One minor point, cris: this space, being virtual, is limitless in its
capacity for 'stretch', so no matter how much space taking up one individual
might 'perform' (and yeah, it is like acting, as is most of the social
nexus) there is an endlessness of potential for others to inhabit. There's
no reason why multiple separate threads of origin, point and purpose can't
co-exist here, the only limitation I guess being human capacity. This is no
little room where one face has to be in everyone's face if it starts to
talk.
All people have to do is speak. Stick their necks out.
david bircumshaw
----- Original Message -----
From: cris cheek <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 9:45 AM
Subject: this 'space'
> Hi,
>
> this too is an architextural space. THe html is being continually
> 'produced'. It is an engendering space too.
>
> I'm mindful of how those who use this space inhabit and even sometimes
> inhibit its possibilities. Such habits are often gendered.
>
> Some 'members' like to sprawl and occupy this space more than others.
These
> tendencies towards occupation can be counter-productive, reduce the
> potential for conversations rather than enhance them. Men, in particular,
> like to 'spread out' onto the empty chair next to them.
>
> This space also interfaces - is a point of both arrival and departure -
> with other sites, some of which share conversationalists and even
sometimes
> conversational topics and 'messages'.
>
> Chris Watson, sound-recordist, found that the 'wildlife' recordings that
he
> made when the equipment was activated by 'remote', with his presence at a
> considerable distance, were quite different from those that he made whilst
> being 'closely' present at the recording site.
>
> (I can't resist the temptation to see the contemporary flaneur in those
who
> lurk on lists watching the posters preen and pose and enter through
> reflections into conversation)
>
> This is a 'performance' space sure. But it is not a stomping ground.
> Perhaps the problem has been a sudden overlapping of 'subsubpoetics' and
> this list which seems unnecessary - although i recognise how much the
> various lists eddy each other. Kent's gracious acknowledgement of his, for
> some, overexhuberant posting of late is welcome, his departure is imho an
> overreaction. I relish the heteronymic gush of intellectual cruising that
> has been blossoming here.
>
> What interests me in the discussion of 'architectures' and poetics is the
> implications of Aaron Betsky's "Queer Space'; that which 'does not partake
> in the comptition for building the largest house, the tallest tower or the
> straightest street. It is altogether more ambivalent, open, leaky,
> self-critical or ironic, and ephemeral.'
>
> love and love
> cris
|