Blog-note de jef safi

’p i c t o s o p h i z i n g

with . . Viki Olner & dou_ble_you
Few monads of nonsense . .

A comments thread on a flickr stream . .

lundi 28 août 2017

Title : Few monads of nonsense rising to the surface of the Pond of the Resurrected (flickr stream)

Previous title : as lucidity proceeds from experience, the second life proceeds from lucidity . .

. ./. .

comments thread

Viki Olner


Jef Safi (fr :) . . Je ne suis pas d’accord Viki (mais n’en fait pas une histoire personnelle). C’est une égalité que je réfute pour ma part en tant qu’elle se limite à l’Energie qu’emprisonne une masse M de matière inerte. Mais dès lors qu’on considère que tout ce qui fait Mémoire, sans être inerte, emprisonne de l’Entropie alors il faut s’interroger sur ce à quoi contribue la lumière . . c’est clair pourtant non ? Encore un effort . . . . Pour ma part je propose la Créativité, autrement dit que la Lumière (c) est l’immanente substance de la Créativité : . . Entropy ≥ Memory ● Creativity ² (la Créativité qui n’est en rien la Liberté, en accord avec Spinoza) . . seule la Créativité est à même d’exploiter l’Entropie potentielle de tout ce qui fait Mémoire . . de telle sorte qu’il ne peut plus s’agir là d’une bête égalité . . naturellement . . selon le 2nd principe de la thermodynamique . .

. . ô¿.ʘ ) . .

(en :) . . I don’t agree with you Viki (but don’t make this dispute a personal drama). It is an equality that I refute, for my part, insofar as it is limited to the Energy that is imprisoned by a mass M of inert matter. But when we consider that everything that makes Memory, without being inert, imprisons Entropy, then we have to wonder about what the light (c) contributes to . . It’s clear however, is not it ? Hmm . . just a little effort more . . . . For my part I propose the light (c) is the immanent substance of the Creativity : . . Entropy ≥ Memory ● Creativity ² (the Creativity that is not the Liberty at all, according to Spinoza) . . only Creativity is able to free Entropy from what makes Memory, . . so that it can no longer be there a trivial equality . . obviously . . according to the 2nd thermodynamic principle . .

Viki Olner e#mc2

Viki Olner loved your explanation, je ne suis pa

Viki Olner s d’ accord ici

Viki Olner i will study

Viki Olner again

Viki Olner what’ the difference between dialectic and deleuze thoughts ?

Viki Olner hegel/ descartes/ devires

Viki Olner i want to become a spinozaphysical

dou_ble_you Stepping into time capsule ? This reminds me of Arnold Böcklin paintings. Maybe they are heading for the Beggars Banquet. Anita Pallenberg was Arnold’s great-great-granddaughter.

Jef Safi . . CapsUUle is not the accUUrate name, AndreUU, for what is patently "space-time qUUanta", and even if "stepping" must be considered as "through" rather than "into" ( . . hmmr sorry . . please, don’t make this dispUUte an offense, Arnold wouldn’t agree. ). A nd . . . ask Vik i . . how dia . lectics . . can be . q . . qu . . . qUUantized . . ! . . She is right. Deleuze himself revisited Hegel’s dialectical intensities through . . multiplicities . . intricated as well as superposed . . as hyper-multi-(dis)re-layered than Vik’s artworks themselves . . After Image-Time and Image-Movement, Deleuze called such objets "Image-Cristal" . . ! Isn’t he ? . . ˜ç ˜ ) . .

dou_ble_you Jef, you are unique in using philosophy as the painter’s brush. I suck at dialectics, and they do not interest me as an image making technique. If someone told you that you have depicted a shoe and not an "Image-Cristal", you should have considered tying up the laces. As far as I am concerned, this is a shoe. Van Gogh did it better though, and all he ever read was Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Dickens’ Christmas Carol.

P.S. I was trying to put your attention to this painting

Jef Safi . . Well seen Andreuu. Thanks a lot to give me occasion to analyze the process and the result (even if it’s not an orthodox artistical attitude, I can not help considering concepts as affects in their own right, even if it is not reciprocal. Is it anti-situationist ?). . . I did not think about dead island taking the picture that night, I was gently following a group of veiled women to exploit all opportunities of staging them in this palace of the Alhambra. Without thinking, especially without thinking, only laughing, smiling, joking in my bad globish, only careful not to tremble, so much the opening times of my Nikon were long at 2000 ISO. . . Later at home, reworking the color temperature of the chiaroscuro . . in photoshop post-prod . . Bocklin was there, indeed. Unfortunatley, I do not like at all this morbid teutonic romanticism. I am a pessimist, certainly, but a "joyful pessimist", you know . . as Bataille, Rosset, Cioran, Vian, etc., in one word as a ’pataphysician satrape, irremediably. . . The image was working alone through photoshop layers and filters, in a paranoia-criticist sense, while I was listening Marc Ribot painting as loud as possible that night. So no boat here, but bubbles, no cadaveric shrouds but windy sails. You are a connoisseur Andrew, too connoisseur perhaps, so that in the saturated hot yellow lights and dark colors you saw Charon entering whe(re)n my characters are going away/out without knowing which is the resurrected and which is the anti-Charon. . . You invite me to confirm that this picturing is a birth-island, ultimately, an anti-toteninsel in the trigonometric polar sense, centrifugal and non-centripetal. An anti-bocklin, spinozian, even nietzschean, turned like the lost sock of a too quickly relaxed shoe, symbolically, of course. You give me an idea Andreuu to terminate a pending picture of my spanish folders . . thank uu . . see uu soon ! . . ◠ς.◠ ) . .

dou_ble_you What a lovely discourse, dear Jef. I always treasure your comments, because they are intergalactic and tend to avoid the forces of gravity, as we know them. ’However’, it is such a useful English word, isn’t it ? So, I say it again. However, I am slightly disappointed that you have taken my pictorial allusion literally. I have never meant that you tried to allude to Böcklin. Your reaction seems to concentrate on the finger, while missing that distant Pink Floyd Moon. Being a philosopher, you tend to concentrate on the content. The form comes second. I am the exact reverse of this. What I was just trying to communicate was that the mood, the composition, and the rich nocturnal lighting, felt similar in my mind to the German painter’s creation. All this but not content. Besides, your images aren’t that far from the "morbid romanticism" category, even if you don’t feel this way. Life is a situational comedy.

Jef Safi . . ʘς.ʘ ) . . ? ! . . . yeah . . . sure . . . . . ⊗ς.⊗ ) . . ! ? . . ’f course . . . but . . buut . . . . . ?!? . . I admire (rather . . no . . though . . I envy, I love, I languish, . . don’t know . . ) your power to believe that uu can so festively separate senses and forms, affects and concepts, transcendences and immanences, intelligible and sensible, . . and . . or . . ’m sorry . . ’m getting uupset . . I annoy uu already ? . . suUurely ! . . I now know that I will never be a situuationist comedian, I despair to separate sense and form . . for me, with Victor Hugo, "the form is only the sense which rises to the surface" . . so I’ll not abandon my ’pictosophy (with its apostrophic prefix) as long as it doesn’t abandon me either . . why ? . . how ? . . whe(re)n ? . . I must confess that I don’t know how to play otherwise . . but . . is it so serious ?

. . Riddle of the day : What’s the difference between a "situational comedy" and a "tragical joyful ruleless non-zero sum game" ?

( Please, answer me at least by giving me a little clue, I never solved this problem and . . and . . hmm . . hElp ! )

. . W soon my dear . . houuever ! . . . ◕ς.◕ ) . .

dou_ble_you Jef, let’s wait for Godot. He’s got a perfect answer to your riddle :)

Jef Safi . . What a perfect answer that yours, so spinozian, announcing the definitive absence of HIS. . . Is not GOD-ot the ruleless Game itself ? The infinite set of all the attributes of which we are only "few finite modes" ? So, we are not free, Spinoza is right and Descartes wrong, but, as finite modes of the immanent Entropy (according to my ’pataphysics, Entropy is the real name and nature of GOD), we are . . "creative". . . Even if our space-time capsule is less than narrow . . and still less . . let’s play "houuever" another penultimate artwork, the only one authorizing a one more after . . again . . and again . . waiting for every(no)thing, like so many monads of nonsense rising to the surface of the Pond of the Resurrected. . . Tragical isn’it ? But so joyful ! . . Love UU you . . ˜ç ˜ ) . . bringing me, in your barque of this controversy, a bullous penultimate title . .

dou_ble_you I love the new title. GOD-ot is in the details.

Jef Safi . . Suure ! . . In each detail, in each space-time capsule as everywhe(re)n . . and see how much the court of the Isle of Resurrected is paved with "good intentions" . . inexhaustibly ! . . how much "white pages", how much "empty easels" ? . . as much "conditions of possibility" of "situational comedies" . . ! ? . . lEt’s gO . . BaCk To ArT-uuOrk ! . . ©ς.© ) . .