‘politics’, under any/all parties, is the art of lying = untruth


trump is liked because he’s a consummate ringer of that bell.

some think that it’s about power. and it is no doubt. but, in the US, it’s not. ‘America’ is too simple to understand the concept of power. it’s about ideology that couldn’t be more perverse or misguided. it’s about misguided allusions, totally naive and uneducated, conceptions, of how things work. and yes, of course, the race-card plays a huge role in that. but race is not the major card.

example: if i were to write a biography about my own father, i’d have to say he was archie bunker incarnate, without the irony, IF there was any. but he was the typical ‘rural’ voter, if there is such, who believed whatever he read in the small local press, the waterville sentinel. whose understanding of the world was that small. pre-net, he never read the NY Time, or even, the Portland Herald… though, he was highly intelligent. was the number 3 manager of the largest papermill in the world, at that time. had a brilliance for logistics. just uneducated. had only a highschool diploma, not much less than bill gates or suckerberg, and the google boys, all of whom never graduated from college. ignorant but rich neophites. they don’t have a cultural historical bone in their bodies. for that reason, they discount art, literature, sophistication, intelligence! cultural knowledge. because they don’t possess it.

they’re just technitions, who swarmed around them and made them look like more than they are – the uneducated riff-raff they are. accountants. without a moral or philosophical concept in their substandard techno-minds. there is more intelligence in the inspired radicals of high schools all across the US, than in these monotonic geeks.

the Obamas, barack and michelle alike, are consummate liars. together, they set out to make their privilege pay them huge dividends. and they have succeeded, grandly with multimillion contracts across their ‘brands’… i’m imagining facebook and google brands in the obamas’ flesh. similar to the days of slavery. i’m white. so to make that comment will be condemned. because i’m protestant and not jewish. yet, who gets to interpret history? Clarence Thomas and Condalisa Rice?

truth has no racial skin. but politics does.

ID politics is bankrupt. has been for over a decade.

i predicted the rise of trump. the right is far smarter than the left.

the left had allowed itself to be duped, over and over and over.

because it’s so ideological and not pragmatic.

‘politics’, under any/all parties, is the art of lying = untruth

for Pat deCaro on election day

to ward off anxiety: [strange, to me, how some interpret this image as ‘personal’. rather than simply and genuinely dialogical. what does that say about specifically ‘american’ culture? which compared to other nations, is, on the whole, aesthetically highly ignorant.] but given ‘american’ viewers, then, i’ll impatiently point out that the following image addresses neither myself nor pat deCaro. it’s a bit of philosophical/psyshoanalytic screed i suppose. it could be entitled, to Socrates, but that would be interpreted in the US of Assholism, as pretentious, now wouldn’t? rather than a genuine political/psychoanalytic/economic/socialist truth?

graphically, visually, the above is a bit difficult to sort. and i guess i’ve not worked out yet, how to display them. but they were conceived as related but independent works – there are more of them. designed but not yet physical. i’m imagining that they are large, filling a white box space on separate walls, or grouped, very widely, on one huge wall…

i want to make them like the rest of the work i’ve been doing. out of wood and paint. but it does seem a bit ‘overworked’ to do that when they could simply be printed given how conceptual they are. not sure.

i’d love to know your opinion on that.

breaking pearodox decorum here… but then, that’s the right thing to do.

for Pat deCaro on election day

poetics not aesthetics: draft, draft, draft

Poiesis is etymologically derived from the ancient Greek term, which means “to make”.

Aesthetics is to artists as ornithology is to birds.

Barnett Newman

… before a much older, a hundred times more demanding, but by no means colder eye which has not become a stranger to the task which this audacious book dared to tackle for the first time: to look at science in the perspective of the artist, but at art in that of life.

Friedrich Nietzsche

below: Shezad Dawood [shezaddawood.com]

Screen Shot 2018-09-12 at 7.57.21 PM

After the decline of the idealistic systems there is no point in artificially trying to resuscitate aesthetics as a branch of philosophy. A valid, if difficult, approach for a future aesthetics would be to find the right combination of production-oriented experience and philosophical reflection. Such an aesthetics would transcend the level of a phenomenology of art works, linking it to the medium of conceptualization.

Theodore Adorno

Then there is the paradox… of an eternal avant-garde which in spite of its enormous diversity and originality constantly produces something generally accepted as art. As a rule historians try to develop analytical tools covering the broadest array of art styles, but as innovation further fragments the art impulse, and new and contradictory styles of art arise, historians are forced to adopt a variety of approaches. Not to many critics and scholars seem to be worried by this situation, although they should be. It indicates that all their efforts are directed toward explaining physical evidences of the art impulse, rather than the conceptual conditions which make art objects possible under vastly different circumstances.

Jack Burnham

The following is a draft table of contents for my proposed book. I intend to look at art works that have deep philosophical and cultural, historical origins OUTSIDE the art market. My book proposes to tell a very different, factual tale of extraordinary other genealogical art formations still unexamined in philosophical terms, that emerge within the intersections of art, science, technology, and history. No one, has attempted this, of late, since the brilliant, structuralist inspired books of Jack Burnham in the late 60s and early 70s. So, it’s time a poststructuralist updated his art theoretical claims. While it might seem strange for a poststructuralist such as myself, to give such a prominent position to Burnham, with whom I have many disagreements, it shouldn’t be. Though I have no intention of pursuing his program to ascertain universal characteristics of all art forms; and in fact completely oppose such attempts; nonetheless, his search for “conceptual conditions”, rather than those only of “physical evidences”, is critical, and sets him aside from the way art history typically proceeds. It is his philosophical and anthropological approach to art that, despite it’s flaws, remains highly significant. I admire his work, even though ultimately, I take a very different philosophical position, than he did. Many of his general questions remain important, such as – how does “the paradox… of an eternal avant-garde which in spite of its enormous diversity and originality constantly produces something generally accepted as art – continue to produce art that is generally accepted as such? And not as something else: social work, scientific illustration, psychology, history, geology, biology in merely visual forms, as visualizations of the history of science? What makes it ‘art’? According the canons of most art history, it isn’t art because it doesn’t conform to the physical evidence art history generally dwells upon; and therefore, the art with which I’m concerned here, falls into obscurity. Thus, Burnham is a very important pivot point around which to reexamine his structuralist account, through a poststructural reassessment.

This book, therefore, is not about art history, which, in general, I find often lacking, for political and philosophical and historical, cultural reasons, for similar reasons that Burnham did. I’m not the first to question, by a long shot, the narratives of art historical canonization. Instead, I take a very different stance: let’s face it; the art market is like all other neoliberal markets. And art historians of the ‘contemporary’ are rarely willing to take this on. The art markets can only function by limiting its pool of labor. So the art market is by definition an economic model, blind to all else, that functions only insofar as it excludes others from participation in it. My book is small force of resistance to that, but stepping out of not only the privatized versions of art history, that of canons, but it’s also personal, about decades of observation and dialogue with artists who are serious and more important now than they ever were. I’ve either done a great deal of archival research on them, or been an eye-witness to their development, to their circumstances, to their fates in the inclusion-exclusion mechanisms of the art market. In this way, I have pursued my anthropological training in cultural history and philosophy, and my cultural training in philosophy. So this book is the first of its kind, in recent years, in that register. It is a book about the philosophy of art as it is practiced, not, how it is theorized. Thus, my title is polemic, and is a response to Adorno’s suggestion, and at least an initial response to Newman. And, it proposes with Nietzsche, “to look at science in the perspective of the artist, but at art in that of life.”

The artist included here, are those who have consciously engaged with this panoply of philosophical contradictions for their entire careers. And need to be reinscribed within a philosophical register specific to them: within poiesis rather than within aesthesis.

below: Shezad Dawood

Screen Shot 2018-09-12 at 8.00.40 PM

From Aesthesis to Poiesis

What is the distinction between aesthesis and poiesis? And what constitutes their difference?

Poiesis is etymologically derived from the ancient Greek term ποιεῖν, which means “to make”. Aesthesis, αἰσθήσεις, on the other hand, refers to anything the ‘senses suffer’, not in the Christian sense of suffering. It refers to any impact on the senses, therefore, on perception, to what is phenomenological, to the way things appear, to the senses as opposed to the mind. So the entire history of art as subordinated to aesthetics is still predicated on the mind-body distinction; on the distinction between what is sensed and therefore aesthetic, and what is made, produced, the action of the body, and therefore poetic.

As long as art is only aesthetically judged, interpreted, historicized, then, it’s poetic aspects, how it gets made, will never be philosophically, or art historically, significant. And it is the neoliberal art market, and the academy’s service to it and to aesthetics, that fiercely reinforces the suppression of poesis.

In other words, the idealist tradition of the philosophy of art is only phenomenological, as Adorno comments, and therefore never accounts for the conceptual and material aspects of how art actually gets made, in practice, or, in concept. So, art can never be, philosophically, epistemological, knowledge making. Art, aesthetically conceived, is only that which is sensed, and not that which is made. The poetic significance of a Russian Constructivist like Naum Gabo, for example, has yet to be properly interpreted. This aesthetic tradition, therefore, subtends the entire and long standing influence of Plato, and of Ancient Greece in general; of an idealism that interpreted everything physical as base, on the one hand; and on the other, therefore, as subservient to the ‘medium’ of the ‘mind’, language.


poetics not aesthetics: draft, draft, draft

wow, jr. – seeking those willing to abandon Aristotle

Dear Mark, Mark, Alf, and Jeffrey:

I am proposing a succinct, albeit labyrinthian, relationship between MB balancing (and rotating as in a motor protein) on the back of a submerged sea serpent, the expanded definition of lyfe on Mars and the tones available from the earthen bell..

The closest I can come to, thus far, is that they represent lines of an unsingable song, written in the code of ‘little dancing men’ from Sherlock Homes and the Secret Weapon, scribbled, in between the lines of the lost, poisoned, book of Aristotle in the Abby library of the Name of the Rose, by Plato, anticipating Laplace, Bartlett and Wong, having foreseen this scenario written on the shadows of his cave, listening to the lyre of Ares, as way to question Aristotle’s hegemony about the definition of life and yet keep his friendship..?  
Screen Shot 2020-08-02 at 11.36.04 PMScreen Shot 2020-08-02 at 11.35.54 PM
John Roloff –  https://johnroloff.com/
right: i’m still speechless at the brilliance of your imagination. truly.
Screen Shot 2020-08-02 at 11.40.49 PM
thus, my delayed response.
no joke or pun or equivocation of any kind, implied.
your synthetic rereading of all prior messages has been alchemicalized to within the smallest titration.
that you could even perceive that i had engaged my scoliotic proteins in the serpent dance, is, uncanny.
we should all remember, those listening here anyway, that JR IS indeed the master organic logician = philosopher-practitioner par excellance of aesthetics.
and that is also a truth. undeniable in any cave.
i was about to cite a paragraph from vernon vinge’s hugo winning novel, A Deepness in the Sky, 1999, page 84 in the cheap Tor paperback edition with the great, cheesy, scifi illustration cover…
but decided not to even though it would be the perfect response.
it had to do with a clock, located below the ice of a lake, that was designed to last for more than 200 years, wearing out a succession of mechanical gears in sequence, during that time, that of course, scripted according to Aristotle’s Poetics, was just about to die, when some alien race shows up to steal the ice of the lake, causing earthquakes that jogged loosed a bit of debrie that was about to prevent the clock from continuing at the last possible second, which would have meant that the narrative of the next billion galatic years would have gone wrong…
but i won’t, cite that passage.
i’ll only suggest that the moral of the story was – that chaos and chance operations are truly, our only hope, considered on the roloffian geologic scale that underpins everything he’s ever made.  we might consider the prefect form of organic logic, the perfect aesthetic analog to it, as, the earthquake.
do instead of citing Vinge’s paragraph, i attach the following illustration from Urge’s [name of the rose] mad, blackened lips from eating the arsenic pages of Aristotle’s lost comedy, found, btw, when i was rummaging last week through the archives of the sunken isle of bohemia, just off pemaquid point where the seas are rising more rapidly than anywhere else in the world:
Screen Shot 2020-08-02 at 7.25.33 PM
wow, jr. – seeking those willing to abandon Aristotle


moondog’s real name is/was: john wesley hardin

this is one of the greatest unheard jazz songs of all time, from the equally unheard album: H’art Songs.

as a primitive beginning, see:


and then, there is his ahead of times:

in this era, of facebook vs trump vs BLM vs etc… history is being given short shrift. the social media generation is historically shallow, so shallow, it’s measure of time goes no deeper than yesterdays post.

if you don’t believe me, then, you can measure you place in history by one simple test:

remove your watch for more than a single 24 hour period.

[once upon a time, that was my first assignment to every history student in any subject i ever taught. over a 20 year period, every student failed that assignment.]