I have nothing to say
and I am saying it and that is
poetry
-John Cage, Lecture on Nothing.
Something,
To talk about nothing.
Rivka Cyprys 25/3/18
Just here to talk about nothing.
To create words, to put ink to paper, to talk about nothing. To create guidelines to allow nothing to exist.
To create guidelines for nothing to exist.
Is it possible to say that both everything and nothing exists? That we need to use something finite in order to speak about something so vastly infinite; yet which both exist and collides on this soil, a small space of earth.
It’s this nothing that we are trying to talk about, because ultimately it is everything, everything significant beyond the realm of physicality as we know it to be.
Still here. Struggling to find a way to say nothing,
Whilst really saying nothing.
There is something.
Here is a something. A presence, physical mass, ink, letters.
Is there a way to write about nothing, and truly accept it to be a nonentity?
The silences are only created when the words have stopped. When the talking has stopped. Stop talking.
Stop talking.
Now you are left with nothing, but you don’t even know it. It’s just an absence.
How does absence get spoken about, if there is no sign of it, how does it get brought to focus altogether.
Something is needed to tell you about nothing. The nothing you don’t know about.
We are still here; nothing is hard to come by.
“Nothing is impossible to represent”, (Morris 2007, pp.9)
It is the paradox of infinity, of finite minds trying to wrap their minds around the infinite. Can we really?
Yet it is difficult to deny its existence. Nothing is self-contained. Nothing still exists even within its own nothingness.
“What we require is silence, but what silence requires is that I go on talking” (Cage 1961, pp.109) the places we fill the voids allows us to talk about the voids. It creates the voids.
0 [0] [[0]] [[[0]]]
[ ] Needed something to talk about nothing. Creating a mark around emptiness, to create space for it to exist.
One is always putting something in the world.
Life is within a structure. It’s how we have a chance to be. How we have the capacity to exist. “Structure without life is dead. But life without structure is unseen” (Cage 1961, p.113). In order for the infinite to be infinite, the material or art object must be finite, to allow room for it to speak of the unconstrained uninhibited limitlessness. (Ibid. p.129)
There is less of a need for the artist to sit around trying to create a mold for that, but rather to use the world, as it is as a conduit for the art, less of a need for what is, and more for the appreciation and acknowledgment of the void. That allows for manipulation of reality to bring to light the spaces between what is, the voids that are, they all already exist. Material is needed, but material already exists too, whether in the form of physical matter or life conditions. (Also as spoken about in reference to Pierre Bismuth, (Pickford 2005, pp.73-75/132-143))
“It is of the upmost importance not to make a thing, but rather to make a nothing. And how is this done? Done by making a something which then goes and reminds us of nothing.” (Cage 1961, pp.129)
The necessity is to manipulate that which exists, to acknowledge all that resides beneath it, beyond that which can be seen by physical eyes.
“Counting the infinite” (As per Cantor’s diagonal argument)
The space between 0.9 recurring and 1 (Lippard 2007, pp.204)
There is a space where the infinite became finite. Can we start there?
That 0.9 recurring is something that goes on forever, O.9999… endlessly. That’s what recurring means; the nine is repeated again and again, instead of typing out nines infinitely. Yet at some point 0.9 becomes one. There is a space where the infinite became finite. There is no beginning or end. It’s just somewhere to start.
To understand the necessity of something to speak about nothing, it may be necessary to take it back to understanding the way infinity escapes finitude. And yet how closely they are interconnected, one cannot be without the other,
(Cage 1961, pp.129) To speak of something, we need to understand that it is based on the building blocks of nothingness (Badiou 2014), nonetheless to understand that nothingness, we need to use a something. We are bound to that.
John cage wrote a “lecture on nothing” (2007), in which he spoke about nothing, although proceeding to speak about structure, and acknowledging its confinements, how they are vital to the construction of both something and nothing.
“The technique of handling material is, on the sense level what structure as a discipline is on the rational level: a means of experiencing nothing.” (Cage 1961, pp.114) The structure isn’t a end within itself, but a means of communicating that nothing, “Structure is like a bridge from nowhere to nowhere” (Cage 1961, pp.124) The structure is to bring awareness of the vast emptiness that exists – “we really do need a structure so we can see we are nowhere.” (Cage 1961, pp.125)
How does one talk about the infinite, the nothing, as opposed the finite, the ‘something’, without sounding like heart with no body, ideas with no backing in ‘reality’. The artist can speak about anything, yet in order to find grounding and support for the understanding of infinity and the nothingness that stands behind everything that is, we can turn to math as an axiom, a concrete founded understanding of what is.
“Counting infinity” (Cooper 2018) the infinite = infinite, it’s circuit that doesn’t aid its own understanding. We can count infinitely N= (1,2,3…), yet if there is highest numeral, infinity ends somewhere, infinity wouldn’t exist. However there is always a plus one, N+1, creating a higher digit, (as with the theory of hotel with an endless amount of rooms, that can never reach it’s maximum quantity of visitors, which is spoken about by, Hilbert in the Infinite Hotel Paradox, there is always a room that exists after what would have been considered to be the last, in which case with a bit of movement, a vacancy can be created to fit more lodgers, (Berry 2017))
George discovered some sets of numbers are not countable, the continuum hypothesis, which hasn’t been able to be proven, and is said to be impossible to prove. Yet maybe this is where we lie with infinity, we can’t understand it, it escapes us. Even within axioms for understanding, it is difficult to understand it – (maybe the true way to understand it). Yet maybe within the realms of art we can allude to this nothing, within the constrictions of what we can grasp, something finite, to speak about something infinite.
Art doesn’t truly need the justification of other intellectual standpoints; it is a legitimate form of expressing ideas, yet what Alain Badiou does is fill in the gaps, precisely by using other forms of intellectual arguments solidifying the perception of the necessity of material, although from a slightly different vantage point.
Alain Badiou in ‘’Infinite thought, truth and the return to philosophy ” (2014), speaks about using mathematics as an axiom to understanding infinite. Theorizing within itself doesn’t seem to satisfy Badiou, as it is an endless game, insists we need to break the idea of the infinite away from the traditional theory that surrounds it, to use something such as mathematics takes away all the philosophical and theoretical discourse, and creates a solid base to understanding it. (2014, pp.183) Mathematics is more established as a commonly accepted truth, which could serve this purpose. Badiou claims that “Mathematics is the only rational thinking of infinity” (2014, pp.183) It exists outside the realm of artistic materiality and reasoning, a means of grounding the understanding of confinements of finitude and where the infinite enters or resides.
Badiou brings up the set theory to speak about the infinite and the endless space that in silent beneath all happenings.
Badiou holds that modern ontology is the being as multiple multiplicity, that the understanding of being as it is in the contemporary world, is through understanding the mathematical theories he discusses. – (2014, pp.9) “For Badiou mathematics is ontology” (2014, pg.13)
Badiou sets out “the doctrine of the void”(2014, pp.14) the dialogue around this empty space, the nothing, that fills everything, is everything. Ontology multiples cant be one set, ontology multiplicities must be limitless and never-ending. No “upper limit”(2014, pp.14) the foundation of all that is, is nothing. Nothing must exist, for something to take place (2014, pp.15) yet behind the something there is always a void, a nothing. This set theory “presents the structure of what any situation says exists” (2014, pp.23)
This is inconsistent multiplicity, there is no before of a thing, it touches on its own limitations. To speak about this we need to understand the upper limit to be boundless (Badiou 2014, pp.14) (As with the concept of N+1 – which doesn’t allow for the highest integer) The multiplicity of ontology can’t be a single set, or it is still one, a secure unit; it has to be a bit more ambiguous than that. Something that can’t be contained under the blanket of one individual being, or inclusive theory.
This perception of reality creates room for the new to exist (Badiou 2014, pp.31). Human beings have a beginning and we have an end, we ‘are’, i.e. we exist, and we also expire, we ‘cease’ to be, yet “We are beings - for – the – infinite” (Badiou 2014, pp.182) We are finite, yet there is something more boundless that our beings encapsulate within its structural constraints. We are the something to talk about nothing, a medium of expression allowing vast infinity to exist within physical form. Art existing within this world has the capability to also allow for this to happen – objects as a conduit or vessel for the boundless, although humans are bound to the rules of nature, with the necessity of physical beings being with existence, it is questionable if art could ever transcend that and be un-constricted by the rules of nature that humanity as a whole is bound to. Arguably, not.
The “void” stands as a baseline for all of existence. This goes both ways however, because without the situations, or the things that do exist, there wouldn’t be a place for the infinite to be expressed. John Cage does just that, something lots of his art stands for is speaking about this ‘nothing’ and how it essentially needs something to express it. Conceptual artists are massively intrigued by this nothingness, (Lippard 2007, pp.xi-xix) a movement of artists trying to take away the material mass needed to communicate ideas. Robert Barry is one example of an artist fascinated by nothing, “Nothing seems to me the most potent thing is the world” (Lippard 2007, p.xx). There are those who like to hold that the “formation of the thought is already sculpture” (Lippard 2007, pp.xvii), that physical material isn’t needed in the creation of the art object, or Lawrence Weiner suggesting that the art object need not be constructed to be an art piece, it can merely be constructed with a unreal form (Lippard 2007, pp.xvii), yet it doesn’t seem to have a strong holding in mainstream art, materiality still seems to have a strong stand, it is problematic finding a resolve for formless art to reach the mind of masses? (Lippard 2007, pp.xxii) Yes, Conceptual art can remain conceptual, but where does pure conceptuality lie within reality. (The idea is of primal importance (Lippard 2007, pp.vii), that conceptual art ultimately isn’t about denying the usage of physical mass, it isn’t just about the lack of material usage but rather about it coming secondary to the content, (Lippard 2007, pp.5-6)) It needs some form to be art, as we are form. The world is a mass of physical matter. Materiality is interconnected with the mortality and confines of our human existence. Essentially we need the something to talk about nothing. To have no material is to not speak at all. We need form to talk about the formless. Not limited or limited within the form, just enough form to allow room to express the formless, and not bring too much attention to the material itself (Cage 1961, pp.114). Within the artistic realms there is always some form or platform, and even those who have moved away drastically from using material to communicate are yet to find a way to completely, a struggle against the lived reality.
Nothingness has no beginning or end, and has no form.
In order to bring down the infinite into a form, it requires physical mortal creations, an object, a being. The number. The letter. The words. The art…
Object.
All which are finite.
Finitude. It has a start, it has an end, it has a frame of existence.
Essentially there is no form that has no form; substance takes on form (Badiou 2014, pp.13)
Life, it has a beginning and an end. (Cage 1961, pp.134-5) A body, a form, finitude, isn’t limited to it’s finitude, it expresses more beyond that which is contained within it’s bare form, yet without it’s form there is no grounding to express it’s endless capacity. It may just remain a light with no vessel to contain it. Like words, with no sound receptacles. A soul, that which has no body.
Inevitably the form is our medium to bring focus to that which we want to talk about, moving away from ‘everything’ to talk about a ‘thing’, even if that thing is nothing. And that is what John cage manages to do, speaking so eloquently on nothing, “I have nothing to say and I am saying it, and that is poetry”, (Cage 1961, pp.109) preceding on to write a whole essay, creating room for structure but so open, as does nothing, something expansive, within borderlines.
In an essay called, “An intolerable piece of writing, writing pedagogy as performed absence” by Simon Morris, it is discussed that that the ideal position is to become invisible to the concept. (There, speaking of a teacher becoming undetectable to the role of transmitting information, or allowing a student the ability to learn, rather than directly transmitting information) Artistically speaking it is possible to think of the material to become somewhat transparent to the concept, material that is serving a purpose, not overtaking with its own form and materiality but subservient to the context it is there to serve.
Badiou whilst speaking about this “doctrine of the void” (2014, pp.14) discusses that behind all that is or any situation that unfolds is the foundation of nothingness. Without the nothingness there is no possibility for anything to exist. (2014, pp.15) It is the foundation that life is built up on, without which, nothing can be.
There is something there. Beneath the something, this a void; but a present void,
Very much there. It is what is being spoken about. (2014, pp.15) It is generating a whole discourse.
Nothing.
Performed absence.
Generating the want to understand something that isn’t there. (Morris 2007, pp.6)
We aren’t speaking about creating something from nothing, (Badiou 2014, pp.16) but about the nothing that exists, that you can’t see. That however is an important factor in allowing the something we see to be seen.
This is a reversible logic, which goes both ways. There is this ‘void’, a presence, and thoughts, stuffs that exists wider than the contained lived experience or finite objects, and that is what we are trying to talk about. But how? How does one talk about that which is uncontainable, that which isn’t seen, that can’t exist within form and structure? It is so much more expansive to be contained purely by it? By allowing it to live through that which it hides behind. In order to speak about that which we don’t know, we need to use things that we do know. Even if it limits it, at least it can allude to it and give us pointers towards allowing our minds a starting point to contemplate it. In order to speak about the unknown or spirituality, spaces that exist beyond the physical realms, that which can expand endlessly (such as the artwork by Robert Barry ‘Barry Inert Gas Series/Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton, Xenon/From a Measured Volume to Indefinite Expansion 1969.’ – something that expands indefinably but it needed to start within a canister, a constricted space, and have physical documentation or the artwork to allow it to later be seen by others) it needs to start within a capsule of space and time. We need to use things, because we are in a world of things. To find freedom from that - is to find freedom from life. (As mentioned previously Badiou also touches on this idea, “We are mortal beings, beings for death […] We are beings for the infinite” (2014, pp.182). To experience concept in a world of things, a place we use words as a means to communicate, there is no freedom from your body, there is just to cease to exist.
It is a bit relentless. It is a circuit that returns back on itself, back to where it started.
In order to speak about this ‘nothing’, something is needed.
“So they’ve got to provoke a belief in nothing, but you can’t do that by presenting a nothing, because there probably isn’t a nothing.”(Morris 2007, pp.6) In the essay there is a reference to Lacan who speaks of the ‘lack” as part of the general human condition, that there is a form of us that is purely ‘symbolic’ and is a visualization of what is, yet not the actuality. Words just express words, but that isn’t the person, the person will never truly be words (“Morris 2007, pp.6-7). He mentions the “exhibition of nothing” (Morris 2007, pp.6) yet ultimately, as he is speaking about the person, he says, there is always something there, even if that is the substance that makes up a human being. (Something that John Cage held of – that even within silence, there is still the sounds of the internal workings of body, and as well within silence in a wider sense, there is still the sound of the wind, Morris speaks about in reference to his experiences with Cage after climbing a mountain and coming got the realization that, “What I took as silence was actually the sound of the wind”. (Morris 2007, pp.9)) Therefore there is no true escape from this form. The form that embodies something expansive enough that it intrigues us to find a way to speak about it. That which exists behind all that is, yet requires ‘all that is’ to create for it a home, a chance to be expressed.
To do so a bit of existence needs to take form, even just purely exist, to allow that curiosity to take hold. To bring that which might not be spoken about because it escapes words, to be spoken about. Ideally to “Embody a part of existence – to provoke a desire” (Morris 2007, pp.7) the desire to explore the expanses beyond the molecules that allows for its being, and furthermore it’s dialogue.
The “role” of the object is stimulating the desire, the opportunity to work on them.
It isn’t about escaping materiality, but focusing instead on the concept, speaking about the vast expanses, whilst using material to do so. (Lippard 2007, pp.6)
Something.
Subservient to nothing.
Words. To communicate.
Art. Objects. Not central to anything, just subservient to everything.
Concepts.
Nothing, in the form of
Everything.
Everything, in the form of
Nothing.
“Nothing more than nothing can be said”. (Cage 1961, pp.111)
---
Bibliography
Books:
Badiou, A., Feltham, o. and Clemens,J. (2014) Infinite thought: truth and the return of philosophy. London: Bloomsbury.
Cage, J. (1961) Silence: lectures and writings. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Lange-Berndt, P. (2015) Materiality. London: Whitechapel Gallery.
Lippard, L.R. (2007) Six years: the dematerialization of the art object from 1966 to 1972… Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Pickford, S. (2005) Pierre Bismuth. Paris: Flammarion.
Seiferman, E. and Wismer, B. (2003) Some places to which we can come: Robert Barry: Works 1963-1975: Bielefeld: Kerber.
Žižek Slavoji (2017) Incontinence of the void: economic-philosophical spandrels. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Other:
Bagaria, J. (2014) Basic Set Theory. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/basic-set-theory.html (Accessed: 5/3/18).
Berry, B. (2017) Hilbert’s Infinite Hotel Paradox Countable Infinities and Strange Outcomes. Available at: https://medium.com/i-math/hilberts-infinite-hotel-paradox-ca388533f05 (Accessed: 6/3/18).
Cage, J. Lecture on nothing. Available at: https://seansturm.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/john-cage-lecture-on-nothing.pdf (Accessed: 25/2/18).
Cage, J. Letters and writings by John Cage, Silence. Available at: http://dss-edit.com/prof-anon/sound/library/Cage_Silence.pdf (Accessed: 25/2/18).
Cantor’s Diagonal Argument. Available at:
http://people.ku.edu/~jlmartin/courses/math410-S09/cantor.pdf (Accessed: 04/03/18).
Cooper, C. (2018) Cantor's Diagonal Argument. Available at: http://www.coopertoons.com/education/diagonal/diagonalargument.html (5/3/18).
Lisson Gallery, Lawrence Weiner THIS AS THAT BE THAT AS IT MAY, 2012 language and the materials referred to. Available at: https://www.lissongallery.com/artists/lawrence-weiner (Accessed: 15/4/18).
Morris, S. (2007) AN INTOLERABLE PIECE OF WRITING PEDAGOGY AS PERFORMED ABSENCE. Available at: http://www.ubu.com/ubu/unpub/Unpub_008_Morris_Intolerable.pdf (Accessed: 20/2/18).
Neely, M. J. (2015) Cantor’s Diagonal Argument for Different Levels of Infinity. Available at: http://ee.usc.edu/stochastic-nets/docs/levels-of-infinity.pdf (Accessed: 5/3/18).
The Museum of Modern Art (1970) COMPUTER PRINT-OUT MAKES NINE EOOT COLUMN IN MUSEUM SUOV. Available at: https://www.moma.org/momaorg/shared/pdfs/docs/press_archives/4484/releases/MOMA_1970_July-December_0004a_69D.pdf (Accessed: 15/4/18).
The Museum of Modern Art (2018) Robert Barry Inert Gas Series/Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton, Xenon/From a Measured Volume to Indefinite Expansion 1969. Available at: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/109710. (Accessed: 13/4/2018)
Vrečar, M. (2013). Final Death of the Author: Creativity in the Age of Information Society. Available at: file:///Users/Rivka/Downloads/Monika_Vrecar_Final_Death_of_the_Author.pdf (Accessed: 3/3/18).
コメント