2026.10.17
Stephen Lauf Change of Venue 016 2026.10.17
diptychs derived...
 
 
 
...from the Philadelphia Museum of Art 2026.10.15
2025.10.17
Extra Credit Assignment: In as few words as possible, explain the commonalities of the München Glyptothek and the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
2024.10.17
451 Rhawn Gallery
2020.10.17
Virtual Paintings
576
579
581
2009.10.17
Duchamp to direct THE LUCKY BUMS
"The same "sense of loss" that supports history and mourning also supports the damnatio memoriae, which is both an enforced and denied nostalgia. There must be a sense that something has fallen out of representation, that it was at one time but it is no longer--a sense that something has been lost. If not, then memory truly fails and with it the force of the damnatio memoriae. The force of the rehabilitation has much more to do with the re-enactment of the death and condemnation of Flavian than with an account of the events of 394. The survivors have always remembered Flavian, but it is only after the rehabilitation that they can "satisfy the debt of duty owed the dead"--that is, acknowledge the irremediable fact of his loss, through the act of mourning. The writing of history, too, is motivated more by guilt and a desire to mourn than by a desire merely to evoke. The survivor is the one who remains to see that the proper rites are performed for the dead and for that part of the self which has perished, and in the end compulsively to rehearse that loss once again by writing the history" [re-accurately].
--CWH [SL]
The virgin wolfs, the Hirpini and the snails (spirialing), at the end of the axis of war.
So there was a connotation after all.
The Eutropia question.
"You do know the Sabine word for wolf, don't you?"
The Jennewein question.
"Is the axis of war the sacred axis or the profane axis?"
The Adam observation.
"Look, she dropped another hair pin."
The Duchamp question.
"Are reenactments virtual or real?"
The two Ps in Hopps.
2007.10.17
Eisenman debates Wolf D Prix at a crit -- Google Video
Just for the record, that's me on a bad day. I was having Fußball nightmares. And who the vuck is this Vanity Express manhole!?
This Eisenman guy is the shit. You know it's all kode---gotta skip words/yeah the shit.
Force texts. Inforce texts. It's like bubble burst genius if you know what I mean/extreme.
Lustgarten is like my GREEN porn. That and S/Z.
Eisenman debates Wolf D Prix at a crit -- Google Video
...and he subliminally means Barberini.
2005.10.17
Edmund Bacon, Dead at 95
I can still hear his voice over the phone, although he hasn't called me in [almost exactly] 13 years. "Who owns that [computer] model [of Center City Philadelphia]?!?" Although it could be a complete coincidence, but I suspect he called me because he saw my design idea for the Benjamin Franklin Parkway featured on a WHYY/TV12 Spotlight the night before.
2003.10.17
Drugs R Us
The present project is the construction of a 3D computer model of the censored part of Étant donnés, i.e., the room accessible by the back door via "2 KEY". This virtual construction is within the larger context of the 3D computer model of Center City Philadelphia in Quondam's collection.
It is written that only one person at a time can look at Étant donnés. This assertion was tested 25 July 2001 by myself and my then assistant Anna. I looked through the left peephole with my right eye and Anna looked through the right peephole with her left eye, and we saw Étant donnés simultaneously.
Is any of Rhoades' show in braille?
"What did the blind man say when he pet the pussy?"
Remember, always pant when you say panty.
2002
Denis Diderot "Encyclopedia"
Diderot, Denis. "Encyclopedia." The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Translated by Philip Stewart. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, 2002. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0000.004 (accessed 17 October 2026). Originally published as "Encyclopédie," Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, 5:635–648A (Paris, 1755).
61/192
We will repertory indiscriminately all the expressions that our greatest poets and finest orators have used and may use. It is posterity above all which we must have in view. It is in any case an invariable standard. There is no need to shade words one has no tendency to confuse, when the language is dead. Beyond that limit, the art of making synonyms becomes as extensive an occupation as it is childish. I would like to see two other criteria in the distinction of synonymous words. The first is not only to note the concepts that serve to differentiate, but also those that are shared. The abbé Girard [39] respected only the first part of this rule; however the part he neglected is neither less essential, nor less difficult to fulfill. The second is to choose one's examples in such a way that as the meanings are explained, the national usages, customs, character, vices, virtues, and principal transactions, etc. also be explained; and that the memory of the nation's great men, its misfortunes, and its prosperities, be recalled. It will be no more difficult to make a synonym appear useful, sensible, instructive and virtuous, than make it contrary to honesty or meaningless.
62/192
Let us add to these remarks a simple and reasonable means of shortening the word list and avoiding repetitions. The French Academy had made use of it in the first edition of its dictionary [40]; and I do not think it would have abandoned it for the benefit of limited readers, if it had considered how easy it was to assist them. This means of shortening the word list is not to distribute through several separate articles that which naturally ought to be contained in a single one. Must a dictionary contain a word as many times as there are differences in the mental perspective? The opus becomes limitless, and will necessarily be a chaos of repetitions. I would therefore make of précipitable, précipiter, précipitant, précipitation, précipité, précipice , and every other similar expression, a single article to which I would refer in all the places where the alphabetical order yielded expressions linked by a single general, common idea. As for the differences, the substantive designates either the thing or the person, or the action, sensation, quality, time, or place; the participle, the action, considered either as possible, or as present or past; the infinitive, the action relative to an agent, a place, and some indeterminate time. To multiply the definitions according to all these variations is not to define the terms; it is to return to the same notions at each new variation a term presents. Is it not evident that what suits an expression considered once under all these different points of view, also suits all those in the language which admit of the same variation? I shall note that for the perfection of an idiom, it is to be wished that the terms should take on all the variation of which they are susceptible, because there are verbs, such as the neutral ones, which exclude certain nuances; thus aller cannot have the adjective allable. But how many others are there of which this is not the case, and of which the production is limited for no reason, despite daily need, and the vexing lack particularly felt by precise and concise writers? We say accusateur, accuser, accusation, accusant, accusé, and we do not say accusable, even though inexcusable is used. How many adjectives are there which do not move toward the noun, and nouns which do not move toward the adjective? There is here a fertile spring from which our language still may draw many riches. It would be a good thing to note for each expression the shadings it lacks, so some contemporary of ours will make bold to supply them, or that for fear that, being fooled later by analogy, people consider them just ways of speaking in use in the right century.
63/192
This is what I needed to say about language. The more that object had been neglected in our work, the more important it was in relation to the goal of an encyclopedia , and the more appropriate it was to go into it here in some detail, were it only, as we have said, to indicate the means of compensating for the mistake we have made. I have not mentioned syntax, nor other parts of French basics; the person whose assignment that was has left nothing to be desired in that domain, and from that angle our dictionary is complete.
64/192
But after treating the language, or the means of communicating knowledge, let us seek the best way of tying it together.
65/192
There is first a general order, that which distinguishes this dictionary from every other work in which the material is likewise subjected to alphabetical order, the order for which it is called Encyclopedia . We will say only one thing about this ordering considered in connection with the whole encyclopedic material, which is that it is not possible for the architect of the most fertile genius to introduce as much variety into the construction of a large edifice, into the decoration of its façades, the combination of its orders, in short into all the parts of its distribution, as the encyclopedic order allows. It might be created either by relating our different kinds of knowledge to the various faculties of the soul (this is the system we have used), or by relating them to the entities they take as their object; and this object may be one of pure curiosity, or a luxury, or a necessity. Science in general may be divided into science of things and of signs, or into concrete or abstract sciences. The two most general causes, art and nature, also yield an elegant and broad distribution. Others will found in the distinction between the physical and the moral, the extant and the possible, the material and the spiritual, the real and the intelligible. Does not all we know derive from the use of our senses and our reason? Is it not either natural or revealed? Is it not either words, or things, or facts? It is therefore impossible to banish arbitrariness from this broad primary distribution. The universe offers us only individual beings, infinite in number, and virtually lacking any fixed and definitive division [43]; there is none which one can call either the first or the last; everything is connected and progresses by imperceptible shadings; and if throughout this uniform immensity of objects, some appear, which like the tips of rocks seem to break through the surface and rise above it, they owe this prerogative only to particular systems, vague conventions, certain unrelated events, and not to the physical arrangement of beings and to nature's intention. See the Prospectus.
66/192
In general the description of a machine can begin with any part at all. The larger and more complicated the machine, the more connections there are between its parts, the less we know these connections, the more different perspectives for description there will be. What then if the machine is in every sense infinite; if we are speaking of the real universe and the intelligible universe, or a work which is like the imprint of both? Either the real or the intelligible universe has infinite points of view from which it can be represented, and the possible systems of human knowledge are as numerous as those points of view. The only one from which arbitrariness is excluded, as we said in our Prospectus , is the system which has existed from all eternity in the will of God. And the one following which we might have descended from that prime eternal being to all the beings which over time emanated from within it would resemble the astronomical hypothesis in which the philosopher is transported in thought to the center of the sun, to calculate from there the phenomena of the celestial bodies about it: an organization which has simplicity and grandeur, but which could be criticized for a serious defect in a work written by philosophers, and addressed to all men in all times: the defect of being too closely tied to our theology, a sublime science, doubtless useful for the knowledge the Christian receives from it, but even more useful for the sacrifices it requires and the recompenses it promises.
67/192
As for this general system from which arbitrariness is excluded, and which we shall never possess, perhaps there would be little advantage for us in possessing it: for what difference would there be between the reading of an opus in which all the mechanics of the universe were expounded, and study of the universe itself? Almost none: we would still be able to understand only a portion of that great book; and should the impatience and curiosity which rule us and so frequently interrupt the course of our observations, introduce disorder into our readings, our knowledge would become as fragmented as they are; losing the chain of inductions, and ceasing to perceive previous and subsequent relations, we would soon have the same gaps and the same uncertainties. Now we are busy filling in the gaps by studying nature; we would then be busy filling them by contemplating an immense volume which, being in our eyes no more perfect than the universe, would be no less exposed to the temerity of our doubts and objections.
68/192
Since the absolute perfection of a universal plan would not compensate for the weakness of our understanding, let us focus on what is appropriate to our human condition, and be content with going back to some very general notion. The higher the viewpoint from which we consider objects, the greater expanse it allows us to see, and the more the order we follow will be instructive and grand. Consequently it must be simple, because there is rarely grandeur without simplicity; it must be clear and accessible; it must not be a tortuous labyrinth where we might become lost, and in which we can perceive nothing from the point where we are; but a broad, vast avenue which extends into the distance, along which others are encountered at intervals, leading to remote and isolated objects via the easiest and shortest path.
69/192
One consideration above all must not be lost sight of, and that is that if man or the thinking, observing being is banished from the surface of the earth, this moving and sublime spectacle of nature is nothing but a sad and silent scene. The universe is dumb; silence and night overtake it. Everything changes into a vast solitude where unobserved phenomena occur in a manner dark and mute. It is the presence of man that gives interest to the existence of beings; and what could we better have in view in the history of those beings, than to yield to this consideration? Why not introduce man into our opus, as he is placed in the universe? Why not make of him a common center? Is there some point in infinite space from which we could more advantageously originate the immense lines which we propose to extend to all other points? What stirring and agreeable reaction of those beings towards man, and of man toward them, would not result?
70/192
This is what has led us to seek in the principal faculties of man, the general division to which we have subordinated our labors. One may follow some other path if he prefers, provided he not put in place of man some silent, insensitive and cold being. Man is the sole point from which to begin, and to which all must be brought back, if we are to please, engage, and affect the reader even in the most arid considerations and driest details. Aside from my existence and the happiness of my peers, what does the rest of nature matter?
1964.10.17
1964. Saturday, Milan
A group exhibition entitled "1908-1928" opens at the Galleria Schwarz in Milan, which includes two readymades by Duchamp: Roue de Bicyclette [15.1.1916] and Fountain [9.4.1917], both replicas edited by the Galleria Schwarz [5.6.1964].
Ephemerides
|