Re: [microsound] Derrida rock & roll

[scissors for sparrow <transmit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

hello,

no, it's in the film.  it's pretty unconstructive going by my very sketchy 
paraphrasing of what this guy is saying (can you remember any long speeches 
in, say, braveheart word-for-word after only one viewing?)... so i'm not 
going to try and say very much, but suffice to say i was probably wrong 
(and hurried) to say 'self-awareness' - it was very convincing the way 
derrida said it.  think about it, though.  when you are improvising, how 
can you possibly do anything that is completely random, and in that sense 
how can you say that you did it?  seemingly random or unpreceded acts are 
still the product of decisions to act.  anyway, i'm doing horribly at 
explaining anything.  watch the film.

enjoy your evening,
jon.




pelagius wrote:
>Isn't losing self-awareness the goal of many improvisors anyway?  How 
does it follow that >improvisation isn't possible in any "real" way?

....and, Emily wrote:
> Are you thinking of "Choreographies"?  The interview with Derrida about 
> dance/chance...
>
> I wrote:
> > anyway, derrida's points about improvisation roughly follow the line that 
> > it is hardly possible in any real way - improvisation always draws on a 
> > pre-existing schema or method, and in order to truly improvise, one would 
> > have to be not-of-oneself during that time, to lose 
> > self-awareness.  which, he hastens to add, does not equate to derrida 
> > being opposed to improvisation.  rather, he's quite for it.


http://home.pacific.net.au/~transmit