non specific ?

lets try to shoot the motion into non specific art through checking the followings' vitality:

say you are a poor child that somehow managed to live as the last survivor upon a death infected spececraft drifting into space.

Your luck, as it may be, is that: * - the spacecraft grows all food and drink you possibly need;
* - the local intelligence functions allowing a connection to their data, the inter-galactic-net and
some humans.


nonspecific ?

Through these means, you continue to learn. Since both the intelligence and humans are kind anthropo oriented,
you get to study stuff to do with humans.

However, during learning, something slightly odd and strange seem to become apparent without many apparatuses:

When you read the original Frankenstein book
all that was required is the text - even if it flickers in ways Mary Shelly never fathomed.



specific non ?

When you learned Pi -
there was no need to get Pythagoras own writings about the subject - scribbling things by yourself in a notebook with your name on it is just as good!

Even this e= m cSq
while written slightly clumsily - does the magic of offering the calculation that altered science big time,
there is no fundamental difference between your equation and that of any other child or, in fact, that of Einstein's.


and non specific life?

In fact, the non specificity, the lack of need for a specifically particular object seem to permeate through much of human activities until we come to activities that have to do with that which humans call

Sure, you may consider site specific stuff to be forever
connected to the sites they are at.
However specificity doesn't stop with sites, it goes to objects
when a painting isn't the particular approved one - then something is wrong!


when learning about ephemeral you notice that
you supposedly either missed it - since you weren't there, for example, when such and such fog was in an art focus in "fog x flo".
Or that you should have been to the documenting exhibition,
that when you watch a documenting film -
it's always About and never the Thing in Itself.


somehow to your possible amazement
specificity of such and such thing/object/project/work in extends into materials that come non specific by their very nature.

seems so:
if we consider computer language as an work
there's a requirement - seemingly technical - of a particular environment to run the thing.
it's miles away from the specificities of ephemeral, conceptual and context oriented -
however, its not merely technically site specific for x technologies,


the fact that it's body is made from instructions that are in and of themselves are not tech-specific,
isn't part of what sonicpi is focused on.

Fair enough - it's a tool not something thought of as an piece in and of itself..


is specificity the
be all and end all
of ?

can human come reduced to specific things, places, contexts, meanings in such a way that our friend,
this child that is being taken on a no return floating tour of the universe
will never have a chance to fully experience?
well not as fully as they may experience qualities from a simple number - be it 2, 0 or 107?
Will our friend come to live deprived life by the very fact they are confined?


Can it really be that
endeavours are indeed confined to specificities that can not find the morph-abilities of letters, numbers, and thoughts?

thoughts are quarantined - locked - within humans (depriving other animals and intelligences)
and comes imprisoned within specific cells inside humanity to boot?

This may sound very remote and flimsily connected, however i think could offer a certain curiosity provocation:
humans thought

the body.
finger cells were thought to come different than nose, hear, knee etc

they are not different. in fact cells are non specific to where they are..
This non specificity allows the evolving and changing and mutating range of cellular applications.

Is it futile to wonder whether
in case of

non specific approach can offer a wider range of culture life??

the problems with non specific approach for comes from a false binary imho
that the Non
in the specificity has to get argued into a 0 like a xeno-specific
all these are less than exciting since
the negation places the endeavour into anastrophic art tradition (aka avantguard)
non/xeno/0 into contemporary xenofications of sound, text, image and so on.

All of which are fine and lovely but take us away from the focus on art and change in its material fabric?

well -
how about Mutable ?

When we get traditional as Anti-mutable
Mutability then can occur in ways from
etc. - mutables.
So Anti-Mutable does the ignoring mutabilism as a body maker in artistic practices.
Anti-Mutabilism as
that which escapes through value.
Therefore, the honest anti-mutabilistic practice is basically attaching values, number of IOUs, to culturally linked objects?

an authentic is that which places the IOU number involved in such and such exchange.

Why N object/project/memory and such like come as Since the IOUs number was agreed upon in cultural context rather than for example
functional one in a food market?

Therefore, Anti-Mutabilism is anthropocentric
it can hardly imagine a rock, a wind, a cow's Moo, a star's light or a mountain's shadow as producing their own kind of regardless of humans.

the diversity of life is endangered by anthropocentism that comes un-abated and energised by the culture of anti-mutabity, a culture that denies the spontaneity
mutabilism in life.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!