Your Style Philosophy

[philip nod]

Re: Your Style Philosophy

pbt: providing SZ signatures free of charge for a limited time only

[pbt]

Re: Your Style Philosophy



[quote user="philip nod"]pbt: providing SZ signatures free of charge for a limited time only
[/quote]

lawltz

[pbt]

Re: Your Style Philosophy



[quote user="philip nod"]pbt: providing SZ signatures free of charge for a limited time only
[/quote]

I meant, lawltz

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to
structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of
hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition,
convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality
into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of
Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical
objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of
structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with
the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

[Faust]

Re: Your Style Philosophy

/\ you forgot to throw in the "post" prefix here and there.

[pbt]

Re: Your Style Philosophy



Tell that to Judith.

http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm

[laika]

Re: Your Style Philosophy

[quote user="pbt"]

Tell that to Judith.

http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm

[/quote]

[74]

[pbt]

Re: Your Style Philosophy

Place a full stop in the middle of line 3 and it's actually not all that bad.

[Faust]

Re: Your Style Philosophy

[quote user="pbt"]

Tell that to Judith.

http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm

[/quote]

lmao

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

Re: Your Style Philosophy



Yes, yes I approve ... and Butler too, folds, labia, Francis Bacon(For the sensing body can dramatize the cuts of meat or movements of flesh in the painting; its own movements of deterritorialization can be connected up to those in the painting), matter, Rimbaud, bitch, sensations experienced directly as intensities on one's body without organs, Kafka, becomings, etc. ... all part of the collective assemblage of enunciation ... style philosophy! [51]

Though, Adorno I do not approve, please keep his negative dialectics and "no poetry after Auschwitz" for yourself ... It's all so depressing! He's not invited into the assemblage! [79] ... [74]

[laika]

Re: Your Style Philosophy



poor Teddy....no wonder he is so depressed....abandoned by Walter, and now excluded so cruelly from your assemblage! [:(]

I'll just hold his hand in the garden of no poetry then....alone. [70] [74]

****and yes, this thread has morphed into something quite amazing. Style philosophy indeed, and in how many different and diverging forms. [51]

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

Re: Your Style Philosophy



Aaahhhh! You're so romantic![70][64] ...

I'm still waiting for my object-dyed white horse( #1 out of a series of 1),
ordered directly from the man him self, Mr. C.C. Poell [51]

[74]

[Johnny]

Re: dilemna

[quote user="BECOMING-INTENSE"][quote user="laika"]


[quote user="BECOMING-INTENSE"]

One thing I do find problematic, is the distinction you create between art and design,
"a sense of finality or completeness to the whole", because, as I've elaborated on somewhere else, there is a difference in kind between the materials that support a work of art, such as paint, canvas, film, stone, sound-waves, textiles etc. and the work itself. Art only attempts to fashion a material object, having a finite duration, so as to create being of sensation, which is preserved in itself for an eternity that coexists with the short duration of material. This bloc of sensations, standing up alone or positing itself, contains the working, sensation, and forces of the work. Even with the suggested finite materials that supports paintings, sculptures, etc., they can indeed become "a very real and dynamic sense of continuous potential and unfolding".

[/quote]

I anticipated you would catch me on this, which is why I used "work of Art," in the sense of institutionally-defined object, rather than art as practice or process. I agree with you that individual art objects can have this potential, but i think the categorization by institutions of art as "Art," undermines the extent to which works can actually be experienced in the way you are describing. There is something about design, imo, which resists this categorization, perhaps because of its intimacy with the body.

But I am very OT. [:$]

I do like that Judith quote a lot, by the way, although I fear you could repeat it endlessly and have it fall on deaf ears....[79]

[/quote]

Yes in that sense, attaching the "in the sense of institutional-defined object", I think we're on the same page,
because in the moment that the work of art reterritorializes itself on these categories or discourses,
we're indeed undermining the work of art's potential to cut a cross [51] ...

[quote user="Johnny"]this is all Becoming-Intense's fault! anyway his post was a load of bollocks....the notion of which incidentally and somewhat ironicallydebunks his mulitudes theory as differenciating female and male sexuality![/quote]

You're starting to sound like Sokal! [74]

One must listen(read) carefully before opens ones mouth,
and importantly pay attention to details ...

Even the text can be multiple!

"hard work and humility"(Laika)

And what on earth made you come and make this post here?
The actual post you're referring to is not insight and the
subject of your post has nothing to do with this thread at all!
One can only imagine and assume [79] ...

Johnny if you really want to discuss this,
please go to the appropriate thread and post, and
please bring some arguments with you, or else it's
gonna get really tiresome rather quickly and embarrassing,
not to say!

[<:o)][/quote]

I have no desire to discuss your original comment, and I feel relatively safe in the knowledge that you have corned the market in tiresome and embarassing posts yourself, but I thought I'd respond to this, since I found it irritating andrude. The reason I posted my comment here ought to be apparent if you read though the posts around about it, and as Laika pointed out, it was intended to be humerous andlight-hearted. That said, I can't deny being somehow rubbed up the wrong way by your posts. I can't engage with what you say because you express it in such an obtuse manner, absolutely deliberately so in my view, with as many obscure references as you can. I don't know anything about most of the people that you quote or refer to, but can't accept that, given that we're talking about FASHION, I need to, in order validly to make an argument. It's not very clever, really, particularly when it's all so self conscious (your comment about your trembling hands as you write, having offended people of the fashion spot...you should be content to let what you write speak for itself rather than introduce it as controversial). You may have valid points to make, but they are lost somewhere, and I end upsimply not caring about what you say. Apart from when you pick me up on an innocuous 2 line comment and write 14 aggresive show-off lines about it. Lighten up buddy. (I take it your reference toME sounding like Sokal was your attempt at ironic humour.)

[Uncontrol]

Re: dilemna



Somewhere between the wall of text and the commas, I lost track of what you were trying to say.

[deleuze]

Re: dilemna



Style Inc.

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

Re: dilemna

[quote user="Johnny"]

(I take it your reference toME sounding like Sokal was your attempt at ironic humour.)

[/quote]

No, no ... you Do sound like Sokal! ...
and in the light of the thrilling scenario you have outlined,
I guess I'm Butler [:|] ...

For the rest of the personal issues and attacks you have, if you want some
kind of response, put them in a pm, so we don't have to ruin a
beautiful thread ...