February 23, 2022 by Justin Harrison

In writing my Study statement - I began to think about Transformation in a particular model. The problem with models is they are often wrong. Things don’t fit into categorisation or structure neatly - but it’s a way of temporarily holding the information for me, a way of looking at it - till I find a better way…

Actually a lot came out of writing my Assessment and Study statement, I’ve not considered my practice, art or interests so formally before. It was hard, I had a headache after posting it all. But so worth it, to find structure, plans and actually discover that my interests do connect.

Does transformation exist in two differing states that cycle round:

Transformation down <<

In the transformation down<<< the process of deconstruction, decomposition. The gradual and eventual disassembly of structure, division of cells, molecules and elements.

A rendering down to constituent parts.

“Everything is divisable” (Derrida)

Transformation up >>

In transformation up>>> looking at the coalescence, aggregation, cumulation of elements or events. The newness of creation. Being RePlaced. Becoming new, becoming more.

A circle of transformation cycling through stages of Life>>>Death >>> Decomposition >>> Creation>>>New life>>>

“Far from being ‘dead,’ however, a rotting corpse is teeming with life. A growing number of scientists view a rotting corpse as the cornerstone of a vast and complex ecosystem, which emerges soon after death and flourishes and evolves as decomposition proceeds.” (Mo Costandi (2017). Life after death: the science of human decomposition. [online] the Guardian).

So in light of the nature of Derrida's approach to deconstructions and undecidability - where in his thinking does he reference a constructive approach? What if anything isn’t left undone - Reinscription? Somewhere I read about a part of his work that touched on this but cannot remember which book it was.

I need to locate more specific and rigorous texts that at least allude to something akin to Transformation up>>>

Notes from Presentation / November 23, 2021 by Justin Harrison

Having already given the presentation on ‘Jacques Derrida’ By Nicolas Royle. This is more an ‘aid de memoire’ to remind me of the points I spoke about in the hope that I’ll remember.

Book: Jacques Derrida By Nicolas Royle

Why oh why did I choose Derrida?

Derrida is a French linguist, writer and literary Critical Analysts, philosopher and political commentator and much more.
Written many books especially on textual analysis.
He’s notoriously dense and complex.
Just when I think I have understood I realise I don’t.

Maddening is a phrase I’ve read somewhere...

Famous for:
Deconstruction
Literary analysis
Semiotics
Grammar the difference
Political

I’ve come back to this book as I find Royle’s writing more accessible. He articulates well the unique challenges that come with Derrida’s thinking and writing.

Specifically I’ve been thinking/looking at deconstruction.

What it is not and ways to approaching what it could be.

But even that is optimistic as Derrida’s thinking and writing resists simple or reductionalist summisations of ‘This is this and means this’. Royle explores this not offering neat answers. In the chapter it even states how Derrida dislikes even the word deconstruction, and that he feels that it’s wrong to use it as a ‘ism’ or practice.

Rather Royle gives a useful if fragmented overview, he describes how Derrida likes to explore at a phorensic level. He explains how Derrida evades, is elusive in what is meant for him, by deconstruction.

Royle demonstrates examples of what Deconstructuon is not - throughout most of the book we are shown what Derrida is not, but not told what it and he is. Rather we are shown where he/it might be at work. Where a ‘trace’ or a ‘Ghost’ might be, and it’s this approach that leaves space to work in.

It’s not an answer it’s a deep approach. A constant undoing of ones own beliefs

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I keep returning to Derrida, to this book. A starter. A basic introduction. (Sigh)

Although I am currently liking this uncomfortable wrestling. I have been looking for answers and Derrida won’t give them. Only a way of approaching. And I think that's the thing with Derrida, the moment you look for a neat of final answer - things vaporise - it doesn't work.

Royle frequently in this chapter talks of the unravelling that seems to happen often.

And then for me the language of my work is very important, from the thinking to the language of the symbols and materials. Unravelling of my materials, my practice, my thinking.

Specifically in my practice

Royles chapter has given me specifically some very engaging thoughts that I am exploring as I make.

“Every thing is Divisable” - this phrase alone has me.

///////////////////////////////////////////

I am interested in belief, it’s nature and how it manifests.

In the liminal, the threshold, transforming spaces.

And something of Derrida's work touches on these thin and elusive environments.

/////////////////////////////////////////////

The more I read, the more I realised I didn’t understand, now I suspect that’s the point.

Royles description of Derrida and his practice in this chapter leads us to a constant questioning of our thinking, our beliefs. And this could be a kind of Deconstruction>>>

>>>A constant examining, undoing and again examining of ones own beliefs. Including my beliefs about beliefs.

Derrida / November 2, 2021 by Justin Harrison

"Great works [philosophy/literature/writing] transform the context of their reception and this takes time". Royle Nicholas - Jacques Derrida Routledge P73

What if writing or a work of art could physically change the space/ landscape around us because of the power of the text/ message/ essence of the meaning. Quantum physics - transforming the environment similar to the word? Observed particles behave differently///

Pharmakon poison and remedy, both or sacrifice (Human)//////

"Adrian Mróz, a Polish-American philosopher and musician, analyses its application to art and argues that pharmakon is any physical, mental, or behavioral object[7] which can cut (techne). In other words, pharmaka are agential and responsible for changes in consciousness." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmakon_(philosophy)

Currently Reading///Researching / October 30, 2021 by Justin Harrison

Collections

Sculpture as constituent parts///

Language and it's relationship to compositional elements of sculpture or artmaking

Deconstruction in language and the physical.

Derrida it appears has a dislike of the term Deconstruction and the resistance to it becoming an 'ism'

‘Deconstructualism is a word used by idiots.’(McQuillan 2000, 41)

Everything is divisible rather than deconstructible.

How is this reflected if at all by atomic structure and constituent parts?

Letter to a Japanese Friend"///Jacques Derrida///10 July 1983

Derrida and Differance, ed. Wood & Bernasconi, Warwick: Parousia Press 1985, p. 1-5

An insight into the problematic nature of using 'deconstruction'

Jacques Derrida /// Nicholas Royle///Routledge 2003

Not sure the below statement is true... but I like the idea of interrogation. Scrutinisng our understanding of Law and Justice. Isn't this what Jesus did?

For him it was both ‘foreseeable and desirable that studies of deconstructive style should culminate in the problematic of law and justice.’2 Deconstruction is therefore a means of interrogating the relationship between the two.

https://criticallegalthinking.com/2016/05/27/jacques-derrida-deconstruction/

Interrogating Law and Justice - But who's law and justice?

Thread to Physics ____

Thread to Language____

Thread to Sculpture____

Thread to Spirituality____

Further reading required?:

Derrida Difference

Deconstruction

Law and Justice