POP+ACCESS+ECONOMICAL+SUPERB+SUBLIME+LOW+HIGH

Adjusting your head-workings to become part of the labor force. 

And it is difficult not to, since not working is reviled. We adhere so much value to work, that it is difficult to imagine any sort of post-work society.    

I enjoy Jiddu Krishnamurti in its intensity, as I do any philosopher that touches upon subjectivity (Freud, Deleuze, Guattari, Virno, etc.) The morale of the working class is absolutely skewed, since it competes against itself in seeking the obtention of an artificial poll of goods. 

Wether it is an oligarchy or not, I don't care, but it its clear that it is a rule/comfort of a few, wearing the clothes of a Democracy.

My point here, is that the only way to promote meaningful change, is by changing and by challenging static subjectivities, which they never are in any case.

I hold the belief that deconstruction is a beneficial act, but critique is not enough, and reconstruction, or the posing of alternatives is necessary. The market cannot regulate our thinking, since it is after all, cultural, and by consequence, artificial (i.e. manmade).

Still, you might be asking...Why should anyone adjust their heads in order to become part of the labour force? or to put it bluntly, why does anyone have to change the way they think to find a job?

Easy. And the University is a fertile ground in finding what stands as academic, and what stands for Industry.

My understanding of Academia, is the furthering of knowledge for clarity. Not Knowledge for the sake of Knowledge, but knowledge that helps us understand the workings of things. In this endeavour, you might want to be like, hey! Not only I want to understand how an Aspirin works, but I'd love to find alternative ways to produce them, so they have less secondary effects... Then you might think that becoming a biochemist its worthwhile, and that your vocation is to improve peoples lives. 

Surely, any advancement in the production of drugs will be welcomed by the industry, but imagine for a moment that the scenario is different. What if most of the Aspirin consumers in the world, had to take them due to their long working hours? Then you realise that maybe, policy making may be better for you, or even becoming a politician, to make sure regulations on working ours are fair, etc. 

Your endeavour is no longer based on any particular industry, but requires a wider view of the issue. Improving, or working for good, it is not the same as problem solving, which is what they thought me at school. It was nevertheless, always interested in the question itself.

For so, in our current job market, and specifically in the creative field, innovation stands for creative problem-solving. My contention here, is that we need to rework the questions. 

Adjusting your head to the market, means you are happy to abide to what you are being asked to do, to engage uncritically. This might sound too grand, or arrogant, but when encircled by a disciplinary boundary, it sounds reasonable to dispose your expertise critically. This though, might come at the cost of producing conflicts of interest.

In my case, I have seen a lot of architecture practices that engage in the creation of objects, and by that I mean, marketable objects with the implications this arises. This means that the architectural labor force, not only has to produce material which is valid, but it needs to stand out amongst this ocean of validity. This is not only problem solving, but competition, and many offices have jumped in the vertiginous race to attract clientele, without questioning their programs or consequences of their schemes. Easy.

For becoming a successful architect nowadays, it takes a lot of expertise, not only architectural, which we might think of as the production of designs, or designs-to-build, but promotional, technological, and social. This proves that architecture doesn't live in a vacuum, and it is not, therefore autonomous as a practice, or discipline. This I know is contentious, but I believe to be true.

If your interest as a creative, is to problem solve creatively, I think this is an ambitions enough proposal. But I'd like to ask you, as well, whether you'd be up for the challenge, of not only producing solutions, but also challenging the way in which the very society-machine formulates these sets of questions, implements them, and perpetuates them. I encourage any reader to engage in the production of (critical) alternatives to the existing modes of architectural conception, which I believe to be, in their majority, outdated, and with a still, Feudal-sort-of-mind. 

I hope this does't sound too pretentious, or fallacious. I will try to develop this ideas further in the future, hopefully by practice as well, which is my ultimate goal, for words have no meaning when they only glow as dark pixels on your screen, if they do not after all, alter your brain-neuron-structure.

All in All,

xoxoxoox

"If I can make more money flipping burgers instead of working as an architectural intern, then it seems like something is seriously wrong."-disheartened, Dezeen comment

The computer before the computer...

“Excellence" is not a gift, but a skill that takes practice.
We do not act "rightly" because we are "excellent",
in fact we achieve "excellence" by acting "rightly".”― Plato

In the Pursue of a Critical Mind, it is paramount and essential to undertake an act of deconstruction.

Provided that all that we know it is not innate, but culturally construed or influenced, we will only be free, as far as it goes, when our readings of the World, of our own world, are built on our own perception of the world.

---

Maybe it is worth for you to familiarize yourself with this concept, the Elephant and the Rider, a concept that was outlined in Jonathan's Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis.

We will only change the world for good, if we change the way in which our perceptive receptacles perceive the world. This means a change in our hardware-software combo.

We will (re)raise anew, if we keep this constant critical reading of the World going.

Further.

I'm loving this book.

"Reintroducing the idea of plurality, for contemporary culture hailing from modernity, means inventing ways of being together, forms of interaction that go beyond the inevitability of families, ghettos of technological user-friendliness, and collective institutions on offer"(p.60, Relational Aesthetics, Nicolas Bourriaud)

"The aura of artworks has shifted towards their public"- p.58, Relational Aesthetics, Nicolas Bourriaud.

When I read about Minimalism, and how it was perceived by the art critics of the time, specially Clement Greenberg and Michael Fried, their ideas still resonate within me.
Bourriaud reading on Minimalism, is beautiful, as it explains the transferal of meaning from the work of art, to the body of the beholder. You might relate this to phenomenology, and one of the reasons why I found Minimalism so appealing, since although it was classified as self-referential, I found it to be a big claimant of its own materiality. Bourriaud goes further by explaining that the work by Gonzalez-Torres, achieved this activation of a space of inter-referentiality(p.59, Relational Aesthetics). He proposes an analysis of the behavior of the beholder given a certain situation. This doesn't place the subject as a symbolic player in relation to the piece, rather, it opens a reflective space for the viewer, where actions and their inter-relationships(p.59, Relational Aesthetics), become cues to read the world. All of this I find beautiful.

I have always believed this to be the aim of art, whatever that art stands for. To alter, or to provide with additional ways of reading the world. An opening up.

Minimalism made you closer to the very surface of the encountered object, and by doing so made you wonder as where did the marks come from, or the absence of these. It is in its very flatness, or lack of content, that the work expressed its very extrinsic qualities, those of drawing, phenomenologically, their relationships that lay outside of the work of art (the museum gallery, the invigilators, the lighting, or even the origin or mine where the rock came from...) If the convivial celebration of the disappearance of the work of art was that of Klein's blue history, it was Minimalism's task to fill the void with the world, with a whole new set of relationships, those which had waited to be touched by the vanishing hand of art...or rather artists.

I used to be a big apple fan. Like a fervent one.

The other day I read an article about the aureatic power of brands. I was wondering where had Apple's gone?

They've gone from visionary; this is simple, attractive, unobtrusive, to Silly, annoying, obtrusive. I am sure I represent the views of many other customers. I find my iphone demanding.

I know its not such a big deal, its a brand. But to me it was a kind of special project. And now its lost its aureatic power. The people working at apple made a murder in the move from ios6 to ios7. All the subtleties of the apps went flat, to a rather nauseating choreography of applications.  

My feeling is that they think they should follow their past recipe of success, for they have not truly innovated any more. I don't find their stories compelling. I just find them Silly. Their new motto is Bigger than Bigger. Really?
 

As is the combo Corporation-Estate hadn't sufficient evidence:


http://www.newsweek.com/corporate-deadbeats-how-companies-get-rich-taxes-268303

Can I say...I am fucked. Not because I believe in musci, but becuase I believe in Love. All that there is is there for you, at a hands grabbabababababaa-bba. And afterall is all true. You should have followed up...up the mountain. Yes! Your instinc was right, but you decided to go trough the well worn path. Oh! afraid of being left behind, of not being pure anymore. Or corropting your own morals. You left all that enter your consciousness, ready to relinquish all they you felt for. Oh dear, your are in a deep hole. The Hole of Despair, I must say. Other will be fighting on a side hill, or a land hill, or a landfill. Yes they might come and knock your ddoor, I know, contracts are evil. SSIGN THEM. Or better not.

All this have you been thinking, and thinking aftell all is of a new kind, for your own very own misery. Buy it, trade it, share it. And after all is human misery we all encounter since we follow extraneous dogma. I bet. I ask you for that boy. To be able to buy it, or to follow it, you have to swallow it firt. GRABB IIIT FIRST, AND PULL IT DOWN, all in. As its was meant. There is truth in critical mass, or purely in sheer mass. Abstaining is a form of punishment, or better of FEAR.Pay fare, its out of your pocket. Out of your own suppressed labor, since you have given away your very own innercity, or better your world. Tings make more sense mememehoi, never move to my hood, since danger is callling outta way...

Meme---emeh!


Also on a final note. Change is not for good or bad, it is a moment of chance, Pupupupre chance to the better, or to hope, to the delusion to a better do-do, or a better cognitive state. Puff, bullshit. I am sorry again. Touch. I also wanted to say that please stop that men! stop that men (nicki nack, I believe). There is people who is brave enough to follow their balls. Dickheads might be what the world wants, sonce they are more visceral than Machiavellian...Oh-HO! Please stoop that men! stop that men! stop that men...


Pleeease.


I hope you understand that this is writing at ist purest, no taking into account wHArt meadiates mi message/te compu/ and all thos things like coded language, backgorund, and since, since, since you have been waiting. Oh oh love, I am hoping to return to reality. To a Reality of my Own,

With no FURRther dealy. All the very best,
Nicolas Marchiaro.
xxxxoxoxoxoxo

I'd rather say theres a lack of political engagement in our current society, meaning western developed countries, than people need to be more engaged in politics in, say, the UK.

We can teach content to our fellow colleagues, but they will come back hungry. Instead we need to share a will to learn, rather than being educated. This production of autonomous/inter-dependent agencies need to happen, somehow, so people can position or (dis)locate themselves.

We might acknowledge the existence of a capitalist society, of a consumerist society, of a socialist society...But we can't deny the interdependency of things, i.e. welfare estate liaising with the rise of capitalism, socialism with a political agenda, etc.

Rather if we wish to challenge the status quo, and not because we automatically do, or because we want to personify the so-appraised avant-garde, but because our thinking, and not of less importance, our feelings, tell us that something is wrong, i.e. a miserable face in between a glory of wealth.


If, yes, we are to acknowledge that we can live in society, we might want to strive for equality, or at least for opportunity, and not only the chance to success, but the chance to diversity of choice as well.
Philosophers think because the heart told them to do so, not because they wanted to prove reality.


"Imagination is more important than knowledge"(Albert Einstein) and for so we have come to think of the limits of our own reason, leaving room for a world of perception. Leave them alone since all they have been searching is for a world full of love.



With no more delay,

oxoxoxox, hoping that the will of your hand has a say, has a space of its own in a world of [fabricated] misery.

Today I wanted to write about Fuck.

Fuck London.