Hejduk, the enunciation of the word, the moment, not the written word or the grammar/structure, yet there is a reliance, in this built work, on reference, which is linguistic, for the formal and evocational character. These references, which are holistic in the form, which are correspondents who shall speak, are completely mute. They are illegible, they are lost in misconnected subject knowledge. How is this reliance situated in the written chronology of causality, in the pictorial causality, and the spoken chain of causality?
word: mute, specific
form: mute, dense, dumb
mute, mutiny, mutable
Reference is injected in a system, a uniform system, text, surface, form, is unrecognizable as such without the accompanying indicators or built-in quality that presents it. It is possible to write _a completely plagiarized text_, containing nothing but exterior reference. Without the linguistic keys (citation, parataxis, non-sequitur) that shift the voice, that allow it to speak out, it will remain mute and consistent. It may be virtuous however for these to remain latent as such…

Critical Response:

« | »