>As if I could convince us all -- 'normally', day-to-day -- to carry
around sacks of 'real' objects in order to converse in a 'real character', like
Swift's academic Laputans.
I like that idea, John. Tony Oursler's performances used to be a bit like
that. Or Stuart Sherman's.
Sorry, John, I'm about to move you around a bit here:
>
> Fiona, I was not suggesting that you were being prescriptive in any way,
> nor that you or any of us should waste our efforts trying to make the
dumb> and illiterate speak or write.
I said:
> >There are some things which I am not necessarily interested in
attempting (vainly) to translate into this here medium.
But these are things/stuff I like, John. You see the linguistic analogy
problem right there in the vocabulary. I like to think there's world out
there that I can experience without feeling a signalling on either side.
Am I just too paranoid to be paranoid?
> Mixing strong text with a site or an event or a gallery of 'things', seems
> to me to be something that, far from killing it, makes it stronger. Isn't
> that what *you* (singular here, but also applicable to others on this list)
> do?
When I'm performing, yes among other things. In art I'm working with
signs. And maybe everything outside of art is readable, if you want it to
be. If.
Oh, am I being dumb? Have we been talking just about art all this posting
back and forth? Aren't we arguing after all?
Fiona
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|