Tuesday, August 28, 2007

item #0930

Active theory writes itself - into others & c.; all hypno-switching, unlooking, foreignist. For my part, I believe classical physics to be true. Ordain me! lol ...allow me into realms of dominance. I stretch wings of prey, use soft pencils, stabbed into feet of clay, running like Hyde, the Hyde of Hyde, who died, eyes open wide, sketching, prizing, womanising.

Ok. I realise that takes time. So, can I say that I exist? No fun intended! Please realise, I do not excerpt, except within agreed limits. I can part waves... and particles. Direct experience requires only direction, I think. Similarly, I do not believe in necessity of any kind. I may be unruly, but I am seldom disruptive. I do have an inability; for which I will duly apologise. Ask please....

May I add, please, that hindsight is greater than foresight? Relatedly, something often equates to nothing. I have one leg missing; two fingers on each hand, so far.

I am interested in meeting others like me. I do not always buzz. But I want to.

General & Particular

Cheers for your reactions, Inc. Always appreciated. Not entirely sure what you mean by 'samey' - as usually negative but you seem to be reinventing as toward positive! Whatever, though, I'll go with your prose, mate! So cheers...

Repetition/'episodity' is a feature of my work, yes. This is something of a standard move in art - as in life - and, for me, adds to, and is intended to add to, the depth and substance of any supposed art-message I am engaged in offering. The 'episodity' apes the same worrying-away-at this and that thing/issue we all do as individual people within the notion of people-as-a-whole: humanity, etc. Artists are a subset of that humanity. Art is one kind of message one might make. Thus - my items series, by way of example, is a clamour of voices, each baying out their selfhood, their occluded and individuated philosophies of likes/dislikes, wants, desires, potted histories, limitations & reflections, groping for structure, sense, meaning, in that frightening, incomprehensible, and amorphous void. The result of all these voices is both diffuse and overwhelming; but each is defensible, inalienable, and precious - both to itself and, if one believes in humanity, as a politics, to us all. But of course such particularity gets lost in generality as the population reveals itself. For me, this is the point of the repetition...it offers a kind of challenge, by forcing a kind of fundamental choice. As viewer you get the choice of skenning the crowd and remaining relatively uninvolved and generalist or zeroing in and getting particular. Each has pros and cons. The first renders one perhaps cynical, detached; whilst the latter takes time, risks emotional attachment, and one might get somewhat lost in detail, impacting upon one's sense of the whole. There is a conflict between general and particular.

Being alive feels like this to me... Choices ... Knowing each item is equally weighted - if one is a humanist and a democrat; but realising that one can only indulge in so many items to a meaningful degree, because time itself is limited for us, and because we can only maintain care and interest so far and for so long. In this way, we have friends, loved ones, whilst the rest are a sea of faces. We are arch-subdividers. We have to be. That's basic pragmatism. In one sense, however, this is built upon levels of denial. Thus we are able to get self-obsessed about all kinds of narrow crap and plough our pennies into frippery, whilst knowing that elsewhere and nearby people are fucked-up for want of those pennies. In one sense, being alive is to continually straddle this dichotomy, to habituate and to normalise it, to proceed nonetheless, as some kind of sentient fait accompli.

Blogging mirrors that for me. Does one post now and again? Or does one post daily? One style will develop one kind of identity for the blog itself; and any audience perception and reception will be founded upon that style. Yet - interestingly and a key point for me - individual posts themselves might be exactly the same object, but are significantly changed by the context in which they appear. For example, if I had just blogged some of my artwork and made a big deal of being more precious about it, rather than sticking up lots of stuff, the likelihood is that individual pieces would be considered in more depth by those who are interested enough. Because by now there are over 5000 images, some posted several times, the individuality of certain pieces becomes less of an issue - both because there are so many and because the viewer is being directed, by me, to lose such individual consideration because of the attention instead to crowding, to critical mass... All those Pig Ignorants, all those items, a sea of faces... Hard to get involved in and arsed about one because here comes another one, and another, and another... Like a walk through a city centre... One can get detached and uninvolved. Whereas the same face, as Man Friday, on some desert island would be treasured beyond belief. Same object: entirely different perception. Neither explains anything definitive or scientific about the object itself. Rather the object itself functions as an explainer of the person considering it. Put another way, the object being inanimate neither cares about nor relies upon the viewer for its ontology - for its Being. It just is. Meanwhile, the viewer is restlessly, and without any hope of effective success, attempting to show selfhood to others by making supposedly meaningful subdivisions in that array of inanimate and uncaring objects. The dependency is all one way. If you know Sartre's Nausea, it's that hysterical but pivotal moment when the 'hero' throws a pebble into the water and realises he is not free. He is animate. He is caged by volition. He has to make choices. He has to continually demonstrate his selfhood by showing those choices to others. For him, his choices are filled with weight and meaning, full of imperatives that make sense. But, in the 6.1 billion, he is just one of many. Despite his feelings of specialness, he knows, by now, that he is just drunk on DNA, a puppet of its determinations. If, on the other hand, he were part of a more manageable group, he would feel more special, he would be able to bring some focus to his selfhood and, by his applications with that smaller group, make some kind of meaningful impact.

Discharge itself is like that, say: episodic, different voices, one notices styles, preoccupations, there is both overlap and difference, the blog is made of different voices, but, by-the-by, Discharge itself becomes a voice, taking its place amongst other voices, like an elaborate item in its own way.

How do you see it? What motivates you? Why do you contribute? What is your message?

Best wishes

Thursday, August 23, 2007


Tart Ersatz & Decaf Bjorknutrino, Cafe Abdab, 2007

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

exterm. inveigh. click. clack.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

rhetor gog

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Pig Ignorant, Cafe Abdab, 2007

playing own Finger Precision

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Porno Adorno & Pig Ignorant, outside Cafe Abdab, 2007

Monday, August 13, 2007

Attenuated Quang Duc, Quartertonal Prog Elvis & Corporeal Foucault, Cafe Abdab, 2007

Friday, August 10, 2007

item #1020

Life divides us all. So here we are ... little boxes. Chose yours, and read on .... lol

I'm American, but living in the UK for now. Female, early 60s, single - separated, seeking those who like to be easily-led. I have the life of someone who is in love with making decisions for others. I am a professional decider. It comes naturally to me. I am also sexy. That's why I've tried this route, to see what it offers me. Sex is not an issue, however.

I have improved and modified many people with my techniques. Because of my general manner and how I live my everyday life, I have been considered enough for most problemisers. In my line, one takes it all in. All suitable promlemisers get that treatment. That's crucial to how I work; and it why I have been successful. One previous problemiser liked me because she said I never lose control of her self. That's a typical example. Others have said I am a thinker who enjoys the imperatives which stream from necessity. If you are of this type, I would be happy to work with you, as if we are on the same wavelength.

I don't wish to waste anyone's time. So I'll say my interests are confined to: om-swallowing, om-spitting, overpaying, considerations of isness, hatersports, proverbial abuse, and tongue flapping.

I need ideals; real ones. If you don't get the drift, please move on. If you do, and you want to chat, then contact me.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

J.G. Power-Ballard, Cafe Abdab, 2007

item #9104

I'm definitive, at 144' across. I ark & I deprave. I deprave with clinical precision.

item #4509

Maddy f 37 South West

I am attentive and I guarantee your desires will be met by mine


Decaf Bjorknutrino & Grievance Dave Mignon, Cafe Abdab, 2007

calculate as you will

Attenuated Quang Duc, Cafe Abdab, 2007

touristic. reckoning.

phoned you up from Dallas

item #6103

I am working environments of constancy and huge variety. People incline and contemplate around me, backing into the light. I refuse to socialise. I have a straighter view of community. It contains augmentations of familiar things and is portmanteau.

I would rather spit than swallow.

I am sure the hate mail will come pouring in shortly.... lmao

item #0061

It is my intention to follow a path to a castle (any castle) as an approach to notions in and around demarcation, impediment, elitism, and obfuscation - expressed, firstly, as four towers and, secondly, as two high curtain-walls, with each tower functioning as one facet of sexuality as follows: (1) corporeal constriction (2) non-material ceremony (3) brain fun and (4) late-Orwell, with one curtain-wall being lite-black and the other dark-white. This is my museum for Belgrano. Inside, history is stitched-shut. I envisage many rooms. Each of these is an issue. Each is for an issue. Each is at issue. In light of this, let me explain a little about content and function... Rooms are veils. Their origin willingly goes beyond performance, someway toward rituals of service. You can look at rooms, but only during an examination of personal fears, feelings and fantasies. In doing so, you shed layers of yourself; like some filthy house-snake. Otherwise, you stand outside, like some derm-worm, looking at skin to keep you together. These rooms are social regulations, in fact. Freedom relies too much upon probability, I feel. I prefer regulation - for nature, as well as for the sciences. In this way, all is exposed and therefore beautiful. Depending upon what happens, fear and doubt will either be banished or savoured as sensuality. Either way, you will feel something. (Yes, I know there are no new horizons; but there are old ones which can be convincingly refurbished.) In return I require daily commitment, daily enquiry. I must know we can explore the forms of resolution I am interested in. My proposal will require you to read mail and to furnish lengthy replies. In these, I require events and answers. Finally, just to say my door is always open.

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

item #0048

On-line cannot equate my journey with a nameable destination. I am a mode of transport. Time is a dialogue, I feel. The beginning - any beginning, any starting point - establishes me truly as a mind.

Now, though, I am looking to travel as others, as anyone else, for duration's sake. Focus, please; maybe briefly, maybe for longer. I seek your attention.

I find labels adequate and inoffensive. Is that so misguided? I want to reach a point where I can no longer draw dividing-lines between my needs and those of others. Maybe there we can begin to picture those who show an honest interest...?

But please be warned, I am a complete and extensive life-arrangement, substantive, within a range of styles, techniques and other fripperies. Biology reigns. Ultimately, I find tools or toys which create joy rather than communication. Again, is that wrong? Why despise veneer?

Let's talk... see whether our paths collide......

Monday, August 06, 2007

item #0049

Hello again and thank you for your reply. We are happy to continue our conversation. Your message was certainly terse, emotive, even pointed at times; but we sincerely praise you for your engagement, and for the seriousness of that engagement. That, in and of itself, is, we feel, always worthwhile. You raise some interesting ideas, for sure; and we will do our very best to answer your queries meaningfully and honestly and to meet your challenges similarly so. But it’s worth just saying, if we may, that this level of to and fro was itself prompted by yourself; insofar as it was you who first went deeper than the usual ‘hello’. What we mean by this is not any kind of ’you started it’ crap; as we welcome all levels of engagement. We mean, rather, that you set in train seriousish questions – thus prompting seriousish answers – and statements and reflections which themselves prompt kinds of answers, reactions. This process we like, as we say. We respect questions and we always try to answer attentively, clearly and with good grace. One thing can begat another, though, as we are sure you can appreciate. Argument itself has its own logic and impetus. So far as we know, we have not insulted or even criticised you. Yet, we have obviously upset you in some way; and you have evidently been critical of us. The main sticking point for you appears to be that you are a declared individual chatting to a collective, a rubric – a group of unknown number, unknown composition. In declaring yourself an individual and communicating on that basis you seem to be claiming a kind of unproblematic moral authority – based, it would seem, upon the supposed honest simplicity of that position, as a unit of one. At the same time, you are forthrightly querying and even directly aiming suspicions and objections towards us as a group – because, briefly, you are wondering who we are, are you chatting to the same person?, what gender is the speaker?, etc. Technical issues apart, here, we are confused by your stance – as we have done nothing, we feel, to, as you say, purposely obfuscate the ground between us. Such a pointed term. We are merely a group. We work as a group and adhere to and believe in the idea of a group voice. To individuate this would, we think, be against the spirit of our project and chosen way of working. Such a move would be artificial for us, that is to say, and at odds with our ethos and ideology. Can you respect that? Those technical issues addressed: yes, the same people have read, discussed and responded to your messages. We are surprised you might think otherwise, given the degree of continuity. Anything else would be inappropriate and confusing, we would say. Back to the issue of I and we: We would say that one is just as obscure to us as collective is assumed to be for you. Why routinely place us in parentheses? That looks somewhat provocative. Are we under suspicion simply by dint of our collectivism? Does that collectivism convert in your mind as more unfriendly? You said '...cold...'. Yet we spoke openly of love. Such a charge to level at relative strangers. Perhaps you feel you have shared more of yourself with us than we have shared ourselves with you, as it were? Certainly, you indicate that you feel you have said stuff about your past, etc. You continue this - emotively - in your last mail: for instance, telling us how tired and exhausted you are. But, this was not asked for on our part, nor was it directly prompted, we believe. Such things are almost always incidental to us, in fact; and we are always alarmed if such things are offered early on. We feel this bodes ill; and it usually proves to be the case. Yet, we thanked you for the information and, ever hopeful, we were philosophical about the role such material can play in contextualising things. The danger, though, is that such things are inevitably loaded, and loaded emotionally, too. Initially, for us, we thought in terms of your work using personal content, whereas ours does not in the strict sense. That is just a question of stylistic difference, isn’t it? Why should such difference lead you to infer a kind of moral hierarchy between you and us, and to then suggest over and over that we are performing a kind of underhanded trick? No umbrage taken on our part, though. We cannot be bothered with that cul-de-sac game. Instead can we attempt to be kind to you…? We want to say that, despite what you say, we don’t get the impression that you are ‘…a morose, humourless depressive who espouses Trotskyite politics and absolutes about the universe and how all should live in it…’. Your profile has confrontational asides, true; but it’s hardly narrowly political, never mind an article of fascism, nor are you overarchingly depressive. With respect, your asides are too pithy, underexplained, and unsystematic to conform to the former; and, regarding the latter, if you are somewhat negative then you are. We defend your right to be. What we get from your profile is what we get from other profiles: a voice, to take or to leave, a kind of personal shop-window, an opportunity to associate if one is interested to do so, on the levels offered by cyber. It’s like a walk down the street – happenstance, difference, democracy of a kind. We love the variety. We believe in it. We feel part of it. We contribute. We believe in saying ‘we like what you do’ when we do. We probably take it all too seriously – seriously, that is, in terms of spending time upon it. You say we have been ‘…oppressively serious…’. Again, your choice of phrase is somewhat pointed, we feel. But let’s go with your actual charge for a moment… True enough, our messages have not contained comic flights. Should they have done so? Why? Just because we espouse comedy, do we have to use it in our messages? Are you wanting to proscribe what we say just as you proscribe what you say? Why? What for? Our approach is always to respect what others might be saying and how they say it. Again, the seriousness flowed from your direction. We were simply reacting to and thus respecting what we felt you were after with your questions. The exchanges had a kind of implicit tone of quasi-intellectual debate, wherein a certain seriousness is assumed. Comic interpolations could have looked like levity, of course, but maybe levity of an insulting kind – flippancy, not taking you seriously; and in so being you might have been perturbed by that instead of its absence. Again, your citation of ‘…mission statement…’ looks pithy at best, barbed and mocking at worse. We were and we are simply writing to you. Semantics looks inviting, doesn’t it? But it is a dubious friend … cannot any utterance be called a mission statement, and in the right context cannot that be given a negative complexion for point-scoring in an argument? Of course, you cover this by saying it was an initial reaction and you are leaving as is. A tad too cosy and convenient this, we feel. Do you, generally, reflect upon what you say, we wonder? Do you say what you say come what may, and subsequently stand by it as a genuine reaction given at a certain time? If so, we suspect this pisses a lot of people off. Maybe you are not bothered by this. But it is a hard life to live. Do you seek some kind of eventual inner-accord or some kind of learning experience in this by some circuitous route, perhaps? Getting people’s backs up as a starting point is, we believe, a fatally limited, somewhat adolescent modus operandi. Take, for example, your own profile headline. That’s about the first thing a viewer of your profile would see after your name and image. It’s a veritable can of worms – in terms of politics and ideas, of course, but also, and more importantly, in terms of the narrow and provocative array of assumptions you make. These words feel like they were spat into the page, and into the face of your viewers. For ourselves, we are not deeply-bothered, annoyed or concerned about such things – as we believe in democracy. We just muse over why you would want to say that upfront, a priori, like a cipher before-the-fact. Is this you being defensive, pre-emptive, we wonder? If so, has the headline protected you? Has it worked, in other words? One reasonable reaction to your headline might be ‘who does she think she is?’, of course. More sympathetically, though, we feel like saying ‘what a shame, as it might prevent some from looking at your profile further’. Maybe the headline is a test? We are academics, as we said… Is your ‘…word-envy…’ missile intended to land in our backyard, we wonder? Whatever - something of a gross generalisation, don’t you think? Why do you feel this? Surely, again, in being collective we have done nothing to cause such things to occur to you? You say that this dynamic renders you ‘…a slide under a microscope where the collective ‘we’ observe me…’. Again, that’s one possible interpretation of any encounter – either as an individual encountering other persons or as a collective encountering another person …and so on. If we may say, you appear to be embroidering actuality with his whole issue; playing a kind of victim by dint of being one to our several. We are not ganging up on you in any way. Your perception of this needs challenging - and from you end - we feel. We are concentrating upon words with you not because we view you – narrowly or otherwise – as a wordsmith. We are doing so because words are the best means by which to say what we are saying here. In general we feel you are reading too much into things and are, if you will, a little paranoid. We have no ulterior motives. We simply responded to you initial comment, took that to email, and here we are.

We speak only English.

Best wishes.

Friday, August 03, 2007



item #6729

Hi, 30 something faux blond, Karen, Bristol, UK. Am idio-singular (who knows what more outgoes when it comes to opening up?). Here is? Here ARE. Not into formalism – nor even-breaking. Odd-breaking only, please. I can be nailed. Not looking to be extra-buried. Experience is no big deal. Nor is stupidity. I'm not about to be friends for three words. Sum me up; if you can. I sort out the men from the boys.

item #6730

UPDATE! i have now have some real need so i am looking to be practical. distance is initial. but can get to know online communication. i need plenty of sessions because i chat. dosent mean i want to keep my options open or extreme. i have my own life for the record. i am not looking for happeners. my hubby is happy :-) however its not something we explore together. I will only be of interest to those who prove to be able to see who i am chatting to! if i dont respond its because i feel we are not suited or you have not read my profile properly however i wish you luck in your search x



APOLOGETIC Dfense we was bored So went over fault we spent 12 hours on our myselfs and our my feelings The subject to address is intrinsic to signing Several times - and recently - have been accosted by propagandists of one kind or another. have reasonable agility and we ams all aggressive. So we was able to obscure our myselfs in lithe movement and, where appropriate and possible, overegging acts of destruction. In short, offered responses to these intrusions. This conforms to a view of essentialism. Why seek anchorage in a sea of piss, we say? Many have been religious. we aim a kind of missionary our myselfs, somewhat benighted in so being. (Or should you view this as opportunity to correct a poor misguided human being?)

the logoplegiac




gape-shape. at venue.

bX-efqnwe. eating alive. £

bX-efqnwe. 44cm. £


submission sequence

festival of information; tegularity; fittedness

Thursday, August 02, 2007



Wednesday, August 01, 2007