HTMLGIANT

September 23rd, 2010 / 9:18 pm jereme—

i think the part about the “young man” is the most important part of the quote. shouldn’t leave it out.

“It’s like the young man who has a one night stand with a woman and then waits anxiously by the phone every night for the rest of the week waiting for her to call him”

September 24th, 2010 / 12:03 am deadgod—

An interesting, trenchant taking of the – unhappily, it’s the word – deconstructive position by Christopher. Indulge me a response to some particular moments:

Art is just a one night stand.— Not with Shakespeare, it doesn’t have to be. Not with Sophocles, not with Racine, nor Chekhov. Literary art doesn’t have to be a one-night stand with a hundred writers, a thousand – as many as your fidelity can bear. Literary art is polygamy – “one night stand” is stalker-talk, not lover-talk.

I affirm difference as a general rule.— Excellent paradox. What is ‘different’ from what? Yes, to ask ‘what?’ is to be classically metaphysical, logocentric – to privilege being over becoming. But so, too, is it metaphysically biased to say “difference” – it’s a fine paradox Christopher is deploying, the only way ‘out of’ which – if that’s a priority, which I doubt in the case of Christopher – is by assertion as opposed to argument, overman as opposed to dialectician.

pure trace— Again, that’s the generative inward contradiction. “Trace” of what? – “trace[s]” all the way down? – which is exactly, I think, the assertion of “pure trace”.

All else is culture.— That culture is a self-replicating filter is fine, but to say that all else than “biologically” determining raw material is “culture” is: a) to beg the question of whether all of “culture” isn’t ‘biological’; and b) to rely for argumentative support on “universals” (like “culture”-which-would-entail-all-actual-cultures) that peskily stand over against particular instantiations.

[. . .] might therefore be satisfied by it.— ‘Satisfaction’?! Experimental writers seek to satisfy, or at least acknowledge the satisfaction of, readers?? ‘Satisfaction’ sounds to me like as conventional an artistic and aesthetic norm as one could come up with.

“postmodern” [read: after modern]— I think “modern” isn’t simply ‘roughly contemporary to us’, but rather a configuration of the relationship between tradition and innovation that is always present and intermittently dominant historically. “Postmodern” is similarly always present and intermittently, but only locally (within a community/culture) and far less often, dominant historically.

As a writer, I cannot say anything to anyone; all I can do is produce and present my work.— No matter how authoritatively Christopher would modulate the taking in of his work after he lets go of it, I don’t think he – or anyone – can stop “work” from ‘saying’. The ‘product’ and ‘presentation’ make their universalizing claims out of, and often against, the empire of some particular writer – even a writer stubbornly committed to ‘not saying’.

Finally, it’s cool to vilify Aristotle – “Aristotle” – ; he can take it. But those who haven’t read much Aristotle should be warned that, in the ocean of the Aristotelian corpus, there’s plenty of ‘postmodernity’ – he’s a philosopher who diligently contradicts his own positions in the spirit of loving the truth more than she or he loves privilege.

September 24th, 2010 / 12:30 am jereme—

aristotle died in 322 bc. if humans haven’t evolved thought beyond his system, then we are some stupid motherfuckers.

the onus is on us.

September 24th, 2010 / 1:14 am jereme—

you are one of my favorites. i am glad you are here deadgod.

September 24th, 2010 / 6:32 am Bobby Alter—

mistah higgs, on the off chance that you’re reading this, I was wondering if you could possibly express your take on competence vs. performance RE: your proposed semantic dismantlement?

September 24th, 2010 / 1:31 pm Christopher Higgs—

Hey Jereme!

I’ve been thinking about this distinction you’ve made between the one night stand and masturbation (I love your phrase “catholic masturbation” — it’s all the fun with double the guilt!) and I think the reason why I’d stick with one night stand is that when I encounter a work of art I am encountering an Other — by which I mean the object, not the object as a transmission from its creator, but the object itself. And since this object is not part of me, but yet has the ability to affect me, I feel like an analogy of that relationship needs to include some Other. That’s in terms of being the spectator; in terms of being the creator, I think it’s the difference between writing in my diary (which is masturbatory because it only involves myself) and writing that I share with others, which isn’t masturbatory because it is being shared with others — although as I type this right now i am thinking, “Yeah, but one could masturbate in front of other people” — jeez, it’s 9:00AM and here I am eating oat squares, drinking coffee, and puzzling out sexual analogies. Anyway…

As to your question, “where does the significance lead?” my answer would be that it doesn’t lead anywhere. It is significant because it doesn’t lead anywhere.

Hope this makes sense. At any rate, thanks for commenting. I appreciate it.

September 24th, 2010 / 1:13 pm Christopher Higgs—

Good morning, deadgod,

Here’s an attempt at responding to your queries:

(i) re: “Art is just a one night stand.” –I think you misunderstand the analogy, or else I have done a poor job executing it: the point I was trying to make (I think!) was that there is significance in the absence of significance, the notion that it is enough for art to be art rather than art for the sake of something else In other words, art as an end unto itself — a one night stand; rather than art as something else, as education or entertainment — a more committed relationship. Maybe what you’re trying to say is that it can be both art and education, or both art and entertainment (i.e. being a lover), to which I would disagree on the grounds that what happens in that combinatory move is the devaluing of art by adding responsibility (or utility) to it.

(ii) “I affirm difference as a general rule.” — see: Deleuze, Whitehead, et. al.

(iii) “pure trace” — see: hauntological instantiation, see: the child’s game Telephone, see: simulacra

(iv) “All else is culture.” — you raise the idea of my usage of culture as a universal, to which I would say that it depends on your premise. If, for instance, one were to conceive of culture as molecular rather than molar, as inextricably heterogeneous rather than monolithicly homogeneous, then no, culture would not be universal. This is where I’m coming from with my usage of “culture”. Culture is one word, but it signifies an array of, a multiplicity of, vastly incongruous elements.

(v) “[. . .] might therefore be satisfied by it.” — I have never said that I am against satisfaction. What I have said is that when one encounters experimental literature (i.e. art) one must adjust their requirements for satisfaction. One must become satisfied with a one night stand, rather than a long term relationship.

(vi) “postmodern” [read: after modern] — I was speaking here about the aspect of temporality that infests any notion when affixed with the (post) prefix. I wouldn’t argue with your definition of “modern” — it’s exactly how Baudelaire defines it.

(vii) “As a writer, I cannot say anything to anyone; all I can do is produce and present my work.” –again, what I meant to get at here is a critique of the idea that novels should be thought of in terms of their engagement with the world. I am uninterested in the applicability of works of art. I am uninterested in what art “has to say” about anything. All I care about, as a writer, is exciting the free play of the imagination in the reader; as a reader, all I care about is experiencing the excitation of the freeplay of my imagination. I do not want to communicate an idea when I write, and I do not want to receive ideas when I am reading. No one should care what my art has to say, and no one should think I care what their art has to say.

(viii) I’d be curious to learn about this postmodern side of Aristotle you speak of. In my readings of the Poetics, the Rhetoric, and the Nich. Ethics, at least, there seems to be only scorn for innovation (if that term can be used synonymously with postmodern, which I know is problematic). But so if you could point me to where you find hints (or, especially if you see explicit examples), I would be interested. Aristotle is a major figure in my scholarly research, and I would be grateful to learn of another angle to approach him.

At any rate, I really appreciate your active engagement in my interview. Thanks for taking the time to respond here; that was very cool of you.

Cheers,
Chris

September 24th, 2010 / 1:31 pm Christopher Higgs—

Hey Jereme!

I’ve been thinking about this distinction you’ve made between the one night stand and masturbation (I love your phrase “catholic masturbation” — it’s all the fun with double the guilt!) and I think the reason why I’d stick with one night stand is that when I encounter a work of art I am encountering an Other — by which I mean the object, not the object as a transmission from its creator, but the object itself. And since this object is not part of me, but yet has the ability to affect me, I feel like an analogy of that relationship needs to include some Other. That’s in terms of being the spectator; in terms of being the creator, I think it’s the difference between writing in my diary (which is masturbatory because it only involves myself) and writing that I share with others, which isn’t masturbatory because it is being shared with others — although as I type this right now i am thinking, “Yeah, but one could masturbate in front of other people” — jeez, it’s 9:00AM and here I am eating oat squares, drinking coffee, and puzzling out sexual analogies. Anyway…

As to your question, “where does the significance lead?” my answer would be that it doesn’t lead anywhere. It is significant because it doesn’t lead anywhere.

Hope this makes sense. At any rate, thanks for commenting. I appreciate it.

September 24th, 2010 / 1:35 pm Christopher Higgs—

Hahaha. The brevity of your comment, Lily, really made me chuckle.

ps- the cover of _Unfinished_ looks freaking awesome!!!

September 24th, 2010 / 1:54 pm lily hoang—

thanks, chris. some other time, i will take you up on this debate. i am ill now and decidedly unable to form a coherent thought, much less two or three, much less when you have deleuze etc on yr side. and thanks re: the cover. i’m v happy with it! kisses.

September 24th, 2010 / 6:40 pm Bobby Alter—

yes, sorry. So I think I read your take on meaning as being constricted to the specific form of writing (a distinction perhaps in the derrida sense), in which case your argument against meaning is based solely on the occasion of the reader experiencing the text. Is this how you meant it? When I ask about competence and performance, I suppose it is a double question because I am asking about the writer: i.e., 1) what is the agentive quality of the writer (i.e., often, if we are assuming that text produces meaning when read, we can further assume the validity of the reader’s subjectivity, which raises all those old hat “Author” questions–so what occurs in this relationship when there is NO meaning?) 2) maybe that question might better prepare my original, which questioned the nature of competence (as in, idealized capacity for use of a given language system) and performance (specific usage in a given context) in the ideal you furnish. These terms are admittedly chomskyan (his version of the langue/parole distinction), but they are two natural aspects of language(/symbolic usage) that seem some how problematized (or rather, resolved??) by your critique.

21 Comments

Archives

Meta