artists as machines
there are two types of machines then? - the "allopoeitic" and the autopoeitic". Is this like the scientific demonstration of metaphor? / [well one way of looking
at it] - describing it perhaps by what I could describe here as the sorting and filing of ideas into categories - then the synthesis of appropriate extracts into nice
ordered concepts - [archive after archive] of the type being utilised here by Guatari - the "here it is all neat and tidy kind of knowledge" - Well I'm saying it
very well could be - why not? bringing me happily to the resurgence of the ancient quarrel between the poet and the philosopher, that is still of course quite
beautifully unresolved to this day - We have in fact titled the performance in the Newlyn gallery ARTIST"S AS MACHINES - here is the crux of the matter -
e
posted by ken turner | 4:02 AM
2 Comments:
crux...............of being a machine or not?
How do we know this state of being? This has to be explained in simple terms.
perhaps sometimes we are and sometimes not.
My view is that a sense of ecstacy demonstrates a consciousness of the world as a new place.....never been here before kind of feeling...........seeing round the corner of ones eye - the 'imaginative eye'....like going before one's self....or rather going beyond one's self. I don't think the self is important in this territory of revelation. You can't do this as a machine that's tied to a cultural system. So where do we go then? And how? In performance - possibly? Or thought?
The word as spelt 'poeitic' means change, that is change within the machine - I think -if this is so then why autopoeitic and allopoeitic.
I prefer allopoeitic as change is possible in the machine itself.
Thus 'allo' as a prefix means to be able to change whereas 'auto' means remaining the same - no change possible.
Therefore an artist can be referred to as auto or allo in machine terms.
Post a Comment
<< Home