<\/p>\n
1.<\/strong>\u00a0I intend to engage with the world using a form of enquiry I can live with<\/p>\n 1.1<\/strong> The ethics of liveability amount to the same as the ethics of form<\/p>\n 1.2<\/strong> I will make a series of propositions regarding the world<\/p>\n 1.3<\/strong> I use this strategy as a means of interrogating the usefulness of propositions<\/p>\n 1.4<\/strong> These propositions must be tested against the world<\/p>\n 1.5<\/strong> The world will (necessarily) be found wanting<\/p>\n 1.6<\/strong> That the world will (necessarily) be found wanting is only natural<\/p>\n 1.7<\/strong> Whether this constitutes an appropriate vehicle for the articulation of the world falls to the discretion of the reader<\/p>\n 1.8<\/strong> The usability and utility of forms is very important to me<\/p>\n 1.9<\/strong> The liveability of forms is very important to me<\/p>\n 1.10<\/strong> I propose the purpose of the artist is to interrogate at all costs, even if this puts the artist in peril<\/p>\n 1.11<\/strong> I propose that the purpose of the artist is to interrogate at all costs, even if this puts the world in peril<\/p>\n 1.12<\/strong> I propose this format is perilous and therefore compatible with my aims<\/p>\n 1.13<\/strong> Language is perilous insofar as it places us in peril when we use it<\/p>\n 1.14<\/strong> We are perilous insofar as we place language in peril when it uses us<\/p>\n 1.15<\/strong> This form of enquiry is entirely consistent with the world insofar as the world is both perilous and a proposition<\/p>\n 1.16<\/strong> I propose peril is necessary for the life of the artist and the life of the world<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 1.<\/strong> I propose that language is a blunt instrument<\/p>\n 1.1<\/strong> Etymology unknown in the case of blunt<\/p>\n 1.2<\/strong> Some connection with Old Norse blunda<\/em> to doze, blunda augum<\/em> to shut the eyes, blundr<\/em> dozing, sleep (Vigfusson)<\/p>\n 1.3<\/strong> Other suggestions are that blunt<\/em> might be some kind of side-form of blind<\/em>, or a nasalized derivative of a Germanic root *blut-<\/em>, whence Old Norse blaut<\/em> soft, weak, modern German blosz<\/em> naked, Frisian blat<\/em>, bleat<\/em> naked, Old English bl\u00e9at<\/em> wretched<\/p>\n 1.4<\/strong> But in the present state of the question these are mere conjectures, having no contact with the history of the word. [In which case I propose that etymology is also a blunt instrument]<\/p>\n 1.5<\/strong> BLUNT: to sleep, to be blind, to be soft or weak, to be naked, to be wretched<\/p>\n 1.6<\/strong> Motion: if we accept the proposition that language is a blunt instrument it follows that language is asleep, is blind, is weak, is soft, is naked, is wretched<\/p>\n 1.7<\/strong>It follows that if language is asleep we are the ones who wake it<\/p>\n 1.8<\/strong> It follows that if language is blind then language-use is a chronic case of the blind leading the blind. The question of who leads and who follows is open to debate<\/p>\n 1.9<\/strong> It follows that if language is weak it is easily broken<\/p>\n 1.10<\/strong> It follows that if language is soft it is pliable, yielding, unresisting, tender, vulnerable<\/p>\n 1.11<\/strong>It follows that if language is naked it is exposed, destitute, devoid of something, knows no shame<\/p>\n 1.12<\/strong> BLUNT: Dull, insensitive, stupid, obtuse: said, it appears, originally of the sight<\/p>\n 1.13<\/strong> Of a tool or weapon: Without edge or point. spec. blunt instrument, a loose term covering any large, heavy object that might be used as a murder weapon<\/p>\n 1.14<\/strong> Rude, unpolished, rough, without refinement. Obs.<\/em> or arch.<\/em><\/p>\n 1.15<\/strong> Rough, harsh; unfeeling, unsparing. Obs.<\/em><\/p>\n 1.16<\/strong> It follows that LANGUAGE is stupid, obtuse, a tool, a large heavy object, unpolished, rough, unfeeling, unsparing<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 1.<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0A \u2018revolutionary form\u2019 has no idea the word \u2018revolutionary\u2019 exists<\/p>\n 1.1 <\/strong>A \u2018revolutionary form\u2019 is a disgusted \u2018form\u2019 that stands (appalled) among the monuments of \u2018culture\u2019<\/p>\n 1.2<\/strong> A \u2018revolutionary form\u2019 pleases no one because the moment it exists it is unreproducible<\/p>\n 1.3 <\/strong>Thus, one definition of \u2018revolutionary form\u2019 might be this: a \u2018revolutionary form\u2019 is a form that cannot be copied without continually referring back to the ur<\/em>-form<\/p>\n 1.4 <\/strong>Perhaps art is \u2018revolutionary\u2019 only insofar as it understands that the idea of \u2018revolution\u2019 is contingent on our understanding of its antithesis<\/p>\n 1.5 <\/strong>Perhaps this is a way of saying that revolutionary art always takes the form of a retort: i.e. strong art is the ungrateful bastard progeny; the archetypal anti-prodigal<\/p>\n 1.6 <\/strong>\u2018Anti-form\u2019 is a self-negating term and is the opposite of \u2018revolutionary\u2019<\/p>\n 1.7<\/strong> Truly \u2018revolutionary forms\u2019 refuse to deconstruct that which they find monumental and appalling<\/p>\n 1.8<\/strong> There is nothing more disheartening than resistance for its own sake<\/p>\n 1.9 <\/strong>Is \u2018form\u2019 a spatial, temporal or kinaesthetic phenomenon: or is it, perhaps, all three?<\/p>\n 1.10 <\/strong>Perhaps \u2018form\u2019 is nothing more than the spatial, temporal and\/or kinaesthetic qualities exhibited by \u2018content\u2019<\/p>\n 1.11<\/strong> Perhaps \u2018content\u2019 is nothing more than a symptom of \u2018form\u2019 where \u2018form\u2019 = materials and \u2018content\u2019 = the waste product generated by those materials<\/p>\n 1.12<\/strong> It follows that without \u2018form\u2019 there can be no \u2018content\u2019: in other words, materials are doing it for themselves<\/p>\n 1.13<\/strong> What is metaphor but an example of form? (What is form but an example of metaphor?)<\/p>\n 1.14 <\/strong>(Is form the supreme allegory?)<\/p>\n 1.15 <\/strong>\u2018Form\u2019 is endlessly pliable: it follows that forms may appear to be \u2018revolutionary\u2019 without in fact being so<\/p>\n 1.16<\/strong> Where do \u2018revolutions\u2019 begin but with the desire for new \u2018forms\u2019?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kathy Groan was born in Scarborough, North Yorkshire, and has lived in Rugby, Paris, Huddersfield, Manchester and mid-Wales. She has worked variously as a bartender, busker, cleaner, life model, usherette and waitress, and is currently working on a book of creative and critical essays on language, violence and desire.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Proposition: The ethics of liveability amount to the same as the ethics of form 1.\u00a0I intend to engage with the world using a form of enquiry I can live with 1.1 The ethics of liveability amount to the same as the ethics of form 1.2 I will make a series of propositions regarding the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4038,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false},"categories":[41,12],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/glasfrynproject.org.uk\/w\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/images-4.jpeg","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p42xiC-11v","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/glasfrynproject.org.uk\/w\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3937"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/glasfrynproject.org.uk\/w\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/glasfrynproject.org.uk\/w\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/glasfrynproject.org.uk\/w\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/glasfrynproject.org.uk\/w\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3937"}],"version-history":[{"count":26,"href":"https:\/\/glasfrynproject.org.uk\/w\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3937\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4150,"href":"https:\/\/glasfrynproject.org.uk\/w\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3937\/revisions\/4150"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/glasfrynproject.org.uk\/w\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4038"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/glasfrynproject.org.uk\/w\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/glasfrynproject.org.uk\/w\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/glasfrynproject.org.uk\/w\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/h5>\n
<\/h5>\n
Proposition: Language is a blunt instrument<\/h5>\n
Proposition: \u201cWithout a revolutionary form there is no revolutionary art.\u201d \u00a0Mayakovsky, V., (1923)<\/strong><\/h5>\n