Michael says it eloquently.  And I say to him, I'm
witcha.

WC
--- Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Jul 11, 2008, at 10:46 AM, William Conger wrote:
> 
> > As an artist I think fuzziness is a virtue.  In
> art
> > it's hard to be fuzzy but so necessary to achieve
> any
> > degree of genuine quality or symbolic content.
> > Fuzzier the better I say.  But fuzziness needs to
> be
> > balanced so that one vague "stirring"  (another
> > Cheerskep logo) reveals another without altogether
> > disappearing. And another, and so on.  It's even
> > better when one fuzzy stirring begets an opposite
> > fuzzy stirring.  Ah, paradox, the elemental life
> > force, the anti-matter, the invisible other side
> of
> > mass, the secret thought propping up the social
> > thought. Name an artist and you name a fuzzyist.
> The
> > poets call it, flatly, ambiguity.
> 
> 
> I'm witcha.
> 
> I'll repeat my earlier post from March 30:
> 
> Another thought: Words are spoken in long strings of
> sounds that  
> aggregate and blend together. But because we can
> move small sections  
> of the sounds around--what we call words--we
> disaggregate the whole  
> stream. Orthography has followed suit: word spaces
> were introduced  
> long after entire sentences and thoughts were
> inscribed in an unbroken  
> parade of marks. Nowadays, we hear separate words
> with the  
> reinforcement of having seen the words written as
> separate entities.  
> (I'm sure you've had the experience of not being
> able to figure out  
> what the hell that song lyric says, until you read
> the words on the  
> album cover. Then you can hear the words as
> "meaningful," rather than  
> as a blur of unfathomable sounds.)
> 
> Somehow, our attentive faculties enable us to
> perceive things clearly  
> as they blur by. But when those things are static,
> when the passage is  
> halted, they are like photographs of friends that
> make them look odd  
> or funny, because they face is frozen with one eye
> squinted and the  
> tip of the tongue sticking out of the lips. We don't
> see that when  
> they speak. Per contrast, when we are allowed to
> arrest the passage of  
> experience in some way, we can figure out what those
> fuzzy or  
> ambiguous or incomprehensible parts are, at least
> long enough to put  
> them into the context (of the constantly moving
> experience).
> 
> Cheerskep is stopping the game film and pointing out
> how this or that  
> word or thought or notion is hard to understand or
> follow, and William  
> is saying, "For crying out loud, let the play
> develop and you'll know  
> what's going on."
> 
> 
> 
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Michael Brady
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to