GF on NO
March 2011
NO
alternative, aversion, ban, contrary, deconstruction, denial, doubt, end, negation, prohibition, protest, refusal
The positive dimension simply is; NO does not exist if not as opposition, alternative, refusal, and negation. Such apparent original weakness is literally overturned in the act of establishing itself. Besides expressing denial, NO is also an act of rebirth embodying a dynamic force that is in opposition to the static passivity of the positive condition. It is projection, creation and renewal as opposed to receptiveness, acceptance, conservation and decadence. Addressing our theme I would like to start at the point to which Martin led us at the end of his presentation, from this “positive” quality of negation: NO as a powerful act of beginning. Speculating now on how we might approach and translate this idea visually, the first thing to consider is that Art in general and photography in particular establish themselves as alternative realities, not corresponding to the original reality. In photography (photos-graphos – Φοτοσ γραфοσ writing of light) that happens in the arbitrary transcription of light, the experience of which refers to only one of the five senses – the view – and therefore focuses on only one dimension of tangible reality. Moreover, in the unfathomable vastness of space, in the ambiguity of the perception of distances and scales and within the simultaneous flow of the manifestations of time and the impossibility of determining its value or any constant entity, photography establishes a measure, which redefines perception through a single and unique mental image. It determines when, where, what, how, and the combination of these elements, otherwise in principle infinite. Photography therefore has active and accurate awareness of the ubiquitous, continuous and multiple experiences of existences and presences. In a way, it is a step beyond the dimension of representation that you explored last time: IDENTITY, which implied a condition of simultaneity, superimposition and similarity in the contemplation of several aspects of the same reality. NO necessarily implies an uncompromising alternative. Photography, in expressing a different conception of the world, in the mere representation of an act of denial would state an assertion: a double negative equals a positive, not to be not, means to be. In the representation of the negative form of NO its sense elapses if we refer back to the reality from which it comes. NO becomes an original creation only by completely detaching itself from any positive origin. The challenge lies in the paradox that, in the representation, the back of the front does not express “backness”: frontal placement of the flipside expresses its essence. The difficulty is of course how to express negation as an inexplicable and unquestionable proof of reality. A postulate, the existence of which has no reference to any verifiable reality, not even as irrational evidence (i.e. the axiom) but as empiric unavoidable fact. On another level, consider the scale and the impact of what is going on in the world that surrounds us…, how never before, its perception and experience has been so widely dispersed and how absolutely impossible it is to give it a sense in global terms and how never before has it been so urgent for individual realities to define themselves. Last, I wish to remind you that the secret impulse of creativity (yours too) lies in desire and desire is predicated on absence: try to be alone without food and sleep (not to mention alcohol, cigarettes or any other addictive substance) for 24 hrs, without any communication or connection or any sort of pleasure or satisfaction and you will experience how ravenously visionary you become! Whatever direction you embark on – abstract or actual – once you have understood this principle, anything can work and be used as a shape to contain and express the form of your subject matter. Spring is today – a good time to be reborn. Dare to risk and see what eyes cannot see.
GF
From Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011 – Web www.britannica.com
NO
variant of noh
See also: ALTERNATIVE, AVERSION, BAN, CONTRARY, DECONSTRUCTION, DENIAL, DOUBT, END, NEGATION, PROHIBITION, PROTEST, REFUSAL
adverb Etymology: Middle English, from Old English nā, from ne not + ā always; akin to Old Norse & Old High German ne not, Latin ne-, Greek nē- — more at AYE Date: before 12th century
1. a: chiefly Scottish: NOT b: used as a function word to express the negative of an alternative choice or possibility “shall we go out to dinner or ∼”
2. in no respect or degree used in comparisons “you’re ∼ better than the rest of us”
3. not so used to express negation, dissent, denial, or refusal “∼, I’m not going”
4. used with a following adjective to imply a meaning expressed by the opposite positive statement “in ∼ uncertain terms”
5. used as a function word to emphasize a following negative or to introduce a more emphatic, explicit, or comprehensive statement “it’s big, ∼, it’s gigantic”
6. used as an interjection to express surprise, doubt, or incredulity
7. used in combination with a verb to form a compound adjective “no-bake pie”
8. in negation “shook his head ∼”
adjective, Date: 12th century
1. a: not any “∼ parking”, “∼ disputing the decision” b: hardly any: very little “finished in ∼ time”
2. not a: quite other than a “he’s ∼ expert”
3. used in combination with a noun to form a compound adjective “a no-nonsense realist”
- Function: noun (plural noes or nos, Date:1588)
1. an act or instance of refusing or denying by the use of the word no DENIAL “received a firm ∼ in reply”
2. a: a negative vote or decision b: plural: persons voting in the negative symbol nobelium
abbreviation
1. north; northern
2. Latin numero, abl. of numerous number
Compounds:
no–account adjective
no contest noun NOLO CONTENDERE
no–fault adjective
no–go adjective
no–good adjective / noun
no–hit adjective / transitive verb
no–hoper noun
no–man’s–land noun
no–name adjective / noun
no–no noun (plural no–no’s or no–nos)
no–nonsense adjective
no one pronoun NOBODY
no way adverb
at no abbreviation
See also:
- Refusal noun and AVERSION – PROTEST
- Contrary, noun and NEGATION- DENIAL
- Prohibition noun and BAN
- Deconstruction noun
- Doubt noun and DISTRUST- UNCERTAINTY – DOUBTLESS
- End noun and DEATH – EXCEEDINGLY
- Alternative; Whether conjunction, Date: before 12th century used as a function word usually with correlative or or with or whether to indicate
1. until the early 19th century a direct question involving alternatives
2. an indirect question involving stated or implied alternatives “decide ∼ he should agree or raise objections”, “wondered ∼ to stay”
3. alternative conditions or possibilities “see me no more, ∼ he be dead or no — Shakespeare”, “seated him next to her ∼ by accident or design” — whether or no or whether or not in any case “they’ve only been married a very few weeks, whether or no — Thomas Hardy”
Some more comparisons:
Noh Function: noun (plural Noh also No)
Etymology: Japanese nō, literally, talent, Date: 1871 classic Japanese dance-drama having a heroic theme, a chorus, and highly stylized action, costuming, and scenery
No, Lake
lake S central Sudan where Bahr el Jebel & Bahr el Ghazal join to form the White Nile area 40 square miles (104 square kilometers).
- REFERENCES / PHILOSOPHY
G. W. FRIEDRICH HEGEL, The doctrine of being Chapter I: The Quality – from The Science of Logic
FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, Thus spoke Zarathustra
JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, Being and Nothingness
MARTIN HEIDEGGER, Being and Time and The Origin of the work of Art
JACQUES DERRIDA, Writing and difference
SØREN KIERKEGAARD, Enten / Eller (Either / Or)
NO – References
- REFERENCES / LITERATURE
JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, Nausea
JAMES JOYCE, Finnegan’s wakes
GEORGE ORWELL, 1984
JORGE LOUIS BORGES, The Immortal and The Aleph, extracts from The Aleph
ALBERT CAMUS, The Apostat from The Exile and the Reign
JORIS-KARL HUYSMANS, Against the Grain (fr: A rebours)
EVGENY ZEMYATIN, We
LEV TOLSTOY, Resurrection
HERMAN HESSE, Siddhartha
FRANCISCO AYALA, San Juan de Dios
MIGUEL CERVANTES, Don Quixote de la Mancha
GUSTAVE FLAUBERT, Saint John’s Temptation
COLIN WILSON, The Outsider
- REFERENCES / SPECULATIVE AND MYTHOLOGICAL
The Apocalypse Of John / The Book of Revelations
The Book of Job
Phaeton Ovid’s Metamorphoses Book II
The Odyssey Omer II Book
Kali- Yuga
Armageddon
- VISUAL REFERENCES
>download .zip
Martin Bethenod on NO
Venice, 30th January 2011
NO is the title of a work by Charles Ray in 1992: a colour photograph 96.5 X 76.2 cm– representing a self-portrait, the arms crossed. But what you see is not what you think. This image is not a self- portrait, not even a photograph, but the photographic image of a wax statue of the artist. What it says is “No faithful representation, no truth, no communication is possible”. With this work, Ray focuses on the negative side of the artwork, its entropic dimension. The artist intentionally refuses the world and presents himself as an “idiot”, in the sense of Dostoevsky, or of the French philosopher Clément Rosset.
NO is one of the most formidable subject, because it is the absolute word of radicalism and, thus, the starting point of all researches, discoveries and avant-gardes. We are not talking about artworks as an efficient way to say “No” to the world’s evils (war, poverty, dictatorship, censorship,…) –but about an absolute refusal, an act of rebellion, destruction and negation: we are talking about Art saying “No” to EVERYTHING. And, on the other side, we are talking about art that says “No to itself”; No, to its own material reality.
Both cases state the very heart of the Avant-garde’s idea of history as an epic. As there are stories of No there also are heroes of No: artists, writers, poets, dancers, musicians and Historians of NO. Among them, I would like to mention Jean-Yves Jouannais and his book Artists without works; Mathieu Copeland, who curated the void – Le vide – retrospective in Centre Pompidou in Paris and in Zurich; and Greil Marcus, American historian of culture and especially rock ‘n roll, with his epic story of “No” entitled Lipstick Traces, published in 1989, that hugely influenced posterity. Among the heroes of nihilism – No to everything – we ought not to forget Marcus’ “conversation of negation”, that starts in 1916 in Zurich in Cabaret Voltaire: the time and space of the Dada manifesto, with Hugo Ball, Tzara and Richard Huelsenbeck screaming poems without words. A second step would be the Situationist International movement and its protagonist Guy Debord, author of The Show Societyé [1]. Thus we arrive at the burning decade of the Seventies and major events such as the Mai – 68’s student riots in France and all over around Europe. Finally, Johnny Rotten and the Sex Pistols Anarchy in the UK in 1976 and the actual end of the band that split after the famous San Francisco concert in 1978. Rock’n Roll is therefore meant as a weapon against itself – the punk absolute nihilist attitude of “no fun, no feeling, no future” and finally the direct consequence of self-destruction – or the other possibility of being recuperated by the market; and both of them never fail to happen. All of the above seem to be an absolute and hopeless failure and at the same time, all these experiences of radical nihilism could be considered as related to each other in a sort of secret history of art and civilization, with the same urgency and atmosphere. A “Dark side”, that is part of any cultural identity.
Another, perhaps more intrinsic aspect of the artist’s negation is dematerialisation – Art saying No to Art itself –, whose numerous heroes in literature (Bartelby by Herman Melville and his famous sentence “I would prefer not to”, 1853) and in music (John Cage, 4’33 of silence, 1952) reach their apex with the conceptual artists: as in the history of Jouannais, there are artists, writers, musicians who chose not to realize their works and not to produce them. “Conceptual art is to be considered as a strike, or a social movement occupying factories”: an absolute refusal of any material and commercial dimension of the artwork. Following in its wake we can read a large part of the history of the Avant-garde in the 20th century as a quest for immateriality.
Yves Klein, in 1962, invented a protocol for the acquisition of his zones of immaterial pictorial intensity: it was completely immaterial, because the buyer only got a receipt; and he took it to a further stage of dematerialisation, because the buyer had to burn this certificate in the presence of a witness[2]. Lawrence Weiner states that a piece of art may or may not be actually built, and that both propositions are perfect equivalents. Ian Wilson doesn’t produce any artwork, but only has conversations with collectors or curators, of which there remain only a slim typewritten sentence saying – “There was a discussion with Mr So and so…” –signed by the artist. Of course, this pose expresses a fundamental imperfection: there ALWAYS remains some material trace (an object, a photograph, a certificate,…) that might be preserved, collected or sold, generating therefore a confusion between a work and its documentation. Just as if it were impossible to avoid this “reification of logos”: art becomes a kind of struggle and a inevitable coincidence. The logical next step beyond this one up to the present time is Tino Seghal: first a dancer and a choreographer and then an artist of performing artworks, he presents live pieces in art spaces (Museums, temporary exhibitions) performed by real actors. There is no caption or label in the exhibition room (the actors happen to say the title of the work while performing it), it leaves no trace. Furthermore, these works are only transmitted orally: the first performers/artists teach the choreography to the next ones, and so on; there is no written description: it represents a world that cannot be documented or recorded, filmed or photographed…
The attempt at immateriality – a pure instant work deprived of all materiality leading to “no reproducibility” –is a complex and somehow hopeless cause. Nevertheless, what is at stake is the very aura of the artwork’s legacy, which is, according to Walter Benjamin based on technical reproducibility. The irreplaceable, non-reproducible quality of the original is a quest / re-conquest of its value that brings back the lost aura to the artwork. Intangibility redefines uniqueness that brings back the auratic dimension. NO is the beginning of this redefinition.
MB
[1] La société du spectacle
[2] A famous photograph represents Dino Buzzati burning his certificate on the river Seine bank whilst Yves Klein throws gold in the water.