You can theorize about CCP ad infinitum--even say that his work is itself a theorization that enacts what crouka so nicely called coincidentia oppositorum (or even more nicely, the concept of the labyrinth)...that perhaps an element of this enactment is to undermine conventional definitions that limit our understanding of what constitutes aesthetic imperfection.
But lest your theorizations lapse into academic irrelevance, which at this point, they nearly are, you have to consider the place of what B.I. is calling potential accidentality. The fact that he sells clothes and not strictly art objects (and I mean art objects in the traditional sense of things that appear for contemplation in museums and galleries) means that his attempt at producing this fascistic perfection that Christian and Fuuma are claiming inevitably and necessarily fails. Saying he "comes close," is not enough, guys.
So please explain, oh CCP scholars , how this inevitable failure fits into your and Carol''s theory.
But lest your theorizations lapse into academic irrelevance, which at this point, they nearly are, you have to consider the place of what B.I. is calling potential accidentality. The fact that he sells clothes and not strictly art objects (and I mean art objects in the traditional sense of things that appear for contemplation in museums and galleries) means that his attempt at producing this fascistic perfection that Christian and Fuuma are claiming inevitably and necessarily fails. Saying he "comes close," is not enough, guys.
So please explain, oh CCP scholars , how this inevitable failure fits into your and Carol''s theory.
Comment