From the notebooks - third bit (for now)
A little incongruity can go a long way. The difficulty is when incongruity becomes studied. Something that simulates thinking, some falsification. Mass production always replaces originality. (There is no originality for mass production to replace.)
What do we make of people who come by things through studying them rather than living them? That seems to be the argument against MFA programs. That you “study” there rather than live your way into the art there. Is this a real distinction, or is it a misunderstanding of “study” and “living”? Is one not living while one studies (and all the disruptions that come with living), and is one not studying while one lives (paying attention to what’s happening, learning from it)?
If memory is a text it can be used as a text.
All we’ve done in art is to think of everything from A to B. At times that exhilarates me, at times that depresses me.
In art, what we think follows what we do. Hopefully. That’s the best way. Going on your gut has always appealed to me more than going on an idea.
I love the idea of throwing something at the canvas. Of ripping the canvas.
It’s amazing that so many people still subscribe to the mirror theory. (I no longer know what the mirror theory is.)
The sense of any word varies by user—by the experience of the world that user speaks from. (This is such an old idea. Is there anything about the contemporary situation that might be making it more or less true?)
We only have what we inherit. We only move the collage pieces around.
We are only able to do what our context allows. The trick is to make that context.
The artist is thinking about questions of art, but the reader is thinking about questions of life. They can be the same questions.
The point of the art object is different for the artist and the public.
I’m tired of the implied boredom behind much of postmodern art.
The sign goes through four phases (from Baudrillard):
1. It is the reflection of a basic reality.
2. It masks and perverts a basic reality.
3. It marks the absence of a basic reality.
4. It bears no relation to any reality whatever—it is its own simulacrum.
The structure of language permits / causes / defines meaningful thinking.
Can one have meaningful thinking outside the structure of language? (What does it mean to say that?) If so, regarding what? It seems to me that art concerns itself with this question.
Poetry tends to play with the signifier—for sound, form, etc.—but what if that sense of play would move to the signified?
Who deserves fudge if not the good boy?
Meaning comes from the play of arbitrary units fashioned into a line. The system itself is hollow, but forms the available to think. This is the inherited “box” of the system.
The first draft of a poem is concerned mostly with combination. Revision is concerned mostly with substitution.
Because rationalism is a fantasy. (When I first typed this out I thought I had written “nationalism,” which I’m now convinced is equally true.)
The implosion of the future into the present is a violent action.
You have the rest of your life and only one checkerboard.
From Discover magazine: “Those who see themselves as they truly are have a greater chance of being diagnosed with clinical depression.” One would think then that most artists should have a good chance not to be so diagnosed.
From the Hallucination Anthology: Deductive reasoning at some point relies on inductive reasoning. Therefore, all reasoning becomes irrational.
Trying hard is not the same as accomplishment. Accomplishment is not the same as trying hard.