02/12

This post will have to be put down un-expurgated: apologies for the pointless and repetitive (not to mention the mis-spelt and unattributed). Having watched and listened to contemporaneous and post-event dialogue on the events of the past 18 months. events almost unanimously declared as ‘revolutionary’, i have been struck by ubiquitous and at times deliberate mis-diagnosis’s given by both theorists and ‘impartial’ commentators. Primary among these diagnosis’ is the very ease with which so many apply the term ‘revolutionary’ to insurrections, which are embryonic and incredibly compex in their causes and the demands of the protagonists: revolutions or simply desparate actions? make no mistake taken these are actions valiantly and in full knowlege of the consequences. indeed to those involved-I MUST POINT OUT HERE THAT I IN NO WAY SEEK TO DIMINISH THE ACTION AND SACRIFICES MADE. IF ANYTHING IT IS THE BETREYAL OF THE ACTIONS… ‘AS THE SMOKE CLEARS’ THAT I WISH TO HIGHLIGHT. the very fact that in general usage ‘revolution’ has in many minds been redefined by events accross the middle east and north africa surly points to a undermining of actions taken? i am well aware that hindsight provides an unfair advantage to any counter-critique. but surely the germ of revolution concluding with the installation of a leglisteture (alledgedly interim) and any accompanying relaxing of totalitarian practices, is simply the first stage in a possible revolutionary moment, to paraphrase badly: “this is not the begining. it is not even the begining of the begining…(i would argue that the very fact of this somewhat ridiculous paraphrase breaks down here is exemplary of the true trajectory of these ‘revolutions’. revolution by my naieve reading is a period of radical role change not merely in the ruling elite nor is it simply the ushering in of a new guard, it is a shift in the fundamental relation of the individual to the state. part of me feels (un-read in both history and politics as i am) that it is the point at which every individual is equvelant to the state that is coherent with the revolutionary moment?

all other considerations or micro-struggles should be (from this point) expressed in the revolutionary moment. for it is truly an instant a momentary mutation and acceleration, one encompassing as it goes the strata constituting it. though while it is a point of flux it retains its defining aspects: these must be positive assertions rather than reductive demands.

at the time of writing syria expresses explicitly some of the issues of early stage revolutionary insurrection, but one predicated on the essentially negative demmand for freedom without positive assertion of transcendent political and economic restructure its hard to see it moving into a phase of radical social transformation. though the position of syria and its relative strategic value to the region suggest civil war and concurrent bonanza for first stage ‘disaster capitalism'(I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT I WROTE THIS AT THE VERY START OF THE TROUBLES-IF ANYONE WANTS TO EMPLOY ME). leading to as has been seen elsewhere miilitary/para-military rule in tandem with a simplified democratic leglislature will serve as an interim until sufficient “stability” can be achieved and the people given their freedom will follow. i do however have one proviso the model adopted by the rebels in the very early stage of the uprising does suggest an entirely separate stategy to those so far employed. what is more it is one the may give cocearn to all states wishing to impose/maintain unpopular rule in an increasingly unstable world (and one in which mass mobilization is such an available and sophisticated option) briefly the insurrection in syria very early on did not invert the dictatorial premise: by say suggesting that the rule of assad was extraordinary no it rather took the argument straight to its zero level. what is more in a simple and elegant manner by forcing the premier and his infrastructure to identify themselves with the nation; a position all dictators claim.they then simply stated youare not the syria we want. this is the reason no compromise can or will be accepted, by either belligerents; the demands simply serve to further articulate the inplacable position of both sides. in this single step the insurrectionists have created a binary choice but is in fact an implacable demand. in this sense syria goes much further than any of the insurrections thus in the region so far. every individual must make the descision: it is not a case of “oh ,i was in tarhir square” or “i saw gaddafis body”. the insurrectionis/insurgents/freedom fighters have: by forcing the regieme to identify itself not as state in a manner devoid of metaphysical transcendence forced every citizen to identify with two seperate readings of their own personal relation to the greater structure. die fighting or die fighting. this is the lesson of recent uprisings: the anti-state force accepts the rhetoric of power but then takes that very rhetoric to its end point: “if you (president whatever) are equvelant to the state then everyone must decide on their position, not to your position but ttheir own conception of the ideal state as embodied in each individual. for me thisis one reason syria comes closest to the embryonic revolutionary moment. that have not provided any structural change; but have rather simply led to a mutation of the existing regieme. Of particular concearn is the assisted ‘revolutions’ in which western (or western-backed) political and/or military force has been brought to bare in the toppling of the incubant government. the root of my un-ease in these scenario’s is that the neo-liberal model as defined by Naomi Klien has no interest in the installation of progressive regiemes, indeed the perpetuation of an optimised instability is seen as the most productive methodology without overtly repressive governments that are embarassing to the ‘civilized’ western democracies (if not to all security council members). the fact is: that short of imperial projects that prove far more costly than in the past, the only realistic response of ‘First-world’ nations to insurrections is the tacit support or faux outrage at the systems that begin to collapse due to fundamental issues such as food shortages.

POST SCRIPT:

i have taken a sabbatical from watching the news, but what i do catch confirms to a degree the embryonic thesis laid down here. the presence of violent resistance without coherent social agenda simply leads to the occupation of the ‘movement’ by the surrounding and competing matrix’ of majority interests. the insurrection simply becomes the empty ground onto which the dominant forces inscribe their own agendas.

Live and let live.

Whilst reading a book on the Great War namely: ‘Trench Warfare’ by Tony Ashworth (a process that has taken 2 years at least) i have become aware of a dynamic within the conflict that i am having a good deal of trouble articulating, outside of the existing terms of ‘industrialised killing’. It is possible that i merely wish to confirm the enduring notion of the war, but it strikes me that either; we do not apprehend the true nature of this term ‘industrial’ as relate to the conflict or there is another function of this state of war we have overlooked/ forgotten.

There is no doubt that the First World War is just that, a type of conflict that not only engulfs nations across the western world but also hearalds a new type of conflict a war that stuctured not around the farmiliar tropes of nation, king and country (though thes are continually refered to) but around the industrial capitalist matrix that would reach its apogee during the new century. the productive forces of capital would come to overcode the fetishes of masculine identity and tribal/ethnic affinity. two factors immediately point to this namely: the routinization of combat (particularly on the western front) into the shift system of the factory floor and the subsequent indifference of the machinery of war to the individual infantry soldier regardless of rank (the class dichotomy now being transfered to the relations between staff and fighting soldiers). though there were eceptions to this last rule, that is there is no doubt the chances of survival of those of an elevated social strata were more likely to survive the war. once in the trenches, there was no systemic way of ensureing the safety of officers over their men (the social impact of this requires no elucidation), that this was a function of the very structure of the conflict and not a result of its magnitude provides some clue as to the role of ‘captalist’ overcoding in the wars very nature.

across every arena one can note instances of the outgoing system attepting to retain  its identity in the face of progressive errosion of its position, but as the logic of industrial war becomes increasingly dominant, the hierarchical bond begin to fracture, the state as manifestation of indivduals imbued with god given right cannot be sustained once the veneer of power has been stripped away. a shell manufacturer in england or a chemist in germany has a greater influence on the lives of combatants than the king or keiser, even the military chain of command cannot totally control the arbitary nature of life and death in the trenches.

one way in which the nature of the war is codified on the wetern front is the layered combat zones adhered to by both sides and it is this system that alludes most explicitly to the degradation of extant structure in the face of capitalist logic. the deadlock on the western battlefields was i claim promoted and perpetuated by the high command’s of all sides. this is the insight i ave gleaned from the above text. by there nature the heavy artillery of both sides could and did (during offensives) take on the oppositions artilery, similarly field artillery coul engage other field artillery, but what in reality occured mostly was that both sides would engage the trenches of the opposition. trenches filled with men undertaking shift work on what was the factory floor of this conflict. structure and cohearence once the war had ceased to be fluid could only be achieved through the strategic reduction of combat to comprehensable micro struggles rater than the astructural chaos, unreadable to each individual…

so in short if i find time i will reveal how the entire war, was in fact the transposition of bourgeois social functioning onto the final bastion of feudal masculine fetishization. i hope.

So watched a marginal, conspiracy based internet video last week. aside from the more expansive conspiracy theories, the film made a very interesting point about the biblical tale of jesus and it relation to other narratives from the northern hemisphere, concerning the movement of the sun during the winter equinox. to save me having to explain all of this here is the video (i have only watched half an hour of this and so cannot be held responsible if it turns out to be some actually mad and deeply offensive document). the section i am referring to starts at about 12 mins. http://vimeo.com/13726978

so how does this lead me to lodestones? well i have done no reading on this and so only know that the tern dates from the 15th century is middle english and literally means ‘guide-stone’ (lode = lead, i assume), a reference to its use as a magnetiser of compass needles. but does this not also attest to a paradigmatic linking of the earth and heavens?

this is the point: i am saying that the relationship between the lodestone and lodestar is simply reference to their use in navigation, but it is also a reference to the relationship between the stellar and the terrestrial. in the same manner the biblical narrative is simply a discussion of the same heavenly motion that forms the basis of the religions of egyptians/greeks and babylonians. the link is both banal and functional whilst also metaphysical and ethereal. their is a binary relation between the phenomena as it is and the divine explanation. faith in this instance has a solid basis, a persistent relation that is all the more powerful for its not being articulated. sailors would use the lodestar to navigate, they would also use the lodestone to create compasses; it can easily be said that there is no further explanation needed, but to the mind of the sailor the two had a very real paradigmatic relationship. so is this the operation of religion in the modern world? for that matter is this the operation of all belief? to continue the metaphor, there need be no further relation between the lodestone and lodestar than their assisting in navigation, but this is sufficient for the two to be inextricably linked; the nature of their kinship is entirely pragmatic but the excessive dimension of that relationship is that the star has a presence on earth, it manifests itself as a lodestone. no proof is needed for this other than the fact that they both appear to achieve the same end.

and so the product of lodestone and lodestar is a unity of heaven and earth. this is not the actual truth of the two, that is simply the fact that both indicate north. but it is the excessive product of the two, the implicit remainder of their relationship. in this sense: the belief in extraordinary agency is the inevitable product of two apparently related phenomena.

the validity of the belief is not of relevence, the only nessecity is that the two terms do not have a causal relationship, or a perceptible logic for their existence. the ‘uncanny’ correlation between them will provide validation for the believer and proof of the simplistic logic of the believer to the sceptic. however the observable similarities serve only to provide access to the subjects making the pronouncements one way or another. both belief and non-/un-belief cannot escape a desire for objective validation; in doing so they do nothing less than explicate their own structures of thought.

experiment.23

The starting point for these latest works was the 17^th century polymath A.Kircher, or more precisely a statement made against him by Descartes. Without question the conclusions of A.K were often spurious (cat piano) but the method and sheer enthusiasm with which he approached his subjects offered a beautifully baroque opposition to what is for an artist the limiting Cartesian position. Very quickly the ‘music of the spheres’ passed into the ‘dissonance of the globe’, as the refrain “as above so below” wove its way into and out of my work.

It appeared to me that the chaos as we perceived it was rooted not in our attempts to order the Universe but in our exclusion of our own subjectivity from that process (there is an eye (I) at the end of the telescope-or a computer and an eye). What we have drawn from the very proper position of Descartes has not empowered us as subject until now. With the access afforded to all section of society by the Internet; multiplicities abound the search for a lecture on the constellation Orion will throw up crystal pyramids, greys, crop-circles in addition to legitimate academic papers.

That our knowledge has always been structured by specific specialization is taken for granted but the sheer volume of information we now have at our disposal combined with that incessant desire for dichotomy/dialectic, ensures that we persistently generate orthodoxy and iconoclasm. We build to destroy, we perceive a natural order and then we extract ourselves from it. Angels provide the agency with a cosmos we feel separated from. We send ‘functional sculptures’ out into the void we perceive surrounds us. Having come to terms with a heliocentric universe we must come to terms with the fact that our sun itself hurtles through space. Beyond the silence there is cacophony and beyond that we are simply faced with our own subjectivity (possibly attempting to comprehend our unwilling participation in a contradictory moment) an infinitesimal flicker in a fractional moment.

The starting point for these latest works was the 17^th century polymath A.Kircher, or more precisely a statement made against him by Descartes. Without question the conclusions of A.K were often spurious (cat piano) but the method and sheer enthusiasm with which he approached his subjects offered a beautifully baroque opposition to what is for an artist the limiting Cartesian position. Very quickly the ‘music of the spheres’ passed into the ‘dissonance of the globe’, as the refrain “as above so below” wove its way into and out of my work.

It appeared to me that the chaos as we perceived it was rooted not in our attempts to order the Universe but in our exclusion of our own subjectivity from that process (there is an eye (I) at the end of the telescope-or a computer and an eye). What we have drawn from the very proper position of Descartes has not empowered us as subject until now. With the access afforded to all section of society by the Internet; multiplicities abound the search for a lecture on the constellation Orion will throw up crystal pyramids, greys, crop-circles in addition to legitimate academic papers.

That our knowledge has always been structured by specific specialization is taken for granted but the sheer volume of information we now have at our disposal combined with that incessant desire for dichotomy/dialectic, ensures that we persistently generate orthodoxy and iconoclasm. We build to destroy, we perceive a natural order and then we extract ourselves from it. Angels provide the agency with a cosmos we feel separated from. We send ‘functional sculptures’ out into the void we perceive surrounds us. Having come to terms with a heliocentric universe we must come to terms with the fact that our sun itself hurtles through space. Beyond the silence there is cacophony and beyond that we are simply faced with our own subjectivity (possibly attempting to comprehend our unwilling participation in a contradictory moment) an infinitesimal flicker in a fractional moment.

Appeared outside a well known supermarket.

I was privileged to observe the genesis of this entirely pointless and to my mind slightly sinister structure earlier this year. At first i assumed it was to be some kind of access ramp, but as can be seen from the photographs, the barrier at the end makes this impossible. I should point out that the light-grey area at the front of the image is a pavement. I was told at one point that it was to provide parking for police vehicles; but again to my mind this did not ring true, as they would have to mount the pavement to get there and as far as i can see the placing of a police car would serve no purpose at all (given that around the corner is a perfectly good car-park.

So why create a ramp to nowhere/a parking space on the pavement/a trolly park without trollies? At the time i took this image i was it must be said subject to bouts of ‘architectural nausea’. In every direction ostensibly pointless and intrusive structures abounded. Also i confess i believe with many such projects the builders themselves little know why they create these spacial anomalies: one possibility is that they desire to re-invigorate the physical environment with thought provoking installations.

But i will propose a more negative reading; within our urban spaces the action of proliferation both non-organic and non-intended (as opposed to ‘un-intended), results in a banal totality, disorientation through negation of responsibility. Monolithic institutions create an immediate space without meaning in order to prevent the socius inscribing its own meaning: “it is something to do with authority…you wouldn’t get it…we do…but we’re not telling”

is this the corporate response to spontaneous re-use/re-assignment of space by the public? A totalitarian space that prevents re-assignment as it has a ‘non-use’ that it is being employed for. This is not negative space its negated space…or something…maybe

There is however a happy post-script: at some point someone removed the back barrier and the structure is an ad-hoc pathway/ramp. Though my only reservation to this is that this seems to be what it always looked like; so while the pragmatic utilization has subverted the fascistic absurdity, it has only done so in order to shop with greater ease in the store.

Oh well.