.
.
.
Hey. Hey. Is this the end? Is this where it ends? (Insistent pounding on the floor) Huh? Is this where you define yourself? Where is your end? Hey. Where is your end? (Footsteps chasing) Listen to me. Is this where you define yourself? Huh? Is this it? Is here your definition? Your definition. Hey. Is this it? Is this the end? Is it along this line that you define yourself? Huh? Is it at this point? Is this it? Is this your end? Hey. Is this where you define yourself? Hey. You listen to me. Is this the end? Is this where you define yourself? Huh? Is this the end? ( Indistinct squeaking, traffic mixed with birdsong in the distance)
the intimacy of things will not be defined therefore the adherence to the undefined intimacy of things is a universal everyday risk the assumption of which by subjects will imply : the painful suspension of discourse the volumetric unfolding of bodies the reciprocal gravity of bodies the inexplicability of bodies the figurative war of bodies on the walls the sociological walls and the semiotic walls in the happening of positional language
improducibility operability unlimitedness
Our affair is complicated, a well known disaster in all theories. Yet when I try to shape the image of our ending, no hypothesis comes to mind, none. Swallowed by light or darkness? Abandoned by the favor of coincidence? Consumed by the morphological wind beating against us from all points of the space, of the transfigurative space, of the figurative space, defragmenting us by invisible blows? Or we deferred to ourselves, as by agreement from the very beginning, from axiom number one, viz: you by definition not being although always by definition you the criterion of every presentable space, yes, of every square inch where a given of presence is conceivable, and I being impliedly intended only to document the numerous examples of your not having been completely remained, yes, remained and both by the eyes and by thought confirmed within the limits of your presence, your manageable presence, your transportable presence, as I was saying, I impliedly destined to assume to adhere to the traces of your every occurrent configuration of matter, occurrent of course at the limits of the hallucinatory precipice that is your transportable presence? Is this what we are reduced to every day?O my nevertheless love, I can only say that I want you now, now and forever, for all my life, if you admit life, if you among your utopias admit life, if you admit life as a moment of processuality, then in this case I wish utopically and processually to belong to you, because I feel closely related to you, my love who ties the morning to the afternoon.
what silly sentence sums up the existence? in what object does the first person hide? how much space does the second person occupy? from what deadly image do they decide to cure themselves? what story do they try to tell without succeeding? what does the symmetry of their deficiencies indicate? what do they find so much to laugh at in the past? what advantages do they derive from the third person? how do they survive the pauses? where will the love of the real take them? What is the function of causes without effect? where does the dilation of the present end? how long does a logical interval last on average? how long do they suck the occurrence? how is the original dust reproduced? with what kind of expressions do they satiate the spirit? at what point does the crisis of figurative dissent explode? at what level does unfinished action act? how many illusions do they sacrifice to the perfection of method? why departing is unthinkable?what do they do with the paradoxes of metaphysics? who will be able to explain to them that hunger is eternal? how do they take care of the damage of the primal hypothesis? what is universal about subjective misery? how do they perceive that a thought is terminated? in what way do they think they contribute to general meaning? will they make it back to symbolic consciousness? who pays the ransom for the historical phenomenon? for what purpose do they fake the specific content? what do they use to erase their faces?
about 60 minutes each time, living model with furniture element, motivation of furniture element outside the space, distance, poses, character of the living model, nonverbal monologue, concluding statement … insertion of interpretation objects into physical space, vector space versus body space, self-programmed languidity, gradual shutdown of object, object review, example object, image object, sheet object, photograph object, ideology object, intentional product object, thing object, subject object … 4 hours a day, 14 days, carpet in the center, some objects changing each time, first without, then with an audience, reception and reaction divided into two separate parts, outside sounds, lecture … (in the social process of agreeing what the world is, two worlds are formed, one is formed by the artwork, the other is the outside of the artwork, yet another world is the inside of the artwork, which, however, cannot properly be called a world) … 3 weeks of work, soil drilling and wooden construction, with behavioral performance and related discussion, color spreading … 30 minutes, then 40 minutes, then 2 minutes, film, group attitude, truth statement, phenomenology of objects and events … 3 days, about 100 minutes, 4 worlds, 4 elements, 4 colors, 4 ways of being, description of specific cases, fiction of the law, regardless of the law, law of self-identification by portrait … 5 days, then 5 days, then 1 day, variable duration, not numbered situations, not established criteria, subjectively defined inputs, transition to visual experience, from an assigned point …
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.