If everything is linked to bathroom. Kitchen is preparation for bathroom. Street as a shared toilet and bathing in dirt. Movements, sweating, temperatures are constant body excrements maketrs. The body as an organic toilet, etc.
If everything is a loaf of bread linked. If everything is always inside a container. If everything is linked to a sound of MOO. eg – No is 1.5 steps removed from MOO. Too is 7 times removed from MOO, and so on. If everything is some kind of a radiator:
Colours radiate the vibrations of pigments. Pills radiate the purposes they suppose to help/heal/cure. Sugar radiate sweetness. Airplanes radiate quick and expensive long distance travel/movement. Links radiate connections and combinations of elements. etc..
Here we get into streeeeeeeeeeeeeetching practices, no?
How far can I take Bathroom/radiator/moo/etc. – to blanket cover other stuff. Is this not some sort of an ideology? Using a preconceived notion of X to account for stuff it might not be – all in the altar of linking? All for the god of linking? All for the road of free and fearless imagination. All for the view that if a bread loaf is a keyboard, then keyboard is as essential for this typing – even metaphorically – as the bread-loaf for human lives.
All in the name of everything is a bit authoritarian no?
However there is a very interesting – some might say powerful – perhaps i should say pervasive argument for the stretching of concepts, ideas, things, metaphors, etc – they seem to correspond with some ways we tend to imagine and sometimes think but more often perceive – X as being a bit Like Y. Then the link between the known X and the lesser known Y might make sense and help accommodating Y. Or that X is stuff we fancy learning and taking to its limits. Or that X is done as Y for the sake of imagining itself.
This seems a bit dishonest to me. Or maybe not dishonest but poor in thoughts and consideration? Perhaps a combo of both? Probably some other elements? Anyway, the reason for that critique is that when I stretch stuff – unless it is to break the stretched stuff – eg when and how everything can not actually be a circle – then am using elements that allow stuff to Be stretched. eg when everything is on a razor-blade tilting endlessly from side to side while keeping on an edge that is death itself – am using elements that ALLOW X to be stretched. Am applying Power to the element s that allo w Xtobe Stretch ed and fix the m. I s ay the X can b e y b c a u s e i i m a g i n i t t o b e s o – and thatimaginationisveryimportant.anditakechargeover thatimagination. andthat ispowerno? taking the energy of X – be it stretching of stuff – and Using it. Applying the energy. We have evenrgy of electricity and we apply, use power that directs that energy to turn on a device. no? no? no?
Perhaps if we want to link freely between elements, rather thsn stretching and producing a culture of mini ideologies – seeing x from the view of y – it is possible to get into the link-able? The stuff shared that al;lows linking while keeping x being a Being of x rather than Y?
A certain sequence – 123 is a hundred and twenty three. The numbers though,can be used in 1,2,3 – while keeping their own identity in both cases. In that sense these can be done because numbers, unline coffee – are links in themselves. Letters are links too no?
Perhaps placing stuff on its Linking links frequency allows linking while not stretching?
or is thi a stretch of links and linking?
Today I noticed this MIT robotics development:
It seems to have roused a few diverse opinions and views around the interwebs. Have not however read an artistic/art perception..
In the video, I was interested by the explanation that due to the shape – cube – the robot can adapt and adjust to various tasks. (rather than being designed for a specific task performance..)
This got me wondering in various directions.. From the rather silly, punIsh link between robot cubes and cubism, through to search art and genes and epigenetics… In art we have this question of something Being a unified entity of what and how it is with how and what it is representing. I think its a rather old and traditional view.. I think it fails in terms of time – eg rhythms and when X is… I think it fails because it focuses on objects, X.. I think it fails because it is ontologically self contradictory:
If X is not a mere allegory/representation of what it is – or something else – then the very fact the approach is applied into painting as to genetics, as to performance as to films, as to sound, as to digital, and so on: can be questioned along the lines of – is painting’s Being the same as that of Performance, the same as object curation, and so on..?
The obvious reply would be “Yes – if all these are to Be/Live as art rather than other stuff”.
However, that seems like an approach that is both restricting and restrictive – as well as judgemental by focusing on art Object making. Now..
It MIGHT be – and am not arguing here otherwise – that object making as art, does necessitate the fetishising unification of form & function. However, if we shift art’s focus from object making, from projects, from objective achieving, from end result focusment to practices, processes and imaginations of searching – then perhaps, the very fact that these do not deal with ends but with beginnings, with being applicable, adaptable, transient in space-time, rhythms and cultural imaginations. Perhaps because of these interests of art that are more network(??) based than binary(??) – maybe these kind of transing being require a new kind of sensitivities in art. Sensitivities that go beyond the restrictiveness of form function unification – fetishisation, imho..
Which now brings me, appologies the round about rout, to the cube robots..
When I heard the statement regarding cubes and adaptability, I thought Yes, a bit like dna, like numbers, like atoms – very simple elements that can be adapted to all sorts.. However, just like cubism proves visually that applying a certain view blanketing everything, makes anything without significance at certain points, times and other intersections, so does the cube as an adaptable form.. A form with a specific function – to adapt – which hiding multiple functions inside it that allow this very outwardly adaptability.. The Being of the object is different to its being.. It shifts the gaze of the mask from masking as a practice..
However, that is precisely because am talking here about the Object-Cube – not the art.. Not the imagination search practice of which the adaptable cube robot – is just an instant.. A cultural collector might value A QUINT ESSENTIAL REPRESENTATION of that imagination search practice.. Perhaps as a cube that is both its form and function rather than a mask.. However, such unification, such essentialisation, is it not really a fetishisation of an object that masks the search of a particular imagination..?