Personal and internal Manifesto/Diary

Diary is personal, which it makes obtain two contrary concepts. Diary usually locked and sealed by the owner, so the only author can pursue its contents. It is the pure form of the expression from the interpretation of him/herself. He ( let’s be simple. He just represents a human being ) is the author of the story. However, here comes a problem. Because the author writes the text but the meaning of the text comes from the interpretation by the reader.  It is not meant that reader is the announces or the manifestation, but between the author and the reader, there is a gap that cannot be directly filled with. The grammar or the vocabulary which decided by the rules, this point, infiltrate and contain the stuff the gap between the meaning. Which means if the author wanted to claim its ownership, the author himself should become an object and zealously attempt self-expression. Himself become a rule of the dictionary to prevent disturbed by any other represent images. Here I mean the Author is not only limited to the writer but the entity of the self-creator, including designer, artist and all kind of creator.

Is the form explain the function? the author is

  1.  technical expertise
  2.  stylistic signature
  3. through the choice of project and cinematic treatment demonstrate a consistent vision and evoke a palpable interior meaning through his work.

There are several ways of the stuffing. I personally believe, the best way is the physical death of the author. John Berger and Susan Sontag had a conversation in a similar topic which was when the novel becomes the meaning itself. Berger explained novel or the text itself doesn’t retain the meaning but as a death mask, the representation of the mask also the notification of the disappeared. It is because the death is a form of the performance, which is not perfectly finished but everlasting disappearing. It can be the represented by the performing of the interpretation ( Interestingly, as in English grammar, we only can use the same tense in a sentence ). It shifts from a performance and the other performance. Another way to maintain as a “being” the author is a constant performance of the manifestation.  The designer/author can provide a physical manifestation of the content as a neverending continuous tense performer by “Speaking” the content. “Giving” the life, contextualising it and bringing it into the frame again and again as a present.

The designer’s position is middle of the technician and the artist, technician who gives shapeless material to form, thereby causing the form to appear in the first place. Plato’s basic objection to art and technology was that they betray and distort theoretically intelligible forms (‘Ideas’) when they transfer these into the material world. For him, artists and technicians were traitors to Ideas and tricksters because they cunningly seduced people into perceiving distorted ideas( Flusser1999 ).

In contemporary life, the designer is the bridge between the two, more or less indicates the site where art and technology. Both manipulate the material and content, however, designer do both but maintain within the cultural dictionary. If simply follow the Marx’s theory of the idea which explains the value of the work is defined by labour, in contemporary life, most of the mechanically automatised products lost its value entirely by missing of the labour of the human being. However, as Flusser claimed, if there is only one value remains, it will come from the design.

In the hypothesis from the previous sentence, I claimed the authorship comes from “Being”. The being is making the space of the “Being”. I would like to use the metaphor as a “Picture frame”, which has I researched in my last research A journey of the picture frame and the picture and listed three features of the picture frame. These features regulate the form of the performance in taxidermic ways. The space of stuffing, however, cannot move to outside but inside of the formation.

Here, my question is, how maintaining those formations and also reformatted into other frames? What if two frames can combine or divided into two or three? The frame is not only pointing physical frame but the space of the perception. Where we can recognise as a visible. While, the physical matter directly impact to the perception, in Cyber era, the matter cannot be constructed themselves due to lack of the materialization. Anything can be anything. But also anything can be nothing.  No one could not assert the ownership of the matter of the materials but God or nature, not we all can say who made the conceptual idea of the matter. However, I would like to highlight that it is not about the authorship or ownership, but the destination of the things. Damisch wrote perspective is a “structure of exclusion, the coherence of which is based on a set of refusals”. Not only the painter but the viewer of perspective was Immobilised by the logic of the system. Now, there is no boundary of the painter and viewer in a new world. But the interaction still exists. Are we distinguish between two? or should we? or we are capturing neverending “Deathing”?

 

Flusser, V. (1999) Shape of Things. Reaktion Books.

Friedberg, A. (2006) The Virtual Window. Mit Press.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Respond to Personal and internal Manifesto/Diary

Leave a reply

Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.