Friday, August 14, 2015

Answers to Ekaterina Samigulina's questions / Marco Giovenale. 2015

1. Can we seriously classify the asemic writing as art, if (as some people consider) "even children" can do it? (anyway, such opinion was about Suprematism too). Or its democracy (accessibility for anyone who knows basic principles) is one of the fundamental features of the aesthetics of this area?

Same question for "art brut", and my answer is yes: if we want, we may consider asemic writing as belonging to the vast territory of art, just 'because' even a child could drawrite glyphs, trace signs, make scribbles.

About aesthetics, I personally believe that aesthetics is not a field ---a specific peculiar one--- but the general human attitude in dealing with sense, perception, signs. In this, I follow Gilles Deleuze and Emilio Garroni in their interpretation of Kant.

2. It is known that the human consciousness (and even handwriting, it is more important in this case) tends to formalization. Asemic letter is fundamentally anti-signable, but each asemic artist, who works enough with asemic writing, has already created its own system of some unstable, but recognizable symbols. This way some symbols can get some semantics, which is at odds with the basic principles of asemic. Or do you see it as a positive point, and additional semantics (in conjunction with the author's concept) just enrich the asemic works?

Humans tend to sign, as they tend to look for themselves in a mirror. I like graffiti on city walls but I feel a bit depressed when I realize many of them seem to be nothing else but a signature, i.e. a rigid self-portrait (in a convex mirror).

That said, each hand (be drawing or not) has in itself the acquired thing we can call 'identity', a sum of others' traces and faces and... 'identities', a sum of sums. It's not possible for us to get rid of 'it' so completely, as to make our signs really and consistently different from the hand/brain's 'identity'.

I tried so much to escape signature(s) effect and fixed meanings and 'identity' as to make my attempts (un)recognizable thanks to an alias, "differx", which brings in itself the X of all the (borgesian?) possible 'identities'. Naive attempt, maybe. And a paradox (an alias is an actual signature). No escape. But perhaps that X is not so far from the "a" in Derrida's "differance" (and it's a bit less serious, since I'm not a philosopher).

3. What possible ways of developing asemic letters do you see? Do they consist only in the synthesis of the arts, or there are other options?

I'm not sure I can reply or fully understand the questions. I'd rather speak of traces and signs, not letters, syllables or ideograms, thinking of the works I carry on. I think asemic writing can (I don't mean it "ought to") avoid establishing new codes or alphabets. It can be a constantly shifting layer of traces.

4. On your opinion, whether asemic writing can be included in the postmodern paradigm? If yes / no, why?

If postmodern means "end of history" or "anything goes" (in western and eastern realms of capitalism), I hope the answer is no. Or at least that would be my personal answer, of course. I tend to consider that any little sign we trace is a strongly independent but clear echo of an unending crisis and collapse we monkeys are facing since the first appearance of our footprints on Earth.

5. Does asemic writing have some critical potential, or you consider that it is purely aesthetic phenomenon?

As I said before when I mentioned Kant, each and every phenomenon actually 'is' aesthetic, since it deals with sense. But I understand the shared vocabulary makes "aesthetic" and "beautiful" (or "artistic") mean the same thing, and it's the actually accepted meaning. In my opinion, most of the works made by asemic writers convey weird energy and it's not in my power to fully understand if this energy instantly (or slowly) turns itself into some kind of critical sign, suggestion, message etc.

As a matter of fact, asemic stuff generally speaking cuts off the very idea of a decipherable message and of shared codes. But in this attitude, it clearly is an act of sabotage too; plus, it demands the active and dynamic participation of the reader. Like a broken bridge, it exhorts the reader to build and put together (at least some of) the missing pieces. Or ---to jump...

But ---ok: things and events are just developing so rapidly... Let me also say that the sad truth is that we've often been and now are in the hands of criminals (heads of states) who don't see even the mere existence of the 99,99% of people, and do not need politics nor language(s) to lead the world to disintegration.

Is asemic writing the last and glowing/glorious twist of human speechless codes a few moments before the final crash? Sort of premonition? I don't like the idea, and I hate pessimism. So I don't want to think so. And  I'll drawrite asemics "as if" we (as a peculiar species of animals) deserved a future.