citizen king-mystery of truth

3. Art is the process of a truth, and this truth is always the truth=
of the sensible or sensual, the sensible qua sensible. This means†=
: the transformation of the sensible into an happening of the Idea.
MANIK:"Belief is the process of a truth, and this truth is al=
ways the truth of the sensible or sensual, the sensible qua sensible. This =
means†: the transformation of the sensible into an happening of the=
Idea of Good.

ja: I would have thought that the fundamental truths of many =
religions are primarily not sensible in that they require faith concerning =
the existence of the non-sensible.



5. Every art develops from an impure form, and the progressiv=
e purification of this impurity shapes the history both of a particular art=
istic truth and of its exhaustion.

MANIK:"Every religion develops from an impure form, and the p=
rogressive purification of this impurity shapes the history both of a parti=
cular theological truth and of its exhaustion."

ja: Interesting. Will humanity eventually abandon Christianit=
y or Islam or Judaism etc because they are exhausted? It doesn't appear to=
be on the horizon.



PS: Strange ; we can change main words and still keep sense?!?
MANIK

ja: If that were the case, then Badiou's philosophy might as well be theo=
logy, wouldn't it? Which would be an owie for the philosophy.

>

> >

> what do you mean 'calling for non-specificity', Ryan?

10. Non-imperial art is necessarily abstract art, in this sense: it
abstracts itself from all particularity, and formalizes this gesture of
abstraction.

maybe the "non-particular" is different from the "non-specific"?

> i agree that the badiou seemed fairly platonic. platonism might as
> well be a
> religion in certain ways.

yes, but without acknowledging itself as practicing "faith." i don't
mean to bring up the post-structuralist critique of reason/rational
thought, only some of which is either practically or conceptually
interesting to me. But "searches for truth" in that Platonic vein,
especially those that attempt to critique religion as false
consciousness seem absurd IMHO, especially when it comes to "Art." What
kind of "truth" can be found that is "abstracted from all
particularity" that is not based on faith?
i had a philosophy prof that spent his time (and ours unfortunately)
trying to define the "value of Art." Not the symbolic-, exchange-, or
economic value, which would have been useful, but "Art Value." He had
this Platonic notion that "Art" has an ideal form that we only have
access to in particularities (concrete form). oh how he hated modernism
and postmoderism, and anything that dealt with anything tangible or
rooted in historical analysis. Actually he liked arguing against pomo
theory because it was easy for him to lead its student defenders into
the relativist trap, denouncing their own values until they were
totally confused. And he loved that power trip.

> one would expect general statements about art often to share a certain
> amount of applicability with religion, wouldn't one? they're both
> concerned
> with spirituality and goodness, aren't they?

i don't know about that… maybe one could say the intentions behind
each overlap sometimes. but i don't think art is based in any kind of
spirituality. but then again, what art are we talking about. Art(forum)
Art(news) Art(papers) Art(& Language) Art(text) Art(& Design)…
i don't mean this cynically, but i think it's important to separate
creation from the industrial mechanisms that allow for the existence of
a field called "Art." i.e if one wants to argue the "creative impulse,"
OK, but an innate impulse is different than an economic and political
superstructure. and those superstructures are certainly not based on
"goodness." that would be like looking for "spirituality" and
"goodness" in the concerns of "Fashion" or "Furniture Design." i think
it's difficult, if not an outright mistake, to attach concerns to "Art"
or anything else, as if it's a natural thing. these are constructs,
vehicles IMO, that represent the interests of those driving them.

> > what do you mean 'calling for non-specificity', Ryan?
>
> 10. Non-imperial art is necessarily abstract art, in this sense: it
> abstracts itself from all particularity, and formalizes this gesture of
> abstraction.
>
> maybe the "non-particular" is different from the "non-specific"?

I wasn't sure what Badiou meant by this in the first place. I was just
wondering if that's what you were referring to. I don't know how we'd tell
the difference between the 'non-particular' and the 'non-specific'. If there
is any difference. Badiou is fairly vague at this point and other points.
Maybe some book he wrote offers a bit of clarification.

> > i agree that the badiou seemed fairly platonic. platonism might as
> > well be a
> > religion in certain ways.
>
> yes, but without acknowledging itself as practicing "faith." i don't
> mean to bring up the post-structuralist critique of reason/rational
> thought, only some of which is either practically or conceptually
> interesting to me. But "searches for truth" in that Platonic vein,
> especially those that attempt to critique religion as false
> consciousness seem absurd IMHO, especially when it comes to "Art." What
> kind of "truth" can be found that is "abstracted from all
> particularity" that is not based on faith?

Examine any argument closely enough and one will eventually either uncover
assumptions or circular reasoning (if for no other reason than a dictionary
must either be circular or leave some words undefined). So I agree that
something like 'faith' or 'belief' or 'assumption', each of which seems
inflected with different levels of conviction or emotional committment, are
unavoidable. The idea that 'God is love' seems a relatively bite-sized
assumption. The idea that God wrote the Bible or Koran seems a tad larger.

> i had a philosophy prof that spent his time (and ours unfortunately)
> trying to define the "value of Art." Not the symbolic-, exchange-, or
> economic value, which would have been useful, but "Art Value." He had
> this Platonic notion that "Art" has an ideal form that we only have
> access to in particularities (concrete form). oh how he hated modernism
> and postmoderism, and anything that dealt with anything tangible or
> rooted in historical analysis. Actually he liked arguing against pomo
> theory because it was easy for him to lead its student defenders into
> the relativist trap, denouncing their own values until they were
> totally confused. And he loved that power trip.
>
> > one would expect general statements about art often to share a certain
> > amount of applicability with religion, wouldn't one? they're both
> > concerned
> > with spirituality and goodness, aren't they?
>
> i don't know about that… maybe one could say the intentions behind
> each overlap sometimes. but i don't think art is based in any kind of
> spirituality. but then again, what art are we talking about. Art(forum)
> Art(news) Art(papers) Art(& Language) Art(text) Art(& Design)…
> i don't mean this cynically, but i think it's important to separate
> creation from the industrial mechanisms that allow for the existence of
> a field called "Art." i.e if one wants to argue the "creative impulse,"
> OK, but an innate impulse is different than an economic and political
> superstructure. and those superstructures are certainly not based on
> "goodness." that would be like looking for "spirituality" and
> "goodness" in the concerns of "Fashion" or "Furniture Design." i think
> it's difficult, if not an outright mistake, to attach concerns to "Art"
> or anything else, as if it's a natural thing. these are constructs,
> vehicles IMO, that represent the interests of those driving them.

I agree with what you say, for the most part. But even in something like
woodwork, when somebody makes a bowl, say, they can have a sense of
offering, a hope that in creating the thing (whatever it may be), it will
help somebody in some way, that it is toward the greater good and lessening
human suffering. A gesture of service to others. This is the sort of thing I
mean by 'spirituality'. Not necessarily a conventionally religious thing but
a desire to act in accordance with the greater good.

My dad liked to make things out of wood. He wasn't a master craftsman, in
fact much of his work consisted of simple bowls. But I got this vibe from
them. They were embodiments of his kindness and generosity and desire to act
in accordance with the greater good. They were offerings to other people and
also to the world.

ja
http://vispo.com

—– Original Message —–
From: Jim Andrews
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 1:20 AM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: citizen king-mystery of truth

Mr.Badiou use word *truth*so often like some common cause.Actually he wro=
te from place of some,for us non-recognizable consensus(place where truth s=
till exist intact in phenomenal extension).In his "theses"art is melted in =
mega-system called culture.Our intention was to pay attention that ,in this=
particular case(theses),word art could be replaced not with religion only;=
that could be philosophy,sociology,education…etc
Also we supported and try, in frame of our possibility,to be constructive=
in critic because that's the way to make useful infrastructure for specifi=
c reflection which could be able to recognize and signify specific place(we=
still cal that place art).
MANIK
3. Art is the process of a truth, and this truth is always the tru=
th of the sensible or sensual, the sensible qua sensible. This meansaE=

Badiou comes from a background in mathematics (real maths, not Deleuze-Guattari maths), so I'm guessing his baseline is maths, not theology. IIRC philosophy started as a critique of religion, so doubtless there's echoes in there. And maths is not without its philosophy.

As for changing the words but keeping the sense, both a mouse and a hungry lion have four legs. I know which I'd rather be locked in a cage with. ;-) But possibly this is language's insufficiency. Would art allow us to simply substitute terms into arguments whilst remaining coherent? Would this be an advantage or a disadvantage? How does digital media affect this?

Badiou outlines exactly what he means by "truth" in an earlier book. He has a very precise, if abstract, meaning for the word. He uses words like "finite" and "infinite" a lot. :-)

The first couple of chapters of "Inaesthetics" are pure gold. Philosophy and aesthetics, not culture theory sound-bites. The book doesn't discuss visual art that much (cinema's in there), but that leaves more for artists to do and I think it may be covered in the compendium of his work.

Hmmm. I need to set up an Amazon link that pays me commission. :-)

- Rob.

On Thursday, January 13, 2005, at 09:21AM, manik <[email protected]> wrote:

>
><<Original Attached>>

My dad's wooden bowls:
http://lab404.com/bowls/

_

Jim Andrews wrote:

I agree with what you say, for the most part. But even in something like
woodwork, when somebody makes a bowl, say, they can have a sense of
offering, a hope that in creating the thing (whatever it may be), it will
help somebody in some way, that it is toward the greater good and lessening
human suffering. A gesture of service to others. This is the sort of thing I
mean by 'spirituality'. Not necessarily a conventionally religious thing but
a desire to act in accordance with the greater good.

My dad liked to make things out of wood. He wasn't a master craftsman, in
fact much of his work consisted of simple bowls. But I got this vibe from
them. They were embodiments of his kindness and generosity and desire to act
in accordance with the greater good. They were offerings to other people and
also to the world.

> My dad's wooden bowls:
> http://lab404.com/bowls/


Thanks for that, Curt. I particularly liked the photo of the one with the
quote from the Bible and the flaw. I like what he's done with the flaw.
There is no attempt to hide the flaw. Instead, it is addressed.

ja

> This is the sort of thing I
> mean by 'spirituality'. Not necessarily a conventionally religious
> thing but
> a desire to act in accordance with the greater good.
>
> My dad liked to make things out of wood. He wasn't a master craftsman,
> in
> fact much of his work consisted of simple bowls. But I got this vibe
> from
> them. They were embodiments of his kindness and generosity and desire
> to act
> in accordance with the greater good. They were offerings to other
> people and
> also to the world.

This is sort of what i meant by wanting to separating creation from the
mechanisms that allow for a field. not in isolation, to be sure, but a
division that allows one to consider art and Art as overlapping and
codependent, but not the same activity, necessarily.
anyway, i used to work at a contemporary crafts gallery, and i would
say anyone who can make a bowl from wood, by hand, is pretty damn close
to a master craftsman.
take care, ryan