Archive for February, 2018




Remember what the ‘new culture makers’ | ‘God’ said in Douglas Adam’s ‘So long to all the fish’ as an indication to the meaning of life,. “I apologise for this inconvenience”, well SAARTJIE may add, “as wE move to Egloi”. SAARTJIE is REBOOTING to JHB – and this is no commercial move but rather a crusade to find:

content <<<<>>>> context.

For most of this century one of the issues in art has been a continued rebooting of style in its search for content where the content is both visual-and-sexual, a kind of neo-Wolfe “provocative Vegas buttocks décolletage” – if you don’t believe me ask SteviE Cohn, he still hasn’t grown out of it! The American crusaders picked this methodology up from the European inquisitors at the beginning of the 20th century and have flagellated it till it became an enthralled hallucinogenic transformation by the 1990’s – an art of dissimulation, an inversion, and a perversion of normal and natural relationships. This attitude has consequently become current in South Africa, ten years after, with clone idealists like ‘Wane’ Barker.

In this century the focus, in art, has changed from content as an end-in-itself to content-related-to-context. This oxymoronic rebirthing (the African Renaissance is one of those other moronic things), of this *bright* age, makes us look to the placement of meaning in order to understand the dis-placement of the content – in a word: custom-content. This mental monkeynastics is nothing compared to that which future displaced meaning is to hold for those who follow the placement of their displaced-content into the replaced future-context. In the future this attitude will be a testimony to humanity and innocence through poetic vision. Paul Klee, the poetic visualiser, saw the possibility of future-contexts as an expression of the soul. He saw these visualisations [contexts] as “an exercise in self-analysis”. What he realised is that this shift in time [displaced-content] and space [replaced-content] is not sufficient as an individual isolated effort. He said: “Uns trägt kein volk” – we have no sense of community, thus he inadvertently emphasised the importance of community.

[All] works of art have a context and we experience these contexts on multi-levels. Firstly, there is the original-context, the manufacturer’s context that in historical terms is experienced by proxy only. Hence, when viewed historically it is always a facetious-context, something like the images hidden in Plato’s cave theory – an attempt at re-familiarisation. Then you have the intermediate-context, the painting in time as countless/nameless ‘others’ see the meaning and the placement, the shadows that Plato saw fleeting past the entrance of the cave. This is deferred meaning. Then we have current-context for contemporary works, which results in compounded meanings, one of which is the original meaning\s – a kind of de-familiarisation. Community is the buzzword of system theorists and the digerati. The digital age has reintroduced into art, something architects have always known and that the digerati have only just begun to surmise, that “content is community”. Thus context is a synthetic immediacy justifying a cause – a trace expressed as:

Intermediate-Context (M)*Current-Context (C) 2

This Einsteinian formula of understanding context leaves us in a ‘post-E-context’ (E = energy | the consequent results started at Hiroshima and Nagasaki) neurosis where the 20th century’s ‘deformities’ haunt us. The contents we experience are a reminder of those past atrocities that we committed. The past corporeal realm of matter as violence on memory inhabits the act of content. The truth is that we, the after-birthed post-modernists, are those deformities – art encased in past sediments of violence. We are a generation of sexual bizarreness – we are the content-less generation of disk-placed meaning. We are locked into all meanings and contexts without having a common community (content + context) of our own. We can list our meaningless-meanings as accurately as Marquis De Sade lists his encyclopaedic sexual pleasures in ‘The One Hundred and Twenty Days of Sodom’ where the ultimate pleasure is in the very act of eliminating pleasure.

We are locked into the act of removing meaning from content in our attempt to establish context as meaning through a process of disk-placement without a common network. We are attempting to create a new mythology that is not based on common-life but rather on a narrative formed purpose-less community. This is a new structure of non-presence, a pluralism of content that is arrived at through the multi-tasking of contexts.

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of or exploring
Shall be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
T.H. Bradley