This is the first post forTartare For Starter. It’s late here, and after spending most of last week researching the area around Van Gogh’s ear and the subsequent iconography of silence for other e-topias, consuming a fair amount of Milleens and reading how the UK Home Office is appropriating Foucault [note to self: find out more about prison ships] I am writting my initial thoughts around the structure and mainly the content of this series of seminars. Seminar by the way is a strange word, coming, as it does, from the Latin seminarium, which apart from religious colleges it conjures up semen. Of course this whole process that is starting now has not much to do with a seminary, nor does it lay claim on any form of sowing but the mastrubatory element in all these is indeed facinating. Both solidary and communal it provides an analogy like few others of what Tartare For Starter is. But more on this later.
So, I am thinking of having five of this seminars then, each initialy focusing on a specific text of a seperate author each time. My suggestions are:
1. Adorno, “Cultural Criticism and Society” + “The Culture Industry” from Dialectics of Enlightment
2. Derrida, excerpt from Aporias
3. Walter Benjamin, “One-Way Street”
4. Kristeva, “Approaching Abjection” from Powers of Horror
5. (after Kostis) Barthes, “Mythologies”
What do you thing?
As far as the structure is concerned I am leaning towards having a set bibliography supplied to those interested and uploaded on the blog at least two weeks before each seminar – preferably though we would have everything before day one but re greek translations are concerned this can proove tricky. The whole seesion can not take more than two / two and a half hours. Thus the introducing bit wil take half of that time and the rest will be for comments and mutual tracing of themes within what we term Cypriot Cultural Studies. The Epea Pteroenta space behind Simis’ has been suggested and even though it has a very loaded atmosphere I believe it lends ielf to the informal nature of the whole thing, plus there is food, and drink, at hand. But what do you thing?
The languge of the seminar can be best described as Contemporary Cypriot. Ε ναι, μιξ. It will then be not unlike the amalgam of our everyday lingo: a bit of this, a bit of that pkus some singing. People might have a problem with that but they have to actually come to realise that the forced employent of one language over the other, be it Greek or English, in a country that has to put it mildly mixed identity claims is but a form of imposed morality. And we are not having any of that. Just a coffee, thanks.
Anyway that’s it for now.
Περιμένω.
31 Comments
Tuesday 24 October 2006 at 11:16 am
i think barthes should come before derrida. also not sure if we should be starting with adorno. i think you’ve put him first because you’ve been reading so much of him lately. one -way street might be an easier way to begin, especially in context of cyprus and nicosia; its structure is also far more accessible. adorno is difficult – to read, to think about, to apply, to bounce from. it could end up putting people off, whereas i think benjamin would be a good warm up before getting into the heavier guys.
Wednesday 25 October 2006 at 4:57 pm
On the contrary – Benjamin’s One-Way Street is I believe an extremely convluted and dense text that if one does not talk about the culture industry re Adorno beforehand might end up loosing too much. And I completely disagree that the structure is more accesible – really? His fragmentation is easier to talk about than the essay as form for example? By putting Teddy first I am not paying any respects to him in person, or underlining my recent intence relationship with him, but acknowledging his urgency in the context of Cyprus – from M6 to Papadopoulos Oil Money, from EU craze to inherent racism(s) and from Omonoia to brief intro to 80’s videoproduction. Plus he is by far the most interesting intellectual figure to talk around. Barthes is at the end as a sort of link to the conference that will / could follow and as a direct exposition of a cultural strategy – and this was Kostis suggestion. As for scaring people off – and this is a real concern- it is down to the realisation of the discussions. If we go for a presentation / Q & A / summary we ‘ ve lost already. It is I believe a form of ‘3D blogging’ that we should be aiming at. Eliptical, yet autisticly focused remarks, punctuated by comments and links from all over the place. Plus those who will attend will register their interst from before and would have had a look at the main text from before – an attempt to pre-affirm commitment and not have a ‘cultural event’ but a process. And no one is saying we are puting out ‘an introduction to critical theory mushed up for thy tea-time’, as an answer to the ‘difficult’ remark. If it is difficult to thing within the contexts of a shared bibliography, then yes, all of them are diffficult.
The above structure is by no means a done thing, even though I realise I sound inflexible – but what do the rest think?
Thursday 26 October 2006 at 3:01 pm
I say start with derrida: he’s pop, cliche, everyone knows that what they heard so far is good but it takes costeau’s fire engine to still not know what he’s writing about, it makes little difference in reading him if you’ve had a seminar on Adorno or an x year old series on the history of literary criticism, he makes for a good opening, etc.
It also helps avoid making this a linear academic ‘introduction to critical theory’. It could be more of a matter of resonance between seminars, maybe something to do with the hospital [hospitality, biophilosophy, the seminary meets the laboratory and the clinic, etc]. Maybe not focus so much on individual ‘thinkers’ as such – why both adorno and benjamin, why both barthes and kristeva? Where’s the praxis, appart from scaring people off?
[I liked the D&G suggestion: nomadologies of kokos, nikos, transvestite afghan eggs, minor literature]
Thursday 26 October 2006 at 3:55 pm
i’m hoping that above all it isn’t an intro to crit theory. we’re going to have to assume to a certain extent that the people coming have read at least one of the 5 authors before, and that they’re capable of delving into the texts directly without any kind of explanations, or intro remarks.
the discussion about whether essay or fragment is more accessible is a seminar in itself. personally i think one-way is seemingly less rigid, and therefore, more available to discussion, creation, idea-dropping etc. it shows its potentials more readily than culture industry, and thus, will make for a smoother reading of c.i. afterwards, so that we don’t get stuck on looking for its potentials as one-way will already have been done. I could say the same for derrida too, that his texts are also apparently more open than adorno’s, and apparently more fun to play with. i’m not saying adorno’s texts are not malleable, or that they are not open, or not fun, or not accessible, i just think that if we do one of the others first, we’ll be able to do his texts more credit.
and jester – i hope that the texts dem has suggested have been chosen for their value as texts, not because they have been written by so-and-so. otherwise i agree, it would be nice to avoid the individual thinker.
Thursday 26 October 2006 at 8:19 pm
Nai re – ethkialexa ta epidi o adorno en cool jai thelw pou en na keliasw na tou miazw! Jai thelw na kamw sex me tin kristeva ara pou xereis. En indicative texts mias hrisimis ‘anaskafis’ tis status quo critical theory me to vlemma pros to ti onomazw ‘cypriot cultural studies’. The saga of the individual person is only important as far as it prooves through his / her works apropriate / applicable to the ‘presentation’ : e.g. Barthes and steak on the way to souvla, even though text as such not given out …..
I ll be posting something later – soonish – on the whole thing. Do register am – njester stelnw sou invite xerw gw.
Wednesday 1 November 2006 at 6:00 pm
well the truth is i do want to have lots of wild, promiscuous sex with the situationists. so, since that is obviously the criteria, and since this is a bit of a free-for-all, and things are still open to suggestions, i nominate deBord’s ’society of the spectacle.’ Not all of it, necessarily. And after discussing it we can put it in practice and run around naked, jumping in and out of people’s gardens and probably ending up being accidentally blown up somewhere in a mine field. Or alternatively we can all defecate together in Epea Pteroenta.
or is good ol’ Guy just too much of an outdated hippy for our cause?
x-posted in email
p.s. yes yes i will register
Friday 3 November 2006 at 12:50 pm
(I registered but still can’t figure out how to post, therefore I carry on from the commentary form, excuse my french)
“Xekinw me traoudkia” (U.A. Tsioupparos) – whatever we say, whatever text we choose there is a vital issue that needs to be examined in advance towards finding the apropos formula: form and style – and, no matter if you assume that might be off tangent, I am talking here about issues from smoking, to drinking and from chairs configuration to mezedes pou to simi – not quite sure how to handle this, but it’s true that scaring people off (to be honest just the announcement of such seminars will be seen with the half eye / me to mison tous and a terrible suspision and that, unfortunately is a fact) is a very possible scenario – some worries I have in mind and something that should be done about them, don’t know why (any suggestions?)
2. Films / Music – could we combine the seminars with clips (‘Playtime’ Tati, ‘Being There’ with Peter Sellers, ‘Tsioronis’, ‘Chuck Norris’, clips from football games Omonia-Apoel, Simpsons etc. perhaps) that will provide a graspable area of discourse juxtaposed with the texts and enable via the friction an exchange with the audience, plus avoid boredom?
As for the selection of the texts, I am not at all bothered about the sequence since they should be seen as an entity, a set (an eixame 6 tha emporousame na ta onomasoume games tziai na pe3oume tennis) – one will invade the other, of course there is no doubt about that, but what we should be foreseeing is that with the audience the invasion tunnels will be produced rather than provided pre-fabricated through a sequence under any rationale (yes that goes first because it will lead to that and so on and so forth – how can we know?) starting with Adorno it does not necessarily mean that Teddy can not be the driver that ran over Barthes (sorry re file en se eida) or even Baudrillard might not happen to be on the side taking pictures (digital) and Debord changing the billboards. I perceive the texts as kick offs (or rather kick starters – like a mille-feuille, en i3erw re tsioroni man itan souppa man itan kolokasi) we say our long and our short and we invite (as njester has already done) D&G or anyone who might come up, in an attempt not to comprehend the text per se, but to read them against a possible understanding of what might be cypriot cultural industry / product, whatever you want to call –
to me, the texts as starters are fine (just fine) for setting parameters which for sure will not be definite and I assume that this set of ’seminars’ will not be just one-night stand xaixoui, which makes me believe that further suggestion could fit either in future events, as pdfs in a website we can set up where the participants can have access or via alternative ways (I like this word, ‘alternative’ and ‘interesting’ a re Adorno pou ise, pio monopolio tziai standardization tou cultural industry, dame we are working towards a linguistic cultural producer’s etiquette, ‘aha, very interesting’, ‘yes it’s kind of alternative’ ne, gia po toutous) anyhow, e3efiga, which, brings me to an end with what Demetris was talking earlier about a 3d blog – just go through ombion, and let me know if you find any traces of consistencty or linearity – in Epea Pteroenta, words should just fly, and via the ’seminars’ achieving a you-tubing or text-tubing where we create an inventory via the theoretical backing of the proposed (or any others that might pop up) texts – precisely “to konto (short) mas tziai to makri (long) mas”, to facilitate a semiological discourse around Bedouin match sticks, but predominantly to have fun. What is urgent, is to spot out what we perceive as “cypriot cultural industry” (i.e. to refer to previous suggestions: athinaion – architecture – parkings, mappa, kokos, manylives Mixailidis, Bedouin matches, Angelina – more more more) and make an attempt, prior to the seminars to establish possible lines of flight (atsss), with those texts. Yes, precisely the text should be our tartare methodologies, but without the seasonings and sauces we do run the danger of scaring people of, and becoming vegetarians
motto [very important]:
‘I ain’t a bloody philosopher’
Sunday 5 November 2006 at 4:40 pm
i’ve also registered. so invite me, or do whatever it is you gotta do, dem.
i like the idea of a visual side dish. this, http://www.luxuryweb.com/html/steak_tartare.html looks much better because of the pommes frites next to it, wouldn’t you agree? it’s hard work expecting people to find raw egg and raw meat appetising, on the face of it. i don’t want to put people off unnecessarily.
as for the linearity of the discussions, i think that, unfortunately, it is necessary to look at the order. precisely because we will be in an IRL environment, not a virtual one. By this i mean that you-tubing and tex-tubing work so well because of the internet, the lack of chronology is something the internet abode abides by, but sitting in a room with four walls with physical people, talking, needs a structure, however fluid or volatile, otherwise it will end up like a performative L-A-N-G-U-A-G-E poem, and quite frankly, those fuckers piss me off. nor am i remotely interested in writing dADa all over simis’ cafe, and what worries me is that without a structure, outside the internet, and inside a familiar room, we could easily end up doing just such a thing. i think some kind of structure is necessary for the actual seminars.
i should add here that i think if it were just the four or five or six of us, we might work well together and give as little heed to structure as possible, but bring in the ‘y’ number of un/lesswell-known persons and it could end up becoming a confusing, ill-communicated, unproductive pile of piles (owch).
perhaps, instead of doing one author at a time, or one text at a time, we could do three or four at a time, working more thematically. is that what you were suggesting at first njester? so that way the structure is not ruled by author.
a lot of thinking aloud here. and excuse my somewhat more conservative or classic approach toward structure, i’ve just been to one too many black-dressed experimental poetry readings about stiletto shoes, tricoloured rainbows, and the bubonic plague, and finding myself rushing to the bathroom to throw up my disgust and ennui. these things can go horribly wrong.
Monday 6 November 2006 at 2:34 pm
[a few formal remarks]
Could the individual’s biographical/textual introduction be followed by the rest’s attempt to establish an echo between the thematics emanating from that particular text/author and that realm that one could possible name “Cypriot Cultural Studies”? To be more specific, for each seminar, one (let’s name him ‘chair’ – did you say anything mister Kosuth? oriste-) goes about introducing / analyzing to some extend the text under interrogation at a given seminar. Therefore, we maintain the author/text structure to begin with. Once the chair is off, the rest via introducing further texts and authors could try and bridge the issues introduced by the seminar author as presented by the ‘chair’, and work towards the sphere of “Cypriot Cultural Studies” – To do so, one presupposes that each of us will undertake the task of adopting one of the above texts / authors, and ’sit’ on it, boil a few eggs and be the chef of the seminar’s omelettes. That is, I believe, a conventional structure which would enable us to work both ways from/to the author/text and from/ to further texts/author/Cyprus Cultural Studies. Since it is unnecesary for five different people to give five different reading to the same text, one will be enough to get us going, always leaving the stove on though perhaps to return back to it. In addition if we get truly organized – let’s say if in two weeks time we know who is cooking which seminar and in what way – we could all get back to the ‘chair’ of each seminar with a proposed ‘cypriot cultural product / theme / whatever’ that will be introduced under a given seminar. By doing so we construct a coprus (i mean a corpus) of the so called ‘Cypriot Cultural Studies’ (more or less) in advance, we will all be briefed and we assure that we won’t be talking about the same thing throughout the whole seminar and all seminars, and we are also in a position to foresee what will follow – Having said all this, I still don’t think that the sequence of seminars (first so, second so, and so on) matters – other than for practical reasons – at least at the time being, but the structure does, as Alexandra mentioned, and all I have written is just a proposal of how possibly the series of seminars could function practically. Just to get our feet moving -
Monday 6 November 2006 at 3:35 pm
what i meant was something like a choice of fragments revolving around a concept’s effects [on cypriot cultural studies]. e.g. occularcentrism from debord’s spectacle to foucault and the panopticon, and the implications of the move from gossip to surveillance; or artaud-kristeva and abjecting the archbishop-simulacrum. of course what alexandra proposed amounts to the same thing, and what kostis says propably reconciles this with a more deconstractivist text-centred approach, which propably works better in this case by appeal to shared assumptions.
what might be emphasised is a more practically minded disordering as a principle of organisation [and the eschewing of any presupposition that if you put these texts in the right order they will become clearer for 'the uninitiated']. something pop to cover up the scaring away?
Monday 6 November 2006 at 6:47 pm
well… how about we decide what texts we want to work with, both primary and secondary, and then see how we could group them, halve them etc. we can bicker over who wants to use what. the idea of a ‘chair’ isn’t a bad one. means each of us will have to take responsibility of one thing or another, and the brunt will be more or less equally divided.
let’s make sure we don’t run the risk of having 5 (?) completely off the wall, unrelated sessions though. we should have some underlying threads that bring them together. this is why i suggest throwing out names, titles, and ideas now into a big pool, so that we’re all working, more or less, in the same arena with similar materials.
i like the idea of a practical disordering. this would, however, need to be decided upon from beforehand. so.. i’m all for getting our feet moving.
Monday 6 November 2006 at 9:32 pm
Inshallah – Irtes po’ ’sso sou. Akouw keimena kyries kai kyrioi. Akouw.
Tuesday 7 November 2006 at 8:35 am
Even though, I still do believe that the suggestion / collection of further texts should be made in respect to what the object(s) / abject(s) of the ‘Cypriot Cultural Stidies’ might be, thus we avoid becoming textual interpretors but we utilize the texts as means to, here are some texts – by category / ‘chair’ – hope will be ‘handy’ and waiting for some more fingers up; plus are we going to play music chairs? Who gets which? (Can I seed on Barthes’ lap?)
Mythologies, R. Bathes:
Introducing methodologies towards the production and perception of popular culture, urban myths – mostly evolving around significations within TV, VCR, eurovision, as well as further semiological approaches in an attempt to surpass singular narratives at the moment of breaking meaning (oh, kalws tin Ioulia)
–> Theory not of literature but as literature (J.M. Rabaté, from The future of theory)
–> Simulacra and simulation (J. Baudrillard)
–> Being There (book Jerzy Kosinski, film by Hal Ashby, with Peter Sellers)
The Culture Industry, T. Adorno:
–> The politics of aestetics (J. Ranciere)
(toutos o Adorno, opws tziai oulloi oi Marxistes fisika, kati eshiei pou mou stekete sto laimo – seeking truth! – as for Cypriot context, perfect!)
suggestions: DEN 3EXNW imagery
One-way street, W. Benjamin:
–> The city in pieces, (Victor Burgin)
–> Playtime (J. Tati)
Aporias, J. Derrida:
Kati mou lalei oti ta parkings, ta cinema and civic space could join Jacques
–> Urban Nomad (Orestis Lambrou)
Powers oh horror, J. Kristeva:
–> Bullshit, (Harry Frankfurt)
(This as a small intro, I need to have some breakfast now, alla to meletaw egw to meletaw)
Needless to say, that these texts can overlap, and also to add D&G “Shillia Plata” (even though with a few reservations) but I am afraid their apparition will hover around (apparo me ti vakla).
Tuesday 7 November 2006 at 8:45 am
plus (I forgot to mention earlier)
I would like to see some more literature and audiovisual material, just can’t come up with anything right now
Tuesday 7 November 2006 at 1:02 pm
Uncommon, and short, ‘Texts’ that could be interesting:
Thoreau’s ‘Reading’ chapter in Walden, coupled with Emerson’s essay ‘Experience.’ – i see this as an alternative approach to how to read the texts we will be reading, and our environment in general
Beckett’s ‘Three Dialogues’ – a parody of an intellectual conversation. perhaps it will keep us from taking ourselves too seriously.
Chattista. particularly the censored type. might be a tad ‘old hat’ but i don’t think it’s been addressed in the right context as yet.
En oulla kapare – HCH songs. might do well with a situationist splicing.
Tuesday 7 November 2006 at 4:01 pm
http://download.yousendit.com/1E65225E35BF9D0D
and also http://rapidshare.de/files/21221888/Ta_Milwmena_Ton_Kipriwn_2.rar (kapou ishen je to proto cd alla en to vrisko)
maybe make a recording, audio or video, of the seminars?
Tuesday 7 November 2006 at 6:27 pm
what program do you need to open up a *.rar?
Tuesday 7 November 2006 at 7:09 pm
http://www.rarlab.com/download.htm (i think the trial doesnt expire) or http://www.7-zip.org/
by the way, without aiming towards becoming a geist of anti-logy, if there’s going to be chairs, wouldn’t it be better if each chair proposed a text they can chair – while considering the relation it might have with the other texts – rather than choose from a given list?
Wednesday 8 November 2006 at 5:23 pm
er… but if the ‘given list’ is given by the chairs, what difference does it make?
Wednesday 8 November 2006 at 5:27 pm
well, why don’t we start picking up chairs (from the given list) and if not happy with them bring some more (i.e. Leptos chairs)
Saturday 11 November 2006 at 12:56 pm
Kyries kai Kyrioi,
Thelw na mou peite shedon monolektika poion keimenon tis areskeia sas eiste diathetimenoi na analisete kai na eisaxete stin genikoteri sizitisi peri cypriot cultural studies diamesou tis syhronis politistikis kritikis thewrias.
Enan o kathenas, to opoion tha einai kai to kyriws text to opoion tha prepei na diavasei o kathe endiaferomenos.
Egw thkialew to ‘Aporias’ (selections) etsi gia na paei pasa kako – alla an to egoustaren kanenas para, para polla dehoume na to antalaxw me kati allo (kata protimisi psari).
Ta diadikastika kai ta vivliografika en na lythoun mona tous. Opws to kreas mes to fourno psinete mono tou enan prama.
Dehoume jai emails.
Saturday 11 November 2006 at 11:43 pm
aiste me na to skeftw lio, jai genikos egw enna protimousa na gini post damesa, i toulaxiston to email na’n apefthimeno se oullous mas yia na kseroume ouloi inta pou ginete.
Sunday 12 November 2006 at 7:03 am
fere da toundin voulgara na doumen indambo lali. ine mia touti. drakouna.na mas chorepsi sto tapsin.
Tuesday 14 November 2006 at 12:09 pm
benjamin’s ‘one way’.
Friday 24 November 2006 at 2:43 pm
yes yes yes, i’m back now, having almost read all of your comments – it might be text-based (a graduate research seminar where texts are given from before and then each contributes? ate evre tous omws) or they might just be not too long of a talk and then follows discussion. big problems it seems are not to get into a kind of an ‘intro to critical theory’. i was thinking a more politics text, some text from Ranciere perhaps on polis/police (ochlagogia at the E.S. would come up) or histoire, history/story (no, cypriot history will not come up). problem is to become too banale: last time i went to a seminar on the ‘usefulness of philosophy’ (at the YFANTOURGEIO YEAH!) one guy inquired whether philosophy can help us decide on complicated seems not issues such as ‘Should Cherie Blair defend Oram case (Brits-having-property-in-north-Cyprus appeal)?.
there is obviously a problem with the distribution of the sensible.
suggested text: Ranciere’s Politics of Aesthetics (chapter on History and Fiction), Ten theses on Politics, Philosophy and his poor?
Friday 24 November 2006 at 2:47 pm
Hristos!!Irten – J’ oi monon irten all ji irten!
Is this your final word?
Friday 24 November 2006 at 5:02 pm
al’opws. Ranciere’s Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. i will go back to it.
Saturday 25 November 2006 at 12:06 pm
Is that to say that we put Adorno in the fridge?
Saturday 25 November 2006 at 12:48 pm
well, GENERALly speaking yes (sorry for the lame pun). we ought to discuss what each of us will be talking about so we find a coherence. maybe adorno can fit in the more general discussion? im sure he will come up one way or another.
Saturday 25 November 2006 at 4:44 pm
As if another cryogenized Walt Disney, Teddy will pop out of the fridge every now and then with the smell of expired beers – it’s fine by me; the issues of cultural industries will inevitably appear so we can use Adorno as a scaffold -
Monday 27 November 2006 at 10:35 pm
but what if one of us feels like knocking the scaffolding down?