materialization as conceptualization. direct action and response: an interaction. of self and environment. a chair scratching a wood floor. air rushing through your hair. water pressing and moving against your body, evenly. it is only the difference in resistance which allows our body to distinguish water from air. water makes more apparent to us similar relations which occur within air. at the surface, between air and water, a complex interaction is induced involving tension and friction, turbulence and cycles, temperatures and velocities. a constant interaction of life breathed from air to water and from water to air.
and as the wave approaches the shore, after breaths and ripples begin a cycle, a frequency, which echo down to the depths, then it feels its interaction with its limits. the apparent physical manifestation, the surface swell, the visible part of wave, thus only becomes apparent after a direct interaction between its power, its self, and its limits, a shallowing shore. that is, at the beginning of a wave, when ripples turn to swell, when an organizational cycle brings what can be identified as life, it can barely be recognized because the power of the wave compared to its limit, its depth, its possibility… is relatively minimal. it is the realization of its own limits, the interaction of power to limits, which allows for identification. it is death which allows us to realize our life. it is the limits which allows us to claim and identify a self. can we claim a responsibility for our own life? as products of a complex interaction, which can and can not be separated. a wave exists as a phenomenon of power, of velocity and cycle. interactions which can not be separated from the medium and environment in which they occur. it is the velocity with which we rush our hands through water which causes the apparent difference, the pressure and turbulence zones. it is velocity which allows us utlize the medium. it is the velocity of the interaction which allows us to fly. it is the distibution and displacement of mass which allows us to float. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. energy can not be gained or lost, only re-distributed. creation is re-distribution. action is re-distribution. action is creation. we are bodies in a medium. floating edifices hovering at the fluid surface. backfloating on a surface of reflected and distorted stars with our heads above water. we float in a thick void and we breath a lighter one. at night, the atmosphere doesn’t reflect the sun and we can see beyond to infinite pasts. in the day, the sky is blue and so is the water and we go about our business.
Archive: Author: wade tillett
modes of production.
1 tools
the environment is adapted to our desire through a conscious design. as with all modes of production, this forces a reciprocal action, a reaction. we still must adapt our self in order to create and use the tool. we must adapt to the new environment we have created. tools reason for production is a belief in economy – a belief that it is better to create a spear and spear a fish than to catch one with bare hands or eat only berries. a tool is only an object without a user.
2 monuments
we adapt our self to the environment by creating a replica, a decoy. death may happen to us but not to our tombstone. we attempt to create our self in a way that will endure the environment inhabited. a monument is only an object without a user.
3 life
life involves a division from the creator. a cybernetic creation which can operate on its own. a creation of another being.
4 change
change has no purpose. change is production without a creator. change is entropy.
5 destruction
destruction produces a change of state through entropy. the ‘destruction’ of a building produces a reconfiguration of space. the elements remain. ‘destruction’ by fire is a consumption which changes the elements involved. it changes the chemical composition. but with the production and collision of anti-matter with matter. absence is produced. space is immediately claimed and redistributed though entropy. as when we destroy a vacuum. as with death. (not your own death – we can never know this – but others death)
6 search
if we assume solipsism, this is the greatest (and only) mode of production. the production of what was not previously there.
1 tools
the environment is adapted to our desire through a conscious design. as with all modes of production, this forces a reciprocal action, a reaction. we still must adapt our self in order to create and use the tool. we must adapt to the new environment we have created. tools reason for production is a belief in economy – a belief that it is better to create a spear and spear a fish than to catch one with bare hands or eat only berries. a tool is only an object without a user.
2 monuments
we adapt our self to the environment by creating a replica, a decoy. death may happen to us but not to our tombstone. we attempt to create our self in a way that will endure the environment inhabited. a monument is only an object without a user.
3 life
life involves a division from the creator. a cybernetic creation which can operate on its own. a creation of another being.
4 change
change has no purpose. change is production without a creator. change is entropy.
5 destruction
destruction produces a change of state through entropy. the ‘destruction’ of a building produces a reconfiguration of space. the elements remain. ‘destruction’ by fire is a consumption which changes the elements involved. it changes the chemical composition. but with the production and collision of anti-matter with matter. absence is produced. space is immediately claimed and redistributed though entropy. as when we destroy a vacuum. as with death. (not your own death – we can never know this – but others death)
6 search
if we assume solipsism, this is the greatest (and only) mode of production. the production of what was not previously there.
creation
but all of this is taken from within the limits. from within the consumptive inclusion. from within the dream of freeing man’s soul from his body. a self which modifies its environment to suit. man creates a duplicate, a vessel, and becomes that vessel. self replication. chance is contained in a controlled box. creation is tied to an author, to change, to evolution through real-time simulation to avoid immediate death by obsolescence. in other words, the creation is not independent from our thoughts about it. the creation has no life of its own. it is meant to be a vehicle for our self and is inseparable from our self.
and from without…. a meaningless void. a flicker on the screen. abstention. creations are only appearances disappearing. a language consuming itself. an implosion.
traditionally, creation was the production and product of difference. the difference between male and female. the difference between genetic code. adaptation was a product of chance and diversity. now chance and diversity are things which we preserve. there used to be a cellular division. a life separate from the original. a creation no longer dependent on our thoughts about it. now there is only cellular synthesis. now creation is impossible.
it is the image of our self which kills our self. we attempt to transplant our mortal self into an immortal image of our self through the work of creation. we attempt to bypass difference. to overcome the separate life of the creation. to become our son. to clone. while physically the son is a continuation of the father with the interaction of the difference of the mother, the consciousness is not. physically, if we procreate, we can not help but to exponentially diminish. life is given through a synthesis of difference, and ultimately, division from the mother. this is the problem of man’s attempt to attain immortality: to create an image which does not change is to create an image which is dead; to create an image which does change is to create an image which diminishes (through reinterpretation, recombination, implosion, etc.). in other words, we either create a body or a soul.
in order to maintain our self, the self must be continuous. we must transfer our self into our creation without losing the stream of consciousness. we are limited in the amount of change we can sustain while maintaining our self by the limits of the material which defines the self, by the definition of self, by the language or genetic code which makes up self. can we transfer our self to our creation if the creation is separate from our self? if the creation is not separate from our self then is it a creation? the attempt is to make a creation which is not separate from our self. and to do this is impossible. although we can make a mirror image of our self, without the self to look into the mirror there is no self. the entire construct of language which we believe to be a preservation of the self, only exists as a reinterpretation, a recombination in the physical bodies of others. (the death of the author). a text exists only as a body, a meaningless object, without another living creation for it to recombine with. from outside language there is no language. from outside the body there is no body. but more than that: from outside the body there is no language. from outside language there is no body. without a body, without a limit, without a definition, there is nothing. everything is assimilated, synthesized, imploded. language is the communication between differences. without differences, without embodiment, without others, language is useless. without language, without a definition of our limits, of our difference, our body would not be separate from the world. there would be no understanding of an individual life, of a body – a limit perceived only through language.
and from without…. a meaningless void. a flicker on the screen. abstention. creations are only appearances disappearing. a language consuming itself. an implosion.
traditionally, creation was the production and product of difference. the difference between male and female. the difference between genetic code. adaptation was a product of chance and diversity. now chance and diversity are things which we preserve. there used to be a cellular division. a life separate from the original. a creation no longer dependent on our thoughts about it. now there is only cellular synthesis. now creation is impossible.
it is the image of our self which kills our self. we attempt to transplant our mortal self into an immortal image of our self through the work of creation. we attempt to bypass difference. to overcome the separate life of the creation. to become our son. to clone. while physically the son is a continuation of the father with the interaction of the difference of the mother, the consciousness is not. physically, if we procreate, we can not help but to exponentially diminish. life is given through a synthesis of difference, and ultimately, division from the mother. this is the problem of man’s attempt to attain immortality: to create an image which does not change is to create an image which is dead; to create an image which does change is to create an image which diminishes (through reinterpretation, recombination, implosion, etc.). in other words, we either create a body or a soul.
in order to maintain our self, the self must be continuous. we must transfer our self into our creation without losing the stream of consciousness. we are limited in the amount of change we can sustain while maintaining our self by the limits of the material which defines the self, by the definition of self, by the language or genetic code which makes up self. can we transfer our self to our creation if the creation is separate from our self? if the creation is not separate from our self then is it a creation? the attempt is to make a creation which is not separate from our self. and to do this is impossible. although we can make a mirror image of our self, without the self to look into the mirror there is no self. the entire construct of language which we believe to be a preservation of the self, only exists as a reinterpretation, a recombination in the physical bodies of others. (the death of the author). a text exists only as a body, a meaningless object, without another living creation for it to recombine with. from outside language there is no language. from outside the body there is no body. but more than that: from outside the body there is no language. from outside language there is no body. without a body, without a limit, without a definition, there is nothing. everything is assimilated, synthesized, imploded. language is the communication between differences. without differences, without embodiment, without others, language is useless. without language, without a definition of our limits, of our difference, our body would not be separate from the world. there would be no understanding of an individual life, of a body – a limit perceived only through language.
endless wanderers in a conquered land. victors in a field of rubble and ruins. images of our selves on the screens. the victory is replayed daily, a continuous vision of our life as we live it in perfection. this is society: a video screen in the window playing back the images of mall hall wanderers, hoping to entice them with them selves. what is for sale here? what is it that you see in the window? the consumer is invited to consume his self. this is what we are left with, in a barren land after the nuclear war is won – starvation or cannibalism. a vast expanse or a sucking of our thumbs. this is how the world ends: hungry consumers, bloated with the empty sugary treats of entire societies picked clean, turn to consume them selves. a fusion, an implosion, a continual inclusion, a black hole of language, of hunger, of self.
this is what i want to ask all of you with camcorders and tripods recording your self eating on picnic tables: when will you watch the video? like the dumb stare of realization when you recognized your self in that mall television screen. like catching your self in the mirror. now what? an empty plate… fork in our left hand, knife in our right poised and ready we sit down to stare straight ahead to the camera and video images of our self. stupid animals stop stunned shocked and stare. frozen by our reflection. now the transfomation is complete. now we are the statues. now we are the shadows. catatonic viewers of a life once lived. when will you watch the video? when will you be so hungry with nothing left to eat? a great salesman makes you think you are ripping him off. when we fool death by replaying life, it is death that we become.
so now what? that’s pretty neat how you can stare at your self in a mirror but now what? are you going to examine your self forever? are you ever going to quit sucking your thumb?
now what? a room full of mirrors. a sky with moving stars that reflect back to us electrromagnetic signals we sent. we can wander and be watched.
i don’t take the interstate anymore. i don’t carry a camera. sometimes, i’ll admit, i look at the map. up along the coast there are lots of shops where women with scarves buy each other’s relics of them selves. men wear knit shirts and tow boats or listen to classic rock in their convertibles. there are parks with trails and downtowns with fudge and ice cream. it is all a movie screen, a giant theme.
but this is what i suggest… that we take on a physical offensive. that not only will we be satisfied not to read in between the lines. but satisfied not to read. that we cut through it all by treating it physically. but how can we see without reading. how can we look at words as patterns rather than symbols. how can we stop the chain reaction forced on us constantly through advertisement. by abandoning meaning. by refusing the strings of power with which media giants increase their glutonny. by a physical interpretation of the medium. by feeling braile without knowing its meaning. by removing brand names and authors and product images. by an open mind of perception of images. by treating the message as the medium – as its physical counterpart. someone scaled the sears tower the other day. this was an attack on its meaning, function and purpose. that is, it was approached with a fresh mind which saw it for what it was – a physical structure. and of course the guy that climbed it was instantly consumed by the media. and he was ready.. he already had his advertising sponsors paying him. his agent told him when to say that he would be doing no more interviews without being paid. he was immediately arrested charge with trespassing. the attack was turned into a media frenzy before it even began. he was immediately consumed as a symbol. the physical attack was turned into a media frenzy by giving it meaning.
“appearances, they, are immortal, invulnerable to the nihilism of meaning or of non-meaning itself…. This is where seduction begins.” (Baudrillard Simulacra and Simulation 164)
this is what we must demand, the right to a physical life without strings. this is how we must act and create. scale the symbols. a barrage of non-meaning. a tactile encounter. creation through discovery, journey, climbing and touching. a braille that we can not read but that we can touch. carry a chainsaw and a torch. cut down the billboards. this is the end of politics, the collapse of its self-consumptive and self-fulfilling promises and meanings. when children play in the fountains because they see it physically, not symbolically. the collpase of the dollar comes when we see it as a piece of paper. beyond belief, we do not even hear the empty threats, we can not even see our own fear, stunned in a mirror. i will swim in the blue. i will suck in the air and breathe it out. i will go forward beyond your petty symbols. i will go forward beyond tricks and mirrors. i will go forward beyond the limts of my self. i will go forward beyond…
this is what i want to ask all of you with camcorders and tripods recording your self eating on picnic tables: when will you watch the video? like the dumb stare of realization when you recognized your self in that mall television screen. like catching your self in the mirror. now what? an empty plate… fork in our left hand, knife in our right poised and ready we sit down to stare straight ahead to the camera and video images of our self. stupid animals stop stunned shocked and stare. frozen by our reflection. now the transfomation is complete. now we are the statues. now we are the shadows. catatonic viewers of a life once lived. when will you watch the video? when will you be so hungry with nothing left to eat? a great salesman makes you think you are ripping him off. when we fool death by replaying life, it is death that we become.
so now what? that’s pretty neat how you can stare at your self in a mirror but now what? are you going to examine your self forever? are you ever going to quit sucking your thumb?
now what? a room full of mirrors. a sky with moving stars that reflect back to us electrromagnetic signals we sent. we can wander and be watched.
i don’t take the interstate anymore. i don’t carry a camera. sometimes, i’ll admit, i look at the map. up along the coast there are lots of shops where women with scarves buy each other’s relics of them selves. men wear knit shirts and tow boats or listen to classic rock in their convertibles. there are parks with trails and downtowns with fudge and ice cream. it is all a movie screen, a giant theme.
but this is what i suggest… that we take on a physical offensive. that not only will we be satisfied not to read in between the lines. but satisfied not to read. that we cut through it all by treating it physically. but how can we see without reading. how can we look at words as patterns rather than symbols. how can we stop the chain reaction forced on us constantly through advertisement. by abandoning meaning. by refusing the strings of power with which media giants increase their glutonny. by a physical interpretation of the medium. by feeling braile without knowing its meaning. by removing brand names and authors and product images. by an open mind of perception of images. by treating the message as the medium – as its physical counterpart. someone scaled the sears tower the other day. this was an attack on its meaning, function and purpose. that is, it was approached with a fresh mind which saw it for what it was – a physical structure. and of course the guy that climbed it was instantly consumed by the media. and he was ready.. he already had his advertising sponsors paying him. his agent told him when to say that he would be doing no more interviews without being paid. he was immediately arrested charge with trespassing. the attack was turned into a media frenzy before it even began. he was immediately consumed as a symbol. the physical attack was turned into a media frenzy by giving it meaning.
“appearances, they, are immortal, invulnerable to the nihilism of meaning or of non-meaning itself…. This is where seduction begins.” (Baudrillard Simulacra and Simulation 164)
this is what we must demand, the right to a physical life without strings. this is how we must act and create. scale the symbols. a barrage of non-meaning. a tactile encounter. creation through discovery, journey, climbing and touching. a braille that we can not read but that we can touch. carry a chainsaw and a torch. cut down the billboards. this is the end of politics, the collapse of its self-consumptive and self-fulfilling promises and meanings. when children play in the fountains because they see it physically, not symbolically. the collpase of the dollar comes when we see it as a piece of paper. beyond belief, we do not even hear the empty threats, we can not even see our own fear, stunned in a mirror. i will swim in the blue. i will suck in the air and breathe it out. i will go forward beyond your petty symbols. i will go forward beyond tricks and mirrors. i will go forward beyond the limts of my self. i will go forward beyond…
some tactics for dodging security cameras. (escape from the panopticon).
know your enemy
1. find and identify all cameras. to know the limit of your enemies knowledge about you. to know when they are looking. destruction of their propaganda and overstated power and surveillance.
subversion – making the tactic useless by attacking the truth the tactic is based upon. a slow and subtle undermining through continually testing and expanding and changing the limits.
2. blend in. look like everyone else.
3. disguise. look like someone else.
4. decoy. create a replica of your self that will be watched.
5. mirrors. lots of them. (maybe some video screens too.)
6. use tactics which cannot be recorded, detected. stealth.
7. anonymity. everyone wears masks so that no one knows who anyone is. identifiers would remain outside the realm of recordable media (sound if there is no sound recording, smell, etc.) the media will quickly expand to include these identifiers. abandon identifiers. (means abandoning self)
8. change the environment into one in which detectors no longer work. wear welding helmets and flood the place with so much light the camera can not see.
9. decentralize. use prosthetics, remote controlled vehicles, invisible airwaves and signals. expand the self beyond definition. merge and blend with others so that there are no borders.
10. feed in your own image. splice your info into theirs.
11. act for them. parody. “Surveillance society, which is an imminent reality, must be critiqued and attacked concurrently. Guerilla programming is direct: it is a simultaneous exposure of the oppressive system and subversion of that system to inform the oppressors (and anyone else who may be watching us) of their own ridiculousness and complicity. As theory and practice must occur simultaneously, so must critique and subversion. Guerilla programming is go!” (surveillance camera players)
revoke power
12. directly and openly challenge the validity. this is the next step after subversion. a publicized challenge of the truth upon which surveillance is founded. the partial picture. what occurs outside, before. cameras are not allowed as evidence because of the possibility of subversion. evidence gained from illegal means is not allowed.
13 strike. refuse to partake in anything which includes surveillance. refuse to be surveilled. requires knowing where the surveillance is (#1). after all, they have now power without people.
14. ignore the cameras and the verdict completely.
kill the infrastructure
15. cut the cord. kill the spies. (best if done by many all at once.)
16. cut the power.
17. place mirrors in front of the camera looking back at themselves. maybe some gum on the lens.
take power
18. coup. the stripping of power of those surveilling. disregarding surveillance in an all-out blitz. that which was recorded during the coup is not important because you have taken their power of judgment. very risky, must be sure you will win.
how could i explain
when i looked up into the sky i saw only dust. this was space without possibilities, space defined with no definition. an in-between where mud grew on grass. it was hyper-fear. the buildings denser spaces of an empty space of mud-paved destitution. this is the space of desolation. this is the space inhabited without civilization. humans walking under a sky without humanity. this is a habitat. deserted, hopeless. a space only good for war. controlled and abandoned. without use. like a brick mission in a third world village. like inhabiting an unpaved and deserted lot, where the wrecking ball just fell. and where it soon will fall again.
i had never stepped into it before. i had always drove through, in a bubble with it like a movie on my windshield.
this was not the void, it was devoid of even the void. this was barracks, assembled in a space where space doesn’t matter because it is without possibility, without individuality. it doesn’t matter how the buildings are arranged because the life of the space has been severed. cut off like a culdesac. the space between provides no relief, no difference, because it is the same substance as the buildings. designed by the same designer, controlled by the same controllers. without chance without hope without life. how do you design barracks? it is impossible. they are already designed. there can be no difference between the design and the space and the inhabitants. it is already designed by the placement of its borders, any placement within these borderes is random and without reason and does not matter.
but cabrini does not keep out chance with gates and towers and guards, with minimum lot development prices and resident associations and ordinances, but by starvation. an internal sucking of hope, a devouring of anything of substance or magnitude, which manifests itself only in absence and fear to those at the borders.
this is a hungry space, a bloated stomach.
when i looked up into the sky i saw only dust. this was space without possibilities, space defined with no definition. an in-between where mud grew on grass. it was hyper-fear. the buildings denser spaces of an empty space of mud-paved destitution. this is the space of desolation. this is the space inhabited without civilization. humans walking under a sky without humanity. this is a habitat. deserted, hopeless. a space only good for war. controlled and abandoned. without use. like a brick mission in a third world village. like inhabiting an unpaved and deserted lot, where the wrecking ball just fell. and where it soon will fall again.
i had never stepped into it before. i had always drove through, in a bubble with it like a movie on my windshield.
this was not the void, it was devoid of even the void. this was barracks, assembled in a space where space doesn’t matter because it is without possibility, without individuality. it doesn’t matter how the buildings are arranged because the life of the space has been severed. cut off like a culdesac. the space between provides no relief, no difference, because it is the same substance as the buildings. designed by the same designer, controlled by the same controllers. without chance without hope without life. how do you design barracks? it is impossible. they are already designed. there can be no difference between the design and the space and the inhabitants. it is already designed by the placement of its borders, any placement within these borderes is random and without reason and does not matter.
but cabrini does not keep out chance with gates and towers and guards, with minimum lot development prices and resident associations and ordinances, but by starvation. an internal sucking of hope, a devouring of anything of substance or magnitude, which manifests itself only in absence and fear to those at the borders.
this is a hungry space, a bloated stomach.
- autonomous – not be objectified
if, with user consent, are objectified, user has right to share of profits of his objectification
- anonymity
- consumer information
parent companies must be listed
- advertising
all forms of advertising shall occur only with each viewer’s consent. this includes but is not limited to: banner ads, brand names, billboards, buildings, vehicles
- ownership
all forms of ownership shall be recognized. including but not limited to: non-ownership, public ownership, revolving ownership…
- public good
insurance, medical, etc.
- corporations and ethics
corporations rights are subservient to all human rights. disbanded for reaching cap, unethical practice
- all self-storage warehouses are to be demolished. items of worth to the public good shall be put to that use.
- all landfills are stopped. live in your own filth. b) all trash is to be put in mega-structures for public viewing.
the_scheme
i know that barbie is an easy target, but i think there are larger implications of how we ‘choose’ and ‘design’ as consumers. the way choice is structured in an obvious way here translates to the way choice is structured in more subtle ways in other consumer environments.
what is interesting about the barbie my design site is how choice is presented.
the initial choice, of course, is to go to the barbie my design site.
http://www.barbie.com/mydesign/
here we see the banner “My Design ™ Own a special friend of Barbie (r) doll!” in other words, this doll is not to be confused with the original, ‘real’ ‘genuine’ barbie doll designed in totality by mattel. this doll is at best only a ‘special friend’ of Barbie. and we all know what a ‘special friend’ means in today’s politically correct society – disabled – not capable of that which is seen as the standard.
so let’s click on “start now – personalize a doll for yourself or a friend”
the order in which the choices are made is extremely important. We are first presented with the “look” page. go ahead and try to choose the personality first by clicking on the banner at the top. you can’t. it simply routes you back to the look page. you must choose the main characteristics in the order of importance as prescribed:
1 Look
2 Picture
3 Fashion
4 Personality
5 Your doll
6 Order
on the look page we are presented with the following options: Look (isn’t this redundant – aren’t we already on the look page. i guess it allows them to keep from saying skin or ethnicity) Light, Ivory, Tan, or Brown. (not white or black, or asian or hispanic, these labels imply too many things – also no blue) notice there is to be no blending of colors, no choices in between the categories. so make sure you have cookies enabled on your browser and choose a ‘look’. the look we choose has no implications for our choices further down – this is after all, my design. so why not choose ‘brown’ ‘look’ with ‘fiery red’ ‘hair color’ or ‘black’ ‘hair color’ with ‘light’ ‘look.’ ah, the implications of non-deterministic choice, of a utopic persona based on a conglomeration of the best.
so what are the essentials of look:
look: light, ivory, tan or brown
eyes: blue, green, or brown
lip colors: angel rose, cranberry, very cherry red
hairstyle: bobbed, stylish, pulled back, long wavy
hair color: golden blond, strawberry blond, fiery red, chestnut brown, brown, black
so what is not choosable? first of all, we are limited to a very few choices of the body. a ‘freedom from choice’ which allows the user to keep from being overwhelmed and the manufacturer from having to produce too many variations. we are limited to certain categories of certain features. we can not choose a man, 215 lbs., a shade between ivory and tan, 73 years old, with a walker. we are limited to utopic choices. the choices presented are based on anticipated demand – the choices which children are most likely to find important. we get to choose lip color as opposed to age because a variety of lip colors is more marketable than a variety of ages. there is no need to pick age because mattel has already picked the perfect age. there is no need to pick body shape because mattel has already picked the perfect shape. to preserve an economy of choice certain decisions must be made by the producer, and these choices are made based on what will sell the most.
(so i picked brown look, green eyes, cranberry lip color, long wavy hairstyle, fiery red hair color)
click on continue and we see what our choices look like assembled. if you don’t like it, no big deal, you can go back and choose again.
next is clothing… pretty cool how your design barbie shows up dressed in all the clothing options. you can choose to see a ‘close-up’ of the outfits. this brings up an enlarged window with a description such as:
Pretty Party Dress – Short pink and lavender dress
– Faux fur pink stole
– White opera gloves
– White earrings, hand ring
– Pink pumps and lavender pantyhose
of course, all the choices are western clothing. but again, we are limited to utopic choices. i wanted to forego the accessories (purse, shoes, glasses, etc.), but this is impossible also. you must choose.
the next page is personality. which, from what i can tell, has very little to do with personality. first we get to put in her name and our name. (i chose “Monster” as her name and “Unsuspecting Child” as my name) the rest is presented in a paragraph with pull down boxes. here it becomes even more evident what is not a choice. why the pull down boxes? it is just a print-out. it would have been just as easy to allow the child to input anything into the blank fields like we did with the names. it could have been a wide open paragraph box. but we need the economy of choice, the freedom from choice. Your name? Doll name? Is this a gift for someone else? YOUR DOLL has sparkling green eyes and long wavy fiery red hair. She is wearing her new Pretty Party Dress with extra Blue La La accessories.
Her birthday is in (SELECT ONE, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, November, December).
(no year? then she might get old…)
She lives in (SELECT ONE, a big city, my neighborhood, the mountains, a beach town, a small town, the suburbs, the country, another country, her dorm)
(don’t want to get to specific and limit it to a real city, this absurdity is shown with the option “another country”?! (other than the US of course) )
and spends a lot of time (SELECT ONE, at work, helping people, at school, caring for animals, at the university, designing buildings, working with computers, playing music, at the office, practicing sports, writing novels, at home, working as a model, at the park, running a company, at the gym, building things, at the beach, teaching, riding, playing, at the ranch, making movies, playing basketball, teaching students, at the studio, training as a gymnast, flying airplanes, working).
(training as a gymnast?)
She’s interested in (SELECT ONE, sports, books, politics, fashion, nature, music, math, art, movies, community work, science, boys, computers, geology, animals, astronomy, theater, history, business, psychology, social work, doll design),
(politics… how did that make the list? where is girls?)
loves to (SELECT ONE, read, play the piano, in-line skate, play soccer, dance, collect things, do gymnastics, act in plays, ride her bicycle, paint, collect dolls, help others, surf the Web, go exploring, play basketball, write, work out, sing, design clothes, play softball, play)
(uh….)
and enjoys being with (SELECT ONE, her best friend, her boyfriend, her husband, her sister, her mother, her parents, her father, her brother, her grandfather, her grandmother, her aunt, her uncle, her godmother, her godfather, her stepmother, her stepfather, all her friends, her dog, her cousin, her cat, her teammates, her co-workers, her family).
(SELECT ONE (only))
YOUR DOLL is a special friend of Barbie, personalized by you, YOUR NAME!
(the code for my design is HDF670 if you want to see it)
now you can print it, save it, email it to someone, or order it. the design is saved on their server for a month.
The question starts to nag at you… did I really design this doll? I mean, yes, I did choose among limited specific characteristics from limited categories, but does this constitute design? Do I feel any ownership, authorship, parenthood? I did make the choices among the options presented to me but i did not get to choose the options presented to me. Where is the line between tool and creation? Between producer and designer? At what point can I claim something as my creation? Is this now “my design”?
The answer is given on the first page of the “my design” page in the fine print:
“*All proprietary rights in the design selected by the customer are owned by Mattel, Inc. Purchase of a My Design[tm] product in no way transfers the ownership of any copyrights, trademarks, or other proprietary rights owned by Mattel, Inc. or associated with Barbie® doll product.”
(it is also interesting to note that “My Design” has now been trademarked, so the next time you make such a claim be prepared to anty up to mattel.)
New Page 2
This page uses frames, but your browser doesn’t support them.
the_scheme
in order to deconstruct architecture we must deconstruct its structure. that is, we must subvert the ‘truths’ from which architecture derives its power. architecture objectifies power in a physical, concrete way. it provides the structure for extensions of power. architecture is the manifestation of power in the same way that laws are manifestations of power by politicians. there is no power inherent in a law, in a politician, in an architect, rather they are objectifications of the unseen powers. they are the power meters. and while no power is inherent in the meter, the meter can serve to increase the powers it objectifies by producing ‘truths’, by showing tides, by public polls, by showing the power in an attractive way so that we will desire to give more power. to consume and produce more power. architecture is not simply the claiming of space, but a mechanism through which more space can be claimed. it is the structuring of successive truths.
architecture is about ownership. it is an objectification which allows us to preserve and extend our image of self. it is a conduit of self, of extended ownership and therefore power. it claims a space, an area, a definition. it is the structure of our own ideals and the mechanism for the with which can further define, further claim autonomy and immortality. architecture is division. separation. of our self and surroundings. of life and death. lines drawn in the sand which we believe to be ultimate truths (because of the successive truths). simultaneous with division is always distribution. identified is what is and is not us. what we can an can not control. a thumb-sucking narcissistic self-consumption of our own images and objectifications. it is not death that kills, but the realization of death. and despite our futile attempts at immortal stones, we can not elude death as part of our definition because death is the definition. it is the perceived finitude which is the basis of separation. adam tasted the fruit of knowledge and perceived the limits of himself – death: death is conscious. with every attempt to overcome death we become more of death. this is the journey of life – from the lack of definition, pure action, function, to a self-consumptive death conscious. the conscious stems from death and produces death. it is not the grave, but the tombstone which is our death. to the degree which we attempt to separate our self from death, we assure it by living death. this is architecture, a separation, a finitude which we call our own. a creation with strings. a concrete body onto which we project our rotting soul.
the west wasn’t won, it was owned.
truth: all land is owned.
this is the first subversion i propose: to buy an acre or two of land somewhere in the united states and to then give it away – to no one. land without an owner. and i wouldn’t tell anyone where this land is located, only that it exists. there would be no borders (no definitions). to know that somewhere in the united states there are a couple of acres of non-owned land would change the entire idea of space. is it possible to revoke ownership? to claim that a piece of land is not owned by anyone? and that anything which is in that realm is therefore also not owned. to remove my name from the deed and simultaneously remove the very deed? a land without ownership would be a land of anarchy. a land without a god. would we be able to identify our self as separate from the space surrounding us? without claiming ownership? could we find our way out?
the legal proceedings would be intense and most likely, impossible. no one owns it (including the government) so no one could tax it. but more than that, our society is structured in such a way that we can not even conceptualize non-ownership, it is not an option. in the system of binaries, non-ownership must exist, but it exists under the condition that while i do not own it, someone else does. it is as hard to imagine non-ownership as it is to imagine space – the space beyond the atmosphere that is nothing. (that which carries no sound, that which has no air.) it is difficult to imagine nothing. (although it makes up the largest percentage of the world we live in). non-owned land – it would be ‘useless’ space – by our definition. people might like to call it everyone’s space – but that is only because they can not conceive of non-ownership, of negative ownership. while space owned by everyone might have the same effect as space owned by no one, it is in no way the same. to have space owned by no one is to subvert the idea that all space is owned. it subverts the ideas of ownership by providing a stable constant alternative – non-ownership. what would be built in a space devoid of ownership? why would anyone waste there time building anything there? if someone did build something there could you call it architecture?
how high does ownership go anyway? you have rights to the bottom couple hundred of feet of atmosphere, the earth’s surface, and, i assume, a pie shaped wedge of earth clear to the earths core. above that the government has rights through various agencies to fly planes and what not through your pie shaped wedge. somewhere up there though, there is still some unclaimed space. unless you imagine your ownership as that pie shaped wedge extending infinitely upwards and outwards, a dynamically changing claim since the earth spins and moves. you might have just owned a star for a millisecond. (what if it was moveable non-owned space, like a negative vehicle, a dynamic bubble of non-ownership, a void of ownership.) how can you tax land which no one owns. the entire united states territory was claimed and doled out for free (basically) because the idea of non-ownership does not, can not, interface with the structure of our philosophy, economy and government. the government claimed, ‘bought’ all the land and then doled it out to citizens. the native americans did not understand ownership, how someone could own land. (if anything, the land owns you. the sheep farmers shared grazing lands until it was ordered that it all be owned and fenced. why? so that it could be objectified and taxed. ownership is the basis of all power obtained through objectification.) the trick was not getting the native americans to sell manhattan for a string of beads – the trick was telling them they owned it in the first place. (objectifying the land into something which could be owned, and therefore, taken).
the_scheme.archive_links
the_scheme.archive_links
*get the scheme e-mailed to you daily (e-mail super89@bigfoot.com with “subscribe” as the subject line)
*get the scheme e-mailed to you daily (e-mail super89@bigfoot.com with “subscribe” as the subject line)
the_scheme.issue_00010000.8_02_99
the_scheme.issue_00001111.7_30_99
the_scheme.issue_00001110.7_29_99
the_scheme.issue_00001101.7_28_99
the_scheme.issue_00001100.7_27_99
the_scheme.issue_00001011.7_26_99
the_scheme.issue_00001010.7_23_99
the_scheme.issue_00001001.7_22_99
the_scheme.issue_00001000.7_21_99
the_scheme.issue_00000111.7_20_99
the_scheme.issue_00000110.7_19_99
the_scheme.issue_00000101.7_16_99
the_scheme.issue_00000100.7_15_99
the_scheme.issue_00000011.7_14_99
the_scheme.issue_00000010.7_13_99
the_scheme.issue_00000001.7_12_99
return to objectification