Breaking up without breaking - from Cheryl Penn

[Marie Wintzer]

 

You might have seen similar pieces by Cheryl on IUOMA blogs all around the world, but the thing is, each of those booklets is a truly unique piece of art. An exploration deep into the flow of ideas, an idea in its own right.

 

 

 

The book contains photographs of a large painting at various stages of the process, and a "real life" piece of it, materializing an idea that was birthed way upstream of today, framing it into the present. A strange feeling of literally holding a piece of idea in my hands.

 

 

The flow of this particular idea follows the line that goes from constructing, layering, building up, to de-constructing, breaking up, dissecting out. Something has been created with the purpose of being dismantled.
The painting shouts out "don't break me please", but its existence solely relies on fragmentation (although on one of Cheryl's pictures the word Don't is lying in the shadow so that the painting seems to be begging to be broken).
Which made me think, can one break up without breaking?

 

 

Find a way through. I am thrilled the piece I got contains the wonderful word FIND. Layered onto a map. This to me is an indication that the process of breaking up does not end here, with this piece of painting. There is more in it and more to it, but a different person is now taking over. Up to the recipient to dig deeper and continue with the fragmentation and the (re)search. And forward in the flow of ideas, perhaps the branching of a small-new river from a much larger one?
Thank you for this fab 1/28, Cheryl! I certainly would like to have as many "ideas whose time has come" as you do! But I know from experience that your ideas always lead to other ideas. Inspiration, I think. So, thank you!!

 

 

PS* unnecessary quote of the day from Unknown: A half-baked idea is okay as long as it's in the oven.

[1cgqtuoblpeqc]

back to my basketballpo. ;-D

[1cgqtuoblpeqc]

ok, so i was just doing my mid-day basketballpo and had to jump up here

because this thread is in my head!!!

 

what this piece reminds me of, is a couple of things.

first off, i went out to play games with a group of friends

i used to hang out with every now and then a few months back

and they pulled out a new kind of game i hadn't seen before.

it's a "dice-building game" is how they described it.

similar to deck-building, but since dice are themselves

randomizing instruments, it's like creating a pool

that you draw from, but then each piece you take from the pool

is its own sub-pool. like a two-layered fractal built of randomizing

pieces. dynamic art, is that not what this is?

i actually see our game sessions as a kind of art;

which is interesting to me, it's like art you can't buy

because it is experiential.

 

ok, so that was the first thread of thought,

which brought me into the idea of programming.

there are certain programming languages which

allow you to have the code re-write itself

during the course of execution. there is a name

for this, but i can't recall what it is.

basically you have something similar to a human being

the code begins as a static, set in stone set of instructions,

like a script, a printout, a book, what have you;

but then you feed it to the computer, and it becomes

similar to a living entity. it rewrites itself,

mutates, evolves in order to handle change in environment.

it affects data flow, but is also affected by data flow.

 

it reminds me of nietsche's will to power.

[1cgqtuoblpeqc]

there is plenty of interpretation which comes before creation as well.

and during.

not just after.

but yes, i can see it cheryl.

it's not too far off from the heisenberg uncertainty i think.

you have something in spacetime that exists, we call i here ART(s).

and you have some other thing(s) in spacetime, we will call them here DVS(s)

and when the DVS(s) look at the ART(s), and when they hold discourse over the ART(s);

they affect the ART(s). The 3D frameworks of the ART(s) themselves remain unchanged,

but their perceived essences are forever altered.

[cheryl penn]

"The ambivalence of writing is such that it can be considered both an act and an interpretive process that follows after an act with which it cannot coincide. As such, it both affirms and denies its own nature".

De Mans - DeMans? 

The language of art????

[Nancy Bell Scott]

Yes, I'm afraid I'm a bit lost, but thank you for trying to explain and I always appreciate food for thought.  Even if it does kill me.

[1cgqtuoblpeqc]

i don't know who derrida is.

but i think my views on meaning and its subjectiveness speak for themselves.

[Nancy Bell Scott]

I have become the train wreck itself.

 

[1cgqtuoblpeqc]

[cheryl penn]

Your Red Herrings are ALWAYS great!

Didnt Derrida say something to the effect that MEANING is not generated by some 'extralinguistic' presence, but rather by an absence? - that is the DIFFERENCES between one word (artwork)  and another (the cut-ups). IE in this context, meaning is generated in the absence of original vocabulary (the first part of the  idea) in favor of the second part (the dissemination bit) - or am I also in a train wreck??? :-)) X

[1cgqtuoblpeqc]

see: The Subjective Nature of Asemic Writing #30/30