dinsdag 29 juni 2010

Paradigm, 2003

-The limit is x going to a. -

The paradigm is a model of variation.
X is consideration, negotiation and transformation. The identity  is a.
The limit is x going to a, the identity (a) only exist in terms of interpretation (x). The paradigm embodies the whole.
The constant flow between these two is a very interesting domain. Edith Doove calls it “The grey mass of strategy” referring to the chess play of Duchamp.

The paradigm is context; it is a situation that is not an element by itself but a group of elements in position towards each other but also towards other groups and other elements. The elements should be posed towards an identity. This identity however is not fixed or isolated either; it’s a new network of stressed points.
To study context: how, when, where and what is off an endless complexity.
Henri Bergson explained that deconstruction wouldn’t help to reach a. He was right but deconstruction isn’t a tool to reach a, it is a tool to reach a higher level in the game; the game called paradigm.

Deleuze’s stressing to differentiate has been of great importance, instead of syntheses, to accomplish a synthesiser. But what is the identity and what is his differentiation? The identity is more fixed and the differentiation is less fixed, this seems to be the only plausible definition because they are both influenced by context. The identity embodies the differentiation and vice versa they can’t be separated as two elements. Depending on the context an element is identity or differentiation. They can only be separated in terms of their context.

If differentiation can’t be an enduring product, how to be a synthesiser?
By subjective choice!
Or as how Lyotard puts it, to understand the social relations, at any level, there is not only a theory of communication but also a game theory: to know these game theories you should know how to act, when to act, depending on who you are and where you are.
The issue is that in our new globalised world of total accessibility it still comes down to the impossibility of transmitting a situation.

How to transmit a situation?
The differentiation of a subjective identity is constructed.
Creating a situation, the location of an occasion, the drafts of the identity at best.

By leaving out the identity you loose as well its differentiation which is obvious. Still I see many attempts to create differentiation by itself.
“Bridge the Gap” by Akiko Miyake and Hans Ulrich Obrist is a very good example for this. The observation that “the most important things in conferences usually happen in the ‘in between’ – between different disciplines and geographies, but also in the ‘in between’ of the actual conference programme.” cit. janus is interesting. But in their conference “Bridge the Gap” they did exactly this, leaving out the identity (the conference) thinking they could have the in between by itself. By attending similar attempts I observed myself as well as other audience and I noticed a strange awareness. It was an implosion what it caused. There was no synthesiser going on or crossing points, nothing as how Deleuze had meant it with his theory of the rhizome. It was movement by itself, which is as good as standing still. It was exhausting diffusion but my friend calls it cynicism.

Fanny Zaman


Geen opmerkingen: