As I mentioned in my comment to John's thread below, naturalism and observational navigation are issues which are given sustained consideration in the thought of a wide range of modern and contemporary labyrinthians. In Aaldi's text, nature as such is subjected to the quantalogical reduction. Reede's interiorist skepticism, manifested most notably in the writings and lectures from the Tiranė period, often takes as its subject the sensible and corporeal experience of the natural labyrinth. As John intimated, it is in the labyrinthological project of Gollesten that naturalism is reclaimed from the critique of the Medialists.
I find Mathieu Gramont's naturalism to be particularly interesting due in part to the fact that much of his labyrinthology functions as what is essentially a deconstruction of modern labyrinthological theory at large. As our readers know, the recursivist movement, which Gramont initiated, denies both exteriorism and interiorism as appropriate methodologies for navigating and investigating labyrinths as such, advocating instead a labyrinthology in which navigation and ambulation are paramount. In a lecture from the spring of 1940, entitled "La ligne propre" ("The Clean Line"), Gramont articulates an aesthetics of observational navigation. The piece is contained in the French language collection of Gramont's letters and lectures published by Editions Arceneaux, unavailable in translation at present. This excerpt finds Gramont sympathizing with Gollesten, and calling for a new vocabulary with which to assess the aesthetics of the labyrinth. The translation is my own.
"By decisively avoiding the center and the perimeter alike, we bring about a state of affairs in which the structure of the corridors within the sensible labyrinth effectively becomes our horizon. Our eyes focused solely upon the expanse of the corridor, undeniable as Gollesten has shown, and irreducible to constancy as posited by Aaldi. The aesthetics of the post-Industrial labyrinth force us to approach naturalism within the labyrinth in the same manner posited by the exteriorists, though we dispute their fundamental teleologico-labyrinthology. As Gollesten points out, the structure of the labyrinth may only be assessed in the context of properly authentic navigation. But how may we consider the aesthetics of the corridor?
Labyrinthectural theory, bound and blocked from primordiality by its dependence on quantalogical notation, does not provide us with a suitable vocabulary for assessing the beauty of the labyrinth's form. Moreover, the teleological fallacies of post-Aaldian labyrinthology continue to exercise their insidious influence on the topography of contemporary labyrinthecture. Utility should never be the locus. A corridor should beckon us in manifold ways, entreating us always to ambulate. It is the task of the labyrinthian to assess the corridor, but not to explain it away. This is, as Gollesten points out, the crisis of observational navigation in modernity."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I had thought previously that the Recursivists were too abstract for me to grapple with, but this passage is pretty straightforward and accessible. Are all of Gramont's lectures this lucid? Also, is anyone planning to publish a translation?
Wonderful post, Alex. I thank you for providing a translation of this critical passage. I have not read the text in some time, and it seems increasingly urgent and relevant given the numerous crises in contemporary labyrinth ethics we have discussed.
BC and SN fundamentally deny the aesthetic value of the corridor, of the process of ambulation. And how do you speak to misanthropic navigation in light of "The Clean Line"?
Are we, writ large, losing our sense of labyrinth as vista and interface of the natural world? Is Aaldi's reduction gripping us by our throats, asphyxiating us to the 'higher blessings' of labyrinths?
I used to be disturbed when I would come across a fellow navigator engaging in marking or chatter-plotting. Now, I am disturbed because I never seem to across fellow navigators in labyrinths.
I apologize for this discombobulated harangue, but meditations on the past year, triggered by your thoughts on Gramont, cause these saddening concerns to resurge.
Dylan: I think you would find Gramont's lectures and letters to be, on the whole, very readable and beneficial to your burgeoning interest in post-New Interiorist labyrinthology.
As for your question about a translation: Funny you should ask, John K and I, both of us being senior members of the North American Recursivist Circle, were actually tapped by Black Thicket Press last autumn to take on the project of translating Gramont's lectures into English. He only taught from 1938-1940, so we're not talking about a terribly great volume of lectures. That being said, Gramont's diction is very steeped in the French-Basque labyrinthology tradition, and he is always concerned with teasing out new contextual meanings by way of the play of culturally, politically, and theoretically resonant word selections - in short, his labyrinthology, even in lecture form, is quite a challenge to translate. Despite these semiotic difficulties, John and I are, I feel, making good progress. We'll certainly keep all CLP readers up to date on the status of the project.
John: Thank you for voicing those concerns. Concerns which, as you well know, I share with you. The crisis of postmodern labyrinthology still lamentably hinges on Aaldi's reduction. How can we experience the primordial labyrinth in the wake of the quantalogical reduction? Has Aaldi blocked us from primordial navigation? The influx of modes of navigation (BC, SN, MN, etc etc) do violence to the very essence of the navigational experience. How can we ambulate authentically in the wake of these problematic systems of labyrinthological thought??
THIS is the true crisis with which we find ourselves faced.
lol you guys are so SURRIOUS!!!
xoxoXOXOXOXOxoxoxo
<3
krissy
Post a Comment