Friday 25 January 2008

Attempt (2.1) How to represent? - Robert Dingle

Attempt (2.1) How to Represent? - Robert Dingle

This follows on from matters discussed in the last meeting (18th Jan 08) regarding how to present the project at Tuesday Meeting, Goldsmiths. Resulting from the discussion we decided not to present anything, but to use the curating studio as a site for a project meeting.

The Ding or Thing has for many centuries meant the issues that brings people together because it divides them…We don’t assemble because we agree, look alike, feel good, are socially compatible or wish to fuse together but because we are brought by divisive matters of concern into some neutral, isolated place in order to come to some provisional makeshift (dis) agreement. If the Ding can be both those who assemble because they are concerned as well as what causes their concerns and divisions, it should become the centre of our attentions: Back to Things!
Bruno Latour, Making Things Public, 2005

The Ding can be thought to designate both, a place for those to assemble who are concerned and what causes their concerns and divisions. It is a relevant place of assembly where issues are represented by those who they affect. If we can assume that an object (or issue) generates a discourse based upon agreements, disagreements, disruptions and disturbances then we should also be able to assume that it is these issues that should be addressed in assemblies, meetings, gatherings, councils etc.

http://www.bruno-latour.fr/expositions/96-MTP-DING.pdf

Ding or (Ding politics) offers a model for representation that allows for a devicive approach towards the presentation and re-presentation of issues.

Manque Manque meeting, Goldsmiths Curating Studio, Tuesday 26th Feb, Time: tba

Unfortunately we were unable to reschedule Tuesday Meeting at Goldsmiths from the 26th Feb to the 19th Feb. We were able to have the entire session to ourselves.

9 comments:

Manque Manque said...

absolute representation requires absolute transparency

Danyal Dhondy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Manque Manque said...

Explain Yourself!

Manque Manque said...

Laclau proposes in Emancipation(s) that 'transparency requires full representability, and there is no possibility of achieving it if the opaqueness inherent in radical otherness is constitutive of social relations' (p.5) and i would propose the inverse, that full representation requires full transparency and as the social field is constituted by a field of otherness and therefore opacity FULL representation is never achievable.

T

Manque Manque said...

Deep drag of helium

OK should full representation be achieved? Take a tin of Roses. Who decided that there should be a coffee
soft centre? Take the Smash Martians (for mash get smash) the masses hated it, could not understand it and of course then loved it. The concept of 'Madegascarism'. Full representation annihilates creativity.

Manque Manque said...

no, of course, i wouldn't suggest that full representation is desirable.

but why do you need helium?

T

Manque Manque said...

Basically to say what feels and not what seems; to talk from my stomach which often is a far more perceptive organ.

Manque Manque said...

i like the coffee ones anyways

Manque Manque said...

but only if you have the stomach for it.
Q is the BWO the dissembled body politic of Latour's Leviathan?