many thanks to you too Curt, it helps to "understand" now I can cite Curt Cloninger too
xxx Annie On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:36 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I will chime in at Annie’s request. > > First, I just want to say that I love the ways in which philosophers are > re-interpreted by artists and by other philosophers, whether intentionally > or accidentally. It seems to me a very productive kind of > confusion/confounding, like con-fusing a sperm with an egg — a new ghost is > born and produced. So when Deleuze is accused of mis-interpreting Leibniz, > he famously says his goal was never to rightly interpret Leibniz, but to > bugger him and produce a bastart offspring. And Charles Olson is supposed > to be the poetic enaction of Alfred North Whitehead, but there is lots of > evidence to suggest that Olson’s understanding of Whitehead’s philosophy is > loose or just plain wrong. But so what? We get The Maximus poems. > > So hopefully I won’t clarify anything so much as add to the confusion. > > ////////////// > > That Lazzarato quote is rich and suggests all sorts of directions. I’ll > just stick with Bakhtin whom I know better. Bakhtin’s term is “utterance," > not “voice.” An utterance could be spoken words at a particular time and > space in history, or it could be a instance of reading a book at a > particular time and space in history. What it can’t be is simply a book > sitting on a shelf unread. The book on the shelf is the syntactic side of > “language” (the side someone like Chomsky is always on about), but that is > ony one side of language. That side (book on a shelf) is dead if we all > stop talking and reading in time/space history. But as we keep talking and > reading, even if we never open that book, the language in that book is > changing so that when we finally do open the book and read it, our > understanding of certain words in that book will be different now than ten > years ago. > > Joseph Grigely even adds the idea that when an author pens a text, that > historical event of writing (or typing or dictating or whatever) is an > utterance. It’s not the defining utterance by any means, but it qualifies > as an utterance. (I like the way Grigely reads Bakhtin.) > > Barthes seems to be saying something similar to Bakhtin, but more > proto-post-structuralist and broad, when Barthes talks about > intertextuality and the fact that any single text is a tissue of citations > of prior texts (whether explicitly footnoted or not). This may be more in > line with Alan’s understanding of textual voices [below], although I would > not want to put my words in Alan’s mouth. I agree with Barthes, but Barthes > doesn’t focus as much on the real-time “utterance” aspect. Without the > utterance event (whether an event of speaking or an event of reading or an > event of writing), "language" is hermetically sealed. Without the > historical utterance event, language: 1) doesn’t bring all its prior > meanings to enter lived, present-tense time/space, AND 2) it doesn’t > receive new meanings that arise from the particular > inflections/affects/timbres/typefaces/lighting/contexts of that > present-tense time/space utterance. > > That #2 aspect is super important. It’s the way in which “the world” gets > into “language.” So let’s say you are reading this email in a coffee house. > The way your coffee tastes and the music they are playing and the sunlight > through the window and the resolution of your monitor and the fact that it > is set in helvetica and the fact that you have to go to the bathroom are > all affectively modulating the language you are reading (in subtle but real > ways). So the next time you think and use and read and speak those same > words, those words change for you, and for others then reading and writing > you. So all of language is like an ongoing and evolving dialogue for all > humans over all history, but totally entangled with the real historical > instances in which it is uttered. Language itself cannot evolve without the > utterance event. (“The utterance is an exceptionally important node of > problems.” - Bakhtin) > > So, for example, Alan and I met at Brown in 2011 and hung out and talked > and I saw him perform and he saw me perform and that real-time experience > changed our online communication, and our communication with others, and > (to some subtle degree) the history of the English language. And Annie and > I collaborated on a project online, and although we only repeated the > single word “love,” that word is changed now for us and others. The > cool/robust thing about Bakhtin’s “utterance” is that it doesn’t prioritize > the spoken voice, or bodily presence, or any particular form of text. It > just has to happen in lived, historical real-time/space. It has to be an > event. Event or it didn’t happen. Event or GTFO. Granted, it does > prioritize a kind of human subject, but Bakhtin is writing all this in the > 1950s way prior to object-oriented ontology and its anthropocentric > warnings. Animal/plant/rock utterances? Sure, why not? As I read Whitehead, > it’s not too hard to get there. Human-to-object-to-human utterances? It > seems like that’s what Annie is exploring. > > ////////////// > > Anyway, that is my read of Bakhtin. My understanding of Bakhtin is > admittedly influenced strongly by my understanding of Whitehead, and even > by my understanding of J.L. Austin and Derrida’s reading of Austin. So if > I’m bringing something new to Bakhtin that is more than what he is actually > saying, I don’t mind, because it becomes a useful way for me to think about > what uttered real-time language is actually doing. (Hint: It’s doing much > more than merely semiotically re-presenting, although it’s doing that too.) > > Best, > Curt > > > > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:18:53 +0100 > > From: Annie Abrahams <[email protected]> > > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] besides, what are we (Martina and Annie in > > their networked performances) doing? > > Message-ID: > > <CAPYs01= > [email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Thanks Ruth and Mark for paying attention - that is stimulating. > > > > Ruth : > > the voice, the voices - how I understand it is that the voice is what > makes > > a text, an idea an unique expression in a relation. It is the voice that > > loads words with affect and makes it an address to someone. (I'm still > > processing the quote on Bakthin by Lazzarato) It is the voice that > filters > > the possible significations of the words to one unique expression. > > > > No, I don't think there is "a voice" in the written word, not the same > way > > at least. I can imagine that an extended range of voices you have access > > to, does influence your thought and writing. If a voice is an affective > > address, and if you can "change" voices, you get access to different > > registers of affect and address, your content as a consequence becomes > > richer, more diversified... Your style could change ... > > > > Maybe we should ask Curt Cloninger to react to this - he is the one who > put > > me on the track of Bakthin. See here in his article on glitch (yes > glitch) > > http://lab404.com/glitch/ > > Here are some Bakhtin quaotes from his article. > > "*Language enters life through concrete utterances (which manifest > > language) and life enters language through concrete utterances as well. > The > > utterance is an exceptionally important node of problems.* > > > > *Only the contact between the language meaning and the concrete reality > > that takes place in the utterance can create the spark of expression. It > > exists neither in the system of language nor in the objective reality > > surrounding us. Thus, emotion, evaluation, and expression are foreign to > > the word of language and are born only in the process of its live usage > in > > a concrete utterance.* > > > > *Each text (both oral and written) includes a significant number of > various > > kinds of natural aspects devoid of signification... but which are still > > taken into account (deterioration of manuscript, poor diction, and so > > forth). There are not nor can there be any pure texts. In each text, > > moreover, there are a number of aspects that can be called technical (the > > technical side of graphics, pronunciation, and so forth).*" > > > > My interest is foremost in what our voices do in our *besides,* > > performances, how they function (when you don't see the person you are > > addressing), and what they do with the objects. > > To further investigate Martina and I planned to do a few short > > performances. Three very short performances : One as usual, one without > > voices, but with written text over the images of the things, and a third > > one with voices, but no text, no content. let's hope we get invited to do > > so. > > > > Mark : > > There are so many things going on at the same time in our performances; > > First of all it is a meeting between Martina and me. For us it is a way > of > > getting to know the other by collaborating in a performance context. And > > so, yes it is always becoming. > > The understanding of a text is always a part of a relation. > > > > xxx > > Have a nice weekend > > Annie > > > > Communication without words and closed eyes : http://bram.org/distantF/ > > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 22:50:41 -0500 (EST) > > From: Alan Sondheim <[email protected]> > > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] besides, what are we (Martina and Annie in > > their networked performances) doing? > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > > > > > Hi, just wanted to mention you might look at issues of inner voice / > inner > > worlds - Vygotsky for example - and this connects also to inner worlds, > > diegesis, the 'world of the book' - Miekal Dufrenne for example. There > > isn't a voice in the written word - there are numerous voices, a panoply > > of them. I'm well aware of this in my reading and writing. It's different > > than, say, the kind of alterity Levinas writes about (Sartre for that > > matter), the presence of another, the messiness of that presence (which > > fascinates me). But all of these are interwoven and of course complex - > > Alan (apologies if this is somewhat off-topic) > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- Gretta Louw reviews my book <http://www.furtherfield.org/features/reviews/personal-politics-language-digital-colonialism-annie-abrahams%E2%80%99-estranger> from "estranger to e-stranger: Living in between languages", and finds that not only does it demonstrate a brilliant history in performance art, but, it is also a sharp and poetic critique about language and everyday culture. New project with Daniel Pinheiro and Lisa Parra : Distant Feeling(s) <http://bram.org/distantF/>
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
