will, wills, way, willies, performance, performativities and perhaps

lights? walls? solutions? waves? grass? new-beginnings?

OK.. (Should stop that..)

I was taking some food up the stairs and doing some acrobatics to keep the plates, cups, and food in-tact. My brain said to itself “when there is a will – there is a way”..
Lets consider that?

Why is it Will and Way, rather than Will and LIGHT, or solution, or stairs, etc..? I think there is something to do with the Ws. They sound well together and culturally, a way, sounds more like a solution than a Wave or a Wall..
What kind of disturbs me is the possible performativity of “WillWay”.. Because they SOUND/Perform well together, it gives the sense that there MUST be a solution indeed – if I had a REAL will, or something to that effect..

In reality, they have nothing to do with the life they suppose to interact with. They are a performative trick – or are they? Maybe am a bit numb to them? They seem like an object that stops me from Practising actual overcoming of difficulties.. They kind of offer a performance of perception based on the way of the Will.. Maybe at times the will is precisely the hindrance? Maybe at time it has nothing to do with the sequence?

Perhaps there can be a more abstract notion that then can be practices rather than Performed? What exactly will BE the difference between the practice and performance? I think the process of individualisation, of making X your own.. No?

hummm..

If it is so, how will a non performative sequence be like – without it being a reflection of something else, but a practice of its linking and emergent properties..?

why Why WhY whY wHy WHY?

Over the past few days I became increasingly irritated by question to the effect of Why I do stuff I do.
Yesterday I suddenly realised that my irritation was because of my own imagination – how I misread/dis-understood the Why. Up to that realisation/? it felt like the why was demanding a simple answer. X because of Y. I do solar energy cos am concerned about fossil fuels. And I did not want to give replies like: I search imagining how to stop breathing because fish don’t do that! – which, I think, might be disingenuous reply to an honest question.
The thought that hit me yesterday was that perhaps the Why in people’s minds is not a functionality demanding as it seemed in my perception. Perhaps the Why is actually the most understanding and intimately linked to search art practices? Perhaps, just like the why in the questioner’s mind – there is a simple why to do and throw into life – a Why strand – that is the WHy for the practices?

a few thoughts about, err, Media – not The-media

This wordpress software ahs a feature called “media”. What is meant by “media” is added files which contain sounds, images – moving or static – and perhaps texts.
I have a problem with that definition.

Earlier today, I noticed an open call for “experimental media” where all they mean is – i conclude from the fact they want “video” submissions – experiments with moving images.

I have a problem with that as well!

Maybe I am a problematic kind of a guy?

Does it matter? Does it matter who I am?

..or does it matter that, for example, the crack between my floor boards is not seen as “media”? Or that the cream tube, actually the cream in the tube, under my hand – is not “media”. Or even the factness of a cream in a tube under my hand – is not seen as “media” – and so on..

In a sense, “media” is a layer of Share-ability. Either an ensabler for sharing X – or an integral element that makes X shareable. Hence in that kind of thinking:
I skateboard, and then Mediates that via text/image, etc.
I write and share that writing via a network. But the network is not seen as a media in itself, but a medium, a filter.

Now, the stuff the grinds me – the “problem” – is that however sharing occurs, it is a part of a whole. I can not say that writing about skateboarding does not affect skateboarding. However, the pretence that is embedded in the idea of “writing about” – this is About a subject that am disconnected from.
In fact the image/text is part of the Subject, and if it is, surely, why use an instant layer to mediate rather than stuff/process/practice that is a part of the activity? Why create the instant distance of an emperor’s clothes? Why create such a corruption instantly? Surely, there must be simpler ways..?

art cultivation & practice

Art practice reminds or rather links nicely with stuff/practices like painting, acting, singing etc..

Art cultivation, to begin with, sounds like a synonym of practice in that context. However, perhaps in fact, cultivation is more accurate, distinctive and describes how my mind aims @ stuff when talking of practice? (hummm.. i began this post thinking all I’d say is that these terms are one and the same..)

Art practice, as far as I misunderstand it @ the moment, is a certain activity that is being continuously questioned & refined in various ways through doing it. The ways it is being refined are usually to do with the activities own environment, eg how to put paint on stuff, how to surf waves, how to slide on balls, how to tell a story with words, etc.. How to cultivate practices?

Well.. I think it sounds fine – cultivating art practices, for example. Lets take Performance Art. One can say: I practice performance art, which means a reference to a certain range of activities, concerns, histories, questions & perhaps even disciplines. However, if the notion was of cultivating performance art, then the reference would have been to more than the particular actions to do with the practice of doing & producing Performance Art – but with the cultural links, to do with stuff beyond the activity’s immediate time of practice. To do with dissemination, language, links to other practitioners, cultural organisations, etc..

It seems for me that when questioned, in a sense, we can not practice without cultivating. Even the mere “Hey Z, check this new practice I did today, stripe cleaning pavements!” – is a cultivating act because am inserting a possible new term into our culture of language. (Pavement Stripe Cleaning..)

Perhaps these might seem like semantic concerns only. However, I think it might be worth while checking whether the language and the practice of cultivation has its own peculiarities. It seems from this quick checkup, that perhaps cultivation and practice have emergent links with one another, in terms of activity range they refer to which is dependent upon one another. Perhaps this indeed means that they are interchangeable at times and at others very unique?