Through the increase of the dimensional plasticity of the world in the modern condition, as we actualize our kind through our constructs (from ground-up innovations to lateral translations), our relationship to the relative exterior has been altered. The world is changeable. We are the “Moonstruck and Godstruck ones- wanderers on heights that we do not perceive as heights but as our plains.” The inquiry which arises is that, while our connection to the tangible as depended in magnitude and character (and has moved beyond dogmatic relationships), what is to account for the contemporary manifestations of disconnectivity from the macrocosm? Why are our experiences closer to ‘Simmel’ than ‘Baudelaire’? Surely there must be an ontological discussion on this topic that goes beyond Marxian economics.
Perhaps an explanation of this condition can be evaluated through an analysis of the ‘relative proprioception’ of the objects of our regard- namely the lack thereof. This is the reduction of feedback. Constructs, relatively speaking, can no longer affirm themselves via resistance to our increased ability to transform, and an unexpected change in the natural dialectic is observed. We submit “Yes?” and the response is an anticipated and disturbing “Of course” or, even worse, an ambivalent “Why not?” Movement is instigated- that is seldom a concern here- but a deeper, more visceral stalemate has arisen, a relationship is perverted, and the emotional response it to seek distance.
Perhaps not, though. Maybe we just all, collectively, have a rock in our shoe.
A piece created from negatives, but which refuses to be duplicated en-masse. The negative creates the moment (the first), the dissection of the print creates another (the second), and the wear and tear on the installation from the mechanical attachment, acidity of the plywood, and exposure to the elements continues to create discrete moments in a continuum (the third, the fourth, the fifth......)
