A sister-site centered on ideation
because it's been said that art is dead
brandonheath
_
AR
effigym dURN
_
_
_
_
_
table of contents
X X
effigy:
(ef - e - jee)
noun, plural effigies.
1.
a representation or image, especially
sculptured, as on a monument.
2.
a crude representation of someone
disliked, used for purposes of ridicule.
Idioms
3.
in effigy, in public view in the form of
an effigy:
a leader hanged in effigy by the mob.
_______________________________
FURTHER READING
​
Literature for interpretation of EffigymodURN
​
ON Difference and Differance
​
See link to Jacques Derrida below.
​
Use the following link pasted into URL
​
http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/diff.html
​
Sous Rature -- what is Sous Rature?
​
____________________________
​
The following is to frame how the colloquial term "eff-ing" is used in the partly obfuscated explication of EffigymodURN. This is not to suggest that when I use what is generally understood to be a euphemism for the expletive "F*#k", that such is why I have used it, or should be seen that way. If all is art, as A. Danto purported, then it follows that it's final state is not merely an unlawful bastard child, but a thing unknowable, as it is, yet is not. Unspoken or unspeakable, as it is under effigy, in this sense its status is relative, in an ongoing Effigial absent presence.
​
Eff -- Euphemism for F*#k
​
F*#k is generally, socially accepted as taboo in certain contexts.
​
"Eff-able" may, therefore, have certain
connotations which are unintended. If one does not know the word "effable", he may defer to the latter, not knowing its denotative and proper mode of usage.
​
To say, therefore, that he or she is effable may be true to and for some, as there is a difference, but indiscernible in or out of some contexts. Some people are, and have themselves, been considered taboo to the extent that their names are not "lawful", acceptable, to speak, utter -- in the sense that they are not to be brought up in conversation, they are not effable, yet are, or may have been considered "effable" to some (there adherents or those who find them "effable" [not merely speaking there name, they may themselves be shunned and therefore be under effigy]).
effigy: 18c. Especially figures made of stuffed clothing; the burning or hanging of them is attested by 1670s. Formerly done by judicial authorities as symbolic punishment of criminals who had escaped their jurisdiction; later a popular expression against persons deemed obnoxious. Related: Effigial
​
Their name being its own effigy, a banished/avoided (person) or taboo name, symbolic of its own shameful, ineffable status, effable or not. Unlawful to speak of them, or to be found with them, as in uncovered in an act of fornication, or in noncompliance with The State, committing treason by deeming the one in effigy to be "effable", and thus, caught "cheating on" The State: ergo, agreeing with the one deemed ineffable by State mandate, making of them "effable" -- which is to say, committing adultery against the litigious, judicial branch pertaining to the adulterers social context (literally or legally committing adultery/fornication).
​
"An adulterous generation", to quote Christ, Son of the Ultimate Judge, would be that which considers the ineffable name of God to be "effable" (blasphemy) -- the connotation here is intended, but only to express the principle of the language caught up in the perpetual "play" that Jacques Derrida elucidates in the web address provided above.
​
eff-able (adj.)
"that may be (lawfully) expressed in words," 1630s, from French effable or directly, from Latin effabilis "utterable," from effari "to utter" (see ineffable). Now obsolete or archaic.
​
If all is art without objective standards for being art, then there is no Law in art to make it so. Where there is no Law there is no order. The deduction being made here is that to take the presumed order of all that was ever called "art" and remove any filter that kept some artifacts clear of this particular status ("art") is to reduce all from every genre to its basest state and make one final thing of it all. Why not ash? Since all is art, according to Arthur Danto, and since art is dead, according to Arthur Danto, an URN is a fitting museum for all that "art". That is, if you do in fact muse and are not a-mused.
​
​
_
_
what is effigymodURN?
assume i wrote a statement of what it is. there would be myriad (10,000) interpretations of it. so what differance would it make?
well, patrons are going to stand before an artist's work and ponder its "meaning", even when there was never an intention to make meaning, or an intension. note the difference, and there is "a" difference.
but let's also assume that we take everything that is modern and make one sculpture out of the myriad "current-cies", burn it, and then place it in an URN. the URN would not only be large, but its contents would be void of content. one giant URN filled with everything "in the mode" reduced to ash. the modURN is filled with, and is the effigy, everything modish, everything current (present) and no ODE is written for its memory, just the words of danto written on the URN, not on the modURN: "there is no art - all is art." this statement signifies the death of art. how? if everyone was suddenly welcome to attend harvard it would lose its significance, its status; the meaning of getting in would be reduced to ash: getting in would be dead, essentially, no reverence paid to a status gone, needing nothing to defer to to determine who has value, as any ref(v)errence thereto has been made null -- a moot point -- the genius along side of the dullard, and status reduced to academic histories being burned. so since "art is dead" (as it's been said), it has its place - not in a tomb, not in the grave, but burned in effigy and placed in its funerary container - the URN - its origin, its final resting place: its home.
is the effigy a disdain for "art," or merely a disdain for that which died its death due to arriving in a form devoid of narrative? if all is art, it has no story to tell, and if nothing to speak, then it is dead. "all" implies that no art differs from any other, to which we are left with nothing to defer so as to reveal the difference. what "remains" is to make an effigy to reveal the difference. "all is art" - it was not i who said so, but rather, t'was arthur danto. what is effigymodURN? assume I "said" what it is...
what differance does it make? it's eff-ing relative... there's no trace of meaning where there's no need for a narrative for all this time and space. effigymodURN is a c(m)ode of suggesting that what is dead has a designated place. its past is past, its presence is ash - its future without essence or existence: that art is dead if it speaks nothing, or if it has no current need to. artists defer to patrons' who mark their presence, and play a peculiar game as different from patrons by present-ing indiscernible abstractions of abstractions - the subject is absent, the patron subjugated and left standing in hermeneutical oblivion. to resolve this, defer to your own encounter with anything that is particularly meaningless - did you, the patron of that which is meaningless, see the difference between burning it or leaving it in its designated place in spite of its lack of value?
but you can interpret this however you wish, and this, too: you will find me raising the dead in my studio, because i make art to speak something meaningful to my patrons - namely, that art is dead.
is it? isn't it?
whether the effigy is a disdain for modernity's meaningless visages, or for the ease of making myriad numbers of such without considering that someone is going to think it means something is extraordinarliy meaningful. however, whether we burn it or not makes absolutely no eff-ing differance - what's dead is dead - nevertheless, we all defer to it from time to time, here and there - time and space. patrons are going to stand before an artist's work and ponder its "meaning", even when there was never an intention to make meaning, or an intension.
ie - they'll defer to something (something different), yet very much the same: something abstract, which was abstracted from something. so why not all----every painting, sculpture, print, brillo box, etc. that meant, at the very least, that it is meaningful for simply being present?. it could therefore just as easily be ash. altogether burned, it means the exact same thing when "all is art" - when "there is no art."
"beauty is (in the absence of truth) and truth is (beauty in the presence of a thing in itself), that is all ye need to know on earth, and all ye need to know (is that art is dead, yet lives)"
Ode on an effigymodURN
so what is the difference between saying all is art, and it's all ash? ashes to ashes, stardust, the big crunch, an infinitely small black hole, "the greatest weight": eternal recurrence, art is going back to its oikos.