Wednesday, April 16, 2008

It is difficult to say something new.
Language marks identity; hence its ability to reveal and its proximity to the truth. Language is also used to mark what one wants to be and wants to be recognized as; hence its inherent tendency to duplicity. An atmosphere or site where language is taught, modified, changed and employed is thus rife with ambiguity.
It can go any way you see?

So here then lies the quandary of representation, of writing.
Do I classify this site as inauthentic and mimick-y? (The risk of seeking an originary truth, a discover-able facticity)
Do I celebrate all as constructed and do away with the question of the truth/ untruth? (The risk of rendering agency unneccessary and un-noteworthy)
Do I attempt to rage against the frame that is unimaginative and banal? (where is my alternative?)

Questions, questions, at one in the morning.