Listened to a talk tonight by Julia Holderness at the Christchurch Art Galery.
Wonderful exploration of metaxy, medial aspect, “truth”, as I call it. (See this post with a quote from Harold Bloom about that idea.) An archive is in itself a construction. It becomes really interesting when this intentionally so. Julia Holderness also has some expansive ideas about persona and role reversal. That was what I got from her explanation from this sentence in her talk. “The production was never staged publicly, and in the absence of any surviving documentation, Holderness imagines these designs in an appliqué series.” It would be good to see her thesis!
Exhibitions | University of Canterbury
— Read on www.canterbury.ac.nz/arts/schools-and-departments/school-of-fine-arts/exhibitions/ (no longer on that site).
Working with a range of archival materials from the Macmillan Brown Library & Heritage Collections, Julia Holderness explores her own textile making alongside that of artist and teacher Florence Akins (1906-2012). Akins’ documents relate to her teaching of textiles at the Canterbury College School of Art, and include lecture notes and other instructional resources such as colour diagrams. Holderness reworks them and presents their possible entanglement with the international Bauhaus movement. Connections are also made with Florence Weir (1899-1979), currently the only known New Zealander to have studied at the Bauhaus. In 1936 Weir designed the costumes and sets for a local Christchurch production, and these were said to have been inspired by her time at the Bauhaus. The production was never staged publicly, and in the absence of any surviving documentation, Holderness imagines these designs in an appliqué series. This exhibition is part of a Visual Arts PhD in practice-led research at Auckland University of Technology, in which Holderness develops practices of fabrication, approximation and invention to interrogate archives and their construction of art-historical narratives.
“…construction of art-history.” ? I prefer that that way of putting it.
Through the use of invented personae, artworks and exhibitions, Holderness traces alternative histories of modernism in New Zealand, whilst exploring questions of truth and representation in historiography.
I just looked up something and I read a page or so and I thought – wow – this is good. It was my own thesis from 1996.
Its got a lot in it…
What I was looking for was
“what sort of science can examine the validity of a metaphor”
Somehow through the interconnections in cyberspace I answered my own question back in 96.
Well… in so far as there is an answer.
First 2 reasons why it should have.
1. There is an algorithm in capitalism that means that in time one person owns everything. We are almost there and you’d think we’d have reached breaking point by now
2. History is a history of class dominance and classes get toppled when they become inefficient. Feudalism slavery. Capitalism. Capitalism is destroying the planet. It’s Due date has long passed.
So what is the problem? Why are we not living in abundance and harmony in a sustainable world. It is possible. Hint; it’s not greed or human nature
1. Fake socialism
Early last century the time was ripe for revolution. Like a buds flowering socialism was about to usurp capitalism. By a quirk of history feudalism was overturned in the name of socialism. It sort of worked but behind a false red flag a capitalist industrial revolution happened. In Russia and later China.
2. Fake socialism 2.0
15 January 1918 at the height of the revolution in Germany two leaders were killed and dumped in the river. Rosa & Karl. This was part of a split in the socialist movement. Democratic Socialists prevailed over revolutionary socialists. Around the world Labour parties were born.
They are moral and liberal but they sap revolution. The get done in from within and without. Germany 1918 Chile 1973, Australia 1973, New Zealand 1984.
3. Capitalism is resilient
War reboots the algorithm.
And just as it’s impossible to extract more from labour they use debt to extract it from future labour.
And they have guns.
And they print money.
4. Ownership of the means of information
The algorithm and the history described in this post are easy to find and validate. That is if you can wade through a mass of dross and infinite argument all of it backed by capitalist owned institutions and publishing and media. The technical term is obfuscation. It’s hard to see what is obvious.
5. Lost science
Of all the obfuscation I’ll conclude with the most pernicious. Revolutionary socialism is also known as scientific socialism. This is because it values investigating what is going on. System analysis. Revolutionary socialists contrast their science with Idealism. With an Orwellian twist revolutionary socialists are now widely accused of idealism.
Obfuscation of social sciences is the worst as it means the investigate > design > test cycle is disrupted where it most counts, in our life.
We need more sociometry.
Ok you are in a bad space. Either it’s all fight or all flight or a mix of fight and flight. Maybe it’s cold shoulder time. Maybe it’s all your fault time. Any way it’s no good. Stop this pain now!
1. Take a turn at listening
Decide if you are going to talk or listen. Choose listen. That is the best option most of the time.
Listen so the other will talk. Or they respond well in some other way.
This takes courage. You may have to listen to outrageous crap. You may hear a whole pile of accusations. Or instructions on how to be a better person. Or hear lists of defects. Maybe examples from the past of irreparable blunders. Maybe ultimatums and threats.
Decide to listen. The decision goes something like this. I will be a saint for about an hour. I’ll drop all my defence tactics. I won’t move away. I will assume goodwill. I will postpone all judgment. I will leave behind sarcasm. I will soften my eyes and not roll them.
2. Ok that’s about impossible till you do step two. See through all blame to the pain.
You never…. do the dishwasher… you never initiate sex etc.
Of course this is not true. Also it is an attack. An invite to defend. Don’t defend. There is no need. You partner is in pain.
Take the leap to see the pain. Imagine this is your partners best way of saying I love you and I am in pain. The pain might be scared alone sad hopeless despair. Why do they have these feelings. Always because you are important to them. They want deep connection. They would rather drive you away than not have you really there with them.
See right through to the base line. Anger is just a flag. So is frustration see beyond those layers to the desire for being loved and valued unconditionally forever. It’s not to much to ask. We all want that. At some level. You partner just has not got in touch with that … it’s all about the dishwasher.
3. Be a scientist
So far all you have done is a bit of inner housekeeping. You have made a mental shift. Maybe it has already helped. At least you have shut up. Maybe your body has softened. Maybe your partner can see it. BTW if you have not got to step two. Go and do the housekeeping. Read this all again. Write in your journal. Go for a self talk walk. Now for step 3. The action step.
Actually there is more imagination before the action Re assess. Fine tune. than action. Imagine crossing the gap. Imagine you are there in that messy world of pain with your partner. See the hurt as best you can. See the unmet need. See the hole that is at the source of the pain. Be a courageous experimenter. A scientist. Make a hypothesis, speak up as a observer with a hypothesis
I imagine when you see that dishwasher you sink into despair and think you will never get the love you want.
Observe. Were you right? No.
You don’t feel despair- you just get Angry.
Back to step 2. Anger is a flag. What is the unmet need?
You get angry when you think it’s unfair and and how can you feel close when there is so much unresolved injustice.
Keep going back to 1, then 2 don’t quit, stay courageous. Keep going to step 3 till there is a strong ★ yes ★
4. The experiment is done. Now sum the outcome as a logical truth.
You want us to be close but while your need for justice is not met your anger gets in the way.
You make sense.
Your partner always makes sense. You might not agree with their premise. But you grasp the logic.
When I walk to the dog before I give you a hug you think I don’t love you and you get scared I’ll leave.
5. Don’t try to fix it. Instead be with their feelings.
I did not now how scared you get. That might be terrifying.
Not terrified? More troubled and worried.
The fight is over when you land on the exact feeling. Then mirror the Feeling firmly
Now you might feel relieved?
Now what? You want to be listened to? You want your say?
Take a few more turns at listening. Make that 10 turns. Be a Buddha
Next post. How to talk so you get heard.
Please leave comments on how you got on with this radical outrageous over the top courageous listening.
When I was 17 I had a Morris 8 just like this. It was really my mother’s but I had full use as long as I filled it up.
I can still smell the leather seats.
I recall a day I had about 6 people in it going to the beach in Sydney’s Royal National Park. They had to get out and push it up the hills.
My father and I towed it to a wrecking yard, I recall pushing it in.
The next car was a Mini.
This week I submitted a proposal to the The Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction 2018
This is a link to the submission: The Therapeutic Village
There is also a petition on OurActionStation that will be delivered to the Government and again to the Inquiry at the end of November 2018
There is a quote from the opening section of the proposal.
The proposal is that Government develops a framework for the establishment of a series of therapeutic villages.
Such villages will support families and individuals who are already receiving a variety of care. The villages complement but do not replace existing services. They can also perform a preventative function.
The therapeutic village concept envisaged in this submission refers to a group of people living in connection with each other (nearby, though not necessarily all in the same housing) with the purpose of mutual well being. This is not the familiar institutional model of residential care, nor the existing ‘wrap-around’ model, which provides services but no community. The village concept is flexible, built around specific patient/client needs, and puts relationships at the heart of therapeutic work. Villages are guided by a professional team with leadership and coordinating functions, that will facilitate village cohesion. The staff will build and maintain relationships with existing services such as medical centres, schools, daycare, regular therapy group providers and many other services. Continuity of relationships will enable ongoing assessment of needs and coordination of services.
Rice on chessboards, lilys in ponds….
Great little post about how exponential growth happens
How we create wealth is also exponential.
Tools build more tools and better techniques lead to better technologies. As we build layer upon layer of capacity we can make more stuff faster and cheaper.
It started by someone making nails and a hammer before they could build a house. Now much of a house comes out of a factory.
So now there is plenty, abundance?
For some much more than others. There is a peculiar flow of wealth to a very few.
The main thing is the algorithm.
When stuff is made there is someone who clips the ticket. The ticket clippers then accumulate a little bit that suddenly is like the rice on the 64th square.
One person will own everything.
Obviously something gives. Wars. Redistribution etc. but the algorithm goes on.
So if it takes 200 years to create this amount of inequality what will it look like in five years.
Work it out:
surplus value = excess of value of product over value of inputs = s
value of inputs = constant capital (c) + variable capital (v) = c + v
total value of product = C’ = (c+v)+s
C’ – C = s