EMILY CARR COLLEGE OF ART Volume1 Number 4

STUDENT NEWSLETTER

| ~ October 16 1978

= Jacques Derrida: to the tune of “Frere Jacques” SC: Well. . . it’s happened, so I’d have to disagree with ae for 9 female voices in rounds. you. It happened to me in Morocco. RK: You don’t understand the content, you understand 474 n something which has content. l! {2974 remus PER BO} em ee Et SC: No, what I’m saying is that the words can’t be dis- ag ey want tO tinguished from their facial expression, from their physical gestures. .. | about the weather ? rae aT Se Ae RK: Right, but you’re not understanding the words. 1 bee bee ** i SC: No no, sorry, you're distinguishing content of the By the powerful we mean, of course, those who language from the content of the person speaking, and : are able to realize their will, even if others resist I don’t make that distinction. it. No one, accordingly, can be truly powerful sini, 2g tren a a RK: OK. Right — and you just told me an example — unless he has access to the command of major ~ BA SA} bE So. where you understood what somebody was saying, even elie” for “it “is “W¥er Seifese “inatitutional though you didn’t understand the words, because of their : 3 facial expression. Then I would say you’re not listen- means of power that the truly powerful are, in : hej : d f ee : : ft ing to the language, you’re not getting your content from — the first Instance, powerful. —C. Wright Mills, i the language, you’re getting it from the entire physical The Power Elite (1956) Rie meine is scsihhieacnanimeaae presentation, of which these words you don’t understand is one part. But you would agree if you’d just heard them __ It is a higher degree of freedom when thoughtful on audio tape, you would not get that content. OK? And and independent individuals have the opportun- therefore if you were listening to the language, if it ity of addressing each other. If they have no meant anything to you, it would have meant something to vehicles by which they can express opinion, then you only as art. — for them the freedom of the press does not SC: Yeah, all I’m trying to say is when you deal with the ae. —TS. Eliot, A Commentary (1938) language you’re dealing with the person speaking. ‘ RK: Right... = SC: And that’s a complex organization as opposed to a Richard Kostelanetz came from New York city about dictionary definition, ; 10 days ago. With audio tapes. It was his recent work. Neen Ue Gis ae Seu sae a Bic’ yal | He presented his experiments with sound and language. . | tne - M i Virtually everyone che unfamiliar with what vet ae live. And my por hes ne ae if you're understand- doing, or could only comprehend through their own ing = language, if you te listening to a language you familiar telescopes. With the discussions that proceeded, | making presentations not performances. Oh. . . occa- don’t understand, you're assimilating or appreciating it ‘ Kostelanetz delivered a compact elucidation. What fol- sionally you get offers to read and I choose to use tape *° nk ‘Je ~~ lows below is a transcript of that short dialogue, in an instead; I can’t do anything very interesting live. I have a Yoh oe ioe of how it’s intended or framed. ‘abridged form. new piece which, because of repetition, might work live ee Well, I'm not so sure about that. I know what | This all too literal condensation introduces a far dif- but it’s mostly for vulgar reasons, and that’s not what Y°U TE 891NS to get at: the old conceptual argument (laugh- ferent sensation compared to seeing and listening to the —_I’m about, not what I’m trying to do. In my “Re-cyclings” ing) isc. ee man speak and communicate his chemistry. The most - bss ane, Sylvia Scott: But is it important to know the language? obvious aspect missing here from his actual exposition Ian Wallace: About those “Re-cyclings” . you were pe LS wed ah it git ce, ont aes bees \ is the swift and intrepid swing from directness to subtlety. _ talking about something just now, separating something Sane baer know any language when you mieet — A show of visual works, largely from the ’70s, was being art from non-art, art from information. . . a person from a different culture. P being held at the SFU Gallery; the gallery environment RK: Art is the enhancement of something, information Se i ena: eee ae Peat Gy 206 SAYINE has become familiar to Kostelanetz as he encourages is just presentation. YP ef reon His. pistes to them talk — no. : ’ others to come see what he’s up to. His travelling around —_—IW: Art can be information? Tau Baird: en 198 talk apatt the loaded quality ~ is a steady stream of contacts with (art) makers and critics; | RK: Yeah.... that’s there? There’s ae a lot that’s very loaded. one can imagine how those feedback mechanisms make — IW: So what do you think separates that critical commen- Ae ie Me . - let’s go back to the Hebrew tape. Now L you think-on-your-feet. tary from the ‘“‘Re-cyclings” readings? obviously it’s preceded by the English PRES: You ors = At one point he was saying, “. . By and largeI tend RK: Straight language and unstraight language — that idea that the Hebrew Ps has got something to do with not to like European stuff. I mean when Ian first wrote would be the simplest difference. the English tape; obviously it’s of a religious nature. But me he said he wanted me to talk about semiotics, and I IW: Is there such a clear differentiation? then EE ges srg of itself, out of the language base i wrote you back that semiotics is one of those things | RK: Excuse me, but I think there is (laughs). into something that’s incantatory. Is that what you mean — don’t pretend to understand, on the grounds it’s European IW: I think it really began to merge especially in your by loaded? : : and I’m an American. And I often can’t figure (semio- “Declaration of Independence” piece. The two merge, Eee Partly. . partly. There cia spmcthing on ‘reed } tics)out. the both of them (voices) come across as a babble. . . interested me in the first place Ss The Lord’s Prayer” — 5 Richard Kostelanetz had a lot to say in just over two | RK: Oh come on (laughs)... and that was the things it conjured for me was Orpheus hours of polarizations. We see that he’s been incredibly | IW: No, really I couldn’t listen to them both, they both throwing lightning bolts around. That Was ong and busy, and also discovered the “need for having smart just merged as pure sound. it set up a number of semiotic ae eyieHs that just took i critics for dumb artists.” At home he takes long looks at_ | RK: Yeah. . . so then it’s just a piece. Then if you’re ™€ f° Very faraway places. 1 was wondering how important ‘__ literature and literary politics: writing, thinking and com- __ listening to me as babble then it’s art. that part of it is for you, because when you started a talk posing. In the last ten years he has interviewed many of — IW: So art is babble then, right? about the breakdown of syntax and then immediately what he considers to be the finest minds, master minds, RK: (laughing) If you’re listening to me for informa- Went Into ~ technique of how these tapes were made. ... h in American art and thought. tion it’s not. Of course, I mean I thought you were I think there’s some other things there yon But be very = Books are a concern of personal primacy. Among going to raise the question then, well, what happens if 2W4T€ of. . -almost alchemical kinds of things. . . : those he has worked on either as author or editor are: I don’t understand English. Then the only way you can 2 that piece, yes. The analogue for me was I \ ais Breakthrough Fictioneers, Beyond Left and Right, Pos- appreciate it is as art, because it isn’t information. Sinai. And I was on top of Mount Havass, from ices sil ___ sibilities of Poetry, Future’s Fictions, Visual Language, IW: Well, if I hear a tape of someone speaking in another the right you see Mount Horab and Magis ay eee Master Minds, John Cage, and The End of Intelligent language then I don’t immediately assume that it’s art just a = Ae teas aad paar ey, and) wap iad 9} _— ; Writtig hae Re Tob unde aeanllee ing the noise that might come out of that valley, waiting for Moses to come down from Mount Sinai. I mean some- His tapes are, he says, “linguistic peculiarities, creat- | RK: No—but the only way you can appreciate it is as art thing like that was obviously there. ~~ ing sounds which I’m planting in your head...(my) work —— if you like it. LB: Well what’s that got to do with the word for you? tells us whatever you understand it tells you.” Well, he IW: As pure sound? RK: The word for me? I don’t understand. : did say he wasn’t a process artist, and gradually things RK: Yeah — which is art, rather than as information. LB: How do you draw that experience in with the hills __ became a little more recognizable in his elucidation. IW: OK. Someone else can pick it up from there. and the rolling thunder with the word? Is there an associa-

Other experiments of his involve time and memory. Altogether an unusual interdisciplinary approach which tends to be vastly more expansive than restrictive.

Kostelanetz first asked if there were any questions about the technique used for individual pieces.

William Wheeler: Have you ever done any live sound? RK: No. And I have no wish to. With these pieces I’m

Stephen Clark: You can understand a person even though you can’t understand their language.

RK: Yeah. That’s an interesting phenomenon. I know what you’re saying but I’m going to ask the question “What do you understand.”

SC: The content of the...

K: I don’t think you do.

tion there? Or is the word just a vehicle?

RK: The word’s a vehicle. . .if I understand your distinc- tion. The word? The word? You're raising an interesting question here and you’re disappointed in my response? EB: Yeah...

RK: I should add. .

— ‘The Weather’ continued on page two-

.let me go back a step. I think I know

il

L October 16 1978 __ EMILY CARR COLLEGE OF ART

STUDENT

NEWSLETTER

to talk gi eae

By the powerful we mean, of course, those who are able to realize their will, even if others r

it. No one, accordingly, can be truly powerful unless he has access to the command of major institutions, for it is over these institutional means of power that the truly powerful are, in the first instance, powerful. —C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (1956)

It is a higher degree of freedom when thoughtful and independent individuals have the opportun- ity of addressing each other. If they have no les by which they can express opinion, then

for them the freedom of the press does not —T'S. Eliot, A Commentary (1938)

Richard Kostelanetz came from New York city about 10 days ago. With audio tapes. It was his recent work. He presented his experiments with sound and language Virtually everyone was unfamiliar with what he was doing, or could only comprehend through their own familiar telescopes. With the discussions that proceeded, Kostelanetz delivered a compact elucidation. What fol- lows below is a transcript of that short dialogue, in abridged form.

This all too literal condensation introduces a far dif: nt sensation compared to seeing and listening to the an speak and communicate his chemistry. The most obvious aspect missing here from his actual exposi is the swift and intrepid swing from directness to subtlety.

AA show of visual works, largely from the "70s, was being held at the SFU Gallery: the gallery environment has become familiar to Kostelanetz as he encourages others to come see what he's up to. His travelling around is a steady stream of contacts with (art) makers and critics; fone can imagine how those feedback mechanisms make you think-on-your-feet.

At one point he was saying, “. . .By and large I tend not to like European stuff. I mean when lan first wrote me he said he wanted me to talk about semiotics, and 1 wrote you back that semiotics is one of those things 1 don’t pretend to understand, on the grounds i's European and I'm an American, And I often can’t figure (semio- ties) out. -

ichard Kostelanctz had a lot to say in just over two hours of polarizations. We sce that he's been incredibly busy, and also discovered the smart critics for dumb artists." At home h literature and literary polities: writing, thinking and con posing. In che last ten years he has interviewed many of what he considers to be the finest minds, master minds, in American art and thought

Books are a concern of personal primacy. Among those he has worked on cither as author oF editor are: Breakthrough Fictioncers, Beyond Left and Right, Pos sibilities of Poetry, Future's Fictions, Visual Language, Master Minds, John Cage, and The End of Intelligent Writing.

fer

His tapes are, he says, “linguistie peculiarities, creat 1g sounds which I'm planting in your head. ) work you understand it tells you.” Well, he Ca process artist, and gradually # became a little more recognizable in his cluci Other experiments of his involve time and memory. Altogether an unusual interdisciplinary approach which tends to be vastly more expansive than restrictive. Kostelanetz first asked if there were any about the technique used for individual pieces. William Wheeler: Have you ever done any live sound? RK: No. And I have no wish co. With these pieces I'm

Jacques Derrida: tothe tune of “Fre Jacques” or 9 female voies in rounds

4 A mae SSS = = ————

for Richard Kostelanetz — L.N.B. 1978.

‘making presentations not performances. Oh. . . occa: sionally you get offers to read and I choose to use tape instead; I can’t do anything very interesting live. Ihave a new piece which, because of repetition, might work live but it’s mostly for vulgar reasons, and that’s not what T'm about, not what I'm trying to do. In my “Re-cyclings”” Wallace: About those “Re-cyclings” . . . you we Iking about something just now, separating som being art from non-art, att from informat RK: Are is the enhancement of somethi is just presentation IW: Arc can be information? RK: Yeah. ... IW: So what do you think separates that critical commen: tary from the “Re-cyclings” readings? RK: Straight language and unstraight l would be the simplest difference. IW: Is there such a clear differentiation? RK: Excuse me, but I think there is (laughs). IW: I think ie really began to. merge especially in your “Declaration of Independence” picee. The two merge, the both of them (voices) come across as a babble. RK: Oh come on (laughs). IW: No, really I couldn’e listen to them both, merged as pure sound. Yeah. . . so then it’s just a piece. ‘Then if you're ng to me as babble then it’s at. IW: So att is babble then, right? RK: (laughing) If you're listening to me for tion it’s not. OF course, I

guage — th

cy both

forma.

I thought you were if

going to raise the question then, well, what happe

derstand English. ‘Then the only way you iv is as art, because it isn’t information, if I hear a tape of someone speaking ina language then I don't immediately assume that it because I don’e understand i.

RK: No-but the only way you can appreciate itis as art = if you like it.

IW: As pure sound?

RK: Yeah — which is art, rather than as information,

IW: OK. Si . ‘Stephen Clark: You can understand a person even though ‘you can’t understand their language.

RK: Yeah, ‘That's an interesting phi what you're saying but I'm going to ask the que “What do you understand,

SC: The content of the. RK: I don't think you do.

Volume1 Number 4

SC: Well... it's happened, so I'd have to disagree with you. [happened to me in Morocco.

RK: You don't understand the content, you understa something which has conter

SC: No, what I'm saying is that the words can't be dis. tinguished from their facial expression, from theie physical gestures

RK: Right, bur you're not understanding the words.

SC: No no, sorry, you'e distinguishing content of the language from the content of the person speaking, and — and you just told me an example where you understood what somebody was saying, even though you didn’t understand the words, because of their

the entice physical presentation, of which these words you don't understa ne part. But you would agree if you'd just heard them fon audio tape, you would not get that content. OK? And therefore if you were listening to the language, if it ‘meant anything to you, it would have meant something to you only as at. SC: Yeah, all I'm trying to say is when you deal with the language you're dealing with the person speaking.

lex organization as opposed to a

‘but what I was also separating was a person \dio tape from a person speaking to you my comment to you was, if you're understand- ing the language, if yor to a language you don't understan

| you're assin

IW: It’s a matter of how it’s intended oF framed. RK: Well, I'm not so sure about that. you're going to get at

1ow what the old conceptual argument (laugh:

Sylvia Sco: But is it important to know the language? RK: (pause)... On my tapes? On my tapes, ye S$: No, no, just to know any language when you meet 4 person from a different culture. RK: If you want to understand what they are sayi yes. If you want to listen to them talk — wura Baird: Can you talk about the loaded quality that’s there? There's still alot that’s very loaded, RK: OK. Well... let's go back to the Hebrew tape, Now obviously i’s preceded by the English tapes. You get an idea that the Hebrew tape has got something to do with iglsh tape; obviously it’s of a religious nature. But just goes out of itself, out of the language base

the then

into something that’s incantarory. Is that what you mean by loaded? LB: Partly. . partly. There was something which really

interested me in the first place — ‘“The Lord’s Prayer” —

and that was the things it conjured for me was Orpheus

throwing lightning bolts around. ‘That was very strong and

it set up a number of semiotic associations that just took

ime to very faraway places. I was wondering how important

that part of itis for you, because when you started to talk

about the breakdown of syntax and then immediately

‘went into the technique of how these tapes were made.

T think there’s some other things there you must be ve

aware of. . almost alchemical kinds of things.

RK: In that piece, yes. The analogue for me was L was in

Sinai. And I was on top of Mount Havass, from which to

the right you see Mount Horab and Mount Sis

the left you can see a big valley, and I was ki

ing the noise that might come out of that valley, waiting

for Moses to come down from Mount Sinai. I mean some

thing like that was obviously there.

Bb: Well what’s that got ro do with the word for you?

RK: The word for me? I don't understand.

LB: How do you draw that experience in with he hills

and che roll wder with the word? Is there an

tion there? Or isthe word just a vehicle?

RK: The word's a vehicle. . if 1 understand your distine

tion, The word? The word? You're raising an interesting

question here and you're disappointed in my response?

LB: Yeah,

RK: I should add. . Jet me go back a step. I thi “The Weather’ continued on page two

kt know