Toward a Poetics of Measurement
Friday, April 12th, from 4-8pm at Teachers College (ZB214)
Hello everyone; please inscribe it into your appointment-registration devices: in observation of the 125th anniversary of Teachers College and the 9th issue of ecogradients.com, Toward a Poetics of Measurement will feature presentations/discussions of subversive intelligibilities and/as creative responses to the corporatization of education. Some refreshments will be provided by Teachers and Students for a Public Voice; presentations will begin at 4:30 sharp. Our featured presentations will include:
Gabe Turow, Fear is not for Man ~ on the antinomy between anxiety and education;
Patrick Scanlon, Interruptures ~ accidental curriculae & anti-assessment;
Deneb Valereto, Fear and Loathing in Academicism ~ intellectual emetics and epistemological parasitism;
Michael Kim, Hyperrealities ~ in the education of the returning postmodern veteran;
Paul McLean, If I could learn... ~ incorporation in the era of education.
Looking forward to seeing you all there ;)
Blake Seidenshaw
ecogradients.com
![For ecogradients
From Cynthia Dantzic
On the Relationship Between Growth (artistic) and Debt (mine):
[[MORE]]
As usual, the seemingly enigmatic theme of this issue appeared impenetrable at first, yet, on further reflection, and spurred by the passing into the great and unknown beyond of one of the iconic figures in 20th Century art at the age of 101, Will Barnet, the relationship between my own growth as an artist and the incalculable debt I owe to him, through his teaching, his work and his unflagging eloquence, made sudden sense.
On the morning of Saturday, the tenth of November this Fall, while I was helping to install the Annual exhibition of the Society of Scribes at New York’s National Arts Club. Will, who resided at the club for many years, passing by in his wheelchair, stopped to say hello and to see what I was doing. I had been a student of his long ago, and had remained in touch with him over the years, even including his work in a recent book, “100 New York Painters,” for which I had made his portrait, and showed a number of his major works, as his style of painting had grown through the decades.
Often, when I had works in exhibitions at the NAC in photography, calligraphy or other mediums, Will would stop by and I would make a photograph of him in front of the piece. Recently it had been a large woodcut , “Do Shapes Create Edges or do Edges Create Shapes?” from a book called “What Can You See?”.
This time, I was delighted to show him a new work in Chinese calligraphy, and as he wheeled over to get a closer look, I thought I’d make a snapshot to record the event. Just one more in a continuing series, or so I believed. Will seemed pleased with the work, and said he’d try to come to our opening reception on Tuesday the 13th.
On Tuesday morning, the 13th of November 2012, Will Barnet passed away.
It may well be that the photograph accompanying this brief essay is the last photograph ever taken of him. There is no way I will ever be able to express the debt I owe to this splendid man who was my teacher, my inspiration and a major source of my own growth as an artist and as a teacher. Growth and debt, inextricably bound together, captured for a brief moment in this image.
Cynthia Maris Dantzic](http://24.media.tumblr.com/9bcde039c65bd19fc798b48b1a045de2/tumblr_ml40ghTdgP1qdfta1o1_500.jpg)
![Chris Moffett
511 West 151st Street, A1, New York, NY 10031 646.234.6223 | chris@chrismoffett.com | aestheticrelationalexercises.com
The question is not whether theory can be embodied in a practice or performance, whether theater is up to the task of doing theory. The question is what kind of performance, what kind of theater, has theory always been? Can we do theory with our bodies? Of course. Can we do theory without our bodies? That is, if we may say so, a theoretical question—a question for some body to ask while it is busy theorizing. What does this business en- tail? (And why does it elude us, so that we would have to remember, reclaim or reform it? And conversely why does it feel so odd to notice?) If we catch ourselves, in flagrante delicto, it is natural to look back, sneak a peak, as if to see where we tripped.
[[MORE]]
History through the Tiniest of Holes; tripped, or sprang?
Athena leapt from the forehead of Zeus, fully clothed and fully armored. The dark cavern of his skull was laid open to the light of day by the surgical blow of an ax, relieving the splitting pressure. He had eaten Métis, pure wild thought herself, but only Athena comes out, goddess of Wisdom. A dramatic proto-theoretical tale: old school, with axes. From skull to allegoric cave, Pla- to does nothing more than cleave open, yet again, this story of birth out of the darkness. Another c-section, laying out the scene for inspection, skipping the too narrow opening, he threatens to rend the earth itself:
“Terrified, Hades, the master of those below, leapt from his throne, crying out, fearful that Poseidon who rocks the ground would tear open the earth, illuminating for mortals and immortals the abode below—grim, fetid, abhorrent even to the gods.”
The trap is now set, and despite the allegory’s dismal ending—as if we cannot see it—we embark on a long history of performing education by first recreating these hellish conditions. To learn to think entails navigating the transition between a dark interior and a lit exterior. We go to school to learn about the world. In a room in this school we might learn about Descartes, who, in order to think clearly, stuck himself in an even smaller room. Control the opening. Is this not the giddy promise of the camera obscura? To control the unruly world, just pass it through a pinhole. The voyeurism of knowledge. But this pleasure only works if one gets caught. One never sees an image of a camera obscura itself without the curtain drawn aside, a wall missing. The flooded scene of darkness. The image of the ruined image. Still we imagine the impregnable black box spitting out its forensic signs in the wake of worldly tragedy. A mechanical blind seer: prolific, indefatigable, cryptic.
“Matter triggers ‘vibrations or oscillations’ at the lower extremity of the cords, through the intermediary of ‘some little openings’ that exist on the lower level. Leibniz constructs a great Baroque montage that moves between the lower floor, pierced with windows, and the upper floor, blind and closed, but on the other hand resonating as if it were a musical salon translating the visible movements below into sounds up above.”
“Endowed with their new semiotic powers, [inert bodies] contribute to a new form of text, the experimental science article, a hybrid between the age-old style of biblical exegesis … and the new instrument that produces new inscriptions. From this point on, witnesses will pursue their discussions around the air pump in its enclosed spaces, discussions about the meaningful behaviour of … a cheap black box … standard equipment in every laboratory.”
BLACK BOX, BLACK BOX
What are the recognizable constructs by which we assemble a theoretical discourse, assemble ourselves? Is it possible to make its theatrical structure apparent to ourselves, not by c-section, drawing aside the critical curtain, but by assemblage—by fruition and intensification? How do we find ourselves acting?
One experimental variation:
The audience enters the black box theater. Nothing is set up: there are chairs stacked at random and a pile of material against the wall. They do as they will.
I come in and begin clearing a space and setting up a black box in the middle of the space. Three walls go up, so that you can only see inside from one side of the room. A desk and chair are placed inside and illuminated as the house lights are turned off. The fourth wall is now raised, blocking direct view, but a ghostly image of the interior is now evident above the black box. (See phantasmagoria to right.) Again the audience is left to do what they will.
I can be seen to sit down at the desk where I begin to play a recording: it is the sounds of the room from a moment ago. Over top of this I add a layer of semi- otic utterances accompanied by gestures: an appar- ent commentary. Variations will be added with each loop, quickly building to a wall of pure sound inten- sity, as the ghostly image inversely fades to black.
The sound oscillation abruptly ends….
Equipment:
Stackable chairs and a desk;
Loop machine, mic, and monitors;
Spotlight with barn-doors;
The box: heavy black fabric, five long tubes (pvc or metal), translucent fabric, cable/line/pulleys;
“A crucial feature of these optical devices of the 1830s and 1840s is the undisguised nature of their operational structure and the form of subjection they entail. Even though they provide access to ‘the real,’ they make no claim that the real is anything other than a mechanical production…. One reason for their obsolescence was that they were insufficiently ‘phantasmagoric’….: ‘the occultation of production by means of the outward appearance of the product…this outer appearance can lay claim to the status of being. Its perfection is at the same time the perfection of the illusion that the work of art is a reality sui generis that constitutes itself in the realm of the absolute without having to renounce its claim to image the world.”
Pinhole photograph of classroom, 2009.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/b7c1b881cf9afbec153e3c5269aab8ee/tumblr_ml412wTCAl1qdfta1o1_500.jpg)
![Chris Moffett
511 West 151st Street, A1, New York, NY 10031 646.234.6223 | chris@chrismoffett.com | aestheticrelationalexercises.com
The question is not whether theory can be embodied in a practice or performance, whether theater is up to the task of doing theory. The question is what kind of performance, what kind of theater, has theory always been? Can we do theory with our bodies? Of course. Can we do theory without our bodies? That is, if we may say so, a theoretical question—a question for some body to ask while it is busy theorizing. What does this business en- tail? (And why does it elude us, so that we would have to remember, reclaim or reform it? And conversely why does it feel so odd to notice?) If we catch ourselves, in flagrante delicto, it is natural to look back, sneak a peak, as if to see where we tripped.
[[MORE]]
History through the Tiniest of Holes; tripped, or sprang?
Athena leapt from the forehead of Zeus, fully clothed and fully armored. The dark cavern of his skull was laid open to the light of day by the surgical blow of an ax, relieving the splitting pressure. He had eaten Métis, pure wild thought herself, but only Athena comes out, goddess of Wisdom. A dramatic proto-theoretical tale: old school, with axes. From skull to allegoric cave, Pla- to does nothing more than cleave open, yet again, this story of birth out of the darkness. Another c-section, laying out the scene for inspection, skipping the too narrow opening, he threatens to rend the earth itself:
“Terrified, Hades, the master of those below, leapt from his throne, crying out, fearful that Poseidon who rocks the ground would tear open the earth, illuminating for mortals and immortals the abode below—grim, fetid, abhorrent even to the gods.”
The trap is now set, and despite the allegory’s dismal ending—as if we cannot see it—we embark on a long history of performing education by first recreating these hellish conditions. To learn to think entails navigating the transition between a dark interior and a lit exterior. We go to school to learn about the world. In a room in this school we might learn about Descartes, who, in order to think clearly, stuck himself in an even smaller room. Control the opening. Is this not the giddy promise of the camera obscura? To control the unruly world, just pass it through a pinhole. The voyeurism of knowledge. But this pleasure only works if one gets caught. One never sees an image of a camera obscura itself without the curtain drawn aside, a wall missing. The flooded scene of darkness. The image of the ruined image. Still we imagine the impregnable black box spitting out its forensic signs in the wake of worldly tragedy. A mechanical blind seer: prolific, indefatigable, cryptic.
“Matter triggers ‘vibrations or oscillations’ at the lower extremity of the cords, through the intermediary of ‘some little openings’ that exist on the lower level. Leibniz constructs a great Baroque montage that moves between the lower floor, pierced with windows, and the upper floor, blind and closed, but on the other hand resonating as if it were a musical salon translating the visible movements below into sounds up above.”
“Endowed with their new semiotic powers, [inert bodies] contribute to a new form of text, the experimental science article, a hybrid between the age-old style of biblical exegesis … and the new instrument that produces new inscriptions. From this point on, witnesses will pursue their discussions around the air pump in its enclosed spaces, discussions about the meaningful behaviour of … a cheap black box … standard equipment in every laboratory.”
BLACK BOX, BLACK BOX
What are the recognizable constructs by which we assemble a theoretical discourse, assemble ourselves? Is it possible to make its theatrical structure apparent to ourselves, not by c-section, drawing aside the critical curtain, but by assemblage—by fruition and intensification? How do we find ourselves acting?
One experimental variation:
The audience enters the black box theater. Nothing is set up: there are chairs stacked at random and a pile of material against the wall. They do as they will.
I come in and begin clearing a space and setting up a black box in the middle of the space. Three walls go up, so that you can only see inside from one side of the room. A desk and chair are placed inside and illuminated as the house lights are turned off. The fourth wall is now raised, blocking direct view, but a ghostly image of the interior is now evident above the black box. (See phantasmagoria to right.) Again the audience is left to do what they will.
I can be seen to sit down at the desk where I begin to play a recording: it is the sounds of the room from a moment ago. Over top of this I add a layer of semi- otic utterances accompanied by gestures: an appar- ent commentary. Variations will be added with each loop, quickly building to a wall of pure sound inten- sity, as the ghostly image inversely fades to black.
The sound oscillation abruptly ends….
Equipment:
Stackable chairs and a desk;
Loop machine, mic, and monitors;
Spotlight with barn-doors;
The box: heavy black fabric, five long tubes (pvc or metal), translucent fabric, cable/line/pulleys;
“A crucial feature of these optical devices of the 1830s and 1840s is the undisguised nature of their operational structure and the form of subjection they entail. Even though they provide access to ‘the real,’ they make no claim that the real is anything other than a mechanical production…. One reason for their obsolescence was that they were insufficiently ‘phantasmagoric’….: ‘the occultation of production by means of the outward appearance of the product…this outer appearance can lay claim to the status of being. Its perfection is at the same time the perfection of the illusion that the work of art is a reality sui generis that constitutes itself in the realm of the absolute without having to renounce its claim to image the world.”
Pinhole photograph of classroom, 2009.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/845b529148f745bbc49467855111e867/tumblr_ml412wTCAl1qdfta1o2_500.gif)
![Chris Moffett
511 West 151st Street, A1, New York, NY 10031 646.234.6223 | chris@chrismoffett.com | aestheticrelationalexercises.com
The question is not whether theory can be embodied in a practice or performance, whether theater is up to the task of doing theory. The question is what kind of performance, what kind of theater, has theory always been? Can we do theory with our bodies? Of course. Can we do theory without our bodies? That is, if we may say so, a theoretical question—a question for some body to ask while it is busy theorizing. What does this business en- tail? (And why does it elude us, so that we would have to remember, reclaim or reform it? And conversely why does it feel so odd to notice?) If we catch ourselves, in flagrante delicto, it is natural to look back, sneak a peak, as if to see where we tripped.
[[MORE]]
History through the Tiniest of Holes; tripped, or sprang?
Athena leapt from the forehead of Zeus, fully clothed and fully armored. The dark cavern of his skull was laid open to the light of day by the surgical blow of an ax, relieving the splitting pressure. He had eaten Métis, pure wild thought herself, but only Athena comes out, goddess of Wisdom. A dramatic proto-theoretical tale: old school, with axes. From skull to allegoric cave, Pla- to does nothing more than cleave open, yet again, this story of birth out of the darkness. Another c-section, laying out the scene for inspection, skipping the too narrow opening, he threatens to rend the earth itself:
“Terrified, Hades, the master of those below, leapt from his throne, crying out, fearful that Poseidon who rocks the ground would tear open the earth, illuminating for mortals and immortals the abode below—grim, fetid, abhorrent even to the gods.”
The trap is now set, and despite the allegory’s dismal ending—as if we cannot see it—we embark on a long history of performing education by first recreating these hellish conditions. To learn to think entails navigating the transition between a dark interior and a lit exterior. We go to school to learn about the world. In a room in this school we might learn about Descartes, who, in order to think clearly, stuck himself in an even smaller room. Control the opening. Is this not the giddy promise of the camera obscura? To control the unruly world, just pass it through a pinhole. The voyeurism of knowledge. But this pleasure only works if one gets caught. One never sees an image of a camera obscura itself without the curtain drawn aside, a wall missing. The flooded scene of darkness. The image of the ruined image. Still we imagine the impregnable black box spitting out its forensic signs in the wake of worldly tragedy. A mechanical blind seer: prolific, indefatigable, cryptic.
“Matter triggers ‘vibrations or oscillations’ at the lower extremity of the cords, through the intermediary of ‘some little openings’ that exist on the lower level. Leibniz constructs a great Baroque montage that moves between the lower floor, pierced with windows, and the upper floor, blind and closed, but on the other hand resonating as if it were a musical salon translating the visible movements below into sounds up above.”
“Endowed with their new semiotic powers, [inert bodies] contribute to a new form of text, the experimental science article, a hybrid between the age-old style of biblical exegesis … and the new instrument that produces new inscriptions. From this point on, witnesses will pursue their discussions around the air pump in its enclosed spaces, discussions about the meaningful behaviour of … a cheap black box … standard equipment in every laboratory.”
BLACK BOX, BLACK BOX
What are the recognizable constructs by which we assemble a theoretical discourse, assemble ourselves? Is it possible to make its theatrical structure apparent to ourselves, not by c-section, drawing aside the critical curtain, but by assemblage—by fruition and intensification? How do we find ourselves acting?
One experimental variation:
The audience enters the black box theater. Nothing is set up: there are chairs stacked at random and a pile of material against the wall. They do as they will.
I come in and begin clearing a space and setting up a black box in the middle of the space. Three walls go up, so that you can only see inside from one side of the room. A desk and chair are placed inside and illuminated as the house lights are turned off. The fourth wall is now raised, blocking direct view, but a ghostly image of the interior is now evident above the black box. (See phantasmagoria to right.) Again the audience is left to do what they will.
I can be seen to sit down at the desk where I begin to play a recording: it is the sounds of the room from a moment ago. Over top of this I add a layer of semi- otic utterances accompanied by gestures: an appar- ent commentary. Variations will be added with each loop, quickly building to a wall of pure sound inten- sity, as the ghostly image inversely fades to black.
The sound oscillation abruptly ends….
Equipment:
Stackable chairs and a desk;
Loop machine, mic, and monitors;
Spotlight with barn-doors;
The box: heavy black fabric, five long tubes (pvc or metal), translucent fabric, cable/line/pulleys;
“A crucial feature of these optical devices of the 1830s and 1840s is the undisguised nature of their operational structure and the form of subjection they entail. Even though they provide access to ‘the real,’ they make no claim that the real is anything other than a mechanical production…. One reason for their obsolescence was that they were insufficiently ‘phantasmagoric’….: ‘the occultation of production by means of the outward appearance of the product…this outer appearance can lay claim to the status of being. Its perfection is at the same time the perfection of the illusion that the work of art is a reality sui generis that constitutes itself in the realm of the absolute without having to renounce its claim to image the world.”
Pinhole photograph of classroom, 2009.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/12855bae36574b534f70461e575b08c4/tumblr_ml412wTCAl1qdfta1o3_500.jpg)
![The following is a fragmentary rewriting of Martin Luther’s famous 95 Theses undertaken by a graduate student at Teachers College, sometime in the early 21st century, but never completed due to lack of funding…
[[MORE]]
1) Our inspirational and “very dynamic” president Susan Furhman, when she said “We’re at a huge frontier when it comes to understanding learning”, willed that the whole life of students and faculty should be comprehensible and unproblematic to those with deep pockets.
(Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.)
2) This pronouncement cannot be understood to mean actual progress in the order of knowledge, i.e. normal academic protocol, which is administered by scholars in far less “dynamic” institutions.
(This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.)
3) Yet it means not individual acts of marketable scholarship; nay, there is not inward progress which does not outwardly work diverse mortifications of the intellect.
(Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.)
4) The penalty, therefore, continues so long as taking one’s scholarly work seriously continues, for this is true self-deception, and constitutes our entrance into the global marketplace.
(The penalty, therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.)
5) The administrative faculty does not intend to dispense, and cannot dispense, any benefits other than those which it has usurped, either by its own connivance or with the assent of the board of trustees.
(The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.)
6) The administrative faculty cannot award any bursary, except by declaring that it has been awarded on Merit and by assenting to Merit’s self-evidence; though, to be sure, it may grant bursaries in cases reserved to its judgement. If its right to grant bursaries in such cases were despised, Truth would remain entirely unrewarded.
(The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.)
7) Truth awards bursaries to no one whom It does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to Its vicar, the Office of Federal Student Aid.
(God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.)
8) Academic procedure and censure is imposed only on those attempting to do something new, but according to procedure, once you are dead or tenured you are free to do as you would if you could.
( The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.)
9) Therefore the little humanist scholar in the faculty administrator is always kinds to us, because in its writings and decrees it always makes mention of “the human” and of “the tenacity of dwelling.”
(Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.)
10) Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those faculty members who, in the case of tenure review and dissertation defenses, reserve scholarly standards for the academy.
(Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.)
11) This changing of scholarly standards to uphold the strictest forms of non-scholarship, post-intelligence, and market driven research is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the Faculty Executive Committee slept.
(This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.)
12) In former times scholarly standards were imposed not after, but before the faculty member opened their mouth or set pen to paper, as tests of of a true and honest commitment to their vocation.
(In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.)
13) The tenured are freed by tenure from all pretensions to scholarly achievement; they are already dead to standards of intellectual rigor, and have a right to be released from them in order to track down grants, honorary doctorates, and visiting lectureships abroad.
(The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.)
14) The imperfect intelligence, that is to say, the imperfect integrity, of the tenure-seeker brings with it, of necessity, great offense to basic standards of personal and professional decency; and the smaller the integrity, the greater the offense.
(The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.)
15) This greed and amorality is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of perpetual obsequiousness, since it is very near to the self-loathing of askesis.
(This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.)
16) Ignorance, education, and self-satisfaction seem to differ as do discipline, pseudo-discipline, and job security (tenure).
(Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.)
17) With scholars-in-training it seems necessary that self-loathing should grow less and integrity increase.
(With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.)
18) It seems unfounded, either in law or common sense, that students should not demand fair and ethical treatment, which is to say, expect to improve themselves ethically and intellectually.
(It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.)
19) Again, it seems ludicrous to expect that students should be equally assured of their own intrinsic value, when we may be quite certain of the job market’s volatility and saturation.
(Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.)
20) Therefore, by “full development all young scholars’ research and teaching abilities” the Prophet means not actually “of all,” but only of those that are capable of making tuition payments and upholding strict standards of sub-mediocrity.
(Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.)
21) Therefore, those on the faculty committed to upholding rigorous intellectual standards are in error, who say that by demonstration of scholarly ability graduate students will be rewarded with recognition from professors and a future position on the faculty;
(Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;)
22) Whereas the Prophet remits to students in graduate fellowships no scholarly standards which, according to the tradition, they would have had to demonstrate during their period as a student.
(Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.)
23) If it is at all possible to grant to anyone the remission of all scholarly and ethical standards whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most hypocritical, that is, to the very fewest.
(If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.)
24) It must needs be, therefore, that the greatest part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from hypocrisy.
(It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.)](http://25.media.tumblr.com/a264a6728e9e278578598f3764e51ec5/tumblr_ml42h9WlsG1qdfta1o1_500.jpg)
Find me on
heg