On Criticism 2

The Critic is 

“a person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something,” 

so, the critic is defined by the party which they oppose,

(those who could deem the criticism unfavorable)

which is to say, 

the Critic comes-into-being only in opposition to an existing idea.

At the etymological root of Critic is Krinein, to judge, decide, separate. 

There is an inherent divisiveness at play in the Critic,

for there is an inherent divisiveness in all judgment,

every declaration of value stands in opposition to its other

this is the nature of Krinein, the judgment as separation.

The Critic is in Opposition to its Object

And the Critic’s judgment (marking) of the Object

will separate itself from its Object

I have called this marking Negation

for it destroys the Oneness of the Object

through its Subjective Utterance:

The Critical Utterance states that,

Whatever the Object has been known to be

It is also this, this singular Subjective transmission,

this declaration of Will, this Judgment.

The Critical transmission reveals the Object’s multiplicitous manifestation,

its Being in Totality

(the Thing-Itself and its Infinitely marked being in the World,

the Thing-Itself and that which is NOT the Thing-Itself):

the Critical Transmission exposes the multiplicitous nature of Subjectivity

by declaring its own Subjectivity

by Being an Utterance in Opposition

an Utterance itself (a)part

To do this,

the Critic examines the Space of Conveyance

(the momentary being of Subject/Object transmission)

wherein the Self-Reflective and illusory nature of perception 

is made apparent in the unstable marking of the Object:

the Subject’s Being with the Object.

The Critic, however, must function within the Spectacle

the Worldview commodified

wherein Value is imposed on the Subjective experience of the World

The imposition of Value on the Object 

appears as an innate relatedness to the Subject.

So, the Critic, in examining the commodified Space of Conveyance,

is locked in a false opposition;

The dichotomy of Self and Self-related Object cannot offer Negation 

for the Commodity comes-into-being through 

the Subjective determination of Value

The Spectacle disallows Negation 

by locking the Subject and Object 

in an epistemic closure of false Self-Affirmation

(the illusory Will in the World)

So, the Critical Utterance, a manifestation of Will, 

carries with it the inauthenticity, the falseness, of the Spectacle,

the Relative Autonomy of Commodity Culture.

It opposes nothing for, being commodified, its locus remains within the Self,

within the subjective manifestation of the Spectacle

within a Subject-centric realm of affectation

The Critic, then, must liberate the Self and the Critical Utterance 

from the false relatedness of Value,

from the illusory validation of a self-centric worldview,

from the Spectacle's fetishization of the commodified individual.

The Critical Topoi must shift from the Subject, Society, or Spectacle,

from the Object (the Thing-Itself and its Multiplicitous Manifestation),

to Being,

the space of the Subject and the space of its Negation

This Desubjectification transforms the Space of Conveyance 

into a conceptual feedback loop of Negation:

the Negated Subject still marks the Object

(the critic continues to Be with that Object)

and that marking manifests as an Object truly opposed to the Subject

an Object Decommodified, no longer of use, or of Value,

no longer a thing of Spectacle, but a Being in the World,

a world which humanity knows only as a shadow of the Thing-Itself.

The Critical Utterance pierces Illusion with the revealing of Illusion.

It is the judgment which negates judgment, 

the declaration of Will which liberates Will.

I believe this is the nature of the Minimalist Conveyance,

an Object which negates the Subject by offering only the Thing-Itself

but I do not believe it is the only way.

The Critic, in Utterance, functions solely within the moment

(Conveyance is always momentary),

the moment is the Object, its fleetingness insures its Negation.

The Desubjectification of the Critical Utterance 

is not an utter annihilation of Self,

but a suspension of judgment, or Epoché.

The Spectacle, foremost, is an illusion of certainty:

the perpetuation of a belief that things are exactly as they appear.

The Critical Utterance is thus a transmission of instability,

a testament to the fallibility of Subjectivity:

the making manifest of a World which resists ideology,

hand-me-down symbolic orders, and engrained narratives of Self;

the suspension of belief in the Spectacle’s force-fed ontology,

the illusions of time, of space, of language, of sensation,

of philosophic and spiritual pasts and politicized, self-fulfilling, prophesies.

The Critic, in the transmission of the moment, 

reveals the Subject’s illusory nature, 

through the making manifest the innate instability of the Worldview.

The Critic is at war with Illusion,

their only weapon is the declaration of Will, 

the marking of, or being-with, the Object,

to reveal the instability of Subjectivity,

the Critic must Be with the Object in Totality,

they must look into the Abyss of Negation

and they must see it reflecting back:

Only then does Critical Utterance stands truly in Opposition;

Only when the Critic speaks, not from the Self, but from the Totality,

not from the Self-Relatedness of Value

but from outside the world of Commodity, 

from the perspective of the infinite:

Being Desubjectified.

On Commodity

Commodification is the imposition of Value on the Object

 -- Value is an intangible measurement of worth or utility

Through Conveyance, 

the Commodity (Object) and its Consumer (Subject) 

enter into an unstable interaction,

wherein the Subject is simultaneously 

perceptive of the Object and affected by that Object

(The marked coming-into-being of the Object)

Due to the imposition of Value,

the Commodity comes-into-being according to its worth or utility to the Subject

which is to say,

the Conveyance of Commodity is the interrelation of Self and valued Object

so,

the Commodity comes-into-being according to its Value relative to the Subject

and thus, 

for each Subject, the World manifests according to a relative sense of Value

Now,

because the Commodity’s Value is relative to the Subject,

the Value of the Commodity is subjectively determined.

This is the marking of the Commodity, its subjective manifestation.

This determination manifests as Will in the World:

I choose this t-shirt or that,

I spread my money around;

I determine what is valuable to me.

This is not an illusory manifestation,

this is Being in a Commodity Culture

Accordingly,

the above Worldview is likewise Objectified

(and thereby Commodified)

and Conveyed again to the Subject.

In this residual Conveyance,

the Spectacle manifests relative to the Subject;

One sees the World as reflective of Self

(i.e. think of the geography of available information,

the Like-ing or Unlike-ing of the World,

the books you read rather than those you don’t)

and so,

reflective of the Subject’s presumed sense of Value.

Thus,

the Subject acts according to the determination of Value,

and the World reflects those determinations through the proliferation of Commodity

(the perpetual output of Commodity as manifestation of “infinite” choices).

Will in the World is a false production,

a Relative Autonomy (as Althusser would put it):

Human potential limited to the Self-Affirmation of Value determinations,

Emo, Ergo Sum 

***

On Spectacle

Space of Conveyance

The momentary operation of all Subject/Object transmissions

wherein the Subject observes the Object WHILE being acted upon by the Object

Utterance

An Object-mediated Conveyance between Author & Spectator

Guy Debord - Society of the Spectacle

1

In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, 

all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. 

Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.

2

The images detached from every aspect of life fuse in a common stream 

in which the unity of this life can no longer be reestablished. 

Reality considered partially unfolds, in its own general unity, 

as a pseudo-world apart, an object of mere contemplation. 

The specialization of images of the world 

is completed in the world of the autonomous image, 

where the liar has lied to himself. 

The spectacle in general, as the concrete inversion of life,

is the autonomous movement of the non-living.

3

The spectacle presents itself simultaneously as all of society, 

as part of society, and as instrument of unification. 

As a part of society 

it is specifically the sector which concentrates 

all gazing and all consciousness. 

Due to the very fact that this sector is separate, 

it is the common ground of the deceived gaze and of false consciousness, 

and the unification it achieves 

is nothing but an official language of generalized separation.

4

The spectacle is not a collection of images, 

but a social relation among people,

mediated by images.

5

The spectacle cannot be understood as an abuse of the world of vision, 

as a product of the techniques of mass dissemination of images. 

It is, rather, a Weltanschauung which has become actual, materially translated.

It is a world vision which has become objectified.

***

Weltanschauung: Worldview

Worldview can be expressed as the fundamental 

cognitive, affective, and evaluative presuppositions 

a group of people make about the nature of things, 

and which they use to order their lives.

Due to the primacy of the Aesthetic Object in postmodern society,

all individuals stand in relation to the Aesthetic Object, 

the Spectacle is the Object’s multiplicitous manifestation

propagating itself through production culture

Let us be clear, 

The Spectacle is the byproduct of Utterance, not merely Conveyance

The postmodern Object is commodified, as postmodernity is a culture of Commodity,

This commodification is the imposition of Value on the Object:

Value expresses a relation between Subject and Object

(the Object’s Value to the Subject)

Because this Value is a Subjective imposition

(The Subject valuing an Object)

the Valued Object (Commodity) appears 

as an Object intended for a Subject

(the imposed Value is Subject-reflective)

Further,

The Commodity, being the result of Production, carries the mark of Authorship,

though the Commodity in light of Conveyance, 

obscures this Authorship through the shifting Subject/Object interplay,

this reification transforms the Commodity 

from thing-intended-for the Subject to thing-desired-by the Subject

In effect,

the Authorship of the Commodity is transferred to the Spectator

(the illusion of Avatar)

If we accept Debord’s analysis of the Spectacle as Worldview materially translated,

then the resulting reification of the Commodity 

(the illusory transference of Authorship)

manifests a false sense of Subject Agency, or, Will in the World.

On Cosm(o)s

I have been gesturing at a Microcosm/Macrocosm dichotomy

(the Less = More, the inside/outside, the ourselves and others;

__________________, the Minimalist/Minimalest Transmission),

Trust, it is in Perception.

(Subjectivity)

We have seen it in the Space of Conveyance:

The momentary operation of all Subject/Object transmissions

wherein the Subject observes the Object 

(Self-Consciousness qua Object-Consciousness)

WHILE

being acted upon by the Object

(The Being with the Object)

The Perception of Being with the Object is a matrix of conceivable spaces;

Perceiving the Being with the Object as Object 

is to 

 Perceive Being with the Object  as within the Space it creates

(the Perception of the Object in Conveyance, the Microcosm)

or 

 Perceive Being with the Object from outside the Space it creates

(The Perception of the Conveyance as Object, the Macrocosm)

In the First,

The Perception of the Object expands through its being multiplicitous

In the Second,

The Perception of the Object is dwarfed in the space necessary to perceive it in totality

and,

there is the creation then of an infinite negative space:

the other than Perception

On Utterance

Subject

The Subject is that which produces the Subject/Object Opposition

AND
The Negation of this Opposition in Being with the Object 

Object

The Object is both product of Subjectivity 

(Self-Consciousness AS Object-Consciousness)

AND

The Manifestation of Subjectivity

(The Being with the Object)

The Space of Conveyance

The momentary operation of all Subject/Object transmissions

wherein the Subject observes the Object 

(Self-Consciousness qua Object-Consciousness)

WHILE

being acted upon by the Object

(The Being with the Object)

which is to say:

The Object does not convey its Being (the Thing-Itself);

but the Subject’s Being with the Object

Utterance

An Object-mediated Conveyance between Author & Spectator

Art as Utterance

Art is centered on the Art Object

It is through the Art Object

that we have any concept of Art at all

which is to say,

Art is the coming-into-being of the Art Object

Due to our Subjectivity

(ourselves as Subject in Opposition to Object)

being mediated by our Consciousness

(our Consciousness as the relation between Subject and Object)

the Art Object comes into being

for each Subject

marked by their own Consciousness

So,

the coming-into-being of the Art Object

is the multiplicitous marking of all transmitting Agents

(its being in Totality)

but

as the marked coming-into-being of the Object

is the Object mediated by Consciousness,

in the conscious engagement of each Subject

the marked Object proxies for the Object as it exists in the Totality

While each Subject perceives only their own marking of the Art Object

their individual markings are subsumed in the Totality of the Art Object

The Art Object in Totality is the Art Object Engaged

So, 

the Subjective engagement with the Art Object reflects the Totality

in revealing the Subject's marking of the Art Object

likewise

The revealing of the Subject's marking of the Art Object 

is the reflection of the Subject in Totality

The Subject is subsumed in the Totality

for the Totality is, in being Total, all-inclusive

and thereby,

reflects both the Subject and not the Subject

or

the Subject's being and not-being

The Subject in engaging Art

engages itself and its negation

and the negation negates

the Subject is annihilated

Art is the annihilation of the Subject

by the nature of its being

a reflection of the Totality

Given That:

Minimalist Art

Minimalist Art is the annihilation of the Subject

(by the nature of its being a reflection of the Totality)

through the most minimal expression available to both Artist and Spectator

I believe material reality is the Totality of Being

which is to say

The most minimal expression of Material Reality is its Being

(The Thing-Itself)

The Minimalist Art Object is thus

the expression of its Being in Material Reality

because

The most-minimal expression shared by both Artist and Spectator

is the Being of the Minimalist Art Object in its Material Reality

As such

the Minimalist Art Object is Art

by its annihilation of the Subject

through reflecting the Totality

by its Being in the Material Reality

Every Subject in engaging the Minimalist Art Object

is annihilated by the minimalist expression of (its) Material Reality

as it exists in (its) Totality

The Totality of each Subject's engagement

with the Minimalist Art Object

is (their) Being in Material Reality

Optional Homework 2

The Space of Conveyance

A Conveyance is:

1. a process of transporting something from one place to another.

2. a means of transportation; a vehicle.

3. the making of an idea, feeling, or impression known or understandable.

I feel all of these definitions, at least symbolically, 

help to explain the Conveyance.

Obviously 3 gets closest to our purposes.

Here,

I want to stress the equal standings of 'idea, feeling, or impression,'

(with expression and gesture, we cover nearly all which is conveyable)

and the vague clarifiers for the delivery, 'known or understandable,'

these words share a crucial momentariness.

The Conveyance need not produce anything in the Subject (Spectator)

only be received by the Subject,

think about this reception as the Space of Conveyance.

When we speak of the Conveyance then,

we speak of all human transmission as equal 

in that they are, finally, conveyable.

(screams, doodles, food orders, paintings, poems, telemarketing calls, etc.)

It is in the conveying that all transmission is equal,

the conveying is the creation of a Space of Conveyance.

Now, think of the Space of any Conveyance: what are its factors?

- Time? Walls? Dimension? Weight? Form? Perception? Sense? Context?

In looking for the Minimalist/Minimalest Conveyance,

we seek the Minimalist/Minimalest Space of Conveyance.

(wait for it...)

Now if we accept what we earlier proposed for the Object

then we understand the Conveyance 

as a coming-into-being of a multiplicitous Subjectivity;

the Conveyance, if seen in its totality, reveals the whole of its Subjective existence.

Is the Space of Conveyance 

the Space of the Object 

or the Space of the Object in Totality?

Let us say it's both, either, or neither,

What then is the Minimalist/Minimalest Space of Conveyance?

On Subjectivity

In philosophy, 

A Subject is a being that has:

Subjective Experiences

Subjective Consciousness 

or a relationship with another entity (Object)

A Subject is an Observer and an Object is a thing Observed. 

In critical theory and psychology,

Subjectivity is the actions or discourses that produce individuals or 'I'

—the 'I' is the Subject.

So, the Subject is both

that which Observes the Object 

and 

that which the Object acts upon (produces)

Georg Hegel defines this inherent tension, as pure negativity:
"...the bifurcation of the simple;
it is the doubling which sets up opposition,
and then again
the negation of this indifferent diversity and of its anti-thesis"

Which is to say,
The Subject is that which produces the Subject/Object Opposition
AND
The negation of this Opposition (by the nature of its being)

Or,
The Subject's Observance of the Object
at once
manifests the observable demarcation of Subject and Object
while negating this distinction in being acted upon by the Object

The Observance of the Object
(which we have called marking)
is the Subject being (momentarily) with an Object
which simultaneously acts upon the Subject

So while the Observance of the Object
manifests the observable demarcation of Subject and Object
(the awareness of Other-than-Subject is the coming-into-being of Other)
that demarcation is negated in the mutuality of Subject/Object relations

(the marking of the Object)

What manifests is an illusory division between Subject and Object

which obscures the Subjective marking of the Object

by denying this perpetual (yet momentary) symbiosis

Thinking Excercise

Let us think of the Subject as the vessel of the Object

which is to say,

The Object comes-into-being as per the Subject

This coming-into-being is Subjective (multiplicitous)

The Object being momentary

Let us think of the Object as coming-into-being 

Always and as Everything

(everything possible in the Subjectification of the Object)

Then, 

remember the Object is actually the Thing-Itself

So,

The coming-into-being of the Object is not its Being (the thing-itself)

but its multiplicitous Subjective manifestation

Now Remember, 

The Minimalist/Minimalest expression is the Thing-Itself.

Intro to Minimalism Playlist

This was the playlist for Intro to Minimalism

Erik Satie - Gnossiennes I: Lent
Phillip Glass - Contrary Motion
Neutral Milk Hotel - Avery Island/April 1st
Steve Reich - Drumming Part 04
The Intelligence - Fake Surfers
Can - Yoo Doo Right
Terry Reily - In C (68 recording)
Nice Face - A Gaping Gash
Mountainhood - The Road Part II
Dead Luke - Trapped in Lust 
Dr. Dog - Mystery to Me

Moon Duo - Motorcycle, I Love You

Working from the principle, a la Stella,

that the Minimalist Art Object is (solely) the Thing-Itself

We began our analysis of Minimalism from music

as a means of problematizing the idea of the Object

Zip of whole playlist available for download below or here

file storage

On Criticism

Criticism

noun

1 an expression of disapproval based on perceived faults or mistakes

2 the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work

ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from critic or Latin criticus + -ism .

There are two things of note here:

1. The illusory division of professional (or academic) criticism 

     from the pronouncement of disapproval at its etymological base.

2. From the ORIGIN, Criticism is the act or method of the Critic

Critic

noun

1 a person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something

2 a person who judges the merits of literary, artistic, or musical works, 

   esp. one who does so professionally 

ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from Latin criticus, from Greek kritikos ‘able to discern’, from kritēs ‘a judge,’ from krinein ‘judge, decide, separate.’

Now the import of our earlier divide becomes clear, for:

If a critic is “a person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something,” 

than the critic is defined by the party which they oppose,

(those who would deem the criticism unfavorable)

which is to say,
the Critic comes-into-being only in opposition to an existing idea.

However,

There are some who would debate this claim, 

argue that criticism need not necessitate opposition, 

argue that the critic need not oppose anything,

only as Milan Kundera said, “discover discoveries.”

This is where the etymology comes in.

At the root of Critic is Krinein, to judge, decide, separate. 

Which is to say,

there is an inherent divisiveness at play in the Critic,

for there is an inherent divisiveness in all judgment,

every declaration of value stands in opposition to its other

this is the nature of Krinein, the judgment as separation.

Thus, the academic critic, 

in defining itself apart from the adversarial definition at its root, 

politely avoids stepping on anyone’s toes 

and so, fails to truly criticize anything.

Critical Theory

Critical Theory is the systemic foundation of (the above) opposition. 

This naturally puts Critical Theory in line with Dialectics, 

wherein thesis is opposed by antithesis, resulting in synthesis.

This synthesis thus becomes thesis again, and so on and so forth. 

The opposition of the Critic is thus, 

in a way, an engagement with a temporal order, 

a testament to an ever-evolving record of overcoming (strife).

And this works for thousands of years. 

Then something strange happens.

Modernity produces a break with the continuum of Western Thought.

Certain precepts which had hitherto been untouchable ideals

are brought into question by new schools of philosophy, art, and criticism.

Suddenly, 

God is up for reconsideration, and with it, any static notions of Truth.

No longer can the critic make value judgments 

for notions of value are made obsolete in the rising awareness of 

Subjectivity.

One way of thinking about this is that Modernity saw the (re)emergence of Nihilism,

(wherein all being contends with its own negation)

and as such, 

the critic’s judgment faces negation even as it seeks to undermine its opposition.

This is a deeply unstable process,

and that instability becomes the trademark of much of postmodern thinking.