tories cruelty and cultural DNA?

When a DNA might be metaphorical, perhaps its a repetition of acts of same type. When the tories of 90’s kept and justified keeping a prisoner in chains while she was giving birth, people got a bit upset realised the conservatives are a nasty party.
A rather more contemporary version is cruelty to the Outsider? Hence remaining with other people’s bodies and their health, we get a tory government that fancies charging people in A n E. Say a tourist comes on holiday and has a sudden heart attack, are they going to be left in the streets if they didn’t have money of travel insurance? (actually some of my american based friends told me that they do not do travel insurance.. they were not sure why..) Which Dr will refuse a treatment to save a life based on in-ability to pay?
OK.. Lets say they’ll make it so you get treated any how, but a hefty bill will follow you.
What will happen with people who happen to visit here, but can not afford UK prices?

Another question is indeed a Kafkaesqu one, when arbitrary events occur with no need, when a culture of distance between a feeling of need, wishes and actual activities is developed, when an instinct to help another has to be surpassed by a legalised act that makes no sense – these are 1st tested with outsiders. Then the social outsiders – and progressively, the act will reach each and every one in the social body. That is when X is being accused of something no one knows?

theoretical #art as in practice?

Theory, in my view, tends to be jailed in some minds within a dualistic frame.
Theory and practice.
We might produce a theory of a given subject X, and then supposed to “prove” the theory in practice. Say a theory of X might be:
X used to be Z, it is in time Z + N, therefore the theory predicts that in the future we want to look at how Z + N evolve.
Here we go, a theory that requires a practice to Be a theory.
In Art, we have Theories of Art. How to produce stuff that might be called “art”, How to be an artist, and How art might actually Be, err, art.

Continue reading “theoretical #art as in practice?”

capitalisatioN and Occupation links?

There seem to be a tentative possible link between capitalisation and occupation in the sense of control, seizure possession and extraction of “values”.

Occupation as a seizure of time/land and using that to control the property that one got a hold of? I think there is an implicit violence in the act of getting the time/land/object property. ie either by taking the element from some other people, and/or an attempt to ensure some other people will not get a hand on that element. Say we have free internet for all, if that is Occupied by society, it might follow that people will fancy dis-allowing Other bodies to develop a paid-for internet.
When not occupied by society, eg the NHS, we can get the ability of other elements to develop health provision outside the NHS. However, what some of these non-0NHS elements claim is that there is a certain biase to favour NHS. As is the case of claims against BBC.
Perhaps interesting to note that “justifications” for NHS bias tend to be Majoriatarian rather than goods provision. ie that NHS, because its used by most people, should get a special status that might not be afforded to services used by less people.
I think this is a poor argument because it fails to operate in time. ie what would have happened if NHS was used by a minority?
In my mind, a better pro NHS argument is that unlike other, competitive systems and practices in health provision, NHS do9es not in fact preclude other systems, in fact, it allows the emergence of other. For example, NHS trained Drs might go to private – we do not say that if we spent X pounds to train a Dr, they can not go to the private sector. Nor do we say that because the NHS might not treat certain conditions, people should not go private if they also use NHS.
However, perhaps the NHS could be more flexibility and evolve towards being a provision that allows more diverse health services. Some of which might be out of capitalism too?

Capitalisation as a seizure of opportunity for gaining some profits, advantages?
Again, I think the terms seizure as a link between capitalisation and occupation? Obviously this does not make the 2 the same. However, perhaps linked in a stream of similarities?
In capitalisation there is an implicit element of control. To gain some profit or an advantage out of a given chance/opportunity – perhaps we need a degree of ability to do something we rather fancy with that opening? It might imply a temporary control, and does not necessitate getting an ownership – as perhaps occupation requires – however, there is a Kind of either temporary, and/or sense of ownership claim.
e.g. A patent – either by copy or “legal” usage, one might capitalise – take advantage – via various kinds of ownership claims?
What of capitalising on a “gap in the market”? One doesn’t claim to Own the gap. However, a person hopes to have enough control of the perceived gap for extracting price out of people who might find themselves in that “gap”.

In these senses, I think there might be links that could be placed together into streams that come from occupation and capitalisation.
{if (OC^timeness)^(CAPtiomeness) ?}
{if (OCtimeness^private)(CAP)^(CAPsociality) ? }
{ if (CAPSociality)^(Privacy) ?}
{if (Privacy^desireness)^(CAP) ? }
{if (CAPprivacyDesireness)(Privacy) ? }

lego #art and no-go all gone?

Lego refused selling some of its bricks to ai weiwei saying the rather not get linked with politics? (Or perhaps the meant politics critical of china?
So some people who already have some of the lego bricks, decided to donate their bricks to ai.

When people decide to boycott lego’s products, do they not make the company’s decision an instant political one? Even if the company didn’t intend, by attempting to avoid a potential confrontation with the chinese dictatorship, they made a political move. No?

Another question is which materials ai will use in his objects. Will he use donated lego pieces? How will the materials’ story, narratives might affect the object/s?

In a sense, perhaps there is a possible interesting twist here, in my view. The donated brick seem a bit like elements made by individual entities within larger art-linked objects such as:
http://www.apexart.org/exhibitions/grover.htm
http://www.thesheepmarket.com/
http://www.millionmasterpiece.com/
http://www.whiteglovetracking.com/

Sure, the lego stamped bricks are physical plastics, however once donated, the overall object/s that might place them together in a certain, time, shape and context – could be said to not Be unless the donations occurred. In that sense, perhaps its a bit like that too:
http://www.thejohnnycashproject.com/
and
http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=708 (??)

Perhaps the other question is also one of ownership? Ai Weiwei is a a part and parcel of the commerce oriented artworld. Perhaps this might rather fancy placing a price on the lego bricked objects? If there is a price, how much should each donor should receive?
If ai bought the pieces, then each such brick would have been “his”. These elements, having been donated, have become the things as had they were bought? Say the art-linked objects would sell for a few millions, will it be fair towards the donors? Say the art-linked objects didn’t sell, however increased the price of Other ai art-linked stuff – should donors not be enumerated? Or given some quantitative recognition?

What happens in the transitions between quantitative and qualitative sensations? Perhaps something is missing here? If am thinking or 2 that seem oppositeIsh one another, am probably likely to have missed something. No?

#art, football and free source?

Last night some footie supporters seem to have pinned something I couldn’t, in a very few words and communicable way:
“£64 a ticket, but without fans, football is not worth a penny”.

Could this not be:
“£X an art? without audiences, art does not worth a penny.”
or
“£x for a social-network/search-engine’s etc. shares? Without users, social-network/search-engine is worthless.”
or
Continue reading “#art, football and free source?”

the infinity of not counting?

In my simple and/or simplistic mind, the sign of infinity denotes “that which we can not count”. In the infinitite set of odd numbers 1,3,5,7,9,11,13 etc – we can always add another number. Hence can not count all the numbers. The set might have the same number of elements as the even correspondant, however both infinite sets are uncountable in terms of Overall elements.
I take this as infinity’s seeming tight link of perhaps being time rather than space – however that might be some other discussion.
Back to counting.
In terms of uncountable, I take it there are at least 2 kinds of uncountables, that of the natural numbers and another of the real numbers.

In a sense, when checking numerical infinities, or checking infinities from a numerical point of view, we get a practice, or a process, of being non-countable. The countability in that sense is only a snapshot of time. If we count to 10 and pick up 8 as a relevant number for 4 + 4 = ? then we have a snapshot of time. We say the 8 in the continuum of even numbers is what we are interested at the moment.
At the moment is the clue for the time snapshot. A freezing in time.

Then we have another view of this. If indeed we are talking of time snapshots, then perhaps infinity or infinities are the elements that tend to be refred to as qualities rather than quanitities?

The quality is more personal, un countable. The 1st kiss, the last dance, the smile from your child, the feel of the wind, the scent of a lover, the redness of blue no one else has ever seen, the vibration of an intriguing thought, the need for desire, the pain of a realisation, the loss of time, etc. – we can do snapshots of these and Monetise. However, the monetisation of friendships, of time, of ReProducing a sense, or a memory of a sense – are precisely snapshots – not that which is indeed of the quality itself.

In that way, we might not actually have an easy way to share qualities. Not other than music notations, or indeed, words. However these are Communicative and hence guard-able ways for sharing. These are not ways from sharing need. Ways that might or might not communicate – but share none the less.

Going back to infinities, it seems to me, when considering the infinite sets of infinities and that these are non countable – that the nearest I can get to these in terms of senses which are not countable too – is via the vastness of qualities we can point out at. Indeed the times and practices we develop – as other animals – to do the qualities.
Therefore I seem to link between qualities and infinities. They are linked by being Uncountable. This might be a bit of an exaggeration though. A bit of a stretch. Because despite being in time, and uncountable, they are also different notions.
For example, the qualities we do, we are also happy to count, or to try and turn into countable snapshots. I do not not know that infinities like doing that, or that they lend themselves for that.
If there is a price on one’s sense of self worth, a price that might be a showing off by buying some latest tech gadget, or a price on friendships by telling facebook/google/tweeter/etc. one’s linked desires – then perhaps organic oriented qualities are not as infinite as the set of real numbers?

On the other hand, the set of real numbers does allow itself to have snapshots. It doesn’t break. we can take 0.000898978 + 0.9991 and do stuff with it right? Take it out of its infinite process and calculate X or Y. Does it mean all that set becomes uncountable?
If the snapshot of the infinite sense of morning sounds is X amount of coins – does it mean All the infinity of sensing morning sounds is the same X amount of coins too?

numbers and fetishes?

Suppose this here is not number 1, and this number – 3 – isn’t really the number three. Lets suppose the world we lived in said that in order for us to be able and count “1”, we needed to go to a particular place and look at a specific rock in the shape of 1.
In that world, if we did 1 + 1, it would have never been a real addition of 1 and 1 numbers. It would, at the most, be perhaps permitted as a sort of leniency?

Suppose in that number object oriented fetish world, the number “2” would never be three unless it was in a particular temple/building where the “holly 3” is kept by some monks.
Perhaps, every time we used the number “3”, as in 3 – 1, a donation might be required to be paid as a way to keep up the holly “3” we have just imitated instead of going to visit?

In terms of the obvious analogy, artists have been trying to “deal” with these question a fair amount of time, times and occasions.
However, I think art has been unable to free its objects from being fetishised. That is, in my view, because the very current perception of that which is art, is equivalent to that which becomes art via fetishisation. The comodity, the mass produced, the digital copy, the idea, the process, the project might be “Art” when it is within a fetish process.
the fetishisation might be linking to art world value like money, or a signature of a person designated as an “artist”, a linking of the project with some history that is already taken as culturally fetishisable, or indeed a performance of processes which might “elevate” results of that process – which might even be a documentation – to stuff which is beyond the functional, a production of difference between the life of surviving and that of dysfunctional and culturally interesting.

IOn some ways, I think, the materiality of numbers, or indeed other abstracts, escapes these limitations places on art in the name of creativity.
It seems that specific writings, for example, mathematical, or logical, manuscripts might be fetishised. However, the numbers used, or the formula arrived at, can be easily used, questioned, and created with. e.g. say the general relativity theory manuscripts.

In this way perhaps there are some links with questions to do with quotes of writers, or usage of musical notes?

I do not know.

Its seems to me that perhaps the difference between a sequence of numbers such as 1313133, a calculation such as 13+13-133, and the sequence of notes like: agdb#, or a line as: “The rollergum’s doom came as a cheer.” – is that the last 2 examples’ materiality was not kept for its ability to be copied, re-used, abused, interrogated and created with. The last 2 examples were kept because a monetary value fetish could be attached.

There used to be a time in europe when mathematical formulas were indeed, like musical lines and objects, and word sequences, kept under wraps of secrecy.
Are we not all a bit much richer for the fact mathematics freed itself from that need to fetishise parts of it linguistic materiality?

infinity in manifestational art?

Its curious that when writing about some visual objects in this blog, morethanjustwine talks of “effects” of infinity. In other words, perhaps only my own whims, effects are manifestations – in these cases about ideas of infinities rather than Being artistic – or possible artistic – infinities.

Such manifestations are bound by specific objects, eg paintings, because they are Manifestational. By Manifestationalism am trying to point towards reliance on meanings, specific conveyance operations and effects. An operation that is directed towards making an effect of perceptual nature that is linked to cultural meanings of infinity.
That is very transcendental, no?

In that case, the simple idea of an infinity of Reals, and an infinity of Primes, etc. seems for me much more profound. I can visualize these, manifest them this way or another, share them as numbers sets, and write some algorithms with these in mind, etc.
All these precisely because a set such as 0,1,2,3,5,7,11,13, etc – does not need the specifity and the investment of, for example, a blue canvass, or a blue room and such.

However, why do we need to be bound by math?
Do we need to be bound by numbers for abstracts?
Can We not have illogical, dys-numerical, value oriented ways to do, for example, infinities? An infinite time? An infinite rhythm – These not as clocks or beats on drums to represent some ideas, but made of abstracts that can be in itself manipulated and – if fancied – to be expressed?

un-graffiti and a small measurement of truth?

In a tv show/spectacle called “homeland”(??), some people were asked to do stuff that Looks like graffiti, so that scenes will look “authentic”.
One, or a few, of these people being asked to add the authentic feel, decided to tell a bit of a possible truth about the show, marking it as a racist spectacle.
Does this inner truth expression make the graffiti marks authentic?
Graffiti marking, image making, is a part of an operation, a practice that includes, in my view, an appropriation of in-appropriated public space. The act of marking in that area questions the sense of public as a part of being a graffiti rather than a mural, or other kinds of images and markings in the public space.
I also think that the challenge of communal ownership in the act of graffiti making, marks the activity as having its own character.
For example, in Brighton, the council allows certain image makers to do graffiti looking-like imagery in particular spots. They call it graffiti, and use it to sell Brighton as having a certain vibe of freedom in public spaces. A vibe Brighton actually does not have. A bit like a Disney “land” the publicly available areas are predesignated to preconceived activities. Hence these times of being in public are controlled and based on power rather than imagination and freedom to wonder from the known into the possible failure.

With the above in mind, am questioning the truth telling in the markings on the tv show. Sure, its an interesting hack based on the very premise of racism because if it was written in a language understood by the homeland show controllers, they might have marked it off. Perhaps the fact they didn’t bother to check what was written, is a certain prejudice towards the kind of statements an arabic writer might come up with?

Perhaps it might be interesting in this example to check the interplay between hacking and graffiti?

real rappers’ delight?

This rapper dude got shot(ish) in the head.
Next thing, he goes selfie and deliriously telling his phone that he’s a real rapper now…

I think its interesting that despite the blood, some obvious shok and perhaps some pain as well, its not the music that makes him – in his view – a real rapper. Its an occasion in time. Perhaps a getting shot fetish, but def something that is not musical, not aural in its aesthetics – but mental. A mental sensation.

As if Chris Burden had a bit of a shooting prophesy..?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE5u3ThYyl4

However, if indeed we are talking about aesthetics in mind – do we really need to get shot for that sensation, or the very shooting is in itself imaterial because for mental oriented aesthetics, we need something of the mind – else the activity performs for the mind rather than being from it?