Re: AVATAR

by dagwead (02.08.10 07:18 pm)

I infer a mode of respect, in terms of psychoanalysis and the "unspoken"—in the work of Julia Kristeva, Tim. I doubt I would be alone in that inference—I've been looking a lot at Black Sun, and could imagine the book being an important read, for you, in terms of your intellectual predilections. Literary theory and film theory have their uses and understandings, as psychoanalysis has, or as the three have related to each other, and/or have enjoyed, perhaps more so, than rejoined. Lacan, who can be a trying read in terms of his brilliant analytical explications, is actually a profoundly supportive figure, in terms of the individuation of the the homosexual analysand, as much as any other analysand, regardless of his or her orientation. In terms of semiotics, as reification and critique of classic conundrums, certainly there are other conversations to be had. Our intellectual tradition in the West is a problematic inheritance unto itself, to not venture too far in diagramming a sentence between two terms—prima facie, and alla prima.

In any case, in Black Sun, Kristeva's risk is as much her own—and I can see the intention of obviating that intention—as it is that of the average reader. I think the notion of accepting the terms, or premises, of one's "advesary", a classical philosophical notion, in terms of enmeshment itself, is an interesting train of thought...perhaps as interesting as letting a trained guinea pig in a kilt write one's next book for oneself, surely with a vexing vagueness only an academic can respect. Yet "this brand" of feminism would only conjoin the criticality certain members of the homosexual "community" have reserved for their own personal uses—derridingly so—their own quizzical version of personal edification. Mutual respect offers a grace, while "taking a proposition too far" oftentimes has trouble finding its own limits. I respect Rosalind Krauss, also.

The term AVATAR, in its proper context—a single being which takes various forms for various reasons,which are assumed to be ameliorative—is an interesting comparison to the term E PLURIBUS UNUM—"out of many, one." A group, any minority, who asserts itself by means of satire (or other channels) asserts a distinction. The group individuates itself in order to appreciate a larger unity. So that distinction leads toward unity. So touching on the term AVATAR, because of its use in popular culture at the moment. So in case of E PLURIBUS UNUM, we are talking about unity, surely in problematic times, instead of religion. "Altogether problematic founding figures who appreciate their own reinvention", might tilt the astrological rubric correctly or fairly, hopefully with a dose of humor, hopefully healthy.

Surely not perfectly sound here, academically—thanks as always for the forum and the dialogue, Artforum!

Re: AVATAR

by CAP (02.09.10 12:35 pm)

Ground control to Major Tim.... Ground Control to Major Tim....

Re: AVATAR

by FakeName5678 (02.09.10 05:14 pm)

Whoa, dagwead!
Just when i thot i was getting so i could actually understand the Editor's Letters (rather than just let them wash over me and hope something sticks) you jump in a make it all complicated again. Are we post- or are we neo- ?