SNAP TO GRID
Msg#: 1910 *ART*
01-29-94 13:08:43
From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: SNAP TO GRID
When I talked to you yesterday you expressed some disappointment that some
people read your show as purely autobiographical. I understand that you
would like to establish a context for your work that allows for a much
broader interpretation (and we will have ample opportunity to talk about
that), but how can you %avoid% the autobiographical element? After all it
was Rainer Ganahl who went to Japan, made it his project to learn the
language, took the snapshots, did the audio and video recordings. Why are
you so vehemently opposed to an autobiographical reading?
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 1941 *ART*
01-29-94 22:31:21
From: RAINER GANAHL
To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1910 (SNAP TO GRID)
I don't mind at all that there is also an autobiographical reading of this
particular project, I call 'basic japanese', but what disturbes me is if
the objects on display are only seen as such, without the context I put
them in. Obviously, if seen without the context some of these objects would
be silly, uninteresting, even offending and would make no sense if taken
at face value. Then they would have to be seen only as fetishistic
souvenirs representing the Japanese in a very problematic way.
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 1998 *ART*
01-30-94 23:00:17
From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1941 (SNAP TO GRID)
I am very interested in the architectural aspect of your work.
You measure your spaces with rulers and grids and you investigate the
"movement" (import, export, transfer) of language, data, and code. You
created a model based in large parts on paradigms borrowed from computer
space. It is a very open and flexible structural model to operate in.
Doesn't this create conflicts when this model is imported into the rather
rigid and closed spaces of the traditional exhibition circuit?
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 2006 *ART*
01-31-94 01:19:00
From: RAINER GANAHL
To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1998 (SNAP TO GRID)
well, you are right, that a lot of those models or systems stem from
computer space. But I wouldn't confine them necessairily to this space,
because they also not just have a life outside technological spaces (every
interface controlled machine) - metaphorically, linguistically,
practically, and so on - but they often are imported from this realm:
interactive control of operations with a mouse for example basically
follows a logic that we are used from daily spatial interactions. Now, if
you ask me about the "rather rigid and closed spaces of the traditional
exhibition circuit" as you put it, I have to first ask you back: what do
you mean? Do you refer to the architecture of a gallery, or do you refer to
the gallery as an institution, an administrative and ideological entity? If
you mean the first, I would like to answer that precisely this mapping of
an actual architectonic space is what interests me for a variety of reasons
and the rigidness and closing of the space can be a constructive condition.
If you want to see the gallery as a rigid institution I wouldn't agree a
100% with what you say since those spaces are what you make out of them.
One can use them in indefinite ways. And this is precisely what interests
me - playing with them in all kind of ways. Using Rulers and Grids almost
literally points to these possibilities. Nevertheless I don't find myself
only confined to those places and try to be open to accept all kinds of
different infrastructures (obviously including the one which is right now
the carrier for this interview where theoretically any other user could
jump in with questions or comments).
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 2094 *ART*
02-01-94 12:23:12
From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 1941 (SNAP TO GRID)
> without the context I put them in. Obviously, if seen without the
> context some of these objects would be silly, uninteresting, even
> offending and would make no sense if taken at face value. Then they
Your project 'Basic Japanese' is about learning a language. Learning a
language is a process. How do the objects in this show then function?
As a documentation? Isn't learning the language, or the language itself,
already the object?
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 2120 *ART*
02-02-94 00:11:20
From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2006 (SNAP TO GRID)
> If you want to see the gallery as a rigid institution I wouldn't agree a
> 100% with what you say since those spaces are what you make out of them.
> One can use them in indefinite ways.
I can see the the strategies you employ to get around the limitations
of these traditional spaces (both institutional and architectural). But
whether you make the gallery your living quarters or have people teach you
Japanese (as you did in the weekend museum in Tokyo) you still basically
treat it as a "stage." You are the master of ceremonies and you define the
parameters of the interaction with your "audience." For me this defines a
space as elitist and exclusive.
Let me try to illustrate: In your current NY show there was a piece
that was a kind of guest book from your Tokyo gig in which visitors were
invited to write comments. After one visitor went berserk and decided to
write obscenities in it, you decided to cut out the pages and present them
seperately with a label "A Japanese person showing signs of madness." Now
that's your privilege when you consider yourself the sole author of that
piece. What bothers me is that the "madman" now has no opportunity of
recourse.
I am afraid I am opening a can of worms here, but these are questions I
am trying to come to grips with in my own work.
PS: I just found this piece in the Lindinger + Schmid Groessenwahn
catalog. It's by Dellbruegge / de Moll and its title is "Laura Cottingham."
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
*Enclosed File: cotting.gif
Msg#: 2123 *ART*
02-02-94 02:22:35
From: RAINER GANAHL
To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2094 (SNAP TO GRID)
The objects of my "basic japanese" project at Nordanstad gallery - in NY
and not in Tokyo - function on different levels: first, these objects are
layed out to literally illustrate some kind of 'basic japanese' sentences
you can encounter in study books. actually, severeal of them - for ex.
"japanese are greeting in a cheerfull manner"- I even encountered in my
'japnese for everyone' study book. This already confronts me with a
particular logic that isn't neutral at all and often hides a lot of
prejudices about the people who speak the language in question. second:
these objects also, within the given format of presentation, have a
particular narrative task: to speak about an exhibition I did at Person's
Weekend Museum in Tokyo, to be the show of a show (with the help of the
catalog but also with other objects I destillated from there: including 20
10 minutes long conversations I taped with visitors) , to complement and
expand the Tokyo project, to export (or re-import) it into another context.
They also are telling you some particular activities I worked on during the
several months of my stay and my show. third: those objects also can be
seen partially as decoys for all kinds of questions: dealing with the
intrinsic problem of the representation of the self and the cultural other,
the presence or absence of the anthropological (fake) narrative, the
complex of stereotypes and (cultural) prejudices - is now a greeting
machine good or bad, superficial or practical; an 'elevetor girl'
gratitious, humiliating, rediculous, efficient, sexist or traditional (to
name just a few of the questions one is confronted with -- I simply
refuse the way in which Roland Barthes in the "Empire of Signs" came to
terms with all these for a western context unusual looking phenomena --.
forth: those objects as a whole also can be seen in relationship to the
"file, basic japanese" , hanging next to it with the "special comment" on
it that studying japanese brings you to a limit where orientalism and
exotism are at the point of revenge,a point where it was working against
myself (as a european), where it destabilized me. So adding some almost
fetishistic objects to it for a show at my return was once more for me a
challenging thing confronting me and others with precisley these questions.
A last task of the "basic japanese" shelf I see in the fact that I don't
really want to chose another way of representing the process of the
studying of a foreign language as a cultural exchange modus but a negative
one, one that comes accross as superficial and irritading - since you are
right that it is a process, something not really interesting to be
documented as such.
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 2153 *ART*
02-02-94 11:14:42
From: RAINER GANAHL
To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2120 (SNAP TO GRID)
I agree with you that the gallery or museum is a stage where the parameters of
interactions with the audience are mainly defined in advance, mostly by the
institution and the artists. But I am not so sure whether everything is
said by reducing it to the fact, that they are somehow elitist and
exclusive (like the network we are writing on as well - since it takes less
of an effort to just walk into a museum than log on here, even if there is
a virtual space for interaction, that de facto is as regulated as anything
else -): I can't resolve these aporia even if I try to address them in all
kind of ways. But I would like to say something to the example you choose
for good reasons: the book you are talking was laying in the museum in
Tokyo with a sign that encouraged visitors to write words and sentences in
Japanese they want the artist to learn: one day I was surprised by an
entree of 50 pages constantly repeating in Japanese and in English: death,
be dead, dead etc.... I found it a little disturbing since I didn't want
the book to be an outlet for all weird expressions taking away so much
space (50 sheets). So I became, against my own intention, an editor or, if
you want, a censor in a mediaeval way. Nonetheless I do show then these
pages illustrating my problematic but still carefully put
phrase: "A Japanese person showing signs of madness". I agree that this is
an intervention that is decided on my part: but as I don't know the author
I can't invite him for a reaction to my reaction (given the content of his
message: I wouldn't be too interested in knowing it). Now, what I find
interesting in these obsessive reiterations is the fact, that they were one
of the rare examples, (next to the police), where I encountered personally
signs of aggressions and repressions in Japan. And if I hadn't singled them
out they wouldn't have become so visible as they are now accompanying a
"basic japanese" sentence. But again I find your demand for a
participational space very interesting but I have my serious doubts about a
possible, satisfying and devinite equation between full participation and
equal communication within the framework of cultural production even if
both states would be desireable.
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 2157 *ART*
02-02-94 14:35:08
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2153 (SNAP TO GRID)
I'm going to take the risk of being simplistic here. Your intentions with
your show at Nordenstad seem to have to do with a very finely weighed
calibration of judgements--a very complicated analytical attitude toward
what is being displayed. But these are hardly articulated within the
exhibition itself; they are all quite implicit. Aren't the means and
contexts you are using, then, perhaps too fragile for the load you want
them to bear? Shouldn't you perhaps tried to develop a more obviously
discursive, more clearly multi-layered rhetoric?
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 2167 *ART*
02-02-94 22:37:29
From: RAINER GANAHL
To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2157 (SNAP TO GRID)
I appreciate that you see also the analytical attitude of this installation
some people don't want to see. The question to what degree my analytical
and narrative interests are manifest I have been asked all the time, even
being accused of formalism. I am refering here to the works of my "windows"
that are dealing with indexical textual footage only. Now, with "basic
japanese" I am playing in an almost Wittgensteinian sense with objects.
(Wasn't Wittgenstein obsessed with elementary sentences going like: "but
what if a child learns the word...", or "given somebody that studies a
foreign language... "?) This involvment with indexical objects seems to
make the readability of the
analytical layering of this show more difficult, since it is not so obvious
to abstract from the single, partially seducing elements and see the entire
shelf as a kind of "Lernkasten" (learning box) for a student yet to come.
But in spite of this, one cruxial sentence on the shelf is "having a museum
show" that is illustrated with a catalog that comprises an extensive
analytical interview and images of the Tokyo show and activities (studying)
I spent 6 months with in Japan. Therefore I would say that I have never had
anything so explicitly discursive in a show before. Through this kind of
door, one is invited to enter a different show, that relates to this piece
without necessairily absorbing it.
But in the end I agree, it is my particular decision to chose a discrepancy
between what you assume as a "load" and what is there. Wouldn't the shelf
break otherwise anyway?
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 2221 *ART*
02-04-94 11:50:53
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2167 (SNAP TO GRID)
Yes, the "load" is "lightened" by some of it being projected elsewhere by
means of the phrase "having a museum show" and what goes with it. In fact
this idea of the "show of the show" is for me one of the more interesting
aspects.
But more importantly, I have got to find a way to convince you to
accept the rubric of "formalism" with equanimity! Someone (I can't
remember who) once said that a little formalism takes art away from the
real, but a lot of it puts it right back. What I like about your work is
precisely the way it is possessed by this sense of what I think I called in
the Art Press essay "hyperformalism" that brings the world back in from the
margin.
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 2229 *ART*
02-04-94 17:24:07
From: RAINER GANAHL
To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2221 (SNAP TO GRID)
As we all know, "formalism" like "modernism" has turned into a token coined
for all kinds of usage. I find myself particularly interested in "applied
formalisms" - how I encounter them in daily live, whether in a supermarket,
in a credit card or in any kind of electronic interface. Their designers
probably
have first, second or third hand art school/history education and are
therefore vaguely familiar with formalist vocabulary but don't show any
interest in the ideological package that these visual rhethorics came
with. So here too, I see the real with its pragmatics bleeding in like
black ink even if it comes a little bit later. As a reader of Adorno, the
most important European apologetic voice of hermetic modernism (that can
partially be equated with formalism), I can't overlook, that precisely his
favorite composer, Arnold Schho got a job in Hollywood - and guess as what:
being a teacher for those film musicians who produce dramatic
psychological background noises for movies.
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 2230 *ART*
02-04-94 17:44:24
From: RAINER GANAHL
To: BERRY SCHWABSKY
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2229 (SNAP TO GRID)
"hyperformalism" as a term is very intriguing as I see it as much in
relationship with words and concepts like hypertexts (hypercards - a brand
name) and hyperframes as with formalism.
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 2256 *ART*
02-05-94 16:03:11
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2229 (SNAP TO GRID)
"Applied" reads at least 2 ways--as meaning "put to work" (opposing the
uselessness/art-pour-l'art aspect of formalism) or as meaning "laid on top
of the surface, e.g. like a decal" (opposing the organicism/internal logic
aspect of formalism) but in either case, isn't "applied formalism" an
oxymoron?
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 2300 *ART*
02-06-94 14:50:57
From: RAINER GANAHL
To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2256 (SNAP TO GRID)
yes, it is so, "applied formalism" can be read as an oxymoron, a "figure of
speech in which apparently contradictory terms are combined to produce an
epigrammatic effect" (webster's).
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 2336 *ART*
02-08-94 02:27:26
From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2123 (SNAP TO GRID)
One piece in your show consists of a small row of books. The title
refers to them as coffee table books. The authors - Said, Bourdieu,
Spivak, Krauss,... - are frequently cited by you in interviews in support
of your work. Like buoys they mark the intellectual terrain of your
investigations.
Is the coffee table presentation an attempt at self-persiflage?
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: THE THING NYC (42:1001/1)
Msg#: 2554 *ART*
02-08-94 01:35:30
From: RAINER GANAHL
To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2336 (SNAP TO GRID)
The work you are refering to is called: "A Portable, (Not So Ideal)
Imported Library, or How to Reinvent the Coffee Table: 25 Books for Instant
Use" and was conceived for the Tokyo show. There it was to function as
something IMPORTED, that together with my study activities should allude -
even ironically - to the arrogant and missionary attitudes of classical
orientalists. The selection of the 25 books was at least partially
reflecting this problematic issue of uneven cultural exchange. The work was
on display in the coffee area of Person's Weekend Museum, and intended for
use by visitors. I tried to encourage this by stating an example with the
weekly 2 hour performance piece - "reading in the library". This
performance was in direct oppostition to the highly consumption oriented
quatier that the museum is located. As an Austrian, I am aware of the
coffee table as a site where, historically, cultural issues were written,
negotiated and discussed, something that was for me impossible to conceive
in contemporary Japan.(I am talking about coffee tables). Now, being back
to the country where most of the literature was selected from, I made
another work with the same title - but as an "US-Version". This version
further confronts and questions of import, its means in the cultural field,
how it is different according the countries involved, how the import is
perceived etc. Having
addressed these issues further, makes me want to continue with some more
country specific versions. To what degreee the selected titles correspond
with the work, and the context I am putting them, and to what degree
ironies of all kinds may be involved is decided from version to version. I
would like to add that I do read these books and I wouldn't be able to set
up these shows without having studied them but this doesn't imply that I
pursue like Wittgenstein at the end of the tractatus comparing his
sentences with a ladder that ...
Msg#: 2590 *ART*
02-09-94 14:51:06
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2554 (SNAP TO GRID)
I feel a need to interject here--to bring things to my usual "literal"
level--but it seems that your reply, interesting though it is in itself,
goes past what I understood as Wolfgang's question, which has to do with
the English-language phrase "coffee-table books" in the sense of big fat
picture books (whether "Rembrandt's Greatest Paintings" or "Decorating
Santa Fe Style" is irrelevant) that people buy not to read but to leave on
their coffee table so people can idly flip through them while waiting for
the coffee to be served (or whatever). I take it from your reply that you
did not have that reference in mind at all--is that right?
Msg#: 2597 *ART*
02-09-94 17:31:49
From: RAINER GANAHL
To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2590 (SNAP TO GRID)
I did have also this reference in mind since I called it "how to reinvent the
coffee table". This can be seen as wishfull thinking that wants to turn the
fat picture book tables into the marble ones Karl Kraus wrote on. But this
is then nostalgic and confronts me with eurocentric, stereotypical
prejudices of how and what culture has to be. As such the paedagogical and
somehow arrogant impulse to teach, to preach, to be somehow missionary that
is already implicit in the act of putting up these "imported books" shows
once more even there. But I would not want to be cynical and have the books
selected be equated with "coffee-table books" even if I want this tension to
be there.
Msg#: 2840 *ART*
02-11-94 14:28:54
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2597 (SNAP TO GRID)
So is it that the marble table of Karl Kraus is closer to the stone tablet
of the Law?
Msg#: 2842 *ART*
02-11-94 14:48:44
From: RAINER GANAHL
To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2840 (SNAP TO GRID)
it might appear to certain people like this. and who casts that marble table?
Msg#: 2865 *ART*
02-13-94 12:19:51
From: RAINER GANAHL
To: BERRY SCHWABSKY
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2842 (SNAP TO GRID)
Berry, I know you are giving me a hard time and the problems starts
smelling "high" - "low" something you interestingly enough don't take up
with the selection of books -that are all from the range of the so-called
h-category -
but with the title. Now, with Karl Krauss as just an example from Vienna, I
have cited somebody whose relationship to the authority of the law is very
interesting: Most of his critical writing he started almost with an
obsession for grammar and correct writing targeting out primarily the bad
and inconsistent daily business of journalism and other media oriented
publications. But what he did was not just comforming to a rule, a grammar,
an authoritarian logic, the Duden's "snap to grid" but connecting social
and ideological arguments with bad writing. To mass with grammar and words
(something I unfortunately can't avoid here since I am not a native English
writer, and right now without editor) was equivalent for him with the
manipulation of narrative, representational, social and ideological
meaning. He then became a very influential figure for Wittgenstein who too
started his "tractatus" in the format of a law codex, even if he invites
the reader at the end, to throw the ladder away after use. But from there,
and somehow Wittgenstein really took his advice seriously (by the way a
book he wasn't writing on a Kaffeetisch but partially on the battlefield of
world war I) he develops almost out of Krauss his philosophical
investigations that I think belong to the most deconstructive philosophical
works in this century, far beyond any Derrida or Heiddegger who ignored him
more or less totally. Another little anecdote, concerning the law has to do
with James Welling. I met him during my show in Tokyo.He had a strong
reaction to the books on the shelf but he did a nice thing: he send me a
copy of a book he highly recommended and suggested to add it to the shelf.
By the way a book that Mat Mullican was reading also at the time. I admit I
hadn't payed any attention to this book and wouldn't read it normally. I
tried the first 50 pages to get an idea: The book was called "The Firm".
Ironically enough this story develops around a law firm in a very
unrealistic but entertaining, seducing, "Dallas" tv-series like style. Now,
the point I want to make, with all this is, that I do think - and this
could produce more arguments - that the writers I somehow have chosen - as
well as the writers I alluded to with the marble table - are in a more
subversive way going against the stone of the law then any writers of the
range of "The Firm" even if they gain high popularity and garantee full
entertainment from the first page on. But I totally agree with you that the
only thing that matters is the relationship to the "law" (Lacan would say
the "father") and the ways one can break it.
Msg#: 2879 *ART*
02-13-94 15:03:33
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2865 (SNAP TO GRID)
There's a lot to consider in what you said--and one thing I for one can be
very sloppy about is keeping up the distinction between The Law and the
laws. The latter we break all the time, and I think it's pretty obvious
that in doing so we maintain The Law (Zizek can talk about this, but the
same goes for Sartre or lots of others--I know I'm stating something
well-known). But perhaps the effort to attain The Law forces it to crack a
bit...
Incidentally, I would be very interested to know more about the
relationship K. Kraus/Adorno. I've been reading the latter's "Notes to
Literature" and things like his essay on "Punctuation Marks" seem very much
related to what I understand about Kraus and his way of criticizing style.
(I have to admit I've never read Kraus but have read lots about him, by
Canetti particularly, also Benjamin, but also many others.) Does Adorno
cite Kraus much and in what way??
Msg#: 2887 *ART*
02-13-94 16:25:50
From: CAROL BROAD
To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2879 (SNAP TO GRID)
Excuse me, I don't understand what law or laws you are talking about. I
find the discussion quite interesting, but sometimes the context is lost on
me. I would very much appreciate if you could establish some context for
those of us who have not read all the books and authors you are constantly
refering to. Or
an I asking for too much? Thank you very much. I would like to see Mr.
Ganahl's exhibition, where is this Nordenstad Gallery?
Msg#: 2908 *ART*
02-14-94 11:32:18
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2887 (SNAP TO GRID)
I agree that all this "referencing" can be a problem, and in fact it's a
problem not unrelated to ones I was earlier trying to analyze with regard
to Rainer's show at Nordenstad (upstairs from Pat Hearn, on Wooster between
Broome & Grand--stop in for dessert at the Gourmet Garage while you're
there!),
problems about what seemed to me a too-great assumption that viewers could
be "complicitous" with him in assuming certain kinds of attitudes towards
the cultural materials (including books) on display.
As for my particular references, some of them are pretty inessential in
the sense that I hope that the point I'm making can be clear without them,
but they are there as an extra "example" to make even more sure that things
are clear for anyone who might be familiar with them (and in some cases I
know that Rainer, to whom I was replying, is familiar with them. Slavoj
Zizek would be one of these, for instance. In another case I myself was
asking for more information, namely Karl Kraus. But if there are
particular allusions you'd like me to clear up for you, let me know what
they are and I'll do my best.
Msg#: 2910 *ART*
02-14-94 11:51:42
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
To: CAROL BROAD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2887 (SNAP TO GRID)
After replying to you a few minutes ago, I decided to take the liberty of
finding some of your other contributions to discussions on the Thing in the
hope it would give me more of a sense of who I was talking to. What I
noticed was that you often emphasize your non-understanding of what's going
on, what's being said. Is it that you really feel you don't understand, or
perhaps that your understanding is "other" than what you think others are
understanding? Or are you taking a Socratic stance, trying to prod people
to examine their statements more closely? Come clean, Carol!
Msg#: 2914 *ART*
02-14-94 12:46:47
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2865 (SNAP TO GRID)
two distinctions that deserve unpacking: *snap to grid* and *the stone of
the law*.
Msg#: 3124 *ART*
02-15-94 02:21:07
From: JOSEFINA AYERZA
To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2914 (SNAP TO GRID)
Morgan I think the word "tablet," which you seen to omit, helps to clarify
the concept. It reads: "the stone tablet of the law.'
Can't help with "snap to grid..." American slang?
Msg#: 3127 *ART*
02-15-94 03:45:04
From: RAINER GANAHL
To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2914 (SNAP TO GRID)
"snap to grid" is first of all a computer command, something you can find in
all kind of programms that allows you to structure the space you use. then
it is also a name of a piece, I once showed in the US in english and in
japan in japanese. then it is the name of this interview, wolfgang came up
with. plus you can imagine all kind of things (the network shuts me down in
2 minutes) I got to go. concerning the stone, I refer you back to barry
schwabsk.
Msg#: 3141 *ART*
02-15-94 10:55:09
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
To: JOSEFINA AYERZA (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3124 (SNAP TO GRID)
Hamurabi ? Moses ? The Kaaba ? Whose, which, where, when?
Msg#: 3142 *ART*
02-15-94 10:57:21
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3127 (SNAP TO GRID)
but, also like the idiomatic American "snap to", to get with it, to orient
to expected roles, know what is required, no extra attitude, just do the
job.
Msg#: 3166 *ART*
02-15-94 21:33:46
From: JOSEFINA AYERZA
To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3141 (SNAP TO GRID)
I was only getting the phrase together--since you send me back to it. However
about its meaning you should ask Barry Schwabsky, he wrote it.
Msg#: 3174 *ART*
02-15-94 22:39:42
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3127 (SNAP TO GRID)
I think Josefina's reminder should clear up the question regarding the stone
tablets of the Law--except of course for those blessed with ignorance of
our "judaeo-christian" heritage!
Msg#: 3200 *ART*
02-16-94 13:21:38
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3142 (SNAP TO GRID)
I wouldn't call "snap to" American slang exactly, I hear it as more
specifically military in origin--though perhaps that's no great difference.
Shall we consult William Safire?
Msg#: 3219 *ART*
02-16-94 18:51:58
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3200 (SNAP TO GRID)
"Snap to" has the feel of a response to a powerful presence, dispelling
reverie and focusing intently on the present circumstances. If a rock is
hurtling down a mountain slope straight for you, the appropriate response
is to "snap to".
Back in Texas, "snap" was an undefinable property that certain people were
better endowed with than others; it was the capacity to gather oneself on
moments notice, a precision of response. "Slugs" lacked "snap". Snap was
that little extra degree of spiff, a pinch of alacrity in daily
undertaking. Not a bad concept, all in all.
Msg#: 3224 *ART*
02-16-94 20:12:09
From: JEFFREY SCHULZ
To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3200 (SNAP TO GRID)
In some research that I did a few years ago -- which I can't locate -- I
think Ifound that the etymology of "snap to" derives from the expression
"doe dem tap too," or something very close to that. It's Dutch, I think, and it
means that a military compound should "bug out." There is also the military
traditions of tattoos which, as I recall, were competitions/spectacles
based on military drumming.
Msg#: 3233 *ART*
02-16-94 21:49:44
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3219 (SNAP TO GRID)
But "snap to!" is an order, and perhaps implies that the addressee is, as
you say, a slug.
Msg#: 3631 *ART*
02-20-94 17:24:25
From: CAROL BROAD
To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 2910 (SNAP TO GRID)
I'm so embarassed that you read my early messages! I wish I could delete
them! I try hitting the Delete key on my keybord but nothing happens. My
understanding may be "other", but I don't know if I understand what you're
talking about. Your statement leads me around in a circle. I feel like
when I'm in a plane circling the airport and never landing. But I read
that understanding is circular, so maybe you never land!
sg#: 3643 *ART*
02-20-94 23:26:50
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
To: CAROL BROAD
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3631 (SNAP TO GRID)
Well, you never land in Never-Never-Land anyway. Not only have I read your
past messages, but they were even the subject of conversation at a party I
was at last night! The person I was talking to opined that you are "too
good to be true"--in other words it seems I am not the only one to whom
some of your interventions seem disingenuous. (That's not a criticism, by
the way.)