Comments on: Text as interface…

By: simon

simon — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:19:31 +0000

Yes – I could see your interest in Ralston being very close to this quote.

This is barely relevant (but I like the symmetry):

In Bergson’s analysis of action he presents the following consideration of a swordsman.

“The swordsman knows perfectly well that it is the movement of the button [the tip of the sword] which has pulled the épée, the épée which has taken the arm along with it, and the arm which has stretched the body as it itself is stretched: one cannot lunge properly or make a straight lunge except after feeling things in that way. To put them in the inverse order is to reconstruct, and this is to philosophize; anyway, it is to make explicit what is implicit, instead of restricting oneself to the demands of pure action …” (Bergson, cited in Moore 1999 p.139)

By: kristian

kristian — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 22:08:58 +0000

I don’t know if its accurate, but I do know that I am acutely aware of how frequently the tendency to ‘not name’ in writings and in conversations with people who improvise tends to occur. Yes all credit to the swordsman for finding the biting point. What appealed to me was how succinctly this text throws a loose net around the issues and sentiments that were driving my argument in our last comment exchange….except he has expressed it way better than I ever could’ve. And this is where Peter Ralston’s work and its relevance/appeal to my practice begins to make its pragmatic sense felt.

By: simon

simon — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:33:45 +0000

This quote acutely captures the tension I feel in this improvisation work. I think the tendency for most improvisers is towards the latter: where no name is given. Do you think this is accurate?

I love the sense of ascribing meaning (giving it a name) lightly or loosely. To struggle (or be resolved) towards embracing language in the work, whilst acknowledging the necessity for flexibility in the relationship between language and action/experience.

Nice work Mr Larsen.