QUANTUM DIFFERENCE:
BARTHES,
DELEUZE, JOHN BENNETT
AND THE
TOPOGRAPHIES OF MEANING
By Tom Hibbard
To satisfy
ignorance is to put off writing until tomorrow
– or rather to make [writing] impossible.
-Gilles Deleuze
Georg Trakl’s 1913 poem The Sun opens
Daily the yellow sun comes over
the hill.
Lovely the forest is, the dark
deer
And man: huntsman or shepherd.
* *
In my opinion, language began as a semi-ordered perhaps
somewhat authoritative system, so
that sentences and phrases, symbols and perhaps numbers were born before
individual words. The standard idea is
that language evolved from naturalistic one-at-a-time picture images, but my feeling
is the opposite—that language evolved, as portrayed in the artworks of Emil
Nolde, out of the dark confusion of autonomous unrecognizable and artificial
shapes and patterns, such as a deep forest, a thicket, dark clouds, a reedy
pond surface, a jungle, desert, snowy
wasteland or shadowy night. The visual
writing of David-Baptiste Chirot takes up this idea. In distance is conceptuality. The appearance of writing is like the surface
of the earth. Language and writing resolved
themselves from an inscription in “nature” of meaning and presence. This is the message of the trace. Language began as an inquisitive encounter with
the bewitching mystery of a striking chiaroscuro that resonated in common with
humanity and Being. It sprang in its interacting geometric shapes
and forms as much from the empty white spaces as the opaque and murky darkness. This is perhaps the reason that “visual
writers” seem to prefer the word “asemic” to the word “semic”—referring to the
absence of a sign rather than an observable guiding sign-post that appears
along the way. The sense that these
artists have is that absence has more power to generate discourse than what we
see and give credibility in our inadequate efforts. Absence is a sign without complicity. As Roland Barthes writes
The absence of rhetorical
signifiers constitutes in its turn a stylistic signifier.
And
…not a total absence…it is a significant absence.
Loneliness shines a radical light on self-disgust, that
is, self-negation. For absence is
neither a good thing or a desirable end.
Rather it is the condition of existence.
The city in which we dwell is Erewhon
(Nowhere), and Creation itself is ex
nihilo (from nothing).
* *
Some of the recent work of long-time visual and
experimental writer John Bennett leaves for a moment the idea of logos and introduces for consideration
what might be described as standard textual poetic forms—such as a twelve or
fourteen line sonnet-like rhyming sequence of lines with each about seven or
eight words long. Of course the
depiction of these types of forms in visual work is fashioned from
simplification and symbolism. In
Bennett’s work eaux, an interesting French plural word meaning “waters,” the lines
begin and end with a decorative typographical mark called a tilde and double
tilde. According to Bennett, these types
of marks are, in his works, often borrowed from such sources as codices of indigenous
picture languages. In this case, the single tilde means “wind” or “breath,” and the double tilde
means “water.” Between the tildes
are two alternating lower case words without commas “neck” and “hose.” The “lines of the poem” also alternate the
order of the two words “neck” and “hose.”
The first line is marked with the tilde, the second with the double
tilde, the third back to a single tilde and so on. Each of the nine lines ends with the word
with which it began. At what we must consider
the geometric center of the Nocturnal pattern, in the middle of the fifth line,
appears in upper case letters the word “BARK.”
At the bottom of the poem, in mirror-like reflection of the poem title,
is an italicized bold face lower case English neologism with an ellipses before
and after “…llint…”
≈
eaux
~neck hose neck hose
neck~
≈hose neck hose neck
hose≈
~neck hose neck hose
neck~
≈hose neck hose neck
hose≈
~neck hose BARK hose neck~
≈hose neck hose neck
hose≈
~neck hose neck hose
neck~
≈hose neck hose neck
hose≈
~neck hose neck hose
neck~
...llint...
There are certain aesthetic qualities in this “poem,” this visual
representation within a seemingly familiar form associated with poetry that we
accept right away as pleasing and appropriate.
For example, there is a fairly emphatic sense of symmetry in the pattern
of the words and the shape of their arrangement on the page. As a visual work it is soothing and orderly,
a beautiful verbal landscape. Visual
symmetry implies conceptual completion.
We observe the artwork’s balance, equality, equilibrium. The words “neck” and “hose,” although topically
unrelated as a pair, on the other hand, do not seem to conflict in their
alternating positions. They are words
whose metric flow is a fresh and transcendent unlikeliness, along with a categorical
neutrality that conveys a rhythmic and perhaps recovered peace. As a set, the words “neck,” “hose,” “bark,”
“llint” do not align themselves under a narrow heading and, in fact, could be
said to invoke just the opposite, broadness, unrelatedness, complexity or the limitlessness
of conceptual totality itself. As
Bennett writes, “…neck,
hose, bark—put ‘em together in eaux with a little llint (or lint) and
you have a complete universe.…” In a
sense, you have the complete
universe, complete in its all-inclusive incompleteness.
The artwork emphasizes structure, verbal structure, moral
structure. The word “BARK” at its center
seems to stand for the moment in textual writing of revelation, its special
significance, apercu, its secret
conclusion. The prominent place of this all-capitalized
word—not like the bark of a tree on the poem’s surface but in contradistinction
to itself at its core—suggests a location outside the work’s structure, similar
to the title and one-word coda, signifying the mystery of meaning that is
preserved and brought forth in opposition to structure and that escapes
structure. In Derrida’s words, “The
totality has its center elsewhere.” Barthes
quotes Saussure as saying
A term is, like the center of a
constellation, the point where other coordinate terms, the sum of which is
indefinite, converge.
The sturdy structure of the artwork’s simplicity,
inclusive of distinction and mystery,
seems far away from deceit or disturbance in its harmonious connectivity
and fully attuned interdependence.
Bennett has created an exquisitely simplified visual work based on a
classic rhyming poetic form.
**
And so it would seem that we have a meaningful textual
poem successfully represented in the visual genre. In his several incarnations of this work, Bennett seems to
have invented a form of his own, perhaps the “visual sonnet.” It is distinct from earlier works of
“Concrete Poetry” in that, in the body of the work, rather than a repeated word
forming a rudimentary structural opacity
such as a wall or edifice, this form uses alternating words, a simulacrum of
variation, an entirely different genre of structure, an epistemological
structure, a metaphysical structure. Does
the use of a computer and its digital technology from which the “writing” is
produced—despite a variety of fonts employed and this symbolic variation—affect
the success of the artwork? In my mind,
the digital image does not reflect the originary autonomy of the mystery of
inscription and logos of presence and
Being—at least not at this time. The
trace, which is a source of manifestation and more importantly actuality, is
annihilated. Barthes
writes
This binary universalism has been
questioned and qualified by Martinet:
binary oppositions are the majority not the totality; the universality
of binarism is not certain.
Upon reflection, it would seem that there is an aesthetic
quality and signification that digital technology is incapable of achieving and
that is within the reach only of cruder, less precise and more risk-taking technologies of writing. As visual writer Nico Vassilakis puts it, “I
am very interested in drawn letters. I
am not though so interested in written letters.” Technology become artistic only in
retrospect. There is no signification, no
aesthetic access without difference present.
Bennett has taken up the difficult task of making an artwork using a
keyboard of a computer, that is, an entirely contemporaneous writing technology. If there is any criticism of the visual work
titled eaux, it’s that the
representation diminishes signification with a closed semic unity that could be considered repetitious. In his book Difference and Repetition, Gilles Deleuze speaks in many ways about
repetition to the extent that it becomes a concept that has a long list of
attributes both positive and negative.
But at the base of his text, Deleuze places repetition and difference in
opposition. Repetition is associated
with “the Same”; difference is associated with the Other. Repetition erases difference. Deleuze also speaks of “mechanical”
repetitions that “find their raison d’etre” in “disguis[ing]” and “displac[ing]” difference. “We are right to speak of repetition when we
find ourselves confronted by identical elements with exactly the same concept.” We are right to criticize repetition as
destructive in this way. Though Bennett
is careful in pointing out that repeated word constructions do change as they
accrue so that “every time a word or phrase is repeated, it is different,” in that case, the meaning of “repetition” in
Deleuze’s terms is placed on the abstract notion of duplication. Deleuze adds that “we must distinguish
between these discrete elements, these repeated objects, and a secret subject,
the real subject of repetition, which repeats itself through them.” “We must find the Self of repetition….” In Deleuze’s terminology, repetition obscures
and obstructs.
Eventually Deleuze speaks of two forms of
repetition. “…we must distinguish two
forms of repetition….”
...in one case, the difference is
taken to be only external to the concept; it is a difference between objects
represented by the same concept, falling into the indifference of space and
time. In the other case, the difference
is internal to the Idea; it unfolds as pure movement, creative of a dynamic
space and time which correspond to the Idea.
The first repetition is repetition of the Same, explained by the
identity of the concept or representation; the second includes difference, and
includes itself in the alterity of the Idea, in the heterogeneity of an
‘a-presentation’ [a not-presentation].
One is negative, occurring by default in the concept; the other
affirmative, occurring by excess in the Idea.
One is conjectural, the other categorical. One is static, the other dynamic. One is repetition in the effect, the other in
the cause. One is extensive, the other
intensive. One is ordinary, the other
distinctive and singular. One is
horizontal, the other is vertical….
In my mind, Bennett is well aware of this problem. It isn’t that he is mocking poetry or that he
has intentionally created a bad artwork but that he is posing a question of
whether a digital image is capable of generating visual meaning. We know this because during this time in
which he has constructed what should be considered holistic visual works such
as eaux, he has given us numerous other
visual works representing other types of poetic forms that, in contrast, encourage
and underscore difference.
olvido
loog ccoorrnnnn
,was a sccat sharrd
glistennnninnnng foorrm tooool a
moouth
oof seeds )yrr teeth(
πππ trripled stunnnn yrr ccoombed
ccheek ...launnnnderred thrroough
the woooods...
yrr loost sannnnd
wicch
))rroope frried arroo
unnnnd yrr nnnnegck((
the loonnnng
last
time )))saturratioonnnn oof
the
liverr((( wherre the fallennnn
ccheese the ))))mist beloow the
rriverr ,eddy oof plasticc
bags((((
my
lapsed toorrtilla slumps be
hinnnnd the ccoompoost buccket
)))))chainnnn oof annnnts
a((((( spiderr
darrts
innnntoo a ))))))ccrracck((((((
locus t pro
oil coyote tracatra c
encult urd ay leng
ths ua reef differg
ence chawd the d
ata-mask ‘n windbl
owner FLIGHT EN
COMBERS swallowed
rift ,seinker ,lock
coyote perpledido
en
la siERRa
)net er
th diverticulgence
my
rratttlingc inna
fire
simulataneous fer
tilizer AY THE
WAISTED EROS dis
carded fog an fa
cial EGG consumpter
why my negative mol
ecule mirror my
SEA thing in the
hubris heat
empty is a trap
After Jim
Leftwich’s
Six Months Aint No
Sentence,
Book 89, 2014
e
plug hole ne
ck wind’s spin
al ,step a brea
d she et âge
- wear yr coil -
in’s riffled ven
t’s e’s wh
irl er glim
mer d’etoile
t able sp
rayed re
gulped the
searing shade the
knotted towe
l r oiled around
yr leg l uminous
chewing la bou
che ou ver te
rase
* *
“A poem always runs the
risk of being
meaningless and would be
nothing
without this risk.” - Derrida
From books such as Writing
and Difference and Derrida and Differance,
it is clear that the quantity or quality of difference is one of the most
important in the Structuralist conceptualization of Being. Difference characterizes reality. Difference constitutes the indeterminacy that
advances humanity in Hegel’s terms from reason to understanding. For Derrida, difference—“ontological
difference”—is, among other things, “the articulation of space and time.” It is associated with interiority and ideas
and the uniqueness and effectiveness of singularity. In Derrida’s words
Temporalization presupposes the
possibility of symbolism, and every symbolic synthesis, even before it falls
into a space “exterior” to it, includes within itself spacing as difference.
Difference is the structure of the interesting, the
unpolluted, the nonlinear world. Barthes
states that for Saussure “language is nothing but a system of differences.” Only the ability of language to differentiate
provides the capability of taking up the subject of totality and “the unity of
Being.” Barthes also associates
difference with history. The erasure of
difference, whether by repetition or by some other form of negation, “exiles
Being from itself” and brings about the “destruction of metaphysics.” In preventing empiricism, the encounter with
the Other, which is directly associated with difference but not negation, this erasure,
this refusal and suppression, this turning one’s back or turning away, this
antagonism toward the trace, in the improbability of the unexpected moment, from
“resistance to totality” also prevents transformation and positive movement
toward the future.
In terms of
Bennett’s visual poems, those that emphasize diverse form, difference appears
as a boisterous freedom and “play.” In
the visual work “olvido,” one in a series, which refers to “forgetting,” “forgetfulness” and “the
forgotten” in a way that hints at the need for remembrance, there are many exhilarating
excesses of letters and other typographical symbols. There are many spontaneous disruptions and
intrusions of parentheses, achieving many compositional effects and many meanings. Words are dilated with elongated prodigal
clusters of letters, font sizes jump around, approaching the reader from
different directions, syntax is broken and incomplete, and signification and
relation are thrown to the winds. In
"locus t pro,” a word construction that makes only the most remote spectral
sense, many of the words ending lines are severed so that the front part ends
one line and the back part begins the following line. The seemingly nomadic words are jumbled as
are the letters of which they consist. Along
with its rather attractive composition, the poem “e,” which might stand for
“error” or “effort,” is, within its space of creation, a mostly jumble of
fragments, nonsensical word combinations
entwined with a multiplicity of languages.
Living form is
infinitely divisible. The idea seems to
be to infinitize the conceptual
“poetic” form—disregarding surface consistency in order to distinguish what
Emmanuel Levinas calls its significant and “absolved” totality. These nonsensical word parts and the subconscious
proliferation of typographies are the very source and incarnation of difference
and freedom. Though in light of the present they seem
meaningless and without context, as such
they project themselves out of the narrow range of poetic form and words
printed on the page into the unknown equivocal prophetic cogito of future meaning, since what appears nonsensical at
first will eventually fit into a larger pattern and what appears at first to
make sense will eventually become nonsensical and fragmentary.
In the instance
of the work titled eaux, though I think its author never directly
intends this, Bennett might be aware of the
possibility at least that the “success” and coherence of this artwork as a
whole could ultimately reduce its significance.
However, in truth, the visual work titled eaux remains in itself a beautifully transcendent and quite
original artwork. One thing that needs
to be emphasized about Bennett’s recent works—remembering that “eaux” and works similar are decidedly
experimental—is that they point toward
several ideas, and in most cases they constitute degrees of both visual and
textual writing.
In quantum theory, quanta are the equivalent of
difference. The excellence of quantum
theory is that it looked at a world, a stereotypical picture, viewed every day
by all people, that for the most part was unexamined and considered to be
without specialness and revealed it to be, instead, a multi-dimensional mystery
beyond imagining. In my view, the roots
of quantum science began with the attempt to measure the speed of light, which
some people believed was infinite and others believed instantaneous (thinking
that its not being a quantity meant that it could not be measured). Like the speed of light, the sun was commonly
considered a thing, an inanimate mechanical device without any need of comprehending,
forever and continually emitting an infinite amount of energy. But, as with light itself, with the sun also,
scientists—it seems that Planck’s special interest was heat radiation—began to
discover and describe the length and breadth of its workings and accurately
measure the immensity of its significance, “articulating its space and time”
and in the process its majestic and “miraculous” wonder and beauty. In many cases, particularly in the case of
relativity, these measurements were at times beyond belief. Yet it all began with the inclusion, rather
than the exclusion or annihilation, of particles, light rays, differences,
implications, temperatures, distant stars, discrepancies, invisible nuclei, the
annoying and foreboding quanta that eventually reached—mostly for “our” solar
system and galaxies “nearby”—totalization.
It has to do with what Hegel considered the difference between a true, a
structural infinity and a false or
spurious infinity. In the same way, a
conceptual totality, due to words, is made both more complex and, at the same
time, more recognizable and comprehensible. Though it constitutes a unity, its inner
workings remain significant and distinct and in motion. In a way, via “spacing,” infinity becomes
finite though endless. And spacing,
difference, variation, diversity have given humanity the ability to quantify
and conceptualize many other astonishing entities and reversible phenomena besides—most
notably the itself.
* *
(What light through yonder window breaks
‘Tis the east and Juliette is the sun)
* *
Ruddy the fish rises in the
green pond.
Under the curved heaven
The fisherman softly moves in a
blue boat.
Tom Hibbard’s most recent
credits include a poem in the current issue of Cricket Online Review, contributions to an Egyptian international
poetry anthology and poetry contributions to newspapers in Egypt. He also had several reviews published in
issue 17 of Big Bridge, including a
review of Jack Kerouac’s poetry, and he had a prose piece on the visual work of
Nico Vassilakis in issue 23 of Galatea
Resurrects. Hibbard’s poetry
collection Sacred River of Consciousness
is available at Moon Willow Press and Amazon.
He’s working on a new collection of poetry, Global People, and a selection of his prose. Hibbard will also have a selection of his
French Surrealist poetry translations published in the upcoming issue of Big Bridge.
No comments:
Post a Comment