Friday, June 30, 2006

Arbitrariness has to do with a generation which has been brought up on shopping for ideas

This last quote from Zaha Hadid and below Robertson's elaboration:
Could we differentiate like this in writing please? Could we recognize that arbitrariness is not in itself liberatory? Is arbitrariness truly attractive? How far can randomness go? How could a text partially occupy a site? By scrupulously pursuing a logic it thus transforms to an abstract symbolic apparatus? (I think here, maybe a little predictably, of Kenneth Goldsmith’s work; also of the work of Dan Farrell, Fiona Banner’s The Nam and Lytle Shaw’s Cable Factory.) It seems to me that we could climb all over this simple distinction Hadid makes, explore it and rub it shiny. I’d like that kind of exercise.
Indeed. How far can randomness go? When is arbitrary simply haphazard? A particularly juicy topic coupled with community, a word I've been mulling over, an idea, and my expectations of it, I've been examining. I want to believe in the power of communities to affect change in this world. In fact aren't they what makes us citizen and not simply consumer, the consumer the ultimate "I", singled out as the policital and economic kingpin? Robertson suggests that it is individual friendships and not necessarily community that feeds us (or her in any case). As a former west coast entity I haven't yet shaken off the desire for alternative worlds, leaving the grid, architectural independence, the creation of intentional communities. I think of poetry as one of those intentional communities. Perhaps naively.

No comments: