Edwin VanGorder
Since 2010
Works in Madison, Wisconsin United States of America

I am a cyber drawing artist interested in building my archives as my art form which integrates trace both in the sense of genuine movement and prosody as well as the sense of semiotic blending which creates unusual architectures out of drawing as a cross-disciplinaric rhetoric or morphogenic agency of becoming.
Discussions (71) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)

The Eye Is Drawing: Shadow Journal

This structure is a start up file for relating categories of Cyber drawing moods: exploding of fields and texts, Labyrinths and sections, Text Mapping, art etymologies , Simples and Patterns, Drawing as interference patterns through Photo “writing”, Underwriting, Overwriting, Rhetorics of Neo Discourse,Geo Mapping, Morphemes and integration patterns.


Gnomon Knows

notes fashioned around my perception That Tod Cronan’s idea that while semiotics as an understanding of phenomena from within the very reading as subject is true enough it is not sufficient for his need to verify effective judgements, that the thesis antithesis then is opposition fashioned against what is said to be affective or merely compelling arguments too mechanical to be said to elect cognitive immersion to a fair extent of representing humanity.
My antithesis to his is that simulacrae out of which he fashions representation towards cognitive dialectic does not sufficiently fathom that the fallout of dialectic as oppositional pairs is discourse which marks a manifold projected by those human factors of ethos and pathos.


Epilogon : Structure of This Journal in advance of the Therapeutic Silence

Topological Notes
Meaning must be manifold or we would not be discussing it. The topology of ontology is a paradox, for every layer one wishes to extricate or subtract the effort adds a new layer. Transparency in relation to an osmotic consciousness serves to differentiate simulacrae and simultaneity.


Per Against Affective Formalism Litotes&Horismus

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.


virtually Revising Brancusi White Works


In this drawing I am creating a thought experiment exhibition, restaging in different terms one in which the photography of Brancusi was exhibited in the Guggenheim. The idea of Brancusi’s sculpture as focused on the base intrigues me as relating towards the evolution of magic to philosophy in which the term simulacrae, meaning statue per state and status of morphogenic character was in the lower region goeitia, ghost as it were implicative of the artifacts of experience while the upper region of the theurgic, or theory as a kind of immersion. At a time artist often had as theme a “Brancusi show”, using his style, and here I am doing something like this, using a variation on his hour glass theme . His friend, Duchamp, in the Glass similarly used a lower region and higher region, I am adding to this the use of “brackets” as suggesting the philosopher’s bracket as in the essence of Goedels theurum that any statement also refers to itself, the philosopher’s bracket tends to specify that moment in the argument, ie “these” “those”- some indication of the thinkers present moment, state and status if you will..
Brancusi’s photography were documentation and photography means “writing” in light. My interest is towards revising the weight of “graphos” which means I write… I draw… towards the latter via cyber motion sensor drawing.