish Meeting Room: How to Meet One’s Self. This
is what my performance will be: a singular solo that is simultaneously
private and public. I will provide my latest composition–(the italics
issue again) Not My Brilliance–for individuted private listening, and
I will present a pre-parametered improvisation for an audience of
unregulated proportions. The interface of the two performances will
provide a visual event. There are three other performers presenting on
the same night. I hope to see you there.
thur september 28, 2006
8 – 11pm
free drinks from the FREE BAR
free shopping at the FREE BOUTIQUE
The Event Center
257 Nostrand at Lafayette
G train to Bedford/Nostrand
Nostrand/Lafayette exit
these people:
Felicia Ballos
Biba Bell
Laurie Berg and Amanda Stevenson
Jonah Boaker
Megan Byrne
Errin Delperdang
eagleager
Nancy Garcia
Chase Granoff
David Hurwith
koosil-ja
Isabel Lewis
Melanie Maar
Hedia Maron
Zachary Moldof
Rebecca for Serrell
Larissa Velez
Treva Wurmfield
and some others……..
the second set will be comprised of the representatives of the above people.
admission: contribution to the FREE BOUTIQUE/FREE BAR
such as: dvds, trophies, paintings, books, clothes, lipstick,
absinthe, water, soda pop, wine, whiskey
September 17, 2006 at 07:11 | Posted in Beer, Documentation of things, Grad school update, Musings, new york, Performances/Exhibitions | 2 Comments
I am writing this post not out of a desire to write a new post, rather out of my guilt in not having updated in some time. Of late my time has become increasingly precious, and this is not a format in which I have felt a neccesity to materialize my time.
Of Late:
I am taking a class on methods in the anthropology of sound and music. I read John Law’s After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. I enjoyed the book. I recommend the book. I am going to a do an ethnogrpahy of skateboarding for the class.
My disdain for the blatant mistreatment of dogs in the city baloons tot he point of outbursts. Many people have the tendency of walking with their dogs on a leash instead of walking their dogs. By this I mean that people pay no attention to the desires of the dog, and merely walk. This often resuls in the dogs being dragged when they stop to smell something or for other reasons. It doesn’t take much thoguht to realize that this must hurt the dogs’ feet as they scrape against the concrete. Disgusting.
The weather has been unpredicatable unless I check it through a widget before I go out.
I’ve been spending time with my friend Danny Coeyman.
I’ve also been spedning time with some friends from school: Yu ni, Sarah, and Maria. Also Maria’s boyfriend Guillermo, and Sarah’s boyfriend Tom.
I enjoy spending time with those people.
I manned a tap at a beer festival last Friday. I had more than enough fun, but not in an beeric consumption way.
I have performances coming up. On Monday the 18th I will be performing in a Cabaret to benefit Richard Schechner’s “Home New Orleans”. I will be performing with Randy J. Hunt. The performance will be at the Village Pour House. On the 28th I will be performing a solo work in AUNTS. Biba Bell–a classmate–has invited me to take part. I will be performing a solo for audience, and playing a recorded composition for one person at a time–seperate from the solo. I’ll provide more info soon.
School is great.
September 4, 2006 at 16:50 | Posted in Anti-doomsday, Things related to critical theory | Leave a comment
Firstly, everything that humans do is a product of the structure of Earth, and cannot so easily be grounded as humans’ control of their own subjectivity.
So, in my recent readings–some of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology, and Exhausting Dance…by Andre Lepecki–I have been doing a bit of thiniking. In keeping with the first statement I have considered the affect of the actoins of human within modernism, and have concluded that modernism is a drive that consumes human beings, so that they are constantly in a state of motion with no intention of ending; the entire grasp of modernism is to embody motion on Earth with no intention of stopping, and to cover as broad an area as possible. It is not that modernism is a manifestation of human beings’ desires to subjugate, rather it is the embodiment of the absolute assumption of motion on Earth with no regard for anything other than that motion that subsequently leads to subjection as motion requires a non-moving object–that object inevitably becomes the subjugated, that which cannot move. Modernism is a motion with deadly capacity, for it subsumes any perpetuation other than motion as peripheral to motion–even the self; modernism is not only absolute motion, but absolute motion at any cost. Modernism is a mode that is consumed by motion, it is not that modernism decides to emobdy motion, rather it is that which cannot be reduced, for its engagement cannot be anything other than motion, but as we experience motion it happens to create modernism regardless of the subjects involved.
Post-modernism then is the engagement of the same tools and skill-sets as modernism that engages the notion of the structure of motion that it is assumed by. The difference between modernims and post-modernism is that modernism posits to know why it moves, while post-modernism does not know where it goes. Post-modernism embodies all of the values that modernism embodies–and still subjugates–but acknowledges that any attempts of the subjective human within motion to structure that motion are futile.
September 3, 2006 at 07:00 | Posted in Musings, Things related to critical theory, Women | 1 Comment
It is neccesary to find relationships–or maintain relationships–wherein the involved individuals are both of equal stature in the give and take. Every relationship can be quantified in how much each person gives, and how much each person takes. The notion of giving and taking is not one that can be comopartmentalized into different qualifications–such as the giving of gifts, the giving of time, the giving of emotional energy, et alii–for the qualities of giving and taking transcend compartmentalizing qualifiers; giving and taking are absolutes that are incorporative of their total existence towards a singular giving, and a singular taking. When we give, all of our modes of giving occupy the singular act of giving, and when we take, all of our modes of taking occupy the singular act of taking.
Every relationship has a finite threshold for giving and taking beyond which the relationship cannot exist; if one person gives beyond their capacity the relationship is pushed beyond its threshold and thus it ends, and the same goes for taking. Because these modes of interaction construct a binary for engagement their performance must constantly be assessed and adjusted; a constant deconstruction and reification takes place allowing a relationship to be maintained. In using the word assessed I am referring to the surveying of how much is being given and taken by each individual, and the subsequent adjustment by the opposite individual. If I am assessing how much I am giving and taking in a relationship then value is established solely in comparison to how much the other person is giving and taking–if we both give to the extent of x, and both take to the extent of y, then everything is equal, however if I give to the extent of 2x, and take tot he extent of y, and the other person gives tot he extent of y, and takes tot he extent of 2x then an imbalance is created. It must be noted that some relationships exist in a neccesary imbalance, that is the imbalance is their balance, from what I can discern these relationships have two possible outcomes: they attain balance, or they attain greater imbalance causing them to cease. I do not suggest that every relationship follows these postulations exactly, rathe that every relationship is subjected tot hese postulations to some degree.
To illustrate with absolutes: those relationships that require constant assessment are facilitated by an exchange of a lesser frequency and intensity; relationships that must constantly be assessed cannot facilitate massive giving and taking, likewise those relationships that require massive giving and taking cannot be constantly assessed; the greater the degree of assessment the lesser the degree of equal exchange.
Because the only way for us to assess relationships is to live them it becomes neccesarily difficult to facilitate those relationships that do not facilitate themselves; two individuals whose giving and taking postures do not accord well upon one another cannot expect to have an easily maintained relationship. However we must also assess the factor of engagement; to what extent does the relationship engage the individuals and cause them to actually live the experience of the relationship, rather than speculate upon it? I do not mean to suggest that those relationsips of massive exchange are neccesarily good, or that those relationships of constant assessment are neccesarily bad, rather my statements point to the ease with which relationships are engaged. Once the notion of engagement is involved, we must consider that relationships cannot be qualified according to standards of good or bad, because engagement–being an absolute and unqualifiable facet of living–supercedes ease; without engagement we have nothing, for as Merleau-Pomty said, “there is no inner man, man is the world, and only in the world does he know himself.”
So then relationships become not what we give, or take–these are only ways through which we can know the relationship–but how we are engaged, and how we read/value this engagement…
September 2, 2006 at 05:55 | Posted in Musings | Leave a comment
As it turns out the battery in my Apple laptop is one of the one’s that came with extra heat, and potentially fire. When I first checked their website my computer did not fall into the potential date range, but a recent email rebuked that. It seems irresponsible for Apple to not post this information blatantly on their homepage.
September 2, 2006 at 01:13 | Posted in Beer, communicative media, Documentation of things, Grad school update, new york, Performances/Exhibitions, Things related to John Cage | 2 Comments
Next week I will be participating in a reading of John Cage’s works at St. Mark’s Church (10th and 2nd Ave.) that commemorates his birthday. It starts at 7:30.
I was thinking about our binary notions of structure yesterday, and came to a realization regarding the notion of deconstruction. I feel that deconstruction is often viewed as an alternative to the reification of structure, however this needn’t be the case; we are better off to engage both reification and deconstruction intermittently: reification maintains structure, while deconstruction subverts structural hegemony.
I have had a lengthy email exchange with some people from the phonography.org listserve over the past week, and some interesting topics have come up. Primarily we have discussed the implication of structure in the practice of phonography, but we’ve also gotten into a lot of the tangential critical theory that goes along with it. My main concern is the enunciation of a proper paradigmatic structure for the medium. What I really wanted to get at here though was a comment that was made in reghards to simulacra; someone mentioned that when we cannot garner a proper message from a simulacrum we assume that something is wrong with the medium or the person who used the medium to create the simulacrum. This seems like a vital concept when we consider the notions of reification and deconstruction within structurality, as deconstruction often fondles the methods for creating meaning through simulacra–by fondle I mean that it investigates it in such a way that it is looking to uncover the limits of its potentialities and formulate a clear assessment of current occupations through various methods of ‘appropriate’ and inappropriate engagement .
I’m still trying to sell my tabla set–to no avail.
I’m still doing a great deal of thinking about the body and its organizations.
I recently began working on a new recorded artifact that employs field recordings and a drone rendered through the Elapsed Isolationism of the Pixies song “Where is My Mind.”
I’m writing a trio right now titled Complete Aegis Trio. I am using methods of indeterminacy that are dependent on crosswalk signals on a pre-mapped path.
I got a job with a beer distributor, and I’ll be helping out pouring beer at the upcoming New York Beerfest next weekend. My job is sales rep. That’s the deal.
Apparently I’ll be making some rap music with Chris Tabron some time soon.
Holler.
Not Bored in New York 