the inconsistency of the self, the multi-directionality of it makes it hard to pin it down in a comprehensive text. hence using such a medium as a research tool, and plus as the object of the research bound to produce anecdotal, dispersed outcomes, `messy texts` as Norman Denzin (1997, Interpretive Ethnography) would call it, where the connections between parts, transitions are somewhat floating.
the practice of art, can imply an experience, rather than claim to know
and represent it. It approaches to its trophy , it is always in the approaching, in experimenting. not claiming to grasp it tightly, so that there is no space for it any more to move.
in a sense, my struggle of understanding this new
everyday language, the inability to grasp it, be a fluent speaker of it
is echoed in this acceptance of the impossibility of knowing, the
problem of representing.
given that i have to use this language, the text, I should consider what it does to doing, to practice.
writing does something else, it can depict, unearth, reveal something else. there will be always gaps between them, bits that cannot be covered. from those gaps, new possibilities will arise.
the more I attempt to grasp the practice with words, keywords, the more i try to find ally, the suspicious I become about my practice, this research methodology, the whole research.
doubt as an anti-body to truth