You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘research’ tag.
The Pigeon Wing – Saturday September 25th 1.30-4.30
Tomorrow’s installment of WRITING/ EXHIBITION/ PUBLICATION will be an afternoon of performances, discussions and installations. As part of the event I’m contributing to the LemonMelon Publishing Seminar with a presentation about the print editions of Homologue – more details below.
1.30pm How To Blush – performance lecture by seekers of lice
”The talk as an installation space: How to blush is a collaged text circling around blushing via the life of the bedbug, the colour puce, visceral reactions, earlobes, Sappho…”
2.00-3.30pm LemonMelon Publishing Seminar
LemonMelon extends the following invitation: Please join!!! LemonMelon would like to discuss the following with you:
a book as strategy
a book as a living organism
a book as a platform for research
a book as an exhibition space
a book as a place of collaboration
a book as nearly invisible publishing
a book as structure
Specifically invited contributors are asked to present their publications and to respond to the above.
In April Reading for Reading’s Sake is taking place at Islington Mill. It’s described as “a four-day event aimed at interrogating reading as a practice. Unlike a regular reading group, Reading for Reading’s Sake aims to explore the activity of reading, the situations in which we read, reading as a shared event, a private passion, concentration, interpretation, sound and voice, the symbolic and emotional value of the act.” Read the rest of this entry »
I’m practising for the 26th.
Here’s a short extract of What To Do, a 35 minute ‘blank talk’ that flattens its own text as it goes along.
Just for fun, below are some rough copies of the diagrams, some of which eventually appear in the talk itself.
Read the rest of this entry »
It was my first day in the Vyner St space today. There is this too.
I want my commentary (which I began the other day and posted here as Accretions) to tenuously construct the net of a machine/idea which is on the brink of disintegration throughout, and finally resists concluding into a thing.
The commentary is heavily dependent on a number of texts I have read, and its work is to create an apparatus (dispositif?) that negotiates through these texts the conceptual and methodological trajectories of my art practice. It is important that these texts be present in some form, but that they are not integrated into the commentary itself because they would thicken it unnaturally and keep it from dissipating. Read the rest of this entry »
In The Dictation of Poetry (1996) Giorgio Agamben gives a historical summary of the relationship between speech and life in the context of poetry, fiction and autobiography.
He works forward from the Gospel of John (“life is what is made in speech and what remains indistinguishable from it and close to it“), through Provençal poetry (with the razo text as “an experience of the event of language as love“) and Petrarch’s Canzoniere (in which “life now stands on one side, and poetry, on the other side, is only literature, mourning the irremediable death of Laura”), to twentieth century Italian poet Antonio Delfini, who “evokes and, at the same time, wards off with terrible scorn [...] a vision of life forever departing from speech [...] and presuming to state officially that it lives“.
I want to look at the relationship between speech and life in terms of art and writing, and how one may frame, dictate, or critique the other. To add to Agamben’s account: Read the rest of this entry »
from Haegeman, L (1994) “Government and Binding Theory” (2nd edition), Oxford: Blackwell Read the rest of this entry »
I’ve been editing the notes I made before my What To Do talk because I want to make them stand on their own, independent of the talk itself. The reason I like the notes is that they send off shoots and promises in disparate directions as the talk takes shape, and by doing this they bring out the concerns of the talk in a series of near misses.
Most of the ideas in the plans ended up being rejected as I reduced them down into to a single work, so in some respects the plans say more than the talk: they contain the crossings-out and mistakes and the process of making, which perhaps means they demonstrate more explicitly what my intentions were. They identify the shape of the space around the talk. They roughly block in my areas of interest, and also block out the things that might have been appropriate but aren’t quite. Once this gap (this ‘negative space’?) is identified*, the stuff that comes along to fill it – the talk itself – has already ceased to be the only way of articulating that gap.
What’s good thinking? Is someone who has read lots going to have better thoughts about the Horniman Museum than me?
I went there yesterday with the friend who’d shown me the Flat Stanley story. We plan to take the rest of our MA class there for a reading/writing group next week. We spent the afternoon looking at the displays and talking about the texts we plan to distribute beforehand, and devising writing activities that sit between the texts, the museum, and the specific interest we have in putting them together.