Again, which discourse? That which is presented in the Annotations was not a
framework, or even a "search" for a framework. It was the work and the frame
together. Although I didn't see it in those terms at all. I felt we were
having a series of interesting and important conversations; we were dealing
with issues and resources alien to the surrounding art world. We didn't
necessarily want that art world to join us, or to translate our concerns into
theirs. They weren't translatable at all. They were inimicable, but
dialectically so. You can't theorize malingering; you use it as a rule of
thumb and take it from there. We (NY) thought Indexing was unwieldy; so we
embarked on the Annotations/blurtin in A&L work. It was performative; so in
some sense, the relation of the Blurting in A & L text to our WORK is similar
to that of Joseph Beuys' blackboards to his performative lecture. Except that
we were also "performing" rationality, if you can see what I mean.
Michael Corris (InvCollege@aol.com)
|
|
|
|
|
