Clocker: For Amplified Clock, Performer with Galvanic Skin Response Sensor and Digital Delay System

LAUGHTER IN THE RUINS: THE KALEIDOSCOPE AS A PROBLEMATICTHEORETICAL AND VISUAL ExCESS IN CULTURAL THEORY, SCIENCE AND LANGUAGE THEORY Noel Gray (graduate student), Box 201, Holme Building, University of Sydney, 2006 N.S.W., Australia. Received 29 August 1990. Acceptedfor publication I7y RogerF. Malina. In this bachelor's thesis I explored the notion of excess in both theory and image, and how, by the calling back of displaced excesses in specific discourses, it is possible to critique the separation between theory and image [1]. The vehicle used for this examination was the kaleidoscope. This 'philosophical toy' was conceived by the mathematician, geometer , optics scientist and philosopher Sir David Brewster. A discussion is undertaken concerning the generation of the question informing this thesis: the question of excess. The philosophical work of Nietzsche (Birth of Tragedy) and of Kant (Critique ofJudgment) are briefly examined with the aim of isolating certain coherency problems in the ground of their respective arguments. These problems are shown to be dependent on the displacement of specific theoretical excesses. Both of these philosopher's works are mediated through Derrida's discussion of the frame in his The Truth in Painting. The latter part of this section briefly discusses Bataille's, Barthes's and Bachelard's notions of theoretical and/or visual excess in TheEye,Dominici , or the Triumph of Literatureand Poetics of space, respectively. Chapter 1 The theory ofvision advanced by the cultural theoristJonathan Crary is examined and critiqued on the basis of the problematic status of the Subject in this theory. The specific texts used ABSTRA.CTS are Noteson the Kaleidoscope and Stereoscope , Modernizing VISion and Techniques of the Observer. This critique, by recalling a displaced theoretical excess, demonstrates that Crary's argument is unable to sustain completely the corporeal integrity of the Subject on which his theory depends. Chapter 2 The two systems of geometry employed by David Brewster in his Treatiseon the Kaleidoscope are examined, and the actual use of the apparatus is argued to represent a chal1enge to the structural coherency of these two geometric theories or systems. Also, the problem of being able to distinguish between the so-calIed generating real image and its generated reflection is explored. Final1y, there is a discussion concerning an element that is internal to many kaleidoscopic images but fal1soutside the truth claims of the kaleidoscope's founding geometries. Chapter 3 A reverse procedure is adopted in this chapter, in that a theory is shown to hold more than (1) the image on which it is grounded and (2) the image that it is able to generate. The metaphor of 'kaleidoscope', in its referral to fragmentation and the like, is shown to be in excess of any image capable of being generated by a kaleidoscope . (The theory of metaphor advanced by Ricoeur in his The Rule of Metaphor, and the metaphor of kaleidoscope gleaned from common parlance , are utilized as representative of the kaleidoscope metaphor.) Chapter 4 This last section summarizes the previous chapters and also introduces the notion of the 'toy' as an excess both in theory and image. This chapter also discusses the imaging of infinity in the kaleidoscope. Additional Aspects Because of the extreme paucity of material on the kaleidoscope, I have included a historical sketch of the apparatus, along with a few words on its inventor. Also included is a series of photographs taken from Brewster's original text detailing his original designs. The bibliography includes a brief analysis of the primary sources used. These sources range from Brewster's Treatise (1819) to articles from the primary journal of the time, Annals of Philosophy. Specifical1y, I focus on the writings of Roget (of thesaurus fame) (1818), two other contributing authors (1818) and ReverendJames Wood's (Dean of Ely) ElementsofOPtics (1801). Brewster includes a commentary by Wood and also discusses Wood's optics in the original treatise. Reference 1. Noel Gray, "Laughter in the Ruins", B.A. honours thesis. Department of Fine Arts, Power Foundation, University ofSydney, Australia, 1989. CLOCKER: FOR AMPLIFIED CLOCK, PERFORMER WITH GALVANIC SKIN RESPONSE SENSOR AND DIGITAL DELAY SYSTEM Alvin Lucier (composer), 42 Pinewood Terrace, Middletown, CT 06457, U.S.A. Received 23 September 1988. Acceptedfor publication I7y RogerF. Malina. I...