I'm só fascinated by this topic that in December this will become part of my new painting exhibition, to be called: Umwelt. Will try to find the book and buy it. Thanks James, Brian and the team that made this vídeo available for us.
If you listen to this and replace every "we" or "our" with "white men", then your aren't actually listening to what these gentlemen have to say. Allowing a preconceived agenda to affect your ability to absorb interesting ideas is doing yourself a disservice, and is in fact keeping you from "getting somewhere", or even anywhere. If you really think that Eno is acting as a mouthpiece of the patriarchy, then you have entirely missed the point of this conversation.
@@ferroxglideh5621 The above playful game is another perspective that can be taken to interpret what is being said within the video, and believe it or not... While I was expecting someone like yourself to be upset by that... A lot of the world would actually agree (not only women). You may have gone a little far with assuming that I was suggesting eno is the mouthpiece of patriarchy... he was the least of the issue in this conversation, quite harmless. While you might find the comment defeatist... It's these underlying realities of simply 'people' who talk too much and mash everything together as is convenient to sound clever - which need to be commented upon and questioned ongoing... Not just bypassed and to simply "move on" or "get over it". I very much listened to what they said - multiple times - and when I listen to what is being said... I understand a technique of nonspecifity hiding in apparently being very specific... Non specificity is an issue in the washing over of the specifics of place, which is an ongoing colonialism and I simply think that need to be questioned... Where does that come from? What are the true intentions? Who are these men? Where are they in what they say? Where is their true connectivity? The annoyance I have with the non specificity of 'we' or 'human' (say regarding the anthropocene and other newer materialisms) is that it again simplifies complexities and historical truths that have had ongoing implications in the treatment of place by (incidentally and very frequently, white male) artists... It's simply how it is. We are never excempt from the responsibilities of the past and we must be careful on how we approach the future as directly and specifically as possible if 'we' want to actually move ahead together honestly. Instead of distractions in clever complexity how about some fundamental truths? Is that really so much to ask... Or do others (First Nations Peoples, people of color, women) continually have to do this work? That's all the playful game above is about. I did find this talk very interesting but highly problematic... As I've explained. In not considering my game of word swap... Other perspectives are also denied. The point has definitely not been missed... Perhaps the directness is a little too much too comprehend.
@@fluxus_tr I believe that socalled "fundamental truths" are invariably complex, if they even exist, and maybe that is where our differences in opinion are located. Cheers!
