 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted by r labossiere on January 02, 1998 at 12:50:20:
in reply to: Responses to web links and to "second sight" posted by Jack Butler on December 29, 1997 at 12:57:01:
the ole' flip/flop again Jack, I am amazed how our readings of your site can be so opposite. I find the overall effect of the site conceptually challenging, not merely descriptive but imaginative, creative. The idea of liminal skin for example is not something one would normally encounter in a scientific, or is that scientistic?, site. Niether would a scientist, at least the kind that I think of when I say the word scientist, normally be concerned about pleasure in the experience of "data". At the same time, I do get what you are saying because the site is very clearly descriptive in the way it is organized; leaps of faith, suspension of disbelief, are called for by the content. Your development of the fetus model in its proper perspective is very interesting. I didn't get this critical "angle" at all, unless subconsciously - could you say something about this in the site itself? (I suppose here in the dialogue section is IN the site really). Perhaps any kind of representation necessarily is limited, and carries therefore political baggage. It is good to become aware of that baggage - examining how representations claim the truth and disclosing the truth that is so claimed. With a new baby at home I am constantly looking at what he is looking at with such fascination, wondering what he sees. So much of what he sees is from a completely unusual perspective, from the floor, up into bright lights, giant heads poking in at him, faces sideways and upside down. Nothing seems to disorient him but I am often on the edge of uncertainty - lifting and carrying a being who is so not bound into the normal horizontal/vertical grid of things. Follow Ups: post a Follow Up: |