the problem of consumption, of the definition of self through that which we consume, becomes that we attempt to rebel against consumerism by consuming things which are different from the model we feel we are held to. that is, we attempt to be anti-consumers through a mode af consuming that which we are not. we attempt to kill with light. to objectify our anti-selves. and this results in a parody of our self because we have attempted to battle consumption on its own ground. we have turned consumption on its self. but consumption is consumption. and the more we try to escape our definition by consuming our anti-definition, the more we define our self. the more we attempt to battle consumption from withinit consumption, the more its hold on us strengthens. it is the objectification which takes on a linear form. it is our language which limits us to one word after another. it is our typing which limits us to one letter after another.
the problem with writing is to attempt to destroy its structure. to make it non-linear. so that it does not read left to right. so that the structure of it fails. so that it is a decentralized, de-linearized. so that there are numerous asynchronous thoughts which are held together by that which is not said, by that which is not intended. the structure is found between the lines, between the ways in which it can be put together. and it must have the ability to be put together in various ways. i tried to make a random sculpture one time. the idea was to have small elements randomly placed within space. the viewer was supposed to be able to make there own random placement of the elements. i made this 2’x2′ cube of 2″ squares: 1728 2″ cubes! there was a gold bb placed in each one of them. it was the most ordered thing i have ever created. funny how attempts at deconstruction are usually only made of more complex orders.
but does this result in non-meaning, or the expansion of meaning? can we think non-linearly? i believe that we can. we can think simultaneously.
can we write without total objectification? is not writing objectification? where is the line? can we write like we cook or make music? can we learn a non-linear language? maybe we must re-define language to include those non-linear actions and thoughts we already possess. maybe we should abandon language and be silent like monks. non-linear creations like cooking and music. temporal concoctions that blend times and elements into a rich asyncronous and simultaneous experience.
i rode the bus home on chicago ave. the shops are really interesting. an ever-changing display of depths and light and life. the same ride every day but i always notice many new things. cooking is not really placed among the arts. this is probably because there is no way to preserve and distribute cooking. it is a temporary experience which is gained from intuition. recipes never capture the nuances of a good cook.
at night in this city, the sky is never black, always blue from the yellow lights reflecting in the atmosphere. when i go out of the city, i always stop my car and get out and stare up at the clear view to the infinity of stars. one man at one point in a vast and infinite universe. and i can see infinitely. standing on an earth plane among the stars. right now it is snowing out. the whole sky is white. it hovers as an infinite fog above the buildings – more of the same. when i wake up in the morning, my wife anne always has the news turned on softly in the other room. it borders on the soft muffled voices of your parents in the other room, or a distant tv, but it is a little too loud and clear still. music that is recorded is immediately dead. the artist is forced to imitate his objectification. playing the same hit song over and over. i am surprised that any of john cage’s music was recorded, since the originality and temporality played such a large part of his music. music is never fully captured in annotation. it is precisely the part of music which is not captured in its objectification which allows it to continue and be re-interpreted.