Indiecades East 2013!

Took a break from thesis-ing and went to Indiecades. It was great!! (and most of all, we won against NYU in the Iron Game Challenge xD;;;;;)


game pass!! for being part of the Iron Game team, I got a speaker pass ^o^~


Museum of Moving Image – foyer wall projection (made of thousands of gifs)


Spelltower – It’s an OK game, kinda interesting mechanic but not complusive? I played about 2 rounds but that’s it


Bloop – super simple idea (tapping colours) but OMG SO FUN. ADDICTIVE. Played 8 rounds, twice with random strangers (whom I dragged to play with me)


Child of Eden – very pretty rhythm game; a cross between Everyday Shooter & Lumins(sp?) the PSP game with the blocks and music….



Vintage 3-D game, fucking cool!


Star Wars X-force


GALAXY FORCE!!! omg is amazing




Racing Squrriels – quite fun!!! I liked it a lot, the aesthetics super pretty and kinda reminded me of crash bandicoot

original Galaga!!!!


This one was another super pretty game – the queue was pretty long, so I didn’t get a chance to play but it looked cool :0


on webrings, warchalking and semantic web [part 1 of undigested convos]

[I’m copypasting from emails and memory, I haven’t really decided anything concrete yet but it feels important]

– on webrings-

R: Totally!! actually you know what I miss most? The idea of webrings! when you can link pages and pages and pages of seperate domains and websites together based on theme, and by clicking the “next” button move to a different page without going through links, and having a random function to bring you to a random page on the ring but still similar thematically – that was so awesome *__*

J: Oo yes, web rings are a fantastic concept, like warchalking, that has been lost to time. Internet d√©rives and getting lost in a webring of random pages has been replaced by the efficiency of search engines ūüė¶ Everything is contained in¬†search bubbles / is homogenized. There’s little randomness or ability to break out of your content bubble anymore, sigh. ¬†Which is why i constantly move to other web communities, I can’t stand tired memes and circle jerking.

R: Yea!! actually I kinda wonder if that system could be reformatted and applied to “new” web, to open “closed” platforms – like linking tumblr communities with livejournal communities etc etc so it becomes less fragmented cos people keep migrating and opening new accounts everywhere (which is really annoying) I really hate circlejerk and tripfagging too – I wonder if the whole fame-whoring started with fragmentation, cos there’s no way to condense yourself into one community (even within the same interest) but multiples or repeats of the communities i.e. a noodle tumblr + noodle livejournal + facebook like page for noodles + noodle twitter….. and what used to be social capital that you could build up becomes totally dispersed, there is zero transference or zero history.

J: ooo wow!! that is actually really cool, like opening portals to other web communities :0 isn’t that part of what the semantic “web 3.0” promises…? heh uhh web 3.0 :p but making relevant bridges between tumblr and livejournal, etc., creating “links” (via browser plugin?) [e.g. *someone on ___this other site___ created the same discussion topic*] could be interesting. search bubbles scare me in the same way that Microsoft patenting a map navigation feature to “avoid the ghetto” does!

yes!! that’s quite interesting that social¬†capital¬†has become distributed / fragmented. there’s no universal “leader board” to rank yourself against. people have to keep abandoning past online identities.¬†that’s sort of what Klout is trying to do by assigning a numbered score, but uh, that is so gross and extrinsic D: there’s hardly any meaningful feedback about ones online life / influence. ¬†i wanted to make an art project at some point that melds all my scattered online identities together on various communication platforms over the years. the language/acronyms/in-jokes used by each community that I’ve fallen into.

R: but if it’s only searching for relevant bridges, there won’t be the random site-jump factor which is a big part of webrings. yeah I use a lot of search engines, but the bubbling is crazy – remember when facebook started to clean up people’s feed selectively? that was pretty crazy.

last time there was Technorati, nowadays ranking is done by Alexa I think but yea it isn’t a good judge of actual social capital like BNFs and stuff since very little is really checked up on long-tail communities. i think Klout is pretty silly – keep getting requests to join, but half the fun of internets is the ability to move seamlessly from community to community and start all over again. i think that’s why tumblr is so popular actually, the reblog system for links and images is an auto “highfive!” and shows how many people got influenced or read it. the problem is the lack of control for info

J: yeah, random jumping is good, sometimes categorical randomness is better, like jumping between pages on similar/related topics. i can’t imagine how many porn sites outnumber anything else on the internet/how often you could land on one in a truly random internet jump. eek yeah, i was really hating on facebook when they were cleaning up feeds, glad they’ve gotten their act together somewhat. i really wish you could search on youtube for videos with the least page views, i love discovering bizarre outtakes from random people’s lives on there that they¬†accidentally¬†uploaded from their phone.

uhh Klout is trying to create an environment of perpetual anxiety of one’s¬†comparative¬†online life by assigning arbitrary rank…something really bugs me about this…along with limiting the ability to move seamlessly between identities, a culture of only following/reblogging/liking/responding or whatever to those with equal or higher Klout could occur, creating a bizarre classist internet society o_O

R: mmm yeah, webrings are more categorical random isn’t it? my fave crappy webring was this photography based one – it was photography alright, but some of them were just sooooooooo ridiculous lol like the webpage dedicated to pictures of household toilets.¬† actually you can for youtube – just hit advanced search, the default is “more relevant to least relevant” but you can swap it so the least relevant ones go on top. Same for page views. Sometimes if you just randomly search for shit you can get really weird videos like this old grandpa doing a How-To video on “drilling holes through thin mirrors” LOL that tutorial was actually useful though, I’ve actually watched it a bunch of times

probably cos instead of trying to produce things, it’s basically another version of popularity contest + facebook’s “gotta-catch’em all” friend mentality about perceived popularity. but the internet has always been built on class – not classicism as we usually think of it, but the idea of karma economy – that people did shit for free i.e. subbing, ripping, seeding etc because of the “feel good” you get from a community…. that feel good translates to a kind of social capital, but it’s still different because it’s not a translatable social capital i.e. the prestige of being a doctor carries you across areas of society, but the social capital produced within a microcommunity is limited by the scope of interest i.e being a BNF of sherlock will not give shit about a BNF from say, star trek

center for architecture

Yesterday I had a class at the center for architecture! the professor was part of the architecture firm that installed the work – it’s an amazing piece made of polyesterene rope and electroluminescent wire. So by day it’s a black and white string piece, by night the white ectroluminescent wire glows from phosphorus charge and creates planes of light. She and her partner constructed the design on rhino, then exported to processing until they came up with a final design and did 2 months of experimenting with various materials before settling on this one. Installation took a week and half.

Anyway this class is really great!!! I really hope I can join – it’s overfull and I’m waitlisted but I’m crossing my fingers on it ūüėÄ

don’t turn’em dark apples

The first time I get to use the word estuary – I see them birds; swallows, ducks and my first eagle! soaring across it, these wetlands; the marsh; these estuaries. Dry winter-worn weeds light up like fairytale gold – all of midas’ touch, full of sunlight and alchemy. How can something as bare as rock, as ordinary as moss, turn so beautiful? The train crosses the river, it’s like I’m skimming over the water – I can’t see my feet, or the tracks, only that weightlessness when both sides are brown and green and golden blue‚Ķ‚Ķ sometimes I wonder, how can I call myself an artist when nothing can compare to such sublime?

Photographs are so useless in times like this, how can a camera capture the delicate shifts of green, brown and ice? So dirty it looks, on digital. Nothing compares to the hints of jade unfurling on willows as spring creeps under dry wintry underbrush, the celadon green cool spanning across the murky brown, a touch of sunlight transforming to the purest jade. The waves that kiss the harsh rocks and ochre sand, burnt yellow almost white Рglows. Even the monoliths of steel bridges, highways snaking solid metal, whole and rusted; rising like ancient mammoths across the landscape……… somehow in their weight, their utilitarian industrial-ness, the very feeling of solemnness echoing the beauty of it all Рa detritus; this American landscape.

Most of all, I watch the clouds. I watch them and wonder if they’re my cousins – full of water and air; that maybe if I evaporated myself, I could join them up there‚Ķ.. soft and warm and curled up, basking in the sun. A pouf, a puff, a piffle. A choux pastry in the sky; drifting through cities of blue. Blue that gets deeper and bluer, blue like the purest ultramarine – lakes of it, pools of it endless flows of it; at the sky and back again. When I was a kid my favourite thing to do was lie in bed and stick my feet against the window and I’ll try to make steps until I was basically standing on my head – head in the ground (or pillow), feet in the sky. Lovely to pretend, anyway

I love this, this rarely seen America. I’m not American, but I think sometimes America doesn’t do itself justice – look at these photos, how beautiful it is! I tell everyone to take the train now. Don’t drive, see these places for yourself. See this rare America – wild and beautifully harsh, better than any national geographic photo or “Asian” exotica. Passing through it reminded me of this old cartoon – Night on Galatic Railroad;¬† I wasn’t old enough to understand the plot, but I would watch it endlessly, crying. I didn’t cry because it was sad, but because it was so beautiful that I wanted to be there, it was so wonderful that it hurt it not be real

And now… going through the landscape, I feel that sensation again; of being in a place so beautiful it hurts, overwhelmingly so. So beautiful it seems surreal, like a miyazaki dream. I fell asleep halfway, dreaming of my edge of the world, the secret places only I knew about, with the Hudson river gliding like a glittering serpentine route….. and woke up to the river again. Endless. Sometimes I feel so happy to be alive, happiness so rich it hurts to breathe for the sheer living of it

And Montreal? Montreal is like a wash of expressionist romantic painting – swathes of fog cut with luminous intervals, the graceful shadows blurring in the distance and every single shade of grey you could want. Watching it, I’m reminded of [ ] – grisalle, verdaccio, stand straight, tuck your feet, paint….. even now I think I can smell it, even through the layers of train glass and memory; the sharp turpentine and buttery oils, the tea (always black with a spot of milk; white man tea he called it) I haven’t painted in so long. Sometimes I think it’s still inside me, the desire that once tore my hands and hung it like a butcher’s beef, bled dry and yet – and yet again, it rises up vibrating and unworthywanted like an idiot who doesn’t know when to stop after being rejected. Love me, it says. Love me and take a brush again hah! I tell it. Tell it to Photoshop.

I love Montreal. I saw it in the worst season – mud and slush and rain and sleet and snow all at once, the streets were covered in slippery ice and spring frost (even fell a couple of times, clumsy self) I love it because it’s not perfect, that it looks like something from Caspar David Fiedrich’s paintings of gothic loveliness and sublime transcendence; that pine trees stand tall and darkly, and every sunset is a cathedral of worship for the most glorious light of all…….

Maybe the happiest thing I took away from this – nothing to do with work or really anything, only I’m happy I found so many things beautiful.

1 year older!!! (maybe not so much wiser)

Happy birthday to me! ūüėÄ

I’m so so so grateful for all the well-wishes, the cards & letters and wonderful food(!) care packages by all my friends (both online & offline – you know who you are!) and family. Thank you THANK YOU for being such awesome people especially to those who have been with me all the way ‚̧ There is just so much to be thankful for that I don’t know how to start – thanks for all the hand-holding and hugs and soups and making me eat/sleep properly for my own good; for all the tea and Eurovision shot games and ranting about the dreaded F word; Foucault. Thanks for the 4am skype calls, the offers of books, the emails full of crab emoticons and most of all thank you for loving me even though I make a mess out of things most of the time, (sometimes) unintentionally!

<—— is feeling heartfelt and sappy ;_;

The Image (new school for social research) 28th feb, panel recap

So today New School presented a panel with the theme of Image. Summary from website: “”..discuss the functions of images in the arts, technology, and media and the ways in which images shape our understanding of technical innovations and social and political issues.”

Featuring: David Greenberg, Michael Leja, Nicholas Mirzoeff, McKenzie Wark,

If you can’t already tell, I was there mainly for McKenzie Wark (because I had to read his books in undergrad as well as listen to my professors talk about him; I have no shame in stalking him on facebook, and curiousity wins out.) I paid attention to the entire panel though, so here are my brief summaries.

David Greenberg
Green’s article dealt with American presidency and their use of images as a form of activism, with particular reference to Theodore Roosevelt.¬† Before the 20th Century, American presidency was viewed as mostly an administrative role, and it was the Congress that passed the laws and agendas of the country. Roosevelt, he claims, was the one to change the idea of the office to an active or activist presidency i.e. where the president was a symbol of the people-public, a legislative leader, one with the people’s agenda. He was also the first image president – he coined the term “bully pulpit” after all. He turned the president’s secretary to include managing the press, as well as touring the country by train to give speeches. While press conferences didn’t exist at that time, he invited reporters to talk shop and gossip while he was in the barber, or having lunch and they in turn printed his speeches – literally the beginnings of a presidential media campaign.

Greenberg’s main point is the idea of Image As Action/Action as Image with the example of Roosevelt as the embodiment of “activity” both in the way he was portrayed by media (all the verbing!) as well as his role as the first activist president pushing for an agenda – supposedly the Great Democratic Public, whereby the personality of the president was the vehicle of the pushing.

It’s rather fascinating stuff, I really wish I knew more about American history to comment properly on it. Really enjoyed it though, makes me want to wiki it more

Michael Leja
His was really really interesting – the premise of his talk about about tracing the history of The Image; as in what an image meant over centuries. He divides the image into 3 main components: seeing, thinking and picturing. Using these components he comes up with several definitions of what “an image” meant over different periods in history. I really enjoyed his talk, I’m going to look him up — but I hope that he will add “experiencing” in his component categorising of image as well. I suppose seeing is a form of experiencing, but I’m specifically thinking of Rothko and to some extent Burger; where there are ways of seeing, and there is this idea of something having a “correct” way of seeing to give an experience.

1. From Aristotle —> Image As Mental Activity (Imagination)
———> the ‘false’ vs ‘true’ images
———> Image-mind

2. From Lucretius —> Image As Floating Skin
——> each object continues extudes a ‘skin’ of itself which floats, constantly hitting the eye
——> become popular again during advent of Photography; c/f Balzac who thought layers removed from spectral body and put on to photograph

3. From Descartes —> Image as a Retinal Projection
—–> Light moves into the eye
—–> Spiritual likeness; human-image as being key element to divinity; form made by human hands, image as essential spiritual mediator

4. From¬† Baudrillard —> Image as Commodity
——-> paused + sold

5.¬† From ??? —-> Image as an object of suspicion; a weapon
——-> Skepticism (Adorno, Hardt)
——-> battle waged using images

6. Digital Image proliferation —> move from image making to machine image (CV)
—–> “Even as images proliferate, they become less essential to the machine” (Virilio)
——> from CV to retina; the “compression” of images to become machine readable

I actually really really enjoyed this talk. I think it’s because it’s very applicable, and it’s also that tracing the history of ‘the image’ is such a fascinating prospect. I wish he added other things – like the idea of Image as Process, where with the advancement of technology in postproduction fluidity, you have “live editing” (especially in terms of video) where the image is a work-in-progress, constantly repeated until it loses its meaning (like a meme?) Also interesting would be if he addressed experiencing the image, which I mentioned earlier – the shock of the visual or more-than-visual.

Nicolas Mirzoeff
I have kinda a lot of problems with his talk, but I didn’t really know how to articulate it later (so maybe that’s why we crossed-hairs). His talk can’t really summed up easily because it seemed to go everywhere, which really bothered me. There was no central thesis statement to the presentation – not a catchphrase to look for, but a question to encompass The Image.

He began by describing his work on visuality – except he never defines it! He never goes into detail what is visual culture vs. aesthetics vs. image culture which kinda really bothered me. Next he brought up the example of seeing and spaces of seeing, who is seeing what and the control of what is seen and being seen. (example: “Move Along Nothing To See Here” by artist Guo Cai Qiang). He brings up the police as an authority force, and that looking is a form of exchange where we are made to look indirectly so that not to form that exchange.

Looking and being looked at creates images, where poliferation leading to banality of images, where oversaturation has lead to meaninglessness. He brings up the example of Guatanamo Bay images, where the shocking images did nothing to change and was not even brought up during the election. (that’s kinda funny, since panellist Greenway was all about “Image as Action//Action as Image”) OK I follow that……

… and then he does some kind of leap; and goes into a culture of visualisation and military strategising and I’m like: ‘da fuck?!’ He goes on about how Napolean follows the readings of Caryle, who said that those who can visualise can become ‘great men’ (I keep thinking of Aristotle here and his Megalopsuchos; and then Nietszche later with his Ubermensch) and only with flows of visuality can men lead. He uses the examples of biographies in bookshops, and the sales of these “great” figures as an example of how Caryle’s teachings can be still seen today. He calls these practices a ‘forming of complex’ where there is classification (mapping), seperation (walls in Bethlehem) and anesthetisation (military industrial complex, respect for status quo)…… actually I was thinking, a better example rather than just MIC would be the adaptation of military artifacts as a form of wearable design, such as Buzz Rickson’s reproduction of war memorabilia as a fashion statement or how Levi’s 509 were originally based on military uniforms. And these fashion statements forming a kind of ‘tribe’ of trendy wearers, a kind of watered down coolness. And then he talks about counter-culture aesthetics and the art of DIY, and how it compares to the sleekness of industrial product design.

Great! EXCEPT that the whole DIY aesthetic has been appropriated and it is, by itself, a form of aestheticatison JUST AS industrial design is. It’s still a signifier, and it’s not a real resistance against the commodification of culture.¬† Just because you make it out of cardboard and felt, does not make it anymore “real” than if I printed it on heavyweight french paper. Is the meaning lost to how it is presented? So if I were to present, “FUCK CAPITALISM” on perfectly rounded bevel edged metal sheets, I would be ‘non’ counterculture even though my message was against it? It’s totally baffling, especially since the appropriation of DIY-aesthetic is so readily apparent in hipsters (which isn’t even a new thing) and corporations like Etsy, Ebay and yes, Kickstarter. To be honest it kinda reminds me of how some people tried to push for a ‘maker aesthetic’ as though by wearing the clothes of being a ‘maker’ or ‘hacker’ you could become one; even though you didn’t know programming for shit.

To put to place: ‘most counterculture doesn’t change the framework but simply extends the shelf life of commodity culture, to be one with it‘. And to be perfectly honest, I didn’t even come up with that – it was by Ruby ??? (forgot surname) who was critiquing Bourriad’s concept of Post-Production and Relational Aesthetics. I just changed where ‘post-production’ stood with ‘counter-culture’.

OK I get this, and then….. JUMP! and he goes into climate change. And I’m like ‘da fuck’ part 2. At this point I can’t take the slides seriously anymore, some of his arguements seem balantly ludicruous to me. Climate change as a the main/sole cause of poverty? (which is what he suggested) Climate change as the main reason why more and more African populations are pushed below poverty line? I mean, climate change is a huge issue, but let’s not overlook some other factors like government corruption (!), lack of infrastructure resources, patenting of seed banks forcing small farmers to buy GM seeds, increasing use of bio-fuels leading to less food since it’s being grown as cash crops for fuel, speculation on commodity markets…. and so on. I just. I mean I just can’t. To blame drought and poverty PURELY on climate change is just a neglect of other important and pressing factors.

And then I decided you know, maybe he’s just not very good with presentations. Maybe he’s better one-on-one. I tried asking him about it, like what he thought about appropriation; his response: ‘When one space gets appropriated, then we will run to another space and open new public spaces within them.’ That made sense, kind of – but I was skeptical because I’m used to dealing with tech-shit everyday, and well technology will generally get more and more efficient (remember Engelbert’s prediction? YEA.) I mean, even his examples of OccupyWallStreet relied very heavily on controlled platforms like twitter and facebook as form of organisation, and as the net gets tighter the spaces will become smaller.

And his response was fairly rude to be honest. He implied that I wasn’t invested in the present-future (why wouldn’t I be? I’ll be living a lot longer, and it’s my future he’s talking about) and that my participation was ‘weaker’ than his because I was concerned about my status as a student and visa holder (so does he advocate to NYU and their international students to lose their visas and thereby his salary as tenure? I’ll give up my visa if he’s willing to throw his tenure away) and when I suggested that the Occupy movement was concentrated in North America and Arab nations because of the peculiar concentration of unemployment, large wealth disparity and huge youth population he waved it away even though I gave examples such as Philippines, Indonesia, China and Singapore. And when I said I was from Singapore so I knew what I was talking about, his response: “Well you’re from a fascist dictatorship.”

Well. What can you really say to that? By then I was tired of trying to make peace with this man, and rather offended. My first problem was with his sheer sense of righteousness, that he is infallibly and constantly right – that kind of belief and unwillingness of compromise is not a sign of counterculture or heroics but fundamentalism! This dude is totally a fundamentalist – not in the usual christian right, but in his extreme inability to comprehend other people’s views outside his own. That was a terrifying prospect, especially since this man is an educator. What does he educate I wonder, is he an evangelist in his zeal to convert students to his extremity?

The second problem I have is his constant over-generalising. To write off an entire country as “fascist dictatorship” is to assume that you know every single practice of how the country works and runs, and as much as I wish to escape the authoritarianism of Singapore I would never be so quick to judge on that. It’s akin to me saying: “Americans are all stupid and obese”. I suppose it’s inevitable that he thinks so, just as he thinks that all of Africa suffers from climate change induced poverty (which also begs the question – Africa is a continent, not a country, so which countries are actually suffering from drought? As far as I know, Mauritius, an African country, is still doing rather well for itself.) I’m not really angry, just kinda shocked at how someone who claims to be open-minded and into activism can be so narrow in his views.

McKenzie Wark
I knew what he would be talking about, since he writes about Situationists and is teaching a class on Situationist/Letterist International. It’s okay, because I really like the Situationists as well, although sometimes I wish we could move away from them – from ‘walking the city’ to ‘flaneur’ to ‘d√©tournement’. He started by giving a brief overview of Situationists, in particular Guy De Bord and focused how Situationists and their understanding as Image as a form of Systems – where the appearance (theatrical sense) formed a spectacle.

I think how he feels about Guy de Bord is exactly how I feel about Deleuze. I’ve been reading and writing about him since undergrad, and I can’t decide whether I love him or hate him but it always seems like I go back talking about him.

Actually what I really enjoyed was how he defined ‘d√©tournement’. I’ve come across it in Deleuze and other stuff, and have usually defined it as ‘an extraction of alternate meaning; the forming of resistance or appropriation from capitalist culture’ He defines it differently however, as: “a hijacking, a correction in the direction of hope.” which adds a kind of emotional/political layer that my definition didn’t have. Appearances, can be summarised as ‘that which appears is good, that which is good appears’ where the system of appearances is one of production to ‘appear’. (I keep thinking, would manifest be correct? how about rule 34?)

He went into culture next, about the rise of culture commons and how the Situationists imagined it – but not the corporations that would farm the data as well. Then he brought up the usual suspects – the computer as a form of architecture, disinterested in content but only in the channeling of it (control society 101? platform politics?), or as he said: ‘[computers only interested]… more bits!” and how this kind of mass production of mass media has created a kind of meta-media, where:

media—->meta-media<—->accessing you

So by participating in media, you also give it the power to access your data and personal information; the ‘space of controlling content’ would be where our future battles’ at. He also touched briefly on the future; that perhaps we would progress to an aesthetic economy where the appearance, or the aesthetic value would be a mark of ‘better’ or ‘quality’ and then he and Luja mentioned the term ‘beauty’ briefly – which was kinda interesting because ‘beauty’ (in Kantian sense anyway) is always a human characteristic in the way sublime is not.

My question, posed to the panel was how to reconcile image proliferation (and the meaningless of it) with repetition – where only with repetition, creates difference. Through difference, is forming-identity

The answer I got – wasn’t bad, but not really satisfactory? Wark answered it by saying that artwork or images need to don’t need to be the ‘best’ but rather it is the exemplary piece and cited Warhol and his multitude of screenprints. Later I approached him again, and got a better answer (well it’s a public panel with timelimits after all) and I think he agreed? with Deleuze that it’s the repetition that really makes it count, and we went off tangent to other things like the problems with prototyping as an unsustainable iterative process.

you know when you really idolise someone, meet them in real life and is disappointed? well, I was totally shocked that he really is as awesome as his writing is, and totally a cool guy.

….. and guess what???? I got a free book *AND* an autograph too. omg fangirl!moment Dave Carroll is probably laughing his brains out right now, but it’s OK (lol)

yah man, brb stanning harder than ever rn.

[eyedeer] babelmaker

with repetition, creates difference.

music; the jumping notes, a loop, a line. feeding it into ah-ee-ii-kii-oh do we make it polytonal or language? babbling babelspeak, formless noises that sound like words are not words, words fed and spat on; out-comes. take a paragraph and out comes music; take music and vomit prose. the colours: yellow, white, green, white – colour of lime and stucco; raised bar – why does the white have the texture of nutella? spread the sound, echoic; remember the mechanical birds? maybe cars are also birds. no. cars are cats cos engines purr, not sing. what sings? singer sewing machines. hahahahaha, maybe. maybe it’s like sewing; a babel that emboriders? do we do loop sitch count sitch the clacking as your feet presses forward? a different kind of composing. d-motion? flashing of blue sequins, wrong colours. you want it white and lime, maybe aqua? a breaking loop. where can i find loops that break down? maybe i’ll make my own loop, that breaks. a loop that takes perfectly positive polsively pious prose and …… [ ! ]

yeaaaaaaaaaaa let’s make a babelmaker for the deleuze class! (and not write 13 pages hurhurhurhur)