I believe in my listeners – Gu Cheng

As the amphitheatre
As the fog
You have to
Theatres are boxes
Like a box
Revisiting a work
As it stands
The production’s title
As Miles Davis
Needles and Opium’s
Needles and Opium

– from a review submitted by Mark Amery on Sat, 22/02/2014 – 2:52pm.

we have no lights

the visible has retreated
beyond the utterable
the sayable
which now fill, both,
the utterable and
the sayable,
the horizon formerly occupied
by the visible
which had to retreat
pursued by the tactile

and although we are ourselves pursued by images
the visible has retreated
because the images pursuing us are literal
they refer even when it is only to themselves
they signify even when it is only themselves
they signify
they touch even when it is only themselves
they touch

Although it sounds odd,
there is no room for the visible
despite what Mark Amery says
and this explains why
as Werner Herzog says
we have no adequate images
we have no lights

it sounds odd to say the tactile,
is it because our bodies have swollen
to fill the entire room
and our faces touch the sides
of the screen?

it has been suggested that everything is art
when as we all know
everything is data

and data can be turned into money
only just

I really want to know if you snore
because when I know enough people who snore
I can sell this information to a company
who have a cure for snoring
which they want to sell to you,
to you or the person or people who sleep
next to you.

if everything is data is it a sheer quantitative occasion that gives rise to speculation and the opportunity to make money?

is a certain datum more bankable than certain others? Network theory would have us believe so: because of the spikes of those who are like Casanova in the world of love-making, those exceptional ‘influencers’ and ‘opinion-makers’ whom others follow, those who stick out statistically from the overwhelming ennui of averageness.

it is also certain that this is no longer a question of mediocrity as it is certain that no data is noise: for the former, I have my day-to-day, my workaday routine, which does not alter … except in a sudden and almost inexplicable eruption of eccentric behaviour – this is the network of my behaviour, with its outrider, the action or event which is – precisely the point – rare; and as for the latter, all this background behaviour, the subway route I take to work, the places where I like to stop so that I stop there with sufficient regularity for this datum of sufficiency to figure me, to etch me out of darkness, none of this is noise. And we have machines to watch, listen and collate this data, so that the gathering is not nearly as wearisome as it once was. We are looking out for the outlier, the outrider, as much as mapping the pattern of the ordinary; the ordinariness of my activities in their specificity – but not their individuality – provides a character, a silhouette, a backlighting, a saleable ID: it personalises me. My sudden departure from this background is not exceptional and no break from mediocrity, because none of this is mediocre for being personally mine, it is proof of the rule, the test that shows the network of behaviour as exactly a network, with a sudden, expectable outflying node.

“Nothing positive is done, nothing at all, in the domains of either
criticism or history, when we are content to brandish ready-made
concepts like skeletons intended to intimidate any creation,
without seeing that the ancient philosophers from whom we
borrow them were already doing what we would like to prevent
modern philosophers from doing: they were inventing concepts,
and they were not happy just to clean and scrape bones like the
critic and historian of our time. Even the history of philosophy is
completely without interest if it does not undertake to awaken a
dormant concept and to play it again on a new stage, even if this
comes at the price of turning it against itself.”

– Gilles Deleuze, What is Philosophy? in Joe Hughes’s book Philosophy After Deleuze. Joe Hughes then says:

“we should dwell for a
moment on the risk Deleuze mentions: in replaying concepts, we turn
them against themselves, we distort their meanings, and we put them
to work doing things they were never intended to do.”

on another channel:

“Jon Stewart demonstrates that Kierkegaard’s criticism was not directed specifically to Hegel, but actually to some contemporary Danish Hegelians.”

is this intentionally humorous?