Here is where I prefer to stand (a traditional?) ground. In the
generally interesting developments of post-structuralist (and post-)
theory, I have begun to have conceptual disagreements with certain of its
'liquifying' theories. While it may be true, for example, that the image
has begun to accrue a significant value in our culture, and that its
prominence may have begun to blur boundaries of dimensionality with its
signifieds or the subjects of its representations, I feel that the
making-distinct of these blurred criteria is an important task of those
interested in a 'politically activist' theory and practice.
I have been trained as an architect, but have diverted my 'practice' from
the making of buildings for monied clients first to the making of
surrogate, unfinanced (and hence, unbuilt) projects, then to the making
of computer-graphic propositions of media projects to be inserted into
mainstream media, and most recently to the physical construction of
computer-based and robotic projects inserted into everyday existence. In
all of these, I have been motivated by the project of the politically
active event; to increase awareness of the individual's new
(capital-dominated) subjectivity, to affect positive changes for the
disenfranchised subject, or to interfere in deleterious corporate
practices. Post-structuralist theory has been immensely productive for
my comprehension and theorization of the practices that my work is
immersed in, but it has equally begun to suggest (within its terms) a
requisite fatalism.
If, in fact, I am to invest in the politics of the image, as much as I
might be intrigued by the theoretical possibilities of its
'spatialization,' am I not becoming another conduit of communication for
its controllers? If there have been any successes of media production
practices in recent decades (and this is also true of financial, tourist,
urban practices), they have been to subvert difference through its
incorporation. The 'other,' as has been written by many, is no longer
easily identified as such. Much of this is due to the successful nature
of the activity of these 'other' groups; much to the corporate
accomodation of these activities. I am raising this argument not so much
because I have particular faith that it is an issue of dimensionality
(what I earlier called the 2d of the image and the 3d of space). But it
is an issue of unblurring; by understanding my ground (whether it be the
dimensionality of the image or of space), I am better attuned to operate
successfully within it. Blurring is no longer a subversive strategy of
politically motivated theorists (as it was for those in 68), but is a
controlling practice of the corporation.
I, for example, tend to be biased in my own work on the operations of
space and its representation. For me, the representation of space (an
aspect of its image) must be seen as an entity distinct from the space
itself in order for me to create within either realm (although the two
certainly influence each other's perception, experience, etc.). If I try
to work on the blurred boundary of the two, my work and thoughts tend to
be absorbed in the blurring, becoming defeated by the very strategies of
blurring. I am beginning to see as my task the definition of a solid
ground, of a non-hybrid, non-crossover, non-blurred, non-matrixed
foundation.
Having said this, I must immediately disclaim that this was written
entirely in early developmental thought. I am not exactly convinced of
the position represented here, but I offer it as an active method of
obtaining a 'place' to work.
brian lonsway
......................................................................
j erik jonsson distinguished visiting assistant professor.
rensselaer architecture.
lonsway@rpi.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------
a forum on spatial articulations, perspectives, and procedures
texts are the property of individual authors
for information, email majordomo@forum.documenta.de with
the following line in the message body: info blast
archive at http://www.documenta.de/english/blasta.htm
or http://www.documenta.de/deutsch/blasta.htm
documenta X Kassel and http://www.documenta.de 1997
-------------------------------------------------------------