Hi Simon--it's De Man's argument. A certain aesthetic feature is turned into a metaphysical substrate of things, in this case, fuzziness.
I think OOO would give you all the fuzzy you want, since everything is interconnected at the sensual level. That, and the fact that the rift between sensual and real is not locatable in ontically given space. Yours, Tim http://www.ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com On Jun 28, 2012, at 2:52 AM, Simon Biggs <si...@littlepig.org.uk> wrote: > Aesthetics, ideology? I was thinking of Lotfi Zadeh's work when I mentioned > that - not fur balls. > > best > > Simon > > > On 27 Jun 2012, at 18:04, Timothy Morton wrote: > >> Dear Simon, >> >> OOO objects are far more fuzzy than your metaphysically present fuzz. They >> are ontologically fuzzy. >> >> To say fuzzy things are better than smooth things--this is just aesthetic >> ideology run mad. >> >> Tim >> >> >> http://www.ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com >> >> On Jun 26, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Ian Bogost <ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 26, 2012, at 3:01 AM, Simon Biggs wrote: >>> >>>> But Kosuth's chair engaged the simulacra - it addressed conventional >>>> notions of the real as not sustainable. Kosuth's chair is an equivocal >>>> chair, a fuzzy chair, all types of chair - and never a chair. It's a >>>> conundrum, and that was the point. >>> >>> Kosuth's One and Three Chairs is about language, about semiotics. Like >>> everything else has been, for so long. The fact that there are chairs, and >>> there are photographs, and there are words—this is what interests me. The >>> fact that conceptual artists can play pranks on the rich benefactors of >>> museums and galleries is not very interesting to me. It's too bad, because >>> when enacted, One and Three Chairs actually DOES begin to draw our >>> attention to things in an appealing way. But not because the real is >>> unsustainable. Rather, because the real is, well, real. >>> >>>> I admit I've not read much about OOO and am yet to be convinced it is >>>> worth the effort. I've never been an early adopter - prefer to see the >>>> bugs ironed out of things, at least for one cycle, before buying the gizmo >>>> in question (and I'm mean with my money, so most often I never buy). >>> >>> Harman has been writing under the shingle "object-oriented philosophy" >>> since 1999. His first systematic take, the book Tool-Being, was published >>> in 2002. That's a decade ago. Countless other books and articles on and >>> peripheral to OOO have been published in the intervening time. Like it or >>> not, his work and that of others has had an impact on many fields, even if >>> particularly in recent years. >>> >>> If you aren't interested, fine. If you don't want to do the work, fine. But >>> own up to it. Otherwise, it is too tempting to conclude that you wish only >>> to adopt the ideas that prove popular, that become fungible among the same >>> communities for the same purposes. >>> >>>> My initial apprehension of OOO is that it doesn't seek to address the >>>> ontology of things as things but their relationships with one another. >>> >>> This is precisely the opposite of the main contention of OOO, which holds >>> that something is always left over in things, not used up in their >>> relations. It also addresses, in various and sometimes conflicting ways >>> among its proponents, how things can possibly relate given this basic fact. >>> >>> >>>> The downside of OOO though is that it doesn't seem very fuzzy. I like >>>> fuzzy things. They are soft. I also don't like black boxes - and OOO, by >>>> its nature, will create black boxes (which brings us back to Plato - >>>> damn!). >>> >>> OOO rejects the idealism of Plato (it's more like Aristotle, another >>> tragically unpopular figure)—you won't find universal forms in OOO, nor >>> even universal properties, or what Whitehead sometimes calls eternal >>> objects. You're right though that OOO embraces the black box, just as >>> Heidegger and Latour do, in different ways. >>> >>> In any case, I think we've really hit on what's really going on here. OOO >>> is threatening to many popular theories of art, culture, identity, >>> politics, and so forth because it holds that a toaster is not an octopus. >>> Somehow, we got so turned around in the last half-century, that we decided >>> that a toaster not being an octopus is oppressive and dangerous. This is a >>> fascinating lesson for me and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. >>> I'll have to consider it further. >>> >>> Ian >>> _______________________________________________ >>> empyre forum >>> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre >> _______________________________________________ >> empyre forum >> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >> http://www.subtle.net/empyre > > > Simon Biggs > si...@littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: > simonbiggsuk > > s.bi...@ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ > http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/ > > _______________________________________________ > empyre forum > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
_______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
