Patzke+Habits+1

Completed February 13, 2013
 * Patzke Memo: Habits, Neuroses, Talents **

Questions drawn from essays by Evelyn Fox Keller and Roman Jakobson (Jakobson, Roman. 1956.“Two aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances.’” Fundamentals of Language edited by R. Jakobson and M. Halle. The Hague, Switzerland: Mouton.; Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. “Dynamic Objectivity: Love, Power and Knowledge,” p115-126. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale, 1985.):

Frame, for sure. It’s easy to focus in on something specific, but difficult to add an appropriate conceptual framework.
 * • Do you have more trouble articulating your frame (social theoretical questions) or object? **

Across big themes, I project hop. However, the past two years, I’ve been working on the same case. So maybe a little bit of both? I try to focus my academic work and rely on external work (which one might loosely define as “hobbies”) to spice things up.
 * • Do you tend to project-hop or to stick to a project, and what explains this? **

The former. I my previous adult life as an artist/conservator/curator/art historian I focused on the media as a site of exploration. Speaking with fellow artists (and print/book makers specifically), this is a ‘recent’ trend in arts education in response to both shallow conceptual art and abstract expressionism. Masterful technique and critical conceptual tools (in the form of institutional critique – like Fred Wilson or Hans Haacke) are the ‘tricks of the trade’ so to speak. And these are aspects of my arts education that I took to heart and have found difficult to set aside moving into my current graduate work.
 * • Do you tend to be more interested in internal dynamics, or external determinations? **

I found Keller’s description of paranoia to be frightening. As an alternative, obsessive compulsive seems somewhat manageable.
 * In the terms laid out by Keller, do you tend to focus so intently on the object of your concern that context falls away (i.e. are you obsessive compulsive, rather than paranoid)? **

Is your desire is to name, specify and control your object? Is your desire is for figure, its ground your annoyance? Or are you paranoid, context being your focus and obsession? All is signal. Only begrudgingly will you admit that something is noise, outside the scope of your project? Figure is hard to come by. Its ground has captured your attention.

The mundane is where it’s at. Moe said it best “weird for the sake of weird.” ([])
 * • What do you do with unusual or counter examples? Are you drawn to “the deviant,” or rather repulsed by it? **

Narratives are helpful in explaining how strange the world is. It is difficult (and misleading) to try to fit scenarios into rigid structures.
 * • Do you tend to over-impose logics on the world, or to resist the construction of coherent narratives? **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I feel as though I fail at generalizations. In my writing, this is reflected in poorly written conclusions that can be summed up in this manner: “This thing is different. That’s important. The end.”
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">• Do you tend to over-generalize, or to hold back from overarching argument? **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Is “squashed” an appropriate response to reading alternative interpretations? Or sometimes “indignation” at a poorly completed analysis? I think it just depends on the quality of the work…
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">• Do you like to read interpretations different than your own, or do you tend to feel scooped or intimidated by them? **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Right now, I’m working on the former. For the sake of time and an inability to write or meet deadlines in a timely manner, I often stick with one argument and see it though. This is not a great strategy, but I rely on writing as a means to come to terms with any object of analysis. And so I’m hoping that “thoughtfulness” combined with spending more time writing, will guide my future work.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">• Do you tend to change an argument as you flesh it out, or do you tend to make the argument work, no matter what? **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This might is the most difficult question to answer. I think my work is more metonymic in character, but I fail to put my finger on how it is such. Yet I know the naïve work of my art history writing drew on parallels or comparisons in analysis for effect. Now I know metaphors are misleading and so I’m trying to create a focused narrative on one site of analysis….but maybe this is a strange impetus on my part as well.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">• Do you tend to think in terms of “this is kind of like” (metaphorically)? Do you hold to examples that “say it all,” leveraging metonymic thinking? **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Yep. Binaries blow and I’ve never been a big fan of games – unless it’s basketball and I’m winning.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">• Do you like gaming understanding in this way? Does it frustrate you that your answers often don’t fit easily on either side of the binaries set up by the questions? (Jakobson suggests that over attachment to a simple binary scheme is a “continuity disorder.”) **