I found the reading a little over my head, it was a bit confusing at first. Bastille in his discussion on base materialism seemed to jump around from idea to idea; I didn’t see much in the reading about how all of the ideas tied together. I would have liked to read Bastilles ideas directly, instead of through another writer to get more of a feel for his voice about the topic. However the discussion in class proved to clear up some passages I found challenging to comprehend on my own.
My thoughts on formlessness are that if everything has a form how can it ever be formless? Symbolically perhaps, but it will never truly be formless. You can show the form and document the process, the making, manipulating, and breaking down of the matter into a less formed mass. “it should resemble nothing, especially not what it should be” it should be “wholly other” or the opposite of what it should be. In this respect something becomes nothing. Is the other really the ideal form of matter?
How can matter be ruled apart or wholly other in form? Objects are only as important, as different, or as wholly other as society says they are. We name matter; we define it and give it form, whether concrete or symbolic. A certain value is placed in the How can anything truly be formless if it is still bound to our society. Can the matter truly ever break out of the shackles society places on it if the viewer is confined to it? No matter can ever truly be the ideal form of formless if a viewer is so confined by the limits are laws of the society they must live in.
No comments:
Post a Comment