L’édition Arrière: Ingress at the other end.
“Someone had left the membrane more permeable then when I last was here.”
As a parody of a title I once scrawled the words Trojan Whorse down and, then, sometime after but before the exhibition of the work, I added with a titter, to be reared from the view. With a simple naivety I recognized the implication of that particular arrangement of letters/words; the accord it struck with its objects and materials, and, at once the novel triviality of it. At the other end I could hear gnawing, an ineptly affixed jaw assimilating the eschewed words and making it part of her, there was a subtle exchange taking place between what was supposed to lay outside of her (the work) and title, a frame and the thing framed (she had no conventional frame). At once I conceded, the artwork as object is a trivial matter, like any form, any language it necessitates participation and in order for the artist to have ingress with their work they too had to, after the fact, become spectators, a spectator that adds meaning, a participant that intersects with the otherwise inert matter of the image/object. Surely I, in my artist guise, have certain vacillating intentions when producing any given work. Flipping through the dog eared pages that allow for glimpses into the future, another page imposing itself momentarily on the present, a number or a syllable, finding meaning in the little imaginary arabesque patterns traced in sand by someone hanging from a gallows. I contribute to its textures, to the texts, condensing and compressing signs, adding differences and deference/s but like any text and any texture too sense, sensibility and intellect have to be brought in contact with it in order to make it so, to add meaning and depth to the surface. Once the object , through whatever forces conspired to put it there, is ‘given’ the participant, the viewer has to ‘rear’, the object/image by whatever means they have at their disposal in order to make it an object of significance..
Duchamp mentions, in reference to his Large Glass’s cracks a ready-made intention…the cracks unintentionally expressing an unconsidered objective but an intension that the artist none the less appropriates as his own. The question of artist’s statement is then a question to be answered by a spectator, as I understand it.
 De Selby, Golden Hours. 1st ed. with the two last pages missing.
 “There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are “immediate certainties”; for instance, “I think,” or as the superstition of Schopenhauer puts it, “I will”; as though cognition here got hold of its object purely and simply as “the thing in itself,” without any falsification taking place either on the part of the subject or the object.” (Nietzsche)
 There can, however, be no ‘after the fact’ as the work/artist/spectator is caught up in a sedimentary process that continually adds and takes away, supplements one sign for another one. Nietzsche wouldn’t believe in any absolute, refuting the existence of god because he didn’t seem like a dancing god, “I could only believe in a god who dances”. He prompted us to be brave when faced with the atrophying meaninglessness left in the void of truth, to create meaning freely and joyously where no meaning and all possible meaning is one and the same. “I do not know any other way of associating with great tasks than play” (Nietzsche, somewhere else)
 Who was it that said “…the outside always comes inside in order to define itself as inside” and added “… [from] above and beyond the ergon (the work) accomplished, the accomplishment of the work. But it [that which is outside the work] is not incidental; it is connected to and cooperates in its operation from outside”?
 …but “we are all better artists than we realize.”