Visual Art 3-24-2005

Essay: Renvois, more contradictions than distinctions, or: I spend my time in Stinkpitas

My (compounding) problems with the Marginalization Paradox and how I’ve achieved a certain level of acceptance.

Install View
I saw this Online

The artist commented on this text and discussed his practice at the opening reception January 15, 2005.

Taken from the found notes of Horace M. Edwards in reference to his text: Queries and Concepts in Bayesian Analysis.

It’s the not knowing that’s the frustrating part. I realize now that it’s vitally important to use improper priors as a zero-point for constructing maximum entropy priors, and that common-sense reasoning or simple physical constraints would have permitted the construction of a defensible proper prior. But this particular result was an absolute catastrophe and there’s no going back.

From the initial moment of conceptualizing this project, I struggled to convey to them that this would, given the proper time and energy, yield successful results, or at the very least results that would bolster my early theories. Of course, none of this came true, and I’m left in this insufferable situation. It seems almost by accident this happened, and there is really only one, possibly two, ways to manage this. Fortunately, none of this will have any effect on my personal life.

I vaguely recall Humpty Dumpty pointing out to Alice, in response to her inquiry regarding the significance of language or how you can make words mean different things, that “The question is, which is to be Master– that’s all.” I’ve never determined whether this meant a master language or a master of a specific language. Regardless, I don’t remember the text entirely– it’s been a long time since I’ve read the story and my question may or may not pertain to the statement exactly. I wish that I had recalled this earlier, though, as it reminds me of the difficulty in altering conventions, or, more to the point, the way I needed to alter them in this particular situation. In any case, I still need to placate the investors. It’s a mammoth struggle to do this now– I really wish it wasn’t necessary. It was their support that allowed this project to move forward, which I am grateful for, but also their misconceptions that brought it to an end. I can only think that if we were able to connect with each other at each phase, in the final phases at least, I wouldn’t have had to justify or rationalize the decisions that I made– they would have been accepted and understood as completely plausible and intentional. I don’t know if more time will help me in this situation– if I prolong this, it will continue to irritate me, I’m sure.

Fundamentally, I need to decide how to approach this. Logic tells me to confront the investors immediately– but this could be quite problematic. If they react in the manner in which I believe, I will have a certain amount of regret.

0.2 x (-5) + 0.8 x 10

I imagine, if I consider my initial calculation, seeing this through any further is unnecessary. Dealing with this problem soon will yield a greater expectation, so, I will act accordingly.

This, unfortunately, was a poor idea. I will try and keep a few things in mind:

1. Women appear to find me sexually attractive.

2. When I play cards, I usually win.

3. I have a fuller appreciation of the beauty of nature than most men I currently know or associate with.

4. Because of my relationship with the landlord, I pay less rent than the other tenants on this floor.

5. I can see the big picture.

Suspicion of misunderstanding seems to yield just that- I don’t know how I could have explained myself any more effectively. I believe now that the format or location of our meetings may have affected the results or mood of the discussion. We should interact more socially– maybe at a pub or at a party. I could invite the group to my apartment for drinks and a light supper- I believe things will go more smoothly in a situation such as this. Hopefully, all will listen intently and we can arrive at a conclusion that is agreeable.

The last person arrived at roughly 6:00 p.m. Given the relationships we have with one another, I expected that the mood would be reasonably somber, and I was correct in this assumption. Convincing an individual or a group to move on is a difficult task. How do you balance past events with prospects of a new beginning, at least a new line of thought? Knowing that the last project could not recover, I attempted to engage the group in discussions pertaining to a new line of research, one that could be easily understood. I felt good initially– it seemed that the environment was changing, that people were willing to give me a second chance. The idea of “starting over” was becoming more and more plausible as the evening went on– I’d hoped it was my new approach that was having this effect. Just at this perceived moment of fruition, Mr. Seagull, an influential project investor with a thorny personality made a comment that immediately ceased my aforementioned positive feelings. “Grand narratives”, he stated, “no longer need structure. And yours, Mr. Edwards, does not require this either.” I didn’t understand, exactly, what he meant by this. What could I say in response? I wish I could of thought of something quickly, something witty and to the point. I wish I had a better grasp of the situation– controlled the ebb and flow of the episode. I wish I knew what everyone was thinking sometimes. But, as I said before, it’s the not knowing that’s the frustrating part.