Friday, March 26, 2010

Suspension, evasion, and inversion: a conversation with Ken Babstock

Now anyone reading this will immediately recognize the attendant risks, and I think it’s an old debate that won’t be resolved anytime soon; I can maybe dramatize how it has played out in my own work. Your own formulation, “if I could remove myself by half,” points toward the predicament really effectively. What I mean is, I would never want ”remove myself” to be an unproblematic option for the reader, just as it’s never been an easy option in the work. I’ve certainly dreamed the dream of pure sound, abandoning altogether the attempted interface with the demon “Meaning” but I simply cannot effectively mute the little authorial tyrant (likely a child, but so be it) who compulsively seeks meaning, seeks to make meaning. I may be weak-willed. So a field of sound in which live the field mice of meaning. They don’t need to be caught, killed, or even seen. Just ‘known’ to be there. Somewhere.
Suspension, evasion, and inversion: a conversation with Ken Babstock

No comments: