eye balls

October 12, 2017

i tried for eyeballs; but i got breasts !
Sent from my iPad

Comments (0) | More: sculpture

forge up!

forge up! note the hooks.

Comments (0) | More: sculpture

forge up!

note the hooks

Sent from my iPad

Comments (0) | More: sculpture

FORGE up !

“Note the HOOKS.”

Sent from my iPad

Comments (0) | More: sculpture

Luddites !

COLLAPSED-CUBE, steel, variable, Parker 2017

responding to ND …

We cannot escape duality. Where there is something, there is nothing. For a medium to comment upon itself is to be itself and that being is a subject of art.

You all see it intellectually. You know it has all been around for a long time. You say nobody is interested ? Yet SCULPTURE is the three dimensional contributor to the conversation. But you don’t understand ! Unless you can admit your material lack of sense; the whole world is going to remain intellectual and not at the same time, real. Sculpture is real !

“The facts of the matter are themselves !” The reflexive looks like this O——-O. It means one-dimension: a give and take between a thing and a self. It’s is Being ! You know this ! Here sculpture shows itself it off ! It makes a work of this shape and experiments to find where it can go: … by containing each of the ENDS like … into each other. So…! What do I think? Do you want to sit down? If the moral imperative is real, what else is real ? Did you think of that too ? Why is that, a THING that is important ?

Curved yellow triangle ! The classical problem with the picture plane is two dimensions. Two-dimensions is often something we sympathetically interpret the world in; synthetically: like the coordinates @ the X,Y axis; here the Axis is the named commutative: AB = BA; and (let me) figuratively sculpt two of those things (reflexives) contained at one of their ends: O——-O X O——-O or better yet; 4 of those things contained at each of their ends once – then we get a PLANE !

Here the observer is SYNTACTICALLY positioned reflexively; so actually containing the the third dimension at the POINT (I declare, “All information is positioned as dimensional,”) An aesthetic cognitive synthesis perhaps combines dimensions, as does a conversation. If all the information we give and receive is reflexive, and even when a lot of it is only received while staring at the FLAT; then DOING is the sense in which we feel ourselves execute that third synthetic.

A POINT on a piece of paper

is exactly the same as a point-in-space.

We do not debate that !

That in itself is an easy concession; because the point on the FLAT is merely a particular case.

Objectified; “a point is where three lines meet” and the fourth is the SPECTATOR.

Also, how many times do we see lines when we spot a point ?

And how are these lines meeting at their ends ?

Let us shape the LINE like this O——-O ( its END is a LOCATION)

This CUBE IS LYING FLAT ON THE FLOOR, collapsed…. To say, “It is a trompe l’oeil,” as Anthony said, is to say ‘seeing is one dimension’ is reflexively true. This CUBE is not Euclidean; but it answers the Cartesian criteria. It is a Transitive-CUBE; so it is physical and at the same time – LOGICAL: the cubed physical manifestation of the Axiom of Transitivity. The Axiom was logically demonstrated by Leibniz. It reads: if A contains B and B contains C; then A contains C: A = B = C . “This is easy!” I have interpreted this: (O——-O X O——-O X O——-O) . As a sculpture, transitivity is not only logical, formally a-priori; but has become three dimensional and a-point-in-space. Which gets the interior to the outside, the idea onto the ground; the intellect to the real ! So WHAT we are talking about, is essentially the question: can something be physical and logical at the same time? To what effect ? Which leads to the question. Is the mind logical and visa versa, the Idea Natural ?

Let the sculpture do the talking …. But you are standing back ! Only by heuristic, intrepid means is the real intuitable. We cherish our wrecked car ! And put it in the new museum of words … hanging like a Castle . That prick, Apollinaire ! “Let’s not get personal here !”

How are you going to demolish the Word, unless you know what you are talking about ? And how are you going to get a feel for what is to come? And do you have the balls to appreciate its necessity – in a physical sense ?

“The medium is the message” is merely and yet probably a reflexive reiterating a-thing-is-itself. McLuan has also said, “Sculpture predecesses writing.” Since I have shown in sculpture that: O——-O is of the form: A is A, a-thing-is-itself and I have shown that the reflexive exists in one dimension; while commutatively exists in two; and transitively lives in three; and I have sculpted in steel and wood various permutations and combinations that follow from this ; then it would be weird not to grant sculpture its say; because we are talking about the human abstract / reality here, any which lack of specific celebration is truly Luddictic .

Luddites! … what is this, ‘smashing the machinery of art’? The critic murmured the same to himself while hammering the keys to the future.

“COLLAPSED CUBE !” You say of course, it is going to collapse with those rings. Beware, it is not collapsed if you hold it in your hands ! And it is the same thing !


Sent from my iPad

Comments (0) | More: sculpture


March 04, 2016

my writing is a selfconscious search

the-one-of-a-kind cannot be a specific-object
the first is closer to a dream, the other: to the open eye
a specific-object is a thing itself – an object that by its very nature can be repeated, made, named; it is a medium that functions as a thing
the-one-of-a-kind is an idea, a manifestation, an avatar; that is unique, original; its message is in its form

i am understanding that this is the Aristotle vs Plato paradox
AHG quipped my work is a ‘funky specific-object’. what did he mean?

a funky specific-object is almost a contradiction; is it like, although a face is a face (specific-object) no two faces are alike (funk)?
they vary and yet they are what it is; they are ‘somewhat’ specific!

so, if I make O——O right, A is A is absolutely a specific-object; definitely not a-one-of-a-kind. Eyes are wide open! Right?

Comments (0) | More: sculpture

Hold the Hammer Right trailer

February 29, 2016

Comments (0) | More: sculpture

who cares?

February 27, 2016

Engaging the Sticky and so he lingers!

“Nobody cares!” I jump to my own defense – somebody does! Sculpture, painting, dance, music and word is language.

Lately I have been named a “funky-minimalist!” and my sculpture “rigorous.” The latter is true: I have pursued one idea and its ramifications in both sculpture and word for as long as I took up the hammer and swung it: I was 22. The “minimalist” works because the specific-object is a mere POINT. But the “funk!” Let me get my mind around that … well that makes sense – it is about: REFLEXIVITY – that old stop and start, the abstract/real thing. One must be a skeptic! I start the search with the TRANSITIVE and it is not fixed!image

STRUCTURALIST. That’s a good word for me. And I am a FORMALIST. I began with The Painted Word in a Blacksmithshop and forged a FUNCTIONAL ABSTRACTION (above). Explore! I find a bunch of things: even a NET and on my way to Manhattan find the METAPOLYCUBEOCTAHEDRON. And then I find a HEAD – more than one! And referentially, I turn through a series of iron NARRATIVES, later arrive at a destination: the IMAGINARY LINE. And we leave Brooklyn. I work out the concept in the VERNACULAR. Bazura does a 360 walk-through. In that, there is the LINE: a one dimensional sculpture that is as close to the WORD as word itself! It leans against the wall.

Who cares? If a LINE is one dimensional, and FLAT is two, and A = B = C is three, then this sentence is about MEANING. If meaning itself is important to whom-ever, then this STRUCTURE of the REFLECTIVE or rather, “funky-minimalism” ought to help! A is A, aye? Brings the critic to the eye!

Comments (0) | More: sculpture


February 25, 2016

“… will take new directions?”Judd. Three dimensions is where three lines meet and as shown here is TRANSITIVE: which as an Element is composed of Reflexives! Proof that, BEING is a singular duality composed of body, time and mind and therefore; it is relevant to the objective world: what we think ( act and feel).

Comments (0) | More: sculpture

Talk to me

February 13, 2016

parker-a=a_0001The old man is coyote. He is long like the imagination. He is quick like the instant. He is mercury. But most of all he is a Hermes typewriter.

Anthony Haden-Guest arrives, “Specific-object means: an object is very much about itself!” But is Donald Judd saying this in his essay “Specific Objects” (1966)? Is this not an intelligent mind saying what Judd should be saying? Judd says that specific-objects are not structural; but in his saying “are not” he is reflexive. The structure of the reflexive is a singular-duality: the imaginary or substantial or relative distance between the idea and the thing. Isn’t language about crossing that divide? What makes his work exciting – the object saying something about itself by its arrangement or stacking or reflection?

Is it possible to discuss a single cube with Judd? Judd’s thing is three dimensional, so it is a point in space. Would he say that a three-dimensional exists even without mind? Or would he say that the meaning of a cube is so vast as to include the whole universe? Or has meaning itself removed the sculpture from the pedestal; and so flipped the pedestal towards an idea, an identity? What is the meaning of a pedestal? Well, it is (elevated) ground. Does this concern the earth? Is this an environmental sculpture? Does the thingness of the earth not include ‘idea’? He says sculpture is a thing that does not belong? Is mind without substance? What matters? Who cares?

These are fascinating questions; they dwell in the minds of politicians, priests, children, artists and philanderers. Philosophers go directly to the broom in the closet. Where are we going from here?

If the naming of something precludes meaning, it ignores being. Being is the sentience of idea and thing. A sentient work of art must say something about itself, a kind of naming itself for what it is itself. And this gets through the back door to the aesthetics of meaning. Does sculpture include the ground, you might ask? It sits on it! For Judd, it is the ground.

A relationship of pedestals might have a lot of potential energy. Or be a Line of selves or indeed it might indicate multiple defeats. The executioner took what had been an idea from the block.

Judd rejects the use of objective space. Yet his boxes are relational – they are distanced by space. And they occupy space. He has to pan sculpture because the duality of sculpture and pedestal are classical: a thing saying something about itself. He wants the duality to turn directly from object to viewer. And so do I. I want the object to speak of and for itself. But to speak, the object without itself, is not reflexive: the distance between the idea and the thing is the shape of space.

A cube by itself takes up space. It says nothing about itself. It is silent. There are those who use space to great advantage as in a space of time itself, or the shape of a space bounded by line, or structuring a meaning that dances both: thing and space or figure/ground. He is wont to get rid of what’s between the ears. Space, the medium, allows for the movement of a thing through time. It is the shape of a thing and it is the shape of the imaginary. Smith speaking cubes: face-on-face, into hips striding across continents. Gonzalez, describing the imaginary journey towards a point, a star through space that itself articulates meaning. And Calder, dangling in series from the middle, the messages meriting transmutation; color and form, end to end. Picasso throwing a cape between bull and matador: melding the archetype – a trinity: subject, object into the space of a plane. DeSuvero fabricating – gesture becomes the fixed point in space. While Serra forges the pedestal as ground in deference now to the three dimensions of Judd’s Specific Object – saying with enormous energy what might be the terrific human condition: without time! Caro – ‘space by thing’ on the topic of ‘what is’. That Andre – flat on the zoo floor spatially obnoxious: demands the subject to negotiate the 3rd D. Those fat gobs of hamburger in Stella’s work upon reflection now reduced to terminal heart attacks!

Chillida’s Wind Comb is spatial off cliffs. Hey, look at this! A cow that is not a cow in a clear cube of formaldehyde! For Hurst, is this the pedestal, the altar, the idea of death preserved Lenin like?

In “Specific Objects”, the denial of structure is very much the ground.

my braying cart rattled off down the road

Here comes Wei Wei. The object is very much an idea itself, he shouts. Down, he is off his mount standing on the ground; here animated, he flings the parts into trees themselves. In Cubes, removes a box from its pedestal and compares the old and the new minimalism. Yup! a relation. Drops a Ming vase in parallel to the official demolition of his studio. This a specific-object against a specific-object; Wei Wei’s beginning an idea: the objects are no longer differentiated by time; but by means: the quality of their making. By doing this in a garish paint job – getting back to his disdain. The result is timeless.

As Judd writes it, the specific-object is not a structure and therefore, is not reflexive – it says nothing; but we have been inclined to say that it does. For art sake, there is nothing to sculpt but itself! So that is what we get – the one thing and it being repeated like photons – it might be our only gain, because the subject/object, mind/thing, thing is itself rocks! It tells us that throughout the universe, there are things only if there is mind (Berkeley) and so this is life. Life is existence itself. Does sculpture speak it? Does every living creature know the ground it stands on? That is a shout! What if?

I am forging a thing called: Elements – at the exact moment that Ai says, Giddy-up!

The Reflexive CUBE collapses the universe into a centropic polygon and then ‘restores itself in a (flat) photograph as a cube again’!IMG_1865

Specific-object or Site-specific – wow! That word ‘specific’, what does it mean? I thought site-specific as a piece informed by a specific location. And that specific-object thing, what fun! “A thing is very much about itself,” AHG. Fine! “A rose is a rose is a rose,” GS. But we have discovered that the ‘itself’ part is very much of the mind. The Cube beheld, is a cube indeed – eight Points on symmetric Lines, all at 90 degrees.

Suddenly, what can the Point say about Itself? It might have been, a sight unseen; but for you!
And to start this discussion off, lets begin: Transitive! transitivity01This is not a fixed point!

Transitivity means three dimensions are contained, equalized, meeting: (A=A)=(B=B)=(C=C).

Now if a one dimensional structure is written, spoken, and made; doesn’t it seem….

A one dimensional structure is the structure of the spoken word: A is A. A two dimensional object, like a piece of paper, or a screen, or a painting: Neolithic to Reinhardt (all FLAT) ought to be able to say as much as the word, commutative.commutative_0005 A three dimensional object, having the structure of the reflexive contained right in it, also might well be expected to contain at least an insight into Being. Expect as much from three as we do of two as we do of one and don’t forget Stravinsky! Or Compressor Stations! Are we listening in critical mode?

Anthony Haden-Guest let go a very blurb, “Specific-Object means a thing is very much about itself!” And not much else!

I got a notion when I read “Specific Objects” … as Judd’s “three dimensions” gets rid of sculpture; his CUBE might just be the ‘elevation of the pedestal’. And I am taken aback. ‘I thought we were supposed to be getting rid of the pedestal’. But ‘reflexivity’ saves the day! The specific-object, Judd’s, is in relation to another specific-object and another, and another. So it is saying something about itself and therefore BEING. With that we can structure our consciousness. Here the Specific-object by its very nature is at the very minimum about the object saying something about itself. And therefore is language.

I am still stuck! What is a CUBE? … It is a piece of the ground, a ‘star’ in its own right. Mute, it requires the viewer to think what it is: a CUBE. Fecund only by mind. But towards meaning, the cube can say something about itself being a cube: Leonardo’s Blocks, or lately Serra’s Equals or a series of cubes in relation speaking to its own terms (Judd) and so becoming about a Line: the one dimension, the REFLEXIVE. Is the Venus of Villendorf reflexive? It is sculpture, a point in space, that instantly and slowly compels the figure/ground duality between hand and eye.

“Now the art which imitates by means of words only, whether in prose or verse, whether in one meter or a mixture of meters, this art is without a name to this day,” Aristotle. Here, is not imitation one point of the singular-duality – like the 0 that is 0, the binomial structure is of itself reflexive: something is meaningful by being identified.

This is the language that an articulate sculpture speaks; the idea, the space, and the thing. We can no longer be held to a fixed point. The idea has to be as three dimensional as the thing is transitive.

Comments (0) | More: sculpture


May 06, 2010

Comments (1) | More: sculpture