Art after theory
Part 2 Intentionality…



Intentionality and the exposure of is problematic could be described as a descriptive attempt which does not engage in art activity, but this is a naive approach, if the activity was to set itself as the area for the problem to exist in it would play a role.



However when we focus on this problem we see it is not a problem at all in any ordinary sense. Or is it a casual process. Now I am not engaging in a kind of metaphysics about this non objective non subjective intended, having dismissed the ideality as an impossible intention, it is no longer the impossibility of the intention towards an ideality which is a cause of failure. Only historically. An historical naivety which is beside the point, we cant really say anything like this, as its about this that we do not concern ourselves without concerning ourselves with ontology. Or are we drawing up lists, we are engaging in the actual activity of an intention towards art. Other things of course appear, we are not naive purists, or boring tautologists. Or can we abstract some kind of formulae- such as ……... Its not a question of epistemology. There is neither a multiplicity or a singularity. This not a pre chaotic state of undifferentiates which appears post analytically, but the result of an intentional act towards a ideality. Not (a subjectification of the object or attempt at objectivity, the ideal remains an impossibility, the subjective remains as a totality. But there is no point to this. We have chaos- subjectivity, pragmatics, wishful thinking, and the impossible idealality. We regard the ideality as a site of failure of both subject, and object. However we are not bothered with (this) failure.

The event around idealities and language, of pragmatics and their limits regarding idealities has first pragmatically removed idealities from consideration by some, but by others placed them in an unreachable location, and importantly opened up the ground between the absolute of the ideality and the pragmatics of the subject. This has to be a generalized ground at its limits- at the ideal, but between such convergent idealities we have an intentional space which can have titles such as art philosophy science , mathematics etc. The intentionality moves us from the pragmatics of a null subjectivity into this field. There is no reason for this to be a negative field but we need to be aware of the nature of this fields instability, it is essentially unstable, neither a subjective pragmatic, which can be fixed, a decision, or an actual impossible ideality. The metaphysics of this instability is interesting but surely it is undecideable as to their causalities.

What we have are the intentional spaces which we have described above, spaces which are essentially unlimited.

It now requires us to see how such essentialities can themselves be destabilized, are destabilizing. This is relatively simple, an simple intentionality will do.



Elsewhere texts have attempted a critical and positive step from a multiplicity of possibilities- which are not considered as objects, writing, communications, internalities, and these texts have exposed these themes. To re-examine these would be like going backwards to synthesize an object out of its fragments. But already we have fallen victim to objectivity. What we have discovered as essential is a critical subjectivity of destabilization. Superficially it might be difficult to see anything wrong with this , however in not doing so we might be seen to be replacing its move, one of destabilization with another objectivity, or attempted objectivity, or illusion of an objectivity. We might once again find ourselves in a determinist descriptive world trying to do things such as figure out what art is.
the powerful lessons learnt, the significant discoveries of the absence of the art object was a reductionism and objective fact. Its the nature of this fact which can despite its apparent negativity ensure the very thing we want. A destabilizing activity, a subjectivity attaching itself to subjectivity in order to objectify itself. The condition of pseudo theories such as other texts, is such that they can appear to objectify themselves in order to be effective and so their very success is a failure. Inhibiting other texts, and being essentially now a dead object. Such writing as other art before, essentially closes down everything. And we can dream up any number of sentences of the kind which point things out , even negatively. Self destabilization might be thought to be an ideal, but only in the sense that idealities are simply not allowed. A trite recourse to failed idealities misplaces or replaces the dynamics of non textual, non prescriptive discussion, activities etc. That something is said actualizes a destabilizing feature is only a logical and not artistic process. That offering meaning or abdicating it is also I think wrong. To ask What are your intentions is the response to this, intetionalization cuts things off, stops them straight away, what things of course, neither. Both. Not neither but not in some middle ground, there has to be a radical use of language here which avoids certain placements, maybe all placements.
To cite something else is a grounding and therefore a bad move, a halting move. What’s wrong then is this, this very agreement.

We should not cite the... as pun on site. There is no site. Neither is there a non-site. Such sentences are difficult and potentially dangerous. We need something not closed off, open , dynamic, non coding in a fixed way. The very play of codability non codabilty is not our business, it is just that we find this is a potential problem in misunderstanding the kind of structure we have, and how the word structure is being used. perhaps It is the non objectivity of the texts focus and not the texts non objectivity, disability, which is important. Any textual disability is besides the point. The real de-stability here - is here already, and wanted , but here already.. There are numerous things of uncertainty here. Intention, reality, subject, aporia of action. We break open the question, we don’t question it in some hall of mirrors fashion, or remove it. We have radicalized the geography of the sentence and its causal chains, as they are responsible for placing stability as a universal. and we are then in this new place. Such a position has no relation to an object, is neither outside or inside the object, the object becomes not unbounded but its boundaries are no longer binding. It is the essential activity which only appears contradictory if we regard words such as ‘problem’ as meaning something quite specific, i.e. Not problematic. This fault is to be sorted out elsewhere, but here it does not name but generates the problem as itself. The record of this, the reading of this is not a de coding , problem to solution, which implies a set possibilities of success, yet the success of this here now has been assured in its own intention , and its own uncertainty is the guarantee and proof. We move on to uncertainty and intention.





From a causal point of view and ignoring (I can I think borrow a term here - under erasure) both matter, and media* , we can move on to examine the play of logic and meaning, and here we can question meaning as it relates to art, or, and art practice , we should return to this and or.... what occurs …… here at this point is a splitting, as opposed to a synthesis, (a very non dialectical move, an alternative dialectical move subsumes everything into the absolute...There art and every specificity disappears ) and at such a split the opportunity to move in two directions occurs, we have choice rather than a synthesis, yet perhaps only one of these can now validate the artist and art. .. Only one of these non synthetic choices is now - has now become - or is becoming - the artistic move. A separating out of a particular intention. (Later and elsewhere the meaning of meaning is itself split, deconstructed, etc.) What is left on the other side of our question of the meaning of art from the question of meaning could be called a place for art activity to take place. Is always the place it takes place. A conditional hiving off is a disruptive destabilizing activity in which where the one side relates to a move towards art is questionably art, the other to other objects etc. We pursue , now historically, the process through ontology towards a negativity, but this too can be destabilized, fragmented, questioned. And again a split occurs and a choice has to be made. This now appears like an endless and logical causal chain, it is perhaps the play of logic into meaninglessness, an exposure of meanings inability to mean anything- even nothing- a metaphysics of nothing, and or a metaphysical failure, it is always attempting to capture what is outside, and a decisive choice here has to be based on our initial and continued intention- and it this in causal terms which is what accounts for its non-philosophical move, away from problems of being - Metaphysics etc
A move which was not a move but an exposure of what was already present, and the intentionality which remains in this presence. I would call this a non pragmatic move as it does not any longer have any ideas about solutions.

In this non pragmatic move into a space outside of pure subjectivity? Or not - in the senses or arbitrariness, pure objectivity or intentional objectivity, we do not become involved in philosophy, even a radical philosophy - a philosophy which perhaps can also occupy such a space, or become involved with trivial objects. Dead cows for instance. I make these points here to avoid any confusion as to what we are doing or better intending,; intention is here may well be crucial.

Where we are now is beyond the word itself as something stable, and beyond the instabilities which Modernity either failed to deal with, or discovered, such as how things and substances differentiate themselves, that there is here a particular thing before its name could be particularized. How this coalesced how it can be de- coalesced, and through ideas of instability in communication taking place, how these are questioned etc. Therefore the position of the word the text, the before or after the word as something definite, we do not single out, or use this as a critique or a methodology or better an intentionality that we already had, this itself, is now not as it was, an imaging, a means of producing a set of propositions.


Numerous structures now disappear, which can be, have and are being critically considered, this as opposed to a negation, a negative reductionist move, there dissapperance leaves a presence. (Without meaning, meaningless too disappears, nihilism is the product, a result of logic.)

The ideas that are essentially against this negative, reductionist move need not be followed, we can consider these structuralist, outside art with their own problematics. If we consider all reductionist moves might arrive at dead ends, they destabilize reading and logic, and this removes them, does not put them under erasure, regarding art activity, the move in art which apparently arrived at a dead end, is removed. This is one removal, from outside. The second more radical removal is internal and simply rejects reductionisms conclusion, after allowing it, on the empirical evidence, there is something still present. Even if it were not we could intend it. what was exposed in reductionism was a displacement of idealities, now the location of these may be regarded as a dead end if one regards the absolute ideality as a possible reality, or as achievable, but now its removal or arrival has not removed our intention or ability to do so. Its removal, or arrival has made it possible to defend ourselves from being called unreasonable, or meaningless, as in it total presence there is something else, or a possible intention, and in its absence there is a presence or possible intention.

And so we have a very limited pretext in which to work, because of the removal of certain spaces, structures, logics et al. Spaces between perfect - (and non realizable) idealities, and complete but pragmatic subjectivities.

Any number of destabilizing texts may appear, and appear possible and we can admire these, appreciate these but we are now as it were underneath them. They are destabilized by our intention - which we now see which is neither pragmatically fixed or ideally fixed. The very failure of modernity which produced such an instability such un certainty gave us a methodology - and importantly showed an alternative, perhaps in its own confusion gave us the opportunity to see that the problematic of art remained, and we wanted it to remain, we actually liked and like it.

As for the pragmatics of stabilization, justification within post-modernism, these old forms are ok, they have in the face of the destabilization chose to ignore what was empirically exposed, which I think in effect has been to ignore art as an intentional activity.
It may be a legitimate move to not become involved in other activities - but certainly if we avoid the problematics regarding art, we avoid art altogether.


*This ignoring is a token for a complex activity of analysis perhaps best regarded from other disciplines. The term is not pejorative either externally or internally. But importantly we are not ignoring our particular intentionality.






Any text sets out to say something in a certain denotative way must be suspect with regards to art activity.
We do not want to talk about the problematics of text, or texts, here. Art has consistently refused to engage in the problematics of any given text, theme or subject. In particular it seems to locate only to draw attention to what it is not, only to displace these objects, text or not. From an art point of view the textual structures like any other structures are of no concern in themselves, in their histories, this is even at the extreme of ignoring the truth, or radically not having any serious regard for the technicalities of any science, semiotics etc, such as even the status of the signifier and the signified. Their relationships, status, histories etc. This is why I have said elsewhere we have in comparison a radicalization of the use of language. However the text here, is not through its formalities in error regarding art, its error must be elsewhere, actually in its stability. This does not mean that the textual move was a mistake, those who have called such a move a blind alley were I think mistaken. It was the only possible route away from the physical object art object paradigm. The so called failure in textuality was in a way to be expected the same kind of thing happened elsewhere when chasing such absolutes. So also To engage in semantic meaning, or nonsense, or poetics is mistaken even if it is not a blind alley, as is analysis of any kind whatever, psychological, philosophical, metaphysical etc.
Formally the texts records - badly - but its the best we can do - the art practice, its properties then are irrelevant, relevant is, or better was, the ability to pose in text a question. Distinguishing itself as text was irrelevant to art, so text is mere pragmatics, and that is why it becomes radicalized. What can be said as a detailed questioning, critical, responsive process etc cannot be achieved in other media, where we see the - you see what you want attitude regarding gallery objects, the gallery situation was only ever a very primitive formal presentation of completed stable objects. The objects here are closed, anthropomorphically dead, and speechless. But another possibility is that of speech, the relationship of text to speech need not concern us - in the face of other media the questions that are raised are phonetic, whether speech or writing, it is the structural purpose as use which was important and still is, that is significant in pushing the problematic of art further, we could look at the question, the thought, But not to- again- question its process but to show its failure. to phrase this positively, this becomes what art is, as seen, experienced.