Riot Material

Art. Word. Thought.

  • Home
  • Riot Material Magazine
    • About Riot Material
    • Entering The Mind
    • Contact
    • Masthead
    • Categories >
      • Art
      • Artist
      • Books
      • Cinema Disordinaire
      • Film
      • Interview
      • Jazz
      • Riot Sounds
      • Thought
      • More   >
        • Architecture
        • Image
        • Records
        • The Line
        • The New Word
        • That Evening Sun
        • The Natural World
        • Video
  • Art
    • Art Reviews
  • Books
    • Book Reviews
  • Film
    • Film Reviews
  • Records
    • Jazz Reviews
    • All Reviews
  • Riot Sounds
  • Cinema Disordinaire
    • Riot Cinema

Cultural Processes: A Quantum Approach

June 5, 2018 By Riot Material

An Interview with Artist and Theorist Johanna Drucker
by Broc Rossell

Johanna Drucker’s newly published work, The General Theory of Social Relativity, addresses the fundamental question of how we are to understand the forces at work in the social world, and presents a radically innovative framework for thinking about social processes. A century ago theories of quantum physics and general relativity exposed the limits of Newton’s classical, mechanical, approach to explaining the forces at work in the physical world. But the social sciences, including critical aesthetics rooted in 19th century political theory, remain caught in a mechanistic paradigm. Drucker’s formulation offers a non-mechanistic approach to the understanding workings of the social world and the affective forces at work in non-linear politics and aesthetics.* Broc Rossell, publisher of The Elephants, spoke with author Johanna Drucker in Vancouver and Los Angeles last month regarding her new book with The Elephants, The General Theory of Social Relativity.

BROC ROSSELL: In Hannah Arendt’s 1958 The Human Condition, her chapter “The Public Realm” asserts that “the reality of the public realm relies on the simultaneous presence of innumerable perspectives and aspects in which the common world presents itself and for which no common measurement or denominator can ever be devised.” How do you see The General Theory of Social Relativity engaging this idea, if at all? 

Johanna Drucker's The General Theory of Social RelativityJOHANNA DRUCKER: I don’t know the full Arendt text well enough to know how she is formulating the constraints she identifies. What resonates with GTSR is that the appearance of the world in all of its familiarity allows it to pass as simply “what is,” but that any attempt at creating a method for a full account of how that world appears – let alone how it is – will be woefully inadequate. Of course I agree with this, if that is her point, because the infinite unfolding variety of the phenomenal world is barely accessible to us in all of its richness. The workings of the social world are harder to apprehend than those of the physical world. We apprehend what falls within our cognitive and sensorial realms, but not what is outside their ken (heat waves, force fields, moving charges, processes of exchange). The point of my approach in the GTSR, especially those parts of the book that are directly concerned with proposing the workings of the system, is to try to create a vocabulary for description and analysis of phenomena that I believe can be apprehended but are not adequately served by current vocabularies and frameworks from the human and social sciences. So, if I note that inertia is the strongest force in the social universe, then that has all kinds of implications for explaining what occurs in the “common world” and the way these occurrences present themselves – in the same way that some account of gravity’s force is essential for explaining how an object falls and what are the rules governing its acceleration. But each instance, every occurrence, any event will have in its manifest instantiation some features that cannot be contained in the general or “common measurement” conceived as generalizable. You cannot have all particularities and a common measure that explains or extends to all instances. They are incompatible, since every instance contributes to the sum of the “common” whole. Does that make sense? It is just a logical issue.

ROSSELL: Arendt’s definition of public space is apparitional – that the commons only become real when they appear to the many, and that its (peer-reviewed, independently verified) appearance is what defines it from the private sphere and immanent experience. (She doesn’t engage substantially with affect theory or subject formation.) Her idea is that shared reality – public life, public culture – is demonstrous, as it were: an uncontainable, dynamic, ongoing revelation that can’t be reduced to the sum of its parts. Is it fair to say that your hope or goal for this project is to grant those concerned (social scientists, cultural critics, et al) the tools required to gain a greater understanding of forces at play? Does the impossibility (at least it seems to be impossible) of that task matter less than the effort? Your book ends on some rather disquieting notes. The penultimate chapter, for instance (“Cultural Melancholy”) concludes with the remark that “These are not yet the darkest times. These are moments when the light is diminishing.”

While American democracy was an incredible concept, particularly the notion of the Social Contract and “natural rights” of human beings, it was, of course, built within the conditions of European colonial expansion and exploitation. Paradoxes abound. Those blind spots come back to haunt us now in the legacy of structural racism, global asymmetries of power, ecological disaster, and the history of systematic genocide of indigenous peoples.

DRUCKER: The notion of a consensual apparition is a perfect demonstration of the application of quantum theory to social relations. The probability of arriving at any agreed upon version of social activity is an effect of the multiple wave functions of mutual perception, communication, and efforts at coming to a consensus. This never fully occurs – we can’t get inside each other’s minds, and we cannot see how the projection of our individual perceptions creates a full, multi-dimensional, field. But at a certain moment of apparent agreement, the wave functions and their probabilistic conditions collapse. We have an “outcome,” though it is only one of many possible outcomes – and its definition is illusory, since the ongoing process of the field of charged potentiality continues to exist. The difference between a mechanistic approach to understanding social conditions and a probabilistic one is that the mechanistic model depends on a model of communication in which messages are sent/received directly from one consciousness to another – as if this could ever happen! The probabilistic account recognizes that sender/receiver are producing a probabilistic field of potential communicative outcoes across discrete states of possibility. This charged field “collapses” time after time in the process of social exchange. The process is neither deterministic nor mechanistic/linear, but always probabilistic and indeterminate. Some outcomes may have a higher likelihood than others, but even these conditions are governed by affective forces, not rational or predictive ones.

The dilemma is that we are always inside (and influencing) the very circumstances we are trying to analyze. Our perspective on historical conditions is a good example. The light diminishes every day and the sun rises again – so how are we to know what scale of destruction we are witnessing within the historical frames of reference that we use? And what are those? The length of a human life? The arc of an empire? The course of human evolution? The evolution of life on earth? All are relevant. But the urgent issue is that we are, I believe, the first species to be aware of the conditions that might result in our extinction and still do nothing about them. Those conditions can be addressed mechanistically through a radical re-engineering of infrastructure. But the will to do this has to be manufactured in another realm – and that is where the quantum fields of human culture come into play. Where does opinion manifest and assume agency? How is will produced in the aggregate and collective? When does it become a force for transformation in its own best interests and or for our survival? From a rational perspective, it’s inconceivable that we are racing towards a planetary disaster. So obviously, reason is insufficient to prevail. What can? Affective force, the passionate connection to life, value, humanity, living systems of all kinds and the co-dependencies on which they flourish? The amount of transformation that has to occur is at once mind-boggling and simple. Growth, progress, and accumulation of wealth, wage labor, and exploitation of human and natural resources for individual gain have to be replaced with a system of sustainability, common good, meaningful labor and an integrative, holistic, social ecology that is regulated in ways that do not preclude the drive towards entrepreneurial innovation or aspirations of achievement. The systems on which we depend are neither natural nor inevitable. We don’t need wage labor in the way we did in the 19th and 20th centuries. We need a work-life relationship that sustains local ecologies within global systems. The agency of capital is one of the great mysteries of history – can it be regulated? Where is the will to do so?

ROSSELL: You’ve written about Enlightenment reason for this magazine before, when you aligned the historical limits of reason (colonialism, chattel slavery, the enshrinement of the tyranny of majority rule, etc.) with genetic engineering. Like CRISPR technology, we can view the various quantum social forces you detail in the GTSR as challenges to one-person-one-vote democracy itself. Is this one aspect of the “radical re-structurings of infrastructure” you mention above? If so/if not, what are the other objectives? And how do these objectives square with the eco-catastrophic timeframe?

DRUCKER: The difficulty of relying on reason – or Reason – is that it was a human construct, not a natural force, and works only within contractual belief systems in which agreements among communities and individuals are entered into and negotiated in good faith. Invoking CRISPR technology was a way to talk about the strategic destruction and selective reconfiguration of features of political system devised in the 18th century as an Enlightenment experiment. While American democracy was an incredible concept, particularly the notion of the Social Contract and “natural rights” of human beings, it was, of course, built within the conditions of European colonial expansion and exploitation. Paradoxes abound. Those blind spots come back to haunt us now in the legacy of structural racism, global asymmetries of power, ecological disaster, and the history of systematic genocide of indigenous peoples. But the ills besetting the American democratic process are enabled by the rule of capital – the deregulation of nearly every aspect of American culture from environmental to fiscal and political practices. The question of how capital works is open to debate. Can it be controlled through regulation, or do we have to conceive of a post-capital condition for restructuring a social order responsible to the survival of people, other species, the planet? Affective forces have their downsides, but if a major re-set of the current trajectory, which I take to be catastrophic, can occur because the group-mind does a re-think towards survival, then great. The motivation for survival should overwhelm that of self-destruction – but will it?

Our political systems operate on the basis of a belief in reason, and on other ideas and institutions inherited from the Enlightenment. They are failing radically, and we wonder why, attempting to fix a twenty-first century phenomenon with eighteenth-century tools. Would you put a circuit board on an anvil to hammer it back into shape? … Our social sciences are stuck in a paradigm that has been far outstripped by the forces at work around us.

ROSSELL: Can we bracket the notion of reason for a minute – the downside to being reasonable in the midst of crises is obvious – and consider one small but largely product of its historical rise: that of scientific reasoning, the scientific method, of logic and hypotheses? How does it square with the necessity of the imagination, of imaginative and innovative thinking?

DRUCKER: Science as empirical science, the explanation of repeatable and predictable processes and outcomes, depends upon a concept of knowledge as observer-independent and mechanistic. When Werner Heisenberg countered this he upset many physicists, including Albert Einstein, who refused to believe in uncertainty. The agency of observation is counter to empirical method. We know that many phenomena in the natural world, and the social world to some extent, can be described adequately in mechanistic terms. I can predict the trajectory of a billiard ball given the angle and force of the stroke of a cue. But can I predict the trajectory of a love affair simply based on demographics? Or of a political race? The force fields of affective charge are too complex, too unstable, and sufficiently indeterminate that they contain multiple possible trajectories. Scientists are imaginative people, and advances in quantum theory and relativity were one example of 20th century imaginative innovation. But so was the analysis of genetic code, and that is largely­ – though, I would argue, not exclusively – mechanistic. DNA contains probabilistic conditions for activation and agency that depend on environmental triggers and specific sequences of events, for instance.

But the capacity to imagine beyond our paradigms is always part of the scientific inquiry. When astrophysicists suggest that we only “know” about 4% of the universe, they are not merely suggesting that we have not seen all of the real estate, but that also, our capacities (sensory, cognitive, intellectual, mathematical etc.) are insufficient to explain a significant percentage of phenomena. We can’t map the universe with a twelve-inch ruler and a bathroom scale. Our conceptual instruments have to evolve to engage features of a physical world for which we have not yet developed sufficiently advanced models. We can imagine those features, even beyond the space-time continuum we inhabit, but in general, that tips science towards science fiction. The same is true in the social sphere where, for instance, no amount of demographic analysis can explain charismatic force.

ROSSELL: I’d love to hear you answer your own questions here regarding the agency of capital…

DRUCKER: I think I touched on this above, but it would be naïve to imagine that the only form of agency is fully sentient and apparently free-willed and human. Our individual agency doesn’t even conform to that model! How often do you do something without thinking? Electric current has agency, and it does not, I think, have sentience. I am not a new-age mystic, even if I think that the world is animate. Agency can be instrumental and mechanistic – a flood has tremendous agency. Capital, I think, has agency in the same sense – it is a phenomenon that has momentum as a system of dynamics that are structured into social systems and practices. How to control it? Because it is integrated within human systems, it has first of all to be isolated, analyzed, and assessed in its mythic (explanatory and ideologically potent) as well as actual (instrumental and systematized) dimensions. What does capital do and how does it work and, in so doing, become naturalized as a domesticated concept? Do we need it? I am not the only person who imagines a world without capital as a fundamental feature of rethinking the social organization of human systems.

ROSSELL: In what ways do you see GTSR as an intervention? 

DRUCKER: GTSR combines a response to my own panic in seeing the forces at work in the culture, particularly the outcome of the 2016 election, and a long-term project to understand social processes. The aim of the book is to provide a different set of vocabularies, and thus conceptual frameworks, for understanding human behaviors in a non-mechanistic way. Force fields of opinion exist. We are porous in ways we do not acknowledge, part of larger systems of energy and influence. Our exchanges of symbolic information are powerful, and our connections operate at great distances. Affect is a powerful driver of action. Reason cannot really compete. And yet our political systems operate on the basis of a belief in reason, and on other ideas and institutions inherited from the Enlightenment. They are failing radically, and we wonder why, attempting to fix a twenty-first century phenomenon with eighteenth-century tools. Would you put a circuit board on an anvil to hammer it back into shape? Try to tie a knot in the broken communications from a cell tower to a phone? Create radiation in a stove pot? Our social sciences are stuck in a paradigm that has been far outstripped by the forces at work around us. The sheer rate and volume of transactions that occur in the multiple-mediated environment we occupy escapes the traditional methods of analysis.

Do we really think the social world is other than the physical world? The hubris of refusal, rejection of alternative and innovative thought, is simply defensiveness against one’s own sense of inadequacy at being confronted with thought systems that are unfamiliar. The history of knowledge is the history of ignorance in all of its specificity.

ROSSELL: How do you intend to respond to academic challenges to your hypothesis – from those who might say, for instance, that there’s no evidence of force fields of opinion, or who might say more generally that speculation and imaginative hypotheses have no place in serious debate? Or does serious debate itself have some fundamental flaws? It seems like pulling up stakes on Enlightenment reason seems more and more necessary in some ways, but also raises some frightening prospects (the various incarnations of anti-science, for instance).

DRUCKER: The resistance to GTSR is quite strong. Even some of my friends are baffled. What is this? Are you serious? Is this tongue-in-cheek? They want a way to bracket the work, not have to address it, think around it, or contain its implications. If serious debate is going to address the as-yet-unthought premises on which we operate, then works like GTSR have a role in shifting the discussion. Yes, I do believe that force fields of influence arise in social systems in ways for which we do not have an adequate account. Again, no one would find it odd if I suggested that thermal systems emerge across and through multiple locations and scales, and that energy moves through them. The same is the case with electromagnetic fields and their capacity to transmit and conduct energy. A mere physics of the social is the simplest aspect of GTSR, and in that regard, no quantum dimensions have to come into play. But the quantum levels feel as important to me as these more physical explanations. Again, what is love if not entanglement at a distance? Are we not motivated by acts of simultaneity that are linked across time and space? The realms on which we are ignorant – that is, for which we have no systematic explanation, analysis, or prediction – far exceed those for which we have systematic understanding. Any physicist will tell you that.

The estimate is that we have an understanding of only about 4% of the workings of the universe. That doesn’t mean that we have only seen or been able to engage with 4% of it. Instead, it means that the methods, intellectual frameworks, knowledge systems we have only provide a small part of the explanatory power we need to understand the universe. Do we really think the social world is other than the physical world? The hubris of refusal, rejection of alternative and innovative thought, is simply defensiveness against one’s own sense of inadequacy at being confronted with thought systems that are unfamiliar. The history of knowledge is the history of ignorance in all of its specificity. I am not claiming to have solved the mysteries of the universe! Merely to be pointing to a framework of understanding and explanation that seems evident to me. I believe that the social world cannot be addressed in traditional approaches to its workings. I expect to be rejected. I take it as a good sign that so few people can figure out how to process what I am saying (though I am a little disappointed in my friends lack of imagination, I admit). That means it is genuinely innovative. As to the problem of giving up on Reason, what can I say? Reason is not a natural law, but a cultural construct, and in its name, vast abuses were permitted, and in its absence, even greater ones. I would happily engage with a condition of Re-Enlightenment, with all of the insights that revisionist histories can provide. But it might be concepts of negotiated reasonableness and multivalent ethics, not Reason that would guide this.

ROSSELL: To the question “Do we really think the social world is other than the physical world?” many would hesitate to say no… they’d ask, I imagine, whether geothermal dynamics function under the same laws as social dynamics, or whether they’re merely an analog, a metaphor. How would you respond to those reservations?

DRUCKER: The idea that quantum theory and social relativity are merely metaphoric is a convenient loophole for skeptics, and gives them a comfortable spot to retreat to in the face of theoretical ideas that are disturbing. But theories of relativity were ways of describing gravitation in relation to momentum and energy in ways that went beyond Newton’s explanations. Space-time was not part of Newton’s system – which was calculated in standard metrics and coordinates. The conception of space-time as an effect, the curvature of space-time under the influence of gravity, can’t be explained in his system. When we think of human beings as autonomous, bounded, beings or entities, we ignore the multiple dimensions of their participation in systems of forces that are constituted by their participation. Therapists understand this very well in looking at families – individuals are not autonomous agents in a mechanistic family structure, they are elements of codependencies that are in constant shift. The force fields are there, not mechanistic, but charged with inertia, momentum, velocity, spin, and many other elements. That these constitute a warping field of curvatures that can only be described by affective metrics seems obvious. This is not a metaphor. It is a description. The system that describes these conditions is the GTSR, or, at least, it is a beginning. To the skeptics I simply say, offer a better description.

The history of science (writ large, including philosophy, history, critical theory, as well as the “sciences” narrowly conceived) is marked by paradigmatic breakthroughs. At a certain point, the limits of the visible are transgressed by microscope and telescope, then by electron microscopy and computational imaging. These technological transformations are also conceptual ones, just as notions of set theory, calculus, and relativity are transformative.

ROSSELL: We could unpack those reservations with two more questions: whether, to paraphrase Gayatri Spivak, imagination is an act of epistemological performance, or whether the postulation of an innovative theory maps proven facts onto unproven ones, and therefore merely gestures toward the unknown, the 96%, as it were, with a familiar vocabulary. Second, this book leads back (remarkably, incredibly) to a central problem in western thinking, namely the problem of consciousness: does it constitute a natural, physical fact, or do merely its consequences? (Or are the consequences of consciousness all that matter to us here?) Is this perhaps one way of making the distinction between a “mere physics” of the social and the quantum?

DRUCKER: If all we were ever able to do was to project old paradigms of explanation, we would always be colonizing the unknown with the known. To some extent that is true, but the history of science (writ large, including philosophy, history, critical theory, as well as the “sciences” narrowly conceived) is marked by paradigmatic breakthroughs. At a certain point, the limits of the visible are transgressed by microscope and telescope, then by electron microscopy and computational imaging. These technological transformations are also conceptual ones, just as notions of set theory, calculus, and relativity are transformative. The GTSR isn’t that radical, it is merely a way of offering a systematic explanation of social phenomena according to concepts of quantum theory (indeterminacy, superimposition of states, wave functions) and relativity (space-time phenomena).

As to consciousness, I fall down on the “emergent effect” side of this argument since I am a biochemist-phenomenologist at heart. That is, I think the emergence of the complexities in the natural world, particularly the capacity of organic compounds to become the self-supporting and replicating entities that we are, is fully within the domain of chemical processes, but that the effects of these processes are to create forces, fields, wave functions, and conditions that in aggregate are more than the mechanics of each part. Heat is produced by the mechanical parts working together and we do not have to imagine strange or quantum forces at work to explain this. But the heat of anger and the force of love are equally palpable effects, often perceptible influences at a distance, and to describe the workings of these affective forces requires receptivity to explanations not previously systematized. That is what I am trying to do with the General Theory.

ROSSELL: GTSR concludes with a coda, a short poetic essay titled “After Speaking in Tongues,” which you recently described as engaging questions of singularity and “within-ness.” To what notion of singularity does it adhere? It reads to me as a sort of interior landscape of the post-human – the social and technological conditions, intellectual and geographical contours, and various populations, sentient and otherwise, that delimit our solitary lives. Is that a fair reading? And what are the political implications, if any, of the ideas hinted at there?

DRUCKER: What I was setting up in my comments was an idea of specificity without alterity, identity without otherness. So much of the theory of colonialism, gender, power relations, race, and oppression has been analyzed through a construction of subjectivity defined through otherness. But as a solitary person, I experience the world and my identity within it quite differently. I am aware of the specificity of my identity as locational, within a topography of being in the world. In that construction, specificity does not require alterity to function as a unique, individual, position within any number of complex coordinate systems (spatial, visual, auditory, physical, graphical, coordinate etc.). The term “withinness” is meant to indicate the possibility of individually specific identity as a position, rather than one defined by “otherness”. Specificity of entities “among” others does not depend on binaries, but on relational structures and positionality. Difference, differentiation, still occur, but not in the binaristic sense. The fact that my existence, on a daily and long-term basis, is constructed without the mediation of an other is striking to me. I do not want to mediate my relationship to myself through a relationship with an “other,” imaginary or actual. That fundamental fact of my existence means that the specificity of my identity is defined in relation to the larger conditions of being-in-the-world. I think the political implications of this construct are profound, as specificity does not rely on defining patterns of otherness in which a hierarchy of difference and inequity is always binaristic. Instead, identity becomes a matter of a specific place in the world, among others, and that includes non-human others.

“After Speaking in Tongues” is an homage to the language of machines and the experience of hearing them speak – not to me, but around me. My subjectivity is constituted in relation to these voices, not in an exchange, but in an awareness of where I am within that complex soundscape. I love the beingness of the world, its infinite variety and non-replicability, each instance and instantiation distinct, differentiating, unfolding. So simple, really. And our capacity to perceive its manifest and unmanifest aspects has its limits, of course, and that includes a basic inability to see the complex systems of the social as a field in which quantum phenomena are at work. I see those processes everywhere, and always at work, in the most banal daily transactions and exchanges, fully present, and also in those many entanglements at a distance that form the multiplicity of bonds across time and space.

Before we finish, I wonder if I could turn the questions in your direction? I’m wondering how you see your role as a publisher in the current intellectual and cultural climate?

ROSSELL: As you know we launched our project not quite two years ago. We are as small a press as can be with only two books published each year. With such a modest program our cultural “role” is purely aspirational, but with that being said we do see ourselves as working against the ossification of ideas and language. Jordan Scott and I are poets, and the press is informed by poetry and poetic thinking, but we are emphatically not limited to poetry as a genre; we define poetry in its most capacious sense, as a means of generative engagement with the world via certain permissions of language. Like scholarly disciplines, literary genres are conventions and constructs, only true historically, and adherence to discipline or genre is a function of that ossification we oppose. In that sense, The Elephants is really just an expression of a more basic project, which is to develop multiple avenues toward more primary modes of apprehension. Books like yours help us do that.

DRUCKER: I was really thrilled by your interest in my work, as you know, and continue to be profoundly appreciative of your engagement with my project. What risks and challenges do you see in publishing GTSR and how does it fit in your larger vision of The Elephants as a platform for innovative work?

ROSSELL: The thrill is ours! It’s hard to imagine a project better suited to ours, which is to publish heterodox materials in solidarity with the communities that produce them (and now thinking again of the interior vistas of “After Speaking in Tongues”). GTSR takes some intellectual and political positions we hold dear and roughs them up to the edge of utility – it challenges and rewards us in deeply, gratifyingly troublesome ways. And if these goals bring us in contact with a specific kind of reader, we at least hold out hope for the possibility of kinship with them. We find both the content and form of GTSR to be urgent, dangerous, and beautifully surprising, and we hope those qualities are noticed by potential future authors – please, writers of the world, take note!

*     *     *

*Introduction courtesy of The Elephants

Broc Rossell is Lecturer in Critical and Cultural Studies at Emily Carr University of Art & Design in Vancouver, BC. The author of the poetry collections Unpublished Poems (Brooklyn Arts Press, 2012) and Festival (Cleveland State University Press, 2015) and co-editor with W. Scott Howard of Poetics and Praxis ‘After’ Objectivism (University of Iowa Press, 2018). He is also publisher and, with Jordan Scott, editor at The Elephants.

Johanna Drucker is a writer, scholar, and artist who is the Breslauer Professor of Bibliographical Studies at UCLA. The author of more than a dozen works of critical scholarship, including: The Visible Word: Modern Art and Experimenal Typography 1909-1923 (University of Chicago Press, 1996); Theorizing Modernism (Columbia University Press, 1996); The Alphabetic Labyrinth (Thames and Hudson, 1995), The Century of Artists’ Books (Granary, 1995), What Is?(Cuneiform Press, 2013), Graphesis: Visual Forms of Knowledge Production (Harvard University Press, 2014), Graphic Design History: A Critical Guide, with Emily McVarish (Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2008) Digital_Humanities, co-authored with Anne Burdick, Peter Lunenfeld, Todd Presner, and Jeffrey Schnapp, (MIT Press) was published in 2012. Ten of her books of creative prose have been published, including: Italy (The Figures, 1980), Three Early Fictions (Potes and Poets, 1994), Dark Decade (Detour Press, 1995) Diagrammatic Writing (Onomatopée, 2014), Fabulas Feminae (with artist Susan Bee, Litmus Press, 2015. Downdrift: An Ecological Fiction is forthcoming from Three Rooms Press (2018). In addition, she produced almost three dozen editioned books under the imprint Druckwerks, including The History of the/my Wor(l)d (1990), The Word Made Flesh (1989), Narratology (1994), Testament of Women (2006), and Stochastic Poetics (2012) which are held collections throughout North American and Europe and were the subject of a retrospective, Druckworks: 40 years of books and projects, that began at Columbia College in Chicago in 2012. She is currently working on a database memoire, ALL the books I never wrote or wrote and never published.

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Interview, The Line, Thought

The Line

A poetic interpretation of Anselm Kiefer's Exodus, at Los Angeles Marciano Art Foundation, is at Riot Material.

On Wing With Word Through Anselm Kiefer’s Exodus

Gagosian at Marciano Art Foundation, Los Angeles (through 25 March 2023) by Rachel Reid Wilkie Los Angeles poet Rachel Reid Wilkie was given the task of walking into Anselm Kiefer’s Exodus — a literally monumental exhibition, in that each of these paintings are upwards of 30’ tall — and addressing the colossal artworks “cold,” as in […]

Detail of Henry Taylor, "Warning shots not required," 2011. At Riot Material magazine.

Henry Taylor’s B Side: Where Mind Shapes Itself to Canvas

Henry Taylor: B Side at MOCA Grand, Los Angeles (through 30 April 2023) Reviewed by Eve Wood Ages ago when there were LP records and 45s, the B side of a popular single made allowances for experimentation and could be counted on as an alternative vision to the more mainstream and compulsory hit single. B […]

Songbook of a Bygone Dead: Bob Dylan’s The Philosophy of Modern Song

Reviewed by Dan Chiasson The Philosophy of Modern Song by Bob Dylan Simon & Schuster, 352pp., $28.93 NYR Bob Dylan’s new book, The Philosophy of Modern Song, is a kind of music-appreciation course open to auditors and members of the general public. It is best savored one chapter, one song, at a time, while listening to the […]

Smoking the Bible by Chris Abani

Words To Wrap Around A Dying Brother

Smoking the Bible Reviewed by Rhony Bhopla Smoking the Bible by Chris Abani Copper Canyon Press, 96pp., $15.99 HR Chris Abani’s autobiographical book of poems, Smoking the Bible, centers on the relationship of two brothers growing up in Nigeria with an Igbo father and an English mother. The poems, which incorporate the Igbo language along […]

Grant Wallace, “Through Evolution Comes Revelation.” at Riot Material magazine.

Communication Breakdown: Grant Wallace, His Heirs & the Legacy of a Forgotten Genius

Grant Wallace: Over the Psychic Radio at Ricco/Maresca Gallery, NYC (through 3 December 2022) By Michael Bonesteel Freelance writer and editor Deborah Coffin of Albany, California, was in graduate school at the University of California, Berkeley in 1997 when she first encountered street musician Brian Wallace at a party. “I had a friend who knew Brian,” […]

The Joshua Tree Talk

A Conversation on Dzogchen C von Hassett & Rachel Reid Wilkie at Joshua Tree Retreat Center 

Louise Bourgeois: What Is The Shape of This Problem?

at University of Southern California, Fisher Museum of Art. (through 3 December 3, 2022) Reviewed by Margaret Lazzari Louise Bourgeois is widely recognized for her sculptures and installations, but Louise Bourgeois: What is The Shape of This Problem is a wonderful opportunity to immerse yourself in her perhaps-lesser-known prints, fabric work and writings. This exhibit contains over […]

Moonage Daydream Conveys More Myth Than Man

Moonage Daydream Dir. Brett Morgan Reviewed by Nicholas Goldwin As one of the greatest shapeshifters in the expansive history of rock music, it seems only fitting that the documentary with David Bowie as its subject never seems content to express the trials, tribulations and artistic triumphs of Bowie in any one fixed way. This is […]

Carnación di Rocío Molina, at Riot Material Magazine.

On Binding: Notes from Venice

Bienalle Arte and Bienalle Danza, Venice 2022 By Allyn Aglaïa Chest bound, lips sealed, I walked through Venice alone, quiet, and: thought about narratives that bind us to erotic binds

Mohammad Barrangi's Guardians of Eden (Dreamscape #8), at Riot Material magazine.

Transcendence Beyond Erasure in Mohammad Barrangi’s Dreamscape

at Advocartsy, Los Angeles (thru 5 November 2022) Reviewed by Christopher Ian Lutz Fantasy requires a symbolic vehicle to transport a character from the real world into the imaginary realm, where the laws of reality are subverted or obscured to justify an otherwise absurd event. The artist might depict the vehicle as a real object […]

Soul Crash: Our Slow, Inexorable Release Into the Metaverse

by Sue Halpern The Metaverse: And How It Will Revolutionize Everything by Matthew Ball Liveright 352pp., $18.89 NYR In October 2021, when Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook would now be called Meta and its business interests would be pivoting to the metaverse, there was almost universal confusion: most observers had no idea what he was […]

green tara

Pointing the Staff at the Old Man

A wisdom transmission by Samaneri Jayasāra Excerpted from —  Advice from the Lotus Born  from the chapter “Pointing the Staff at the Old Man” Translated by Eric Pema Kunsang Rangjung Yeshe Publications, 184pp., $21.95 . .

Margaret Lazzari’s "Shimmer." From the exhibition "Breathing Space."

Margaret Lazzari’s Luminous Breathing Space

at George Billis Gallery, Los Angeles (through 8 October 2022) Reviewed by Nancy Kay Turner “Things are not what they seem: nor are they otherwise.” –Buddha Margaret Lazzari’s luminous solo exhibition of paintings, entitled Breathing Space, were painted during the pandemic, and the exhibition title is indeed significant. It’s defined as a respite, a hiatus, or an […]

From Phil Tippet's Mad God, reviewed at Riot Material magazine.

Nihilism Births Its Own Interminable Hell

Mad God Dir. Phil Tippett Reviewed by Nicholas Goldwin Technically astonishing and immersive to a fault, director Phil Tippett successfully demonstrates that thirty years of relentless dedication to your craft can lead to cinematic innovations even his old stomping grounds – the sets of Star Wars and Jurassic Park – have yet to catch up. […]

A Look Back on an Iconoclast: Art Critic Dave Hickey

by Jarrett Earnest Far From Respectable: Dave Hickey and His Art by Daniel Oppenheimer University of Texas Press, 141 pp., $24.95 The Invisible Dragon: Essays on Beauty, Revised and Expanded by Dave Hickey University of Chicago Press, 123 pp., $15.00 (paper) Air Guitar: Essays on Art and Democracy by Dave Hickey Art Issues Press, 215 […]

John Lurie’s The History of Bones

Reviewed by Cintra Wilson The History of Bones: A Memoir by John Lurie Random House, 435 pp., $28.00 NYRB It was 1989 when I saw John Lurie on TV in a late-night advertisement for the new Lounge Lizards album, Voice of Chunk, which was “not available in stores” and selling exclusively through an 800 number. Operators were standing […]

Marlene Dumas, "Losing (Her Meaning)," 1988. At Riot Material magazine.

Marlene Dumas’ Masks of Inborn Gods

open-end, at Palazzo Grassi, Venice (through 8 January 2023) Reviewed by Arabella Hutter von Arx Four relatively small artworks greet the visitor in the first room of the Marlene Dumas exhibit, open-end, at Palazzo Grassi. D-rection shows a young man contemplating his rather large and purple erection. A bluish white face and a brown face unite […]

Clarice Lispector

Baffling the Sphinx: The Enigmatic World of Clarice Lispector

Reviewed by John Biscello Água Viva by Clarice Lispector New Directions Publishing 88pp., $14.95 Too Much of Life: The Complete Crônicas by Clarice Lispector New Directions Publishing 864pp., $29.95 The word is my fourth dimension –Clarice Lispector And on the eighth and endless day, where the bottomless hallelujah meets Ouroboros, God created Clarice Lispector. Maybe. […]

Donna Ferrato "Diamond, Minneapolis, MN 1987." At Riot Material magazine

Donna Ferrato’s Magnificent Holy

at Daniel Cooney Fine Art, NYC (through July 29 2022) Reviewed by Phoebe Hoban The small scale of Donna Ferrato’s snapshot-like black-and-white photographs belies their personal and political power. Whether they document the medical sinks and shelves in a now-shuttered Texas abortion clinic, or hone in on the badly bruised face of a domestic violence […]

Darcilio Lima Unknown Lithograph, 1972. At Riot Material magazine.

Magia Protetora: The Art of Luciana Lupe Vasconcelos and Darcilio Lima

at the Buckland Museum of Witchcraft and Magick, Cleveland OH (through 30 September 2022) Curated by Stephen Romano Gallery Reviewed by Christopher Ian Lutz The extension of a lineage occurs not merely by the repetition of form, but by the intersection of conservation and revolution. Transformation is fundamental to preserving the essence of a given tradition’s rituals and […]

Eve Wood's A Cadence for Redemption, written in the fictive voice of Abraham Lincoln, is excerpted at Riot Material magazine.

Songs For Our Higher Selves

A Cadence for Redemption: Conversations With Abraham Lincoln by Eve Wood Del Sol Press, 46pp., $5.99 Employing the fictive voice of a former president, Eve Wood shifts the perspective on the happenings of our times – where all indicators point to the slow, inexorable collapse of the American Experiment – to the one man who […]

The Clear, Crisp Taste of Cronenberg

Crimes of the Future Reviewed by Anna Shechtman and D.A. Miller Neon NYRB A line from Crimes of the Future, David Cronenberg’s latest film, has been trailing it around with the campy insistence of an old-fashioned ad campaign: “Surgery is the new sex.” On receiving this information, a skeptical Saul Tenser, played by Viggo Mortensen, asks, “Does there have […]

Georganne Deen, How to prepare people for your weirdness (Painting for a gifted child) 2022

Conjuring a Divine Silence in Georganne Deen’s The Lyric Escape

at Rory Devine Fine Art, Los Angeles (through 6 August) Reviewed by Eve Wood Albert Camus once famously asked, “Should I kill myself, or have a cup of coffee?” One can only hope that this was a rhetorical question, yet however ironic, it is still a sentiment worth pondering, especially considering today’s current socio-political climate […]

Pesticides in our foods inevitably enter the body and will have the intended effect of killing the organism. Which is to say you are certain to become diseased and evenutally die from the longterm ingestion of industrial pesticides.

A Strictly Organic Diet is Good Enough to Save Your Life

A chapter excerpt from Entering the Mind, the new book from C von Hassett which speaks to an ageless way of resting the mind in meditation to both recognize and stabilize in its already Awakened state. Yet to do this successfully, we must first cleanse the body of its myriad mind-fogging toxins taken in through […]

Milton’s Quotidian Paradise, Lost

By Catherine Nicholson Katie Kadue: Domestic Georgic: Labors of Preservation from Rabelais to Milton Timothy M. Harrison: Coming To: Consciousness and Natality in Early Modern England Nicholas McDowell: Poet of Revolution: The Making of John Milton Joe Moshenska: Making Darkness Light: A Life of John Milton NYRB Of the many liberties John Milton took in writing Paradise Lost, his 1667 epic […]

Foucault in Warsaw and the Shapeless, Shaping Gaze of the Surveillance State

Reviewed by Marcel Radosław Garboś Foucault in Warsaw by Remigiusz Ryziński  translated by Sean Gasper Bye Open Letter Books, 220pp., $15.95 Harvard Review Since Poland’s state socialist system collapsed in 1989, the records of its police agencies and security services have gone to a government commission entrusted with the “prosecution of crimes against the Polish […]

Noah Davis, Untitled (2015)

The Haunt of One Yet Faintly Present: Noah Davis, Still at Home

Noah Davis, at the Underground Museum, Los Angeles Reviewed by Ricky Amadour Directly across from the entrance, an opening statement to Noah Davis, at the Underground Museum, reads “many of the paintings you are about to see were painted in this space.” Smudges, dribbles, and droplets on the floor embody the physical notion of Davis […]

Julian Schnabel, The Chimes of Freedom Flashing (detail), 2022

The Supremely Humanistic Hand of Julian Schnabel

For Esmé – With Love and Squalor, at Pace Gallery, Los Angeles (through 21 May 2022) Reviewed by Eve Wood How does one represent, let alone quantify hope, hate, grief, love, joy, tragedy, or anything, for that matter, which stands in opposition to something else? Throughout his illustrious career, Julian Schnabel has always been one to […]

Rose Wylie, "I Like To Be" (2020)

In Full Surrender to the Wylie Eye

Rose Wylie: Which One, at David Zwirner, NYC (through 12 June) Reviewed by David Salle Rose Wylie: Which One by Rose Wylie; with Barry Schwabsky, Judith Bernstein, and Hans Ulrich Obrist David Zwirner Books, 196pp., $75.00 NYRB Rose Wylie, who is now eighty-seven, has been painting in the same rural studio in Kent, England, since […]

The Artful Construction of The ‘I’

by Merve Emre NYR The essay form…bears some responsibility for the fact that bad essays tell stories about people instead of elucidating the matter at hand. —Theodor Adorno The personal essay is a genre that is difficult to define but easy to denounce. The offending element is rarely the essay as a form, but its […]

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in