nitraM-tniaS
Vie de Saint-Martin de Simone Martini (XIVème Siècle)
Corrected/updated upside down by Painterman
One winter day, while stationed in Amiens, Gaul (modern-day France), as Martin approached the city gate, he saw a half-naked man shivering with cold and begging alms from indifferent passers-by. Having nothing but his cloak, Martin drew his sword, cut the cloak in two, and gave half to the beggar.
Un jour d’hiver, pendant qu’il était stationné à Amiens, la Gaule (la France actuelle), que Martin s’approcha de la porte de la ville, il vit un homme à moitié nu grelottant de froid et de la mendicité l’aumône des passants indifférents par. N’ayant rien, mais son manteau, Martin tira son épée, le manteau coupé en deux, et en donna la moitié au mendiant.
dreamlistener
outsiderfromwithin
michellelacombe
joshua schwebel
Anne-Marie
paintermanpinxit
pohannaishere
hmmmmmmm….à penser.
dreamlistener
January 8, 2011 at 7:04 pm
…so, the cloak like gold can be divided, cut in two. the cloak is divisible and keeps its shape. however, like a suit that is cut in two, can it still be considered a whole unity, or has the “saint” rendered the garment useless?
and one has to wonder, the sword, the horse? these are not “things” one owns in the world? if the saint had given the poor man his horse, lets say, could the horse then have given the poor man a livelihood (delivering messages from one locale to another for example?) and therefore have “fit” within the highest form of benevolence?
dreamlistener
January 14, 2011 at 8:28 am
ceux qui possèdent ne peuvent pas faire de don, ils doivent redonner.Warren Buffet, Bill Gates ne font pas de don. Ils redonnent ce qu’ils ont pris.
la propriété c’est le vol. Proudhon.
those who have can not donate, they must give back.
Warren Buffet, Bill Gates does not make a donation. They give back what they took.
Property is theft. Proudhon.
paintermanpinxit
January 14, 2011 at 10:56 pm
exactement.
in order to levy the charge of “theft” the material/immaterial in question must already carry the legal designation of “private property“. i.e. the material/immaterial has previously been accorded the status of a privately owned entity because it was a commodity placed within the realm of the marketplace whereupon it has now exited in a legally sanctioned exchange between seller and buyer. however, as marx says” ‘theft’ as a charge indicating a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of private property, which is in fact a legal “fiction”.
dreamlistener
January 16, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Monk, Philip. Peripheral/Drift: A vocabulary of Theoretical Criticism. Rumour, Toronto, Ontario. 1979.
THEFT
Theft (theory) acts through the revaluation of language, by distortion and disguise. Communication is the site of this endeavor; however, disguise is the opposite of communication. While appearing to signify, disguise diverts, devalues. Communication is eminently serious: its purpose is to relay a message that has a meaning. Any signal, however, tends to noise. and this noise is a drift from the use and meaning of communication. To reduce signal-to-noise ratio this drift allows desire to move disguised in noise, to distort the code for its own perverse pleasure and to assume its content within the guise of the code.
“In fact, today, there is no language site outside bourgeois ideology: our language comes from it, returns to it, remains closed to it. The only possible rejoinder is neither confrontation nor destruction, but only theft: fragment the old text of culture, science, literature, and change its features according to formulae of disguise, as one disguises stolen goods.” (Roland Barthes)
dreamlistener
January 31, 2011 at 12:14 am
we can say : art is not a communication, because the spectator and the artist don’t speak the same language. even if they are in the same country at the same time in the same city, in the same neighborhood, and they were in the same school. because the artist invents his own language. the viewer is always late. art is a gift that nobody wants. the artist is the noise.
paintermanpinxit
January 31, 2011 at 4:46 am
oui, l’artiste est le bruit qui vole, volé.
dreamlistener
January 31, 2011 at 6:41 am