[...]

(around me / around here) ='lgc'>=> importances and pleasures of going from “around me” to “around here”

(how can we stop in art to) recreate exploitative patterns from the ="trms">past (='qstn'>?)

="trms">ecological ="trms">imagination is a turn towards reciprocity and ="trms">relationship

="large lg2" stl="font-size:111%"> in Kinect the path of a journey is refracted, mirroring a critical site of refraction, as a practice. walking with ="frds scrmbld">Hanno in the Amazon forest is a joyful and critical engagement through a form of practice that resists universalizing tendencies.

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

tree is never tree-like (filial, Arborescent, versus rhizomatic)
vertical vs. lateral
Arborescent vs. reticulated (like the patterns on a giraffe or spots on the python)
stake at “="trms">relationships”



how can we problematize ="trms">narcissism='qstn'>? what if it is the wrong word describing a certain property of life='qstn'>? ="trms">Narcissus is recognizing himself in his environment and he dissolves himself in that image. the main thing about this ="trms">story is that he is most alive via the ="trms">story, ="trms">Narcissus is basically undead.

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

close-range vision

how can we practice movement and touch in the physio-locality of the eyes='qstn'>?
tentacularity
touching was considered a cruder scanning at close range and seeing a more subtle touching at a distance
importance of far distance over close range ='lgc'>=> refer to project Standing on the Shoulders of Giants (2015, ="frds">Sina)

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

forest's “space”

Hernri Lefebvre distinguishes Re="trms">presentation of space and Re="trms">presentational spaces. ... Re="trms">presentational spaces are “directly lived” through as="trms">sociated images and ="trms">symbols which overlay physical space, making ="trms">symbolic use of its objects.

Re="trms">presentation is a distinctive manner of ="trms">imagining the real, and is a fundamental ="trms">phenomenon upon which all culture rests.

or instead of how a forest looks like, what is the forest made of='qstn'>? and for whom='qstn'>? what is the forest made of is the ="trms">matter of negotiation (between the ="trms">different kinds of beings who think ="trms">differently about the forest)

in order not to neutralise the forest to culture (cultural ="trms">history as an explanatory ="trms">priority to the ="trms">historically ="trms">contingent circumstances) we can propose two ="trms">questions of older critique of perspectival perception='lgc'>:
="lstsrd">1. that the body accounts for perspective (='qstn'>?)
="lstsrd">2. re="trms">presentation is ex="trms">="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">clusively mental (='qstn'>?)
of course both ="trms">questions are ="trms">phenomenological ="trms">positions, but that does not mean that we no longer need re="trms">presentation to understand ="trms">relationality. (Konh words)

needing or not needing re="trms">presentation to understand ="trms">relationality

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

(="ppl">="ppl">Latour)

not a philosophical argument, but a cabinet of curiosities assembled by “friends of ="trms">interpretable objects”

... not an encyclopedic undertaking ... we have chosen only those sites, objects, and ="trms">situations where there is ambiguity, a hesitation, an iconoclash on how to ="trms">interpret image-making and image-breaking. (going to sites or objects where there is ambiguity, hesitation)

(the exhibition is not about recollecting truth or objectivity)

christian ="trms">religious paintings that do not try to show anything but, on the contrary, to obscure the vision.

redirecting the attention away from the image to the prototype (="ppl">Platonism run mad='qstn'>?) ='lgc'>-- redirecting of attention to another image

are we really going to spend another century naively re-destroying and deconstructing images that are so intelligently and subtly destroyed al="trms"nttrm="already,spread">ready='qstn'>?

do we really have to spend another century alternating violently between constructivism and realism, between artificiality and authenticity='qstn'>?
="trms">science deserves better than naive worship and naive contempt. its regime of invisibility is uplifting as that of ="trms">religion and art. the subtlety of its traces requires a new form of care and attention.

(we need new forms of attention)

="large lg1" stl="font-size:147%"> the more artifactual the inscription, the better its ability to connect, to ally with others, to generate even better objectivity (Kinect='qstn'>?)

Kinect recordings as ethnography='qstn'>?
how to escape from the tyranny of “simply objective”, “purely re="trms">presentative” quasi-="trms">scientific illustrations='qstn'>? Freeing one's gaze from this dual ="trms">obligation accounts....


="trms">religious icons and their obsession for real ="trms">presence
they have never been about ="trms">presenting something other than absence

="trms">scientific imagery
no isolated ="trms">scientific image has any ="trms">mimetic power; there is nothing less re="trms">presentational, less ="trms">figurative, than the pictures produced by ="trms">science, which are nonetheless said to give us the best grasp of the visible ="trms">world.

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

is Aruz (عروض) ="trms">interface='qstn'>? surface/face and meaning/inhalt/content dualism in Tasavof, ="ppl">Rumi breakings of Aruz. Tsavof believes that only through appearance one can get into the depth


="trms">science, ="trms">religion, and politics all three take for granted an image of ="trms">nature.

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

(="ppl">Peter ="ppl">="ppl">Galison, in iconoclash)

wanting to know with eyes-open

it was by way of intuition “that the mathematical ="trms">world remains In contact with the real ="trms">world; and even though pure mathematics could do without it, it is always necessary to come back to intuition to bridge the ="trms">abyss which separates ="trms">symbol from reality.”

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

(="ppl">Dipesh ="ppl">Chakrabarty)

(="trms">history of ="trms">nature='qstn'>?) the ="trms">nature of ="trms">history as a form of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge

(Croce essay 1893 ="trms">history subsumed under the concept of art) Croce drew on the ="trms">writings of Ernst Mach and Henri Poincare to argue that “the concepts of the ="trms">natural ="trms">sciences are human constructs elaborated for human purposes.” “when we peer into ="trms">nature, we find only ourselves” we do not “understand ourselves best as part of the ="trms">natural ="trms">world” (is that not the image of ="trms">Narcissus who looks into the ="trms">nature and can only see himself='lgc'>--="trms">nature observation as mirror ="trms">stage)
so as ="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Robin,Robot,Robert,Robocop">Roberts puts it “Croce proclaimed that there is no ="trms">world but the human ="trms">world, then took over the central doctrine of Vico that we can know the human ="trms">world because we have made it.”
Croce's idealism “does not mean that rocks, for example, ‘don't exist’ without human beings to think about them. apart from human concern and ="trms">language, they neither exist nor do not exist, since ‘exist’ is a human concept that has meaning only within a context of human concerns and purposes” (not saying human ="trms">symbolic ="trms">system of thought)

="large lg3" stl="font-size:110%"> man environment did change but changed so slowly as to make the ="trms">history of man's ="trms">relation to his environment almost timeless and thus not a subject of ="trms">historiography at all. ='strcls'>***

the ="trms">history of man's ="trms">relationship to the environment was so slow as to be almost timeless

but now scholars are ="trms">writing significantly ="trms">different='lgc'>: destroying the artificial but time-honored distinction between ="trms">natural and human ="trms">histories, climate ="trms">scientists ="trms">posit that the human beings has become something much larger than the simple biological ="trms">agent that he or she always has been.

vision of man “as a prisoner of climate” and not of man as the maker of it

="large lg4" stl="font-size:110%"> is the ="trms">Anthropo="trms">cene a critique of the ="trms">narratives of freedom='qstn'>?
price we pay for the pursuit of freedom

politics='lgc'>: the most common shape that freedom takes in human ="trms">societies.
politics has never been based on reason alone. (it seems politics is something that is out of control)
(Maslin, Global warming) ='lgc'>[Global warming='lgc'>] requires nations and regions to plan for the next 50 years, something that most ="trms">societies are unable to do because of the very short-term ="trms">nature of politics.

="trms">Anthropo="trms">cene was neither an ancient nor an inevitable happening

the crisis of climate change calls for thinking ="trms">simultaneously on both registers, to mix together the immiscible chronologies of capital and ="trms">species ="trms">history.

as ="ppl">Gadamer pointed out, Dilthey saw “the individual's private ="trms">world of experience as the starting point for an expansion that, in a living trans="trms">position, fills out the narrowness and fortuitousness of his private experience with the in="trms">finity of what is available by re-experiencing the ="trms">historical ="trms">world.”

="large lg5" stl="font-size:161%"> ="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

(="ppl">Peter ="ppl">="ppl">Galison, in Image of Objectivity)

“let ="trms">nature speak for itself” (!) a new brand of ="trms">scientific objectivity that emerged in the 19th century ='lgc'>=> restrain themse[...]