Medusa

Anywhere

Home Alone (II)

82 Mercer St. New York, NY
IMATS 2011

Reflexive Nature of the Egocentric and Narcissistic Agent

Reflexive Nature of the Egocentric and Narcissistic Agent:
(see previous post)

Of the impossibility in removing oneself (their spirit, politics, sense-of-self, biography) from their creation and the degree in which that agent is thus aware of said impossibility.  

In theory, to abstract from reality the appearance/knowledge of oneself (which could be tainted, affected, biased, confused or illusory) and by directly inserting it or indirectly having inserted within, for example, IT's film, THAT awareness becomes far less self-knowing (albeit less cowardly because in effect one becomes a representation, which is a dangerous state) and not actually a subversive act of counter-control. 

The intention is revealed to a variety of audiences who, conscious of some otherworldly motivation beyond the film, become simultaneously thrust into a power position and ignored. The insertion may be comical or self-reflexive to the medium within which they've encased themselves (e.g. having a camera revealed through a mirror), but the result is the same. Even if it was a continuity error, the audience becomes more aware of the agents shortcomings than they themselves are. Contemporary Art has been said to exploit this by completely disregarding, and at times excluding, the audience altogether.  But what remains, still, is performance. Otherwise it'd be wholly private.

Had they simply remained resonant, for example, in lyrics or as characters within novels or as dead, that awareness (of the impossibility of removing oneself from their creation) - providing they do not tag or sign-in as "author" (Pseudonyms do not count because they are essentially the same thing and eventually revealed) - becomes much heavier with self-awareness and confidence and in turn, very much subversive to the act of control, having no cause for it. Subversive because they would then exist only as Ambiguous, affecting the audience in ways they could never explain.  

Note: There should be no negativity or psitivity here.

My film: Hotel Chevrolet Cavalier
The Women in this screen grab are Angels in my sense of the word.

dEFINTION:(not alphabetized but sequential)

Woman: The ongoing result of a process ending with death and beginning as opposite to the same process of "Man."  

Angel: A person (alive or dead, fictional or not) one reveres as a source of comfort - who brings them unexplained happiness and a curious sense of meekness.

Word: A sonically precise version of an otherwise flexible concept; a construct of the Ambiguous manifested by letters that are used in succession to convey meaning.

Ambiguous: An urge or inkling, hazy and insecure.

Hotel Chevrolet Cavalier: A documentary film about the life of a car air freshener. As an ode to Magritte, I should say, it is NOT a documentary film about the nomadic tendency in restless spirits, which is to say that IT IS, yet truly incapable of being none other than an appearance of both the life of an air freshener and documentary film; in short, it is what it is incapable of being.     

Note: 

calling attention to the reflexive nature of the egocentric and narcissistic agent (e.g. artist, author, blacksmith) contd. further elsewhere 

NOMADIC Tendency: The urge to leave women, men, angels and words behind for selfish reasons not yet known by a single person. Affected mostly, by Ambiguous

Restless Spirits: Those that are hopelessly aware of each argument as having no grounds in reality. They would make horrific jurors. 

Negativity: An atmosphere that should remain isolated, like "Positivity," from words like: odd, cynical, smiling, typing angel. 

A conversation as facilitated through FACEBOOK

ME: So Japan was news and then Lady Gaga losing her hair was news and now some snow is news? This is precisely why I try to avoid the television.
ME: Let's grab some frustrated blue-collar commuters and ask them their thoughts on the weather and then put together a montage with our ethnic correspondent. Good night Toronto. Job well done
OTHER: Moi aussi.
OTHER: Avoiding watching television, that is.
ME: no - avoid EVERYTHING television. That includes being that person who gets excited over some television show being filmed in a familiar setting or intrigued by newscasters because they're buying coffee in a local starbucks
OTHER: I don't watch television. Period. lol This was even before you mentioned all this....:P
OTHER: Netflix, I tell ya. Netflix. Where it's at.
ME: facilitated through the object television - I know there are people who don't watch television before I mentioned this, and I admire them because I still watch it (at times). I'm merely annoyed by the voices - the cadence of, word choice, formulas, tempo - of boring News shows that compare the death of a celebrity with cold weather, in light of HUGE disasters. I know, not to flog a dead horse, but I think it's about time the pace and layout of nighttime news is changed
ME: Netflix as facilitated through the object: television - that is
ME: Now the real joke could have been whether you watch it on your blackberry - then we could have carried on for a bit longer, affably.
OTHER: ok ok ok....
ME: Sorry, I have LG. I'm ancient
OTHER: Just as the movies I've been watching lately - the news only bums me out.        
ME: I mean. Honestly, the way the news is presented, with all this innovation and Intermedia and CP24, it still, essentially, remains as it was AGES AGO! I don't have a solution, but I have ideas. 1) Stop trying to balance personalities with ethnicity - ethnic people are dull too (especially those who have obviously adhered to the white, hegemonic ideals such as race and sexuality) 2) Fuck weathermen and women/meteorologists - don't need the constant reminder 3)No more of this "on the site reporting," unless that person has a secret agenda for fame or notoriety; otherwise they're just going to adhere to the PC network's view of what makes a compelling line of questioning and then regurgitate what should remain dumb speak
ME: and that's just to name a few
ME: and for GOD SAKE - take the cocaine away from Kevin Frankish.
ME: I had a recent conversation with someone about there "seeming" to be less white people in commercials. Fair enough. Normally, I wouldn't even comment on such a pedestrian observation. But, I got slightly offended that someone who I thought would know that I didn’t care was even speaking me to about this. So I gave it a thought...
ME: Then I said. No, it's a conscious decision by those making the commercials not to include white people. Not that there is "no white people." (Even repeating "white" makes me ill). THEN I THOUGHT, WAIT!
ME: Even IF those in the commercial, be them classed as ethnic or otherwise, did so - I wondered if they were aware of this conscious decision of the makers of these commercials to include them AS variety rather than a vestige of actual day-to-day humanity. And then i though
ME: then i thought*...if they were fine with that or even IF the makers were themselves ethnically classed or otherwise, and did so as a direct response to the distilled practices of the ruling order, were they truly aware of it?
ME: I don't think so. Because if people were actually aware of why they do the things they do - there would be no cause to add variety to programming or a newscast. It would be like much music in the 90s - and what happened to the muchmusic of the 90s? Disappeared. WHY?
ME: Ok. I have to make something clear. Those that actually know me, know that I don't believe that things like Race and Sexuality exist. I believe them to be cues offered -- and sadly taken by those that they are offered to -- by a dominating way of thinking. In short, social constructs to maintain this process of othering. example above
OTHER: I love that. After 15 comments at the very last sentence you write "In short" hahahahahaha genius :D
OTHER: All I could hear was my phone going off every minute notifying me that there was something going on fb, as I was brushing my teeth. Teehee! Nite nite! ;-) Dun worry about all the people on tv. Just switch it off and listen to some novaplanet. :-) ♥
ME: So to end this. Those who know me know that I am not saying these things as some disgruntled White Canadian but as a offended human being and genuine paranoid of identity at the way Toronto goes about presenting itself. Racism exists only because someone told you it does and a lot of violence happens because of it. Violence facilitates violence. And it's a sad state of affairs if we can't ignore the social constructs without seeming idealistic or nihilistic or ignorant. ok. Rather than ignore them, embrace them nonchalantly.
ME: I'm reading it over because i DONT want to seem expected or naive. I really don't think I am. I know a lot of what I said can be thrown back at me as a perfect example of what I'm speaking about - and if that helps my point, all the better.... There is a spelling mistake above (i=if*). I just truly think that, like Crack Cocaine, there are certain institutions in place to control certain ways of thought. And we really have to challenge that thought by not offering -- to those who don't care -- fairly obvious and base observations about what's happening around them; instead, start your statement with a question. Don't throw "facts" in people's faces; shove shit up their nose.
OTHER: If not up their nose, then somewhere else. lol :P
ME: Last thing. I'm talking to myself. Could mean something. But think about what happened with Crack Cocaine. THAT level of control became out of control. I think that's what's happening with people and their objectives these days (and motivations); they really don't have a reason or cause - they just move forward at speeds that are insane with no goal. Goals become routines - generational imperatives. Even aspirations become dictated by value systems like money or providence. Genetics has something to do with desire and energy and shouldn't fit you in somewhere. It seems nihilistic of me to say, but I think the processes people attach themselves to are far more nihilistic then not pretending it's all for nothing.
OTHER: I think I had about 12 cups of coffee today, and I wonder why my left eye keeps twitching uncontrollably throughout the entire course of the day. Yowzas.
ME: Just heard in a song, "hate is legislated, taken like vitamins."

Silence

Coming Soon...

Intention(s)

Stan Brakhage's Reflections on Black (1955)

I do not trust blogs. I feel they provide distinct and sensationalized evidence of one's low self esteem (check), insecurities (check), laziness (check) and delusions of grandeur (I heard that once). They are "sensationalized" because they are an exaggerated awareness of an individual and manageable problem. 

What is this problem? Well, it begins with the knowledge that the moment you adhere to a perimeter (e.g. frame, spelling, text-box, font, colour etc.) you are not able to present yourself coherently. Had people actual knowledge of your real name rather than an identity or character, they'd understand how jagged and, at the same time, fluid society is, and how Name(s) are like currency. As for those who reveal their true self (i.e. name, occupation etc.), I believe you either have something to sell or showcase be it art or services, and that's a leg-up from the very base and eldest of occupation(s): prostitution (it's outcrop being online dating). Not to discredit the profession - it lasts. 

The Internet may be the cause and conclusion to this expressivistic [made up word] state, but the problem remains. 

AND it's a question: do you know why we are using - ingesting - regurgitating these crops? 
 

This microcosm of a deluded consciousness (i.e. blogspot) IS still a consciousness and must remain so if this "problem" is to be addressed.  The answers are much more complicated and far more intelligent than myself. But I feel that i may offer a oversimplified view; it begins in Zurich and ends in France and New York. It's the easiest way to accomplish what (A)rtists did many years ago, during war and in coffee shops. They met and created subcultures.  But "created" is too strong a word. For, you can't create a sub-culture - that's too mechanical; they were of the organic make-up of sub-cultres, the flesh of progress.

To date, we remain social and we network the old fashioned way, but this, paired with the very medium that has matured invisibly before our eyes and fingertips (the Web) has created for us a false sense of progression. Is this the beginning, middle or end of a "sub-culture?" What is one? How would we spot it? I'd spit on it or pinch it to see if it is real. For example: I feel that the act of multitasking is as much a sub-culture as punk music, drugs or "campness" in the gay community. Think about it. The ability to multitask is the calculated manner in which an individual goes about working through various tasks/problems that function toward an end result. I believe that our current ability to navigate through the splendorous and slightly heated screens upon screens of our computers are less concerned with marksmanship than that of agility and speed. 

We are less calculated in each action. We arrive at destinations, but this has become more about routine and reflex, procrastination and stimulus rather than our given ability to alter something enough that we notice change. I am not likening lifestyles to multitasking (that would ignore the problem with authority, gentrification, violence, despots and community), I'm offering it as an example of the appropriation of such sub-cultures as referenced in areas such as voguing or crack dens, having been a direct response to the control of a predominate culture. I think culture has become an "idea" -- delusion -- of culture. We force-create culture by skipping steps. We go about as if we are capable to do so because we can multitask and are advanced. But, without the tact to do so as a response to the very technology we tap, point and flick, we are just technology.

We are simply following the rules.

We are in a state of excelled momentum towards a fairly shallow end, which is to say, a goal that has no end. And in this state we are gluttons. I am a glutton.

In short, I believe that although we understand that we are all hypocrites because we do and say things to please the (C)ensor and the etiquette of social networks or artistic presentations, we carry on as if this exonerates us of all -- if any -- responsibility. But please remember that they are presentations and not reality. And we are responsible, not for the end (because the end must remain organic), but for the instant we publish ourselves publicly (precisely because it is not organic). This is this venue. This is not the stage or theatre or that canvas or brick.  Instead, think of it as a a presentation of brick.

So why am I using this?  

Blogs should exist for consumers. Except I'm not selling anything. Therefore (and I hate that word: "therefore") this is therapy. Understand  that my intention is to instigate a cathartic experience - not to then share it arbitrarily with those who click "next blog" but to release it into a reality far removed from right in front of this screen. To have myself change(d).


I ramble cause life is prickly and this is smooth. But I'm not multitasking. I don't have a name.

- Insert Name - 

“Alice’s Sewing Basket” by Jillian Nickell aka jillustration

I've appropriated this image by Google(ing) "Bird Crab." I've referenced the creator above because I adore the work. I don't know the creator - only the image. That should be enough.  As you will see, if I maintain this blog, the "Bird Crab" is a duo not unlike Don Quixote and Sancho. 

Rene Magritte

Quote: “We must not fear daylight just because it almost always illuminates a miserable world”

Instructions

Fold blog and insert, twist and remove. Page Number. Coming soon. Do not hook your fingers; doing so may cause pockets of air. Releasing such, as blog, is less embarrassing. Page number. Coming soon.