Rebus Shmebus! eye + heart + ewe!

Thinking about our discussion in class (which ended like 20 minutes ago) about the way in which text as object and when does text become object, and the act of writing and author is eliminated for sculpting and sculptor (for example), as in cubist paintings, illuminated texts, and the Chair. In all these instances I viewed it as being not as writing, but as re-writing, which in essence is writing, sort of.

If we take the example of memory, which Tom brought up, if I may partake in a proof of sorts, or one of those stupid SAT analogy things. If we see memory as cerebral narrative, that in our minds, when we recall something we are "writing" into the neurons of our brains the narrative of a particular memory, then in fact we are constantly re-writing the narrative, as we discussed today the consistent inconsistency of memory. Even if we verbalize or record the memory in the same manner each time we recall it (details such as it was day, the bike was red, he was tall) the re-compiling of the memory in our brains, is still different each time we remember something. The more it is remembered the less authentic the memory becomes from the actual original event. If in fact a text is taken and re worked into a different context, a definition rewritten onto a wall next to a chair, magazine cut outs pasted onto a canvas a la ransom notes, or "scribes" basically re-writing what God has spoken, it indeed is, to me, a particular way of rewriting. And in this sense, like memory, rewriting is just as generated as writing is.

In addition, text put in different contexts, often are still related to, the phenomenological observer as text, the consciousness of text as still text remains. Now however, there as extra step of interpretation for the viewer. Not only is there still the aural quality in the brain, the reading of the text inside the brain, but also a human impuse to decode. Like in Rima's blog post of purloined letters, I think that any artwork which "destroys" text or reformats it, gives way to the human impulse of trying to reform it, to find codes inside of the destroyed text. Perhaps that was not the original intention of, let's say Tom's shorthand piece, but it is a human impulse to find text inside of text that looks wonky.

Language has to do with the structure of codes, and the way in which different symbols interact within a specific cultural context. Etching or drawing heiroglyphics into a stone slab or papyrus is in fact still writing, but drawing and writing. The images relate to a particular symbol, sound, or idea that, what I believe happens in every language, can only be completely understood by the culture of which is was created and evolved in. This "text" is about the relationship between image and text, and the content is directly related to the image. A wonky textual art piece is an evolved hieroglyph of the English alphabet.

Like....Rebus! These refer to either those images that sound like words that make a sentence, or those puzzles where text turns into image and back into text:







Fun! Here's more, a website for kids!
http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/braintpics.htm












And here's something extra. My brother's CV website which plays with language a bit. Doesn't really pertain to any conversation we've had (maybe internet "space") but I just thought his love for language and whimsy turned his science minded website into a language text art piece of sorts.