 |
 |
In response to David Sless - general aspects of theory. If we recall the "showing" aspect of theory over the self-evident aspects of making, then we can locate theory in its own space without looking for a kind of chronology or causality. Many instances of difference, many instances of designers and their designs do not make one instance of theory about design. Indeed, the general lack of theory about design, that is, the lack of showing, is part of the social problem of a field of practice that pretends to practice. I make things - poems, sculptures, cavandoli macrame hangings, books, arguments, theories etc. Within the art objects, the showing of the object amounts to an inscribed theoretical account of the object in its making. Any object that does not achieve this inscribing is a craft object that wants for its showing - it remains hidden in its making, disguised in its form. This is true for conversations, academic book, societies, individuals - most of the world is such a thing. Pattern, order, difference etc can all be determined, as an act of consciousness, about anything apprehended - some things eneter the dimension of the shown/showing - these apprehended things included their own theory (showing) as part of their apprenshion. The other things remain the lumps that external theory wants to point at with well made sticks. This is not so much a showing as a forced performance (the dancing bear of theory). keith russell newcastle OZ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%