: : J C H P : :
What is the meaning of ascetic ideals? In artists, nothing, or too much.
Like Ronnie O'Sullivan not completing a 147 break by leaving the black ball on the table - we wish to leave an indicator. The distinction marks, points out, clicks on, selects the indication. It also contains (every other potted ball, an infinity of other shot choices, errors, kicks, kisses, plants, etc) all the rest of the world that is not indicated; the labour up to the making of this indication. The last remaining gift at the potlatch, the dregs that no one wants. This object has value.
The object that isn't wanted with others in its class accumulates a value outside of exchange, and outside of symbolic value as it is irredeemable. It accrues a moral form of capital. Although it cannot be cashed in later, it is finite. Problems arise if and when any value is filtered into its consumption.
We have agreed amongst ourselves on Arthood's leverage points of stultified production, etude: fabricate, exhibit, publish, administer, exchange, usufruct.
JEFFREY CHARLES HENRY PEACOCK June 2012
NO RETURN WITHIN STATED TIMES.
The exhibition in November is cancelled. But the planning continues, the abstract plan of the exhibition as rehearsal. A reversal of thinking at this stage, a tactical retreat, the impoverished hardening off of ourselves by separation. A shot to nothing.
Production is contingent on no product. The display of unfinished work is contingent on being finished. Finished work is contingent on sequestration.
This, this and this are not art. Their accumulated comprehension points to a potential work. Access is unfulfilled by sequestration (the plan-chest or the gift).
The site and time of excarnation is delayed.
The grace gained by putting off the inevitable. Our sterile functioning that led us towards the anchorite dwelling of academia and its attendant publications and calendars of events.
The problem remains of how to bring the status of the work closer to the status of the pencil.
JEFFREY CHARLES HENRY PEACOCK May 2012
AT ALL COSTS DO NOT EXHIBIT
We are planning an exhibition in November. A temporary cessation of our echolalia. A suspension of time spent moving the pencil-hand. We retain a determination to fulfill, perturbed by a lack of concern for any fulfillment.
The Repeated Problem: So we've agreed that we should make a disaffirmed production that won't in itself affirm production.
There is something pressing we need to tell you...and if we believe that honest ideas unfailingly boil down to mere repetitions...then...
E-e-everything resembles 'art', and anything displayed for public consumption looks as if its conception was contingent on being exhibited. Such is the sorry state that arthood as it currently stands imposes upon cultural production.
Alright, exhibit a b-b-bit...b-b-but not enough to warrant the accusation of furthering the career.
It is true we want what we do to be apprehended by an audience in a public circumstance. (?) We want a productive audience. (Is that some stifled yawn or grunt of a gut reflex that we hear at the back?) The above cognitive dissonance embraces the idea of some marginal form of emancipation, to put newly sharpened tools at the disposal of an audience. Imagine a solution in the shape of a rock pick...
The display of unfinished work is contingent on being finished. Finished work is contingent on being given away. The formulation might come in handy.
JEFFREY CHARLES HENRY PEACOCK April 2012
Jeffrey Charles Henry Peacock 2016, Direct correspondences to (ground floor) 106 Hemingford Road, London N1 1DE or email@example.com