Absolutely. Perhaps idealistic, maybe even utopian, but im with you. So we direct our attention to the audience and kind of speak through them. As in, rather than bouncing a ball between you and me, we bounce the ball via the audience so that they direct the conversation as much as we do. Its quite different to the description you wrote but that just helps in disrupting expectations.
Expectations. What people are accustom to and come to be comfortable with. The interviewer reveals as much by the questions they ask as the interviewee declares through their response. Spaulding Gray would get people from the audience and basically interview/talk with them. This could be a means to disrupt the situation of the “artist talk” and the parameters around what has come to frame it. I suppose I have a tendency to establish a scenario where its very nature demarks it’s objective and its devised so that it can be interjected and have its trajectory malleable by these gestures. But don’t think this is any way a means of sidestepping definition but a communal space where we can all speak and create meaning together.
Its a good objective to have. Totally with you. Also what i want as a viewer or participant. Links with openness but also translation. What happens to an affect in its movement from affecter to affected; from desired affect to received affect. Then there is also another thing when it is an inbetween object/subject that is the host to affects coming from multiple sides. Perhaps thats what we want with the conversation…
I am affected. It’s in equal parts. That is the objective.
Are you saying youre not affected? But want to be?
Living is to affect and be affected. A continuous exchange.
I imagine a man standing in the middle of a sparse room in a dimly lit apartment looking slightly dishevelled and somewhat startled listening to a cacophony of abstract sounds circling in his head.
light discussions on the subject matter of imagining an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie
These stories typically feature artist-protagonists negotiating aspects of materiality and the dynamics of fictional spaces.
What else can a thought be but caught between things? It seems inherent within language itself.
Thoughts as the product of material interconnections rather than some unique subject.
an experience which doesn’t equate or automatically lead to meaning
Resist all meaning? I get you but dont quite believe you. Experience is where meaningful meanings that are unexplainable come from. The best meanings. And now that it exists independent of you, meanings are out of your control? If one considers that meaning is located in the subject, the audience will create meaning out from what you have given.
But is a moment that cannot be explained; it can only be experienced.
If what they say is true may not be ambiguous and filled with multiple meanings, as much as it actively tries to resist all meaning.