Travis Wyche

  • 2005-05-10

Interviewer : So… thanks for talking with me. Why don’t we start by going over where you stand within the contemporary artworld dialogue… what’s your take on art today?

Travis Wyche : A motivating contingency, an aesthetic purity, an ideological foundation: Where lays the new expertise, the antiquated sincerity, an anti-anti-virtual equality, justifiable connoisseurship?Marginalize historicity, exercise the ability to control the signifier and exonerate the signified, liquidate self-reflexivity within any conceptual sphere, define the digestibility of any nutritive production, and dispense with geographical coordination. In our culture of novelty, where is the innovation? I’m bored of catalysts, sustenance, and reproductive ideologies. My allegorical compromise is grammatical contempt — the hyphen, the prefix, the copula:

_“a neo-dis-re-anti-post-pre-ex-non-a-un-

The art — of articulating audibly, visually, or physically with correctness or according to established usage – of incoherence; considered with regard to the rules of a superfluous grammar.

Interviewer : Well… hmm… that seems like a pretty nihlistic perspective. Is that philosophy on interest to you?

Travis Wyche : The spherical influences of which I wish to have no further dialogue within or without include all and none of the following: _____. There’s no room for nihilism in an intellectual dialogue. If there is, it is merely appropriated, bartered, compressed, naturalized, and transfigured by the opposing agitator, ironically taking on the role of nihilist and affirming the intrinsic ineffectual nature of the nihilistic thought process within such a sphere. Nihilism can only exist – now, that is to say, ever – as a legitimate and communicable ideology as an opposition to the rational and to the structured. It is the scapegoat and the last transcendental possibility of our knowledge.

Interviewer : Yeah…. uh, well do you have a personal motto or something? Where can you really go from there?

Travis Wyche : Do what you want. Want what you do. What do you want? What you do want. You want what does. But want does not do. Do what you want. Reconciliation is no longer relevant. Everything hasn’t been done (otherwise why do anything at all), but ideology has become reconciled, conscious, and conscientious of every other, fundamentally, within every substrata of indiscernible compartmentalization. Action has never become reconciled with ideological premise, however, as they function within irreconcilable delineations of reality – the comprehension of which incalculable descriptions have been attempted. I dare not contribute my own. I address the issue now only for my own narcissistic motivations: to make explicit my belief that everything thing I do and think may very well correctly and incorrectly, appropriately and inappropriately, academically and non-academically, be associated to every other thing I may or may not do or say. Ideology may have already admitted its own defeat, but in the game of ineffectual explanatory theoretical discharge, it wrote the rules for every player.

Interviewer : Great…. thanks….

blog comments powered by Disqus