rigorousintuition.ca

chiggerbit wrote:I'm not saying there's anything wrong if people clearly saw this reference as being to a "Surrealist game", but I'd just like to know how many people caught it as that. Am I really the only one who didn't?

I kinda read it both ways and wasn't sure what was meant.

one reading seems to say "these 'vestigations are distasteful and no one should have tried to look into from that angle" and the other way seems to say "these 'vestigations were not done well enough by half and were of insufficient quality to be added to the EC"

I think I detect a little "play again?" flashing in the text as well, but could be wrong, (I suck at Clue and will only play by my own lack of rules. maybe someones got a copy of Mastermind.)

chiggerbit, although I am largely unfamiliar with the TD case, my reading of exquisite corpe immediately sent my mind to the parlor automatic drawing game played by the surrealists in Paris in the 20's. I will say, however, that the usage in the sentence led me to think it was a reference to an actual body, a double entendre. The surrealists produced dozens of these cadavre exquis as a form of automatic writing, an activity, of course, related to spiritualism. I have never seen it capitalised, though.



I'll have to check in my old copy of L'Amour Fou.

Thanks for the Grant Morrison, Nathan.

I can't find it by searching now, but I quoted Morrison in a blog post some time ago - "Metaphor is one of a group of problem-solving medicines known as figures of speech which are normally used to treat literal thinking and other diseases." - and after her death I remember seeing, somewhere, Theresa Duncan quote the same line. And I think that quote speaks to the problem we're having here.

Duncan's "Exquisite Corpse" is her collage-like body of work. At least that's how I understand treppenwitz's use of it. The game is not the Duncan "ARG"; it's a nod to the surrealists, who were Duncan's inspiration. I think literal-thinking researchers can get themselves quickly into error over Duncan by not respecting an artist's entitlement to metaphor.

Last summer, when Dream's End was whipping up a lather of associations while admitting he "doesn't speak postmodern," I cautioned him here that "artists speak in symbolic language, and a non-artist may not know what's being said, even if he knows the language of symbols, because artists appropriate symbols as their own and imbue them with their own meaning. It makes it easy to be misunderstood, because sometimes artists want people to work at understanding, and come at things from unconventional angles."

When I saw someone register with the German equivalent of "Wit of the staircase" I thought here we go again. But I haven't seen evidence of Duncan game-playing.

nathan28 wrote:"...contains 500mg of active visual and thematic metaphor... normally used to treat literal thinking and other diseases..."

what is that image from? Jeff posted it to the imagesonly once (in higher rez).

Jeff, I guess you're objection was that some were almost turning the deaths into a pseudo-commercial ARG by the way some people were engaging with it? That seems a valid complaint. (here's hoping I get your meaning this time around, I suspect I was misunderstanding your position a bit)

used to treat literal thinking and other diseases

Well, I'll admit to being a literalist. I can remember back to when I was four or five years old, and a couple of my cousins my age told me about Jesus (my first introduction), trying to convince me that he was "in my heart". Of course I knew that wasn't possible, told them there was no way he would possibly fit.

But still, this does smell of gaminess.

I think I detect a little "play again?" flashing in the text as well

Yep, that's it.

justdrew wrote: what is that image from? Jeff posted it to the imagesonly once (in higher rez).

It's from Grant Morrison's The Filth (link to the earlier post plus another panel). (What's happening there, is a three-dimensional character wearing an "ink suit" has interfaced with a comic book, and when one of the two-dimensional superheroes tries to follow her off the page he appears to splatter in the sky.)

Jeff, I guess you're objection was that some were almost turning the deaths into a pseudo-commercial ARG by the way some people were engaging with it?

Essentially.

Duncan's "Exquisite Corpse" is her collage-like body of work. At least that's how I understand treppenwitz's use of it. The game is not the Duncan "ARG"; it's a nod to the surrealists, who were Duncan's inspiration. I think literal-thinking researchers can get themselves quickly into error over Duncan by not respecting an artist's entitlement to metaphor.

She's dead. Oh, well.

chiggerbit wrote:

used to treat literal thinking and other diseases

But still, this does smell of gaminess.

I think I detect a little "play again?" flashing in the text as well

Yep, that's it.

not that there's anything wrong with play. play is how we learn. tho too many think they have to stop playing when they get too old. and game can mean a form of play, but what are we conditioned to think of first when we see the word game? a commercial product with set rules that must be followed. or an unpleasant social interaction. "do you want to play a game?" means nuclear annihilation thanks to too many war "games" - that seems a typical peversion of the meaning of the word.

I always felt there was some connection with this:
http://www.aflightrisk.blogspot.com/
http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ1003-OCT_ISABELLA

...which seems to be vanishing from the web slowly but surely...

No. There is no game going on here.

For the record (and I find it fairly ridiculous that I even need to say this): No. I didn't know Theresa Duncan or have anything to do with her, nor did I know anyone who knew Duncan or had anything to do with her. However, she's touched my life, probably indelibly, after her death, through her blog. Using the name "treppenwitz" is just my homage to her spirit.

As far as I am concerned "I meant what I said and I said what I meant" - I posted some information regarding an aspect that nobody has apparently paid any attention to (that is, Duncan's artistic proclivities). Either you understand or you don't; either you can take something from that or you can't. I certainly have no intention of flogging any dead horses. If I can help clarify any questions people have pertaining to my 1st post, I'll be happy to help. If you think I'm "gaming you" simply because I use a figure of speech, you are welcome to believe whatever you want, but I'm standing with what I said when I first read that, chiggerbit: "Ridiculous."

And sorry - I shouldn't have to explain a metaphor - that just ruins the poetry... Jeff understands exactly what I meant by it.

I assume, when we talk about an "Exqusite Corpse", we're talking about a group effort. Where's the rest of the group, trepp? Is Duncan still "exquisite"?

http://www.gothamcityinsider.com/2007/0 ... darko.html

justdrew wrote:

not that there's anything wrong with play.

No? Not even when people haven't been informed that it's "play"? I find it a violation of boundaries when an invitation hasn't been issued, boundaries defined. I'm touchy about boundaries.

I can't find it by searching now, but I quoted Morrison in a blog post some time ago - "Metaphor is one of a group of problem-solving medicines known as figures of speech which are normally used to treat literal thinking and other diseases." - and after her death I remember seeing, somewhere, Theresa Duncan quote the same line. And I think that quote speaks to the problem we're having here.

Duncan's "Exquisite Corpse" is her collage-like body of work. At least that's how I understand treppenwitz's use of it. The game is not the Duncan "ARG"; it's a nod to the surrealists, who were Duncan's inspiration. I think literal-thinking researchers can get themselves quickly into error over Duncan by not respecting an artist's entitlement to metaphor.

''

So, let me get this straight, Jeff. You were aware that this whole thing was a metephor, a collage, an artist's "entitlement" all along?

chiggerbit wrote:justdrew wrote:

not that there's anything wrong with play.

No? Not even when people haven't been informed that it's "play"? I find it a violation of boundaries when an invitation hasn't been issued, boundaries defined. I'm touchy about boundaries.

yeah, that's a good point, but choosing to engage can be interpreted as consent. if something is excessively unclear as to what's going on, it could verge into manipulation (or have been that from the start), which would be bad. so many shades of meaning in these words. I should probably try to be less cryptic, but then the writing seems overly pedantic. there's a real art to leaving some things unsaid (or unwritten). (which I'm not trying to do here). then there's the NLP people who claim that all communication is basically manipulation (the purpose of the communication is the response it gets) - which I think I disagree with.

Like I said, she's dead, oh, well.