It felt weird writing a poem, I felt taken outside of myself. Some of you should try to play the games I play, I bet you’d be taken outside of yourself too. “That wasn’t a poem, that was you throwing dirt on poetry!” Using a form to criticize a form, you never really see that with poets for some reason? A culture that can’t deal with tricksters, that’s what this is, and it’s sad. No, Jews aren’t all to blame, pretty much any white person of the establishment can’t handle criticism. They’re secretly fine that tricksters get banned. “I’m immaculate, who DARES” – their unspoken narcissism. I’m starting a business, I wonder if anyone’s interested, I’m selling pies, and they’re actually free of charge, the thing is that you have to sign a contract where if you don’t pie yourself in the face with it immediately after purchase then you have to donate a certain amount to your local library. I’m glad that some have done that, in the clouds of course.
Unrelated to that, I noticed that Laruelle also has one of his so-called “non-standard” books on photography, and knowing him it’s probably at least going to make me think about photography in a way I never have before. Just looking at the chapters it’s already above and beyond- What is Seen In a Photo?, A Science of Photography, A Philosophy of Creation. What do you think we’re doing here? All I wanted was some humility from you narcissists. And I think I’ve gotten that.
one single photo is enough to express a real that all photographers aspire one day to capture, without ever quite succeeding in doing so. Even so, this real lingers right there on the negatives’ surface, at once lived and imperceptible.
It’s always funny to find a synchronicity when one isn’t looking for it.
I take a picture of Laruelle himself, look at this narcissist
‘Non-photography’, above all, does not signify some absurd negation of photography, any more than non-euclidean geometry means that we have to do away with Euclid.
Personal “vendettas” aside, I do wonder what he has to say about photography. It’s so taken for granted, and how present it is in all our lives. I for one see all kinds of pictures on a daily basis and never wonder about the trouble the ones snapping them go through. Is there a “math” to that too? People always think of “proles” as like factory workers or something, and it seems certain kinds of artist have to “labor” in their own way. Reminds me of the Marxist Adorno talking about the perspiring Hegel. What is a photo? I always talk about film for instance.
Laruelle is on another level
Photographers are interested in “forms”. What is this from Laruelle, the form of photography? a snapshot of his own? Not everyone can appreciate that, it’s not the realm of “images”. What is beyond the images is mostly only something that white and jewish males can understand. Talmudists, Nietzscheans, mathematicians, we all see eye to eye in a way. Snapping a photo of all these three together, that’s another story, only a few would understand that image.
The Laruelle book is here by the way, if you want a loftier understanding of why you might have pied yourself in the face and let someone take a picture of the fool you look like outside of societal norms. You can smile, just don’t feel dead inside. What is that crust, lemon meringue, what are you, sour like a lemon? It’s fine, you’re only being “hazed”. It’s okay, there’s nothing wrong with pieing yourself in the face when you “love who you are” then blinking. You look great. It’s fine, you don’t look like a fool who has to seek revenge. Honestly, I just thought I could shame you before you acted like the idiot that you were always supposed to be. The destiny of the moron isn’t without its obstacles. So I hope you appreciate this whimsical photograph of yourself. Pretend I’m handing it to you? Do you ball it up, do you go farther than that and burn it right then and there? All I know is that it looks like a pretty realistic shot of who you actually are.