Per Against Affective Formalism Litotes&Horismus

Posted by Edwin VanGorder | Mon Oct 5th 2015 8:09 p.m.

https://youtu.be/bc8LKlRUJhQ
Notes” Affective Formalism” per Tod Cronan
/: ( I think) modernism must represent itself to be consistent, by changing- the rhea mod of re-present is just that (a splintering), more than a framing, rather, the multitude of associative gradients which defeat thereby the singularity of that which is then paradoxically called representation, the philosophic bracket opens up time itself as that which conditions mere circumstance, as would be the case of representation served whole , the presentation is an altering of presence as shared not between an article and its paradigms but rather of presence of the immaterial present. The material is ego differentiated through a reading process of that ego upon itself which is the nature of semeiotics upon the somatic or bodily present, the material of which is within the scope of gradients of physical and psychological colloids determinative of the reading itself are then as phenomenal and the phenomenologically presencing then the morphogogenic principle within its variations which mark this dimension of fluidity, as also are the necessary derivations such as are conceit, trope topological projection of levels of meaning as configured to faculatative assimilation ergo in the broadness of scope, thereby substantially immaterial to give a Hegelian antiptosis.
In contrast to this Cronan is saying a reality principle in art outside the principles it only shares as within reality cannot be spoken of . To be spoken of the very creation must be , according to his lights, a matter of principle not mechanically transmitted as the directives of the suddenly real but rather an osmotic assimilation within the reading structure of consciousness itself which uses cues not to manufacture, but to construct, these as brought to view variously in the cognition process are the time of creative appraisal he marks representative of all that leverage.
These two versions, his and mine seem then to both share the dimension of flux, where we differ perhaps is in what we respectively would term Not-flux.
We agree that Matisse was concerned with the difficulty of presenting ones self to another, he did not have the kind of confidence Picasso had that every mark he made worked, rather he struggled them out through systematic rejections… or so it would seem, I think actually Picasso’s drawing mode was a code that could only exist by destroying itself and becoming something new in the moment. That is to say, an emblematic problematic of the psychological “drive”. Tod Cronan states “it would be hard to imagine a set of arguments beyond the empirical analysis of the eye (page 3 here- I am going to go through this book page by page ) Empirical evidence requires the validity of definitions, whereas language itself is not definitive but associative and etymological. What he finds hard to imagine is what he finds outside the flux of meaningful events that have a yes or no answer: thus Matisse decides – it works or it does not work.. I find the word Event to relay and rely on a different code, I say Matisse was not decisive- never decided but only preferred. The sequence of these consecutive stages may seem to be the absolute paradigm of the empirical eye… but empiricism has always foundered on not recognizing semeiotic reading, Matisse read via Cezanne and Rodin but in his way he also resisted these readings and revolted against the implicit empiricism of following masters towards a goal, rather he kept the reading but abandoned the goal. Although Cronan cites the constant frames doors and patterns as the structure of a vision towards such empirical building he is more perceptive when he remarks of Matisse of the Chapel of the Rosary that he moved from tableau to environment. Thus in his way Matisse arrived precociously at the philosophic adjustment from framing or bracketing towards instead the post deixis realm of Semeiotic Blending , or Niche as it is starting to occur to us today.
Your Reply