Hi All, I will chime in at Annie’s request.
First, I just want to say that I love the ways in which philosophers are re-interpreted by artists and by other philosophers, whether intentionally or accidentally. It seems to me a very productive kind of confusion/confounding, like con-fusing a sperm with an egg — a new ghost is born and produced. So when Deleuze is accused of mis-interpreting Leibniz, he famously says his goal was never to rightly interpret Leibniz, but to bugger him and produce a bastart offspring. And Charles Olson is supposed to be the poetic enaction of Alfred North Whitehead, but there is lots of evidence to suggest that Olson’s understanding of Whitehead’s philosophy is loose or just plain wrong. But so what? We get The Maximus poems. So hopefully I won’t clarify anything so much as add to the confusion. ////////////// That Lazzarato quote is rich and suggests all sorts of directions. I’ll just stick with Bakhtin whom I know better. Bakhtin’s term is “utterance," not “voice.” An utterance could be spoken words at a particular time and space in history, or it could be a instance of reading a book at a particular time and space in history. What it can’t be is simply a book sitting on a shelf unread. The book on the shelf is the syntactic side of “language” (the side someone like Chomsky is always on about), but that is ony one side of language. That side (book on a shelf) is dead if we all stop talking and reading in time/space history. But as we keep talking and reading, even if we never open that book, the language in that book is changing so that when we finally do open the book and read it, our understanding of certain words in that book will be different now than ten years ago. Joseph Grigely even adds the idea that when an author pens a text, that historical event of writing (or typing or dictating or whatever) is an utterance. It’s not the defining utterance by any means, but it qualifies as an utterance. (I like the way Grigely reads Bakhtin.) Barthes seems to be saying something similar to Bakhtin, but more proto-post-structuralist and broad, when Barthes talks about intertextuality and the fact that any single text is a tissue of citations of prior texts (whether explicitly footnoted or not). This may be more in line with Alan’s understanding of textual voices [below], although I would not want to put my words in Alan’s mouth. I agree with Barthes, but Barthes doesn’t focus as much on the real-time “utterance” aspect. Without the utterance event (whether an event of speaking or an event of reading or an event of writing), "language" is hermetically sealed. Without the historical utterance event, language: 1) doesn’t bring all its prior meanings to enter lived, present-tense time/space, AND 2) it doesn’t receive new meanings that arise from the particular inflections/affects/timbres/typefaces/lighting/contexts of that present-tense time/space utterance. That #2 aspect is super important. It’s the way in which “the world” gets into “language.” So let’s say you are reading this email in a coffee house. The way your coffee tastes and the music they are playing and the sunlight through the window and the resolution of your monitor and the fact that it is set in helvetica and the fact that you have to go to the bathroom are all affectively modulating the language you are reading (in subtle but real ways). So the next time you think and use and read and speak those same words, those words change for you, and for others then reading and writing you. So all of language is like an ongoing and evolving dialogue for all humans over all history, but totally entangled with the real historical instances in which it is uttered. Language itself cannot evolve without the utterance event. (“The utterance is an exceptionally important node of problems.” - Bakhtin) So, for example, Alan and I met at Brown in 2011 and hung out and talked and I saw him perform and he saw me perform and that real-time experience changed our online communication, and our communication with others, and (to some subtle degree) the history of the English language. And Annie and I collaborated on a project online, and although we only repeated the single word “love,” that word is changed now for us and others. The cool/robust thing about Bakhtin’s “utterance” is that it doesn’t prioritize the spoken voice, or bodily presence, or any particular form of text. It just has to happen in lived, historical real-time/space. It has to be an event. Event or it didn’t happen. Event or GTFO. Granted, it does prioritize a kind of human subject, but Bakhtin is writing all this in the 1950s way prior to object-oriented ontology and its anthropocentric warnings. Animal/plant/rock utterances? Sure, why not? As I read Whitehead, it’s not too hard to get there. Human-to-object-to-human utterances? It seems like that’s what Annie is exploring. ////////////// Anyway, that is my read of Bakhtin. My understanding of Bakhtin is admittedly influenced strongly by my understanding of Whitehead, and even by my understanding of J.L. Austin and Derrida’s reading of Austin. So if I’m bringing something new to Bakhtin that is more than what he is actually saying, I don’t mind, because it becomes a useful way for me to think about what uttered real-time language is actually doing. (Hint: It’s doing much more than merely semiotically re-presenting, although it’s doing that too.) Best, Curt > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:18:53 +0100 > From: Annie Abrahams <bram....@gmail.com> > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] besides, what are we (Martina and Annie in > their networked performances) doing? > Message-ID: > <CAPYs01=ha4yg39prujvz3cv_9ot-uvvfrxy1vmzodspm1rk...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thanks Ruth and Mark for paying attention - that is stimulating. > > Ruth : > the voice, the voices - how I understand it is that the voice is what makes > a text, an idea an unique expression in a relation. It is the voice that > loads words with affect and makes it an address to someone. (I'm still > processing the quote on Bakthin by Lazzarato) It is the voice that filters > the possible significations of the words to one unique expression. > > No, I don't think there is "a voice" in the written word, not the same way > at least. I can imagine that an extended range of voices you have access > to, does influence your thought and writing. If a voice is an affective > address, and if you can "change" voices, you get access to different > registers of affect and address, your content as a consequence becomes > richer, more diversified... Your style could change ... > > Maybe we should ask Curt Cloninger to react to this - he is the one who put > me on the track of Bakthin. See here in his article on glitch (yes glitch) > http://lab404.com/glitch/ > Here are some Bakhtin quaotes from his article. > "*Language enters life through concrete utterances (which manifest > language) and life enters language through concrete utterances as well. The > utterance is an exceptionally important node of problems.* > > *Only the contact between the language meaning and the concrete reality > that takes place in the utterance can create the spark of expression. It > exists neither in the system of language nor in the objective reality > surrounding us. Thus, emotion, evaluation, and expression are foreign to > the word of language and are born only in the process of its live usage in > a concrete utterance.* > > *Each text (both oral and written) includes a significant number of various > kinds of natural aspects devoid of signification... but which are still > taken into account (deterioration of manuscript, poor diction, and so > forth). There are not nor can there be any pure texts. In each text, > moreover, there are a number of aspects that can be called technical (the > technical side of graphics, pronunciation, and so forth).*" > > My interest is foremost in what our voices do in our *besides,* > performances, how they function (when you don't see the person you are > addressing), and what they do with the objects. > To further investigate Martina and I planned to do a few short > performances. Three very short performances : One as usual, one without > voices, but with written text over the images of the things, and a third > one with voices, but no text, no content. let's hope we get invited to do > so. > > Mark : > There are so many things going on at the same time in our performances; > First of all it is a meeting between Martina and me. For us it is a way of > getting to know the other by collaborating in a performance context. And > so, yes it is always becoming. > The understanding of a text is always a part of a relation. > > xxx > Have a nice weekend > Annie > > Communication without words and closed eyes : http://bram.org/distantF/ > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 22:50:41 -0500 (EST) > From: Alan Sondheim <sondh...@panix.com> > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] besides, what are we (Martina and Annie in > their networked performances) doing? > Message-ID: <alpine.neb.2.20.1603112247030.23...@panix3.panix.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > > Hi, just wanted to mention you might look at issues of inner voice / inner > worlds - Vygotsky for example - and this connects also to inner worlds, > diegesis, the 'world of the book' - Miekal Dufrenne for example. There > isn't a voice in the written word - there are numerous voices, a panoply > of them. I'm well aware of this in my reading and writing. It's different > than, say, the kind of alterity Levinas writes about (Sartre for that > matter), the presence of another, the messiness of that presence (which > fascinates me). But all of these are interwoven and of course complex - > Alan (apologies if this is somewhat off-topic) _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
