Floating Bridges: Introversion and Extroversion of the Archive Labyrinth of Art Information Infra-Architectonics

https://ia601502.us.archive.org/27/items/FloatingBridges1/FloatingBridges%5B1%5D.pdf The Art Neologism Strange Loop here is that of “Chiaroscuro” interpreted to carry the information of the sound morpheme “skrr” towards the topologies from scratch to sculpture and of XHX or the origin of “H” morphogenic to “hue” : in Greek; origins of both morphemes are adaptions into alphabet from Persian-Assyrian sources the latter osmotic to “Aurora, -dawn, or roar of the crowd that is the topologies of the bow and the lyre in which sight and sound are stain and echo of the semiotic reading carrying across associations, tropes, with trope itself the human quotient or pathos shaping “Andros” to Anthropos as the original Oedipus riddle… the cross disciplinary tropes, connections, of the meaning matrix are the structure of art , osmotic, ehoey , obscure, or graphic formed and material as the self constitution of “an attunement that turns back on itself like that of the bow and the lyre.”-Heraclitus… In contemporary cyber virtuality and the usage in my art of motion sensor drawing as the art of archive looks into the adaptive sourcing of Aestheticism as it stands in the Hegelian and Kantian orders of Drive and Conditionality respectively towards taking a “sublective” view of the audience, that is DE territorializing the concept of the audience as a monument emerging from language, and also standing aside from the tonic or specialized niche point of view, rather, the original impulse of the Art&Language movement towards recognizing a structural matrix is an implicate order remaining to be brought to view in the new forms by which mediation and osmotic conflux are a formative agency by which selection is not the overview but its motion towards again selecting itself and deteritorializing aperception from mere agency. Space as object driven, dialectic and recoiling to a lacunae, time as heuristic, labyrinthine, and monumental arrive in their conflux at a pre and post determination of the viewer or user of the art-architectural information strange loopage. Within this summary the proposition seems an open door in which the monumentality ascribed to the viewer on the one hand, and likewise the special interest niches of the tonic are not really altogether with the program so to speak, false conception really based on assumptions that mediation meets the stain of osmotic realization in mapping emergent interests. In fact there is no need for these conclusions, the creative ductility which is the throwness of the experience is best archived towards future, rather than present interests, in which then the diagnostic presence evaporates from the intent to force the audience to become a kind of sculptural mass, and instead retire to art as its own theory of productivity out of which the moment arises.