What do you think?
Rate this book
Notes on Conceptualisms
Literary Nonfiction. Poetics. In NOTES ON CONCEPTUALISMS, Place and Fitterman erect the first critical framework toward the understanding of conceptual writing, an emergent early twenty-first century literary movement. Elegantly parsed and carefully dissected, this work fleshes out many of the missing details proposed thus far regarding the methodologies and strategies of how to proceed with innovative writing. Both direct and oblique, NOTES is itself a self-reflexive work of conceptual writing in the guise of theory; or is it a work of theory in the guise of conceptual writing? By smartly straddling the creative and the critical, this book does twice the work toward our understanding of what it means to be contemporary--Kenneth Goldsmith.
80 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2009
10 people are currently reading
273 people want to read
About the author
Vanessa Place
47 books71 followersVanessa Place is a writer, a lawyer, and co-director of Les Figues Press. She is author of Dies: A Sentence (Les Figues Press, 2006), La Medusa (Fiction Collective 2, 2008), and Notes on Conceptualisms, co-authored with Robert Fitterman (Ugly Duckling Press, 2009). Her nonfiction book, The Guilt Project: Rape, Morality and Law is forthcoming from Other Press/Random House. Information As Material will be publishing her trilogy: Statement of Facts, Statement of the Case, and Argument. Statement of Facts will also be published in France by éditions è®e, as Exposé des Faits. Place is described by critic Terry Castle as “an elegant vessel for experimental American writing of an extraordinarily assured and ingenious sort.”
Author Interviews:
--http://avantwomenwriters.blogspot.com...
--http://www.joshmaday.com/2009/04/blak...
Author Interviews:
--http://avantwomenwriters.blogspot.com...
--http://www.joshmaday.com/2009/04/blak...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
February 11, 2017
A Poorly Conceptualized Manifesto of Conceptualism
This book is a wreck. It has all the worst qualities of a grad-student theory manifesto: a collage of sources, willful contradictions, inadvertent contradictions, overdetermined graphics, leaps of argument, supposedly evocative breaks between aphoristic paragraphs.
Here are four possibilities for reading such a text:
1. As a piece of conceptual writing. In this case the claims would not be referential, but about the obduracy and materiality of language itself. Such a reading would be in line with conceptual writing, but clearly not with the authors' intentions.
2. As a collection of aphorisms, like de la Rochefoucauld, Lichtenberg, Chamfort, Novalis, or Pascal. In that case, a reader would pick and choose images and ideas, and wouldn't mind the inconsistencies. But the text itself speaks against that because it keeps addressing its putatively single subject.
3. As a document of its time (2009) and place (those parts of North American academic experimental writing that are closest to visual art). In this case, ironically, a reader wouldn't need to consider how plausible or coherent the claims are, because they would be signs of their historical place. Ironic, because a nominalist, literalist reading is in line with conceptualism.
4. As "notes" that approach the utility of a manifesto or at least a position paper, and hope to adequately address and express an emerging field. This is more or less how the authors intend it. But how it is possible to read this text as theory? Consider some exemplary obstacles:
(4a) The text opens "Conceptual art is allegorical writing." The paragraph that follows says, among other things, that allegory is "saying slant what cannot be said directly," which is not a useful definition of allegory; the same paragraph also offers about a dozen other properties and possible definitions. The authors apparently don't know Stephen Melville's essay on the "re-emergence" of allegory, and they only mention Benjamin in a group with De Man and Stephen Barney, saying all three argue that allegory is about the "reification" of words. I think that in the history of the modern and postmodern reception of allegory, that opening page is a mess. Does it follow that "Words are objects"? That's what they claim, on the top of the next page, in an isolated one-sentence paragraph.
(4b) What kind of reading does an entry like this call for:
"Sophocles wanted a true language in which things were ontologically nominal. This is true in fiction and history.
"Fiction meaning poetry.
"Poetry meaning history.
History meaning the future state of having been." (p. 17)
Surely such a passage is a signal to the reader that the "Notes" cannot be read as theory or as argument. And yet they keep insisting they can be.
There's an interesting problem with recent theorizations of conceptual writing, especially Craig Dworkin's essay: there's a tendency to trace the lineage of conceptual writing to conceptual art. It's a problematic genealogy, which sometimes makes sense but often doesn't. In these "notes" there are references to many art world figures, including Hal Foster. An especially interesting moment is when the authors review some highlights of institutional critique, mentioning Andrea Fraser, and then wonder what conceptual writing has done by way of critiquing its institutions. They name some examples (p. 49), but there aren't many; and soon the text is back to its a-political literalism.
Of the four readings, the only one that makes sense to me is the third.
(Further remarks in the review of Place's "Dies: A Sentence.")
This book is a wreck. It has all the worst qualities of a grad-student theory manifesto: a collage of sources, willful contradictions, inadvertent contradictions, overdetermined graphics, leaps of argument, supposedly evocative breaks between aphoristic paragraphs.
Here are four possibilities for reading such a text:
1. As a piece of conceptual writing. In this case the claims would not be referential, but about the obduracy and materiality of language itself. Such a reading would be in line with conceptual writing, but clearly not with the authors' intentions.
2. As a collection of aphorisms, like de la Rochefoucauld, Lichtenberg, Chamfort, Novalis, or Pascal. In that case, a reader would pick and choose images and ideas, and wouldn't mind the inconsistencies. But the text itself speaks against that because it keeps addressing its putatively single subject.
3. As a document of its time (2009) and place (those parts of North American academic experimental writing that are closest to visual art). In this case, ironically, a reader wouldn't need to consider how plausible or coherent the claims are, because they would be signs of their historical place. Ironic, because a nominalist, literalist reading is in line with conceptualism.
4. As "notes" that approach the utility of a manifesto or at least a position paper, and hope to adequately address and express an emerging field. This is more or less how the authors intend it. But how it is possible to read this text as theory? Consider some exemplary obstacles:
(4a) The text opens "Conceptual art is allegorical writing." The paragraph that follows says, among other things, that allegory is "saying slant what cannot be said directly," which is not a useful definition of allegory; the same paragraph also offers about a dozen other properties and possible definitions. The authors apparently don't know Stephen Melville's essay on the "re-emergence" of allegory, and they only mention Benjamin in a group with De Man and Stephen Barney, saying all three argue that allegory is about the "reification" of words. I think that in the history of the modern and postmodern reception of allegory, that opening page is a mess. Does it follow that "Words are objects"? That's what they claim, on the top of the next page, in an isolated one-sentence paragraph.
(4b) What kind of reading does an entry like this call for:
"Sophocles wanted a true language in which things were ontologically nominal. This is true in fiction and history.
"Fiction meaning poetry.
"Poetry meaning history.
History meaning the future state of having been." (p. 17)
Surely such a passage is a signal to the reader that the "Notes" cannot be read as theory or as argument. And yet they keep insisting they can be.
There's an interesting problem with recent theorizations of conceptual writing, especially Craig Dworkin's essay: there's a tendency to trace the lineage of conceptual writing to conceptual art. It's a problematic genealogy, which sometimes makes sense but often doesn't. In these "notes" there are references to many art world figures, including Hal Foster. An especially interesting moment is when the authors review some highlights of institutional critique, mentioning Andrea Fraser, and then wonder what conceptual writing has done by way of critiquing its institutions. They name some examples (p. 49), but there aren't many; and soon the text is back to its a-political literalism.
Of the four readings, the only one that makes sense to me is the third.
(Further remarks in the review of Place's "Dies: A Sentence.")
July 21, 2009
In moving through various issues of conceptual art and their correlations to the written word this book enables authors to navigate through their work with so many specific and distanced points of light. In a way one could make each of these notes a prompt for a daily exercise or spend a lifetime focused on a single sentence. Either way it should be in every writers library or repertoire if they consider themselves contemporary; to be unfamiliar with this text is now archaic. Indeed one of the main conceits is that unfamiliarity no longer exists at all.
Read
May 17, 2015a good book for making up lists of books to read.
May 15, 2012
Vanessa Place is angry.
Angry, Vanessa Place constructs a baseball bat from words
And uses it to smash the words that have been leftover
The words are angry.
Angry words formulate a response:
"What is Vanessa's place?"
Angry, Vanessa Place constructs a baseball bat from words
And uses it to smash the words that have been leftover
The words are angry.
Angry words formulate a response:
"What is Vanessa's place?"
July 15, 2009
need to read again and again. didn't totally understand. love having a tiny cute blue book, though.
May 28, 2024
Like notes, it moves from point to point. The points flow, but remain discrete. Practising the very concept(s) it seeks to act as a 'primer' for, the book constantly jettisons 'images' outwards, both explicitly (its recommendation of different conceptual texts with one-word explanations) and implicitly (the amount of googling I found myself doing). True to Fitterman's words, it is a 'purposefully incomplete starting place' for someone like me, whose knowledge of conceptualism(s) is shallower than surface-level.
Nonetheless, it is an enjoyable read with sharp writing. Despite its short length, every page demands active participation. Contrary to the expectation of pure conceptual writing, the reader is not replaced by the thinker. Instead, one must perform both functions simultaneously.
Nonetheless, it is an enjoyable read with sharp writing. Despite its short length, every page demands active participation. Contrary to the expectation of pure conceptual writing, the reader is not replaced by the thinker. Instead, one must perform both functions simultaneously.
July 4, 2009
Not exactly groundbreaking, but a good reminder that there are people like us out there, trying to figure out what the hell it is we're doing exactly. Fits in your pocket, and will cause you to exclaim "Exactly!" from time to time, and "Uh, duh." from time to time, and yes, even "I'm not really buying that" on occasion. Worth picking up.
December 29, 2009
thesis: conceptual writing is allegorical writing.
among other things. notes. some overblown but there is a sense of humor here.
still chewing.
my 6th grade phys ed teacher said we should chew each bite forty times before swallowing. should you lose count, try a kami kami sensor.
among other things. notes. some overblown but there is a sense of humor here.
still chewing.
my 6th grade phys ed teacher said we should chew each bite forty times before swallowing. should you lose count, try a kami kami sensor.
December 9, 2010
theory in your pocket.
March 1, 2014
Book in which we admit the world is absurd and those that claim authority should not be trusted.
September 26, 2014
need to reread
Read
July 4, 2009Interesting the part about Courbet, James, & radical mimesis.
November 11, 2013
There are two levels of movement in Vanessa Place and Robert Fitterman's Notes on Conceptualisms, a thin, electric blue volume of scattered comments and essays on the topic from each author. The two movements explore differing interpretations of the title of the book itself: what is a note? Is it a dash of thought, a single stroke -- the expression of an isolated tone in a piece of sheet music? Or is it a microcosm, a fragment of a complete whole that, while concentrated, nonetheless represents something with an inherent complexity?
NoC is filled with dense analysis that grasps at fullness and seems, always, to be one piece of evidence away from reaching it. "Conceptual writing mediates between the written object (which may or may not be a text) and the meaning of the object by framng the writing as a figural object to be narrated," announces the book in the first extended iteration of its thesis. "Narrativity, like pleasure, is subjective in the predicate and objective in the execution."
With the use of a lone independent clause, the interpretative possibilities of this pair of sentences is thrown a syntactical curveball. "Like pleasure" reframes the cerebral as humanistic, even sensual. Whose pleasure? The reader's? Who else? Why are we concerning ourselves with pleasure amidst analysis?
The noun leaps out for its simplicity among sentences full of 10-cent words. Its suggestion is complicit, even judgmental. "Pleasure," slid between academic prose, becomes invasive. The suggestion of pleasure during theory can't help but feel a little pornographic.
It is this self-conscious undercutting that forms the second tier of NoC, beneath the heavy lifting (realized as condensed "notes" on conceptual writing) which are the text's main focus. For every collection of paragraphs on the nature of allegory and mimesis as they relate to conceptualism, there are a scattering of "zingers" -- lines of text thrown in for their emotional, rather than intellectual, resonance:
"Radical mimesis is original sin."
"The skull is the heart. The same may be said for the image of an iPad."
"Nevermore=nevertheless."
To varying degrees, these Youngmanisms relate to the ideas that come before and after them, but just as often they simply add to a landscape of fragments and quotes, provided without context. In an equally Marksonian move, we are also given regular reminders of the text's necessary tilt towards failure as an aim of conceptualism itself.
"Failure on all fronts; one that cannot exist save in its constant manifestation of constant absence--the citation without content, with partial content, with mutilated content. Language was the first strike of the Final Solution."
As a Cliff's Notes of conceptual writing, it is apparent the extent to which NoC works to cover its bases. "Conceptual writing is sometimes typing. Conceptual writing is sometimes grammar. Conceptual writing is annoying," it states. Again, there is an everything/nothing dichotomy at play, a sense of importance that fears both adequate evidence, and critical analysis. Is the invocation of the Final Solution an establishment of cultural significance, or a knowing wink at Godwin's Law? If the former, the hyperbole becomes pithy without further explanation; if the latter, the continuing self-awareness of the narrative voice loses its bid for familiarity, merely becoming coy.
And while there are much longer passages that attempt to balance the cavalier with a more classic theoretical approach, there is rarely a concern for followthrough. Notes on Conceptualisms is less a treatise and more a manifesto, albeit one for a school of writing that already overflows and is perhaps made up entirely of the same. From the first, NoC is concerned with allegory, and models itself as such. With the belief being here that "one does not need to 'read' the work as much as think about the idea of the work," NoC similarly refuses detailed research in favor of declarations; musings about an idea about ideas.
In this, NoC offers itself not so much as work to be absorbed as one to be thumbed through--the tendency to skip through exegesis in favor of the next quotable snippet almost seems more in keeping with the texts' aims. Moreover, the question becomes whether or not the work is to be read at all, or whether the appearance of a scholarly text is here the goal rather than the generation of practical content.
Consider this passage, spread out over several pages with an assortment of examples and asides:
"Note the allegorical difference between appropriation techniques that elevate the banal...and works that level the elevated...note what degree the authorial framing of text as art removes aesthetic control from the reader...note the regime under which conceptual writing has flowered is the repressive market economy...capitalism has a knack for devouring and absorbing everything in its path--including any critique of capitalism."
With the bells and whistles removed, it's questionable whether NoC's niched audience will feel any sense of revelation at the connection here between art and capital. "This is a banal observation, nonetheless true," the text is quick to offer within the same passage. And perhaps Notes' mercurial sense of purpose lies in the fact that is less concerned with breaking new ground than with functioning as, as Fitterman states in the introduction, "a primer"--a fraternity handbook for the initiated to pass down to initiates.
This leads into the book's concerns over the use of mechanical reproduction of conceptual work (and later, mechanical generation of conceptual work via the internet). Here, the tools of capital are reappropriated on the page as an extension of the reappropriation taking place in the development of the conceptual writing under discussion. "In search-engine poetry...both construction and constraint are informed by market needs and consumer inquiries (a procedural loop)...Conceptual writing reinserts the malignancy while re-enacting the purge."
Again, NoC takes pains to paint the obvious in tones of the radical, with dubious results. There's little to be gained in the ways the book rehashes conceptual writing reenactment of capital, and additional nuance and detail is needed to provide new tension. If the text's inability to add depth to the conversation is, in fact, an intentional failure, then the reader is left with very little agency. To revel in the text or be repelled by it are both conditions of the work, which throws into question what essential difference exists between it and the baroque in the first place.
It may be that NoC's interest in uniting the disparate is the secret heart of the work--to render all writing as conceptual, and none of it. Everything/nothing. "Allegorical writing," it reads (and by this it means conceptual writing as well), "does not aim to critique the culture industry from afar, but to mirror it directly...the critique is in the reframing. The critique of the critique is in the echoing."
Which leaves us with our own version of Godwin's Law, this time replacing Hitler for Duchamp: as a conversation about conceptualism grows longer, the inevitably of a comparison to Duchamp's Fountain approaches 1. The definition of art is in the frame.
But if Fountain thrust the question of conceptual art into a public forum, Notes reveals that no one is more concerned with what makes conceptualism than conceptualists themselves. I For a "primer," it's quite the insider text, requiring a working knowledge of conceptualist canon. It is reflective rather than instructive--and again, escapes critique because failure to achieve its aims is one of its aims.
The constant paradox of the work -- analysis without, critique without, theory without -- is not just exhausting. What is undermined is not just the work's content, but the passion of its argument. At its worst, Notes feels cute. It feels like a game that believes itself entertaining for the impossibility of winning it.
NoC is filled with dense analysis that grasps at fullness and seems, always, to be one piece of evidence away from reaching it. "Conceptual writing mediates between the written object (which may or may not be a text) and the meaning of the object by framng the writing as a figural object to be narrated," announces the book in the first extended iteration of its thesis. "Narrativity, like pleasure, is subjective in the predicate and objective in the execution."
With the use of a lone independent clause, the interpretative possibilities of this pair of sentences is thrown a syntactical curveball. "Like pleasure" reframes the cerebral as humanistic, even sensual. Whose pleasure? The reader's? Who else? Why are we concerning ourselves with pleasure amidst analysis?
The noun leaps out for its simplicity among sentences full of 10-cent words. Its suggestion is complicit, even judgmental. "Pleasure," slid between academic prose, becomes invasive. The suggestion of pleasure during theory can't help but feel a little pornographic.
It is this self-conscious undercutting that forms the second tier of NoC, beneath the heavy lifting (realized as condensed "notes" on conceptual writing) which are the text's main focus. For every collection of paragraphs on the nature of allegory and mimesis as they relate to conceptualism, there are a scattering of "zingers" -- lines of text thrown in for their emotional, rather than intellectual, resonance:
"Radical mimesis is original sin."
"The skull is the heart. The same may be said for the image of an iPad."
"Nevermore=nevertheless."
To varying degrees, these Youngmanisms relate to the ideas that come before and after them, but just as often they simply add to a landscape of fragments and quotes, provided without context. In an equally Marksonian move, we are also given regular reminders of the text's necessary tilt towards failure as an aim of conceptualism itself.
"Failure on all fronts; one that cannot exist save in its constant manifestation of constant absence--the citation without content, with partial content, with mutilated content. Language was the first strike of the Final Solution."
As a Cliff's Notes of conceptual writing, it is apparent the extent to which NoC works to cover its bases. "Conceptual writing is sometimes typing. Conceptual writing is sometimes grammar. Conceptual writing is annoying," it states. Again, there is an everything/nothing dichotomy at play, a sense of importance that fears both adequate evidence, and critical analysis. Is the invocation of the Final Solution an establishment of cultural significance, or a knowing wink at Godwin's Law? If the former, the hyperbole becomes pithy without further explanation; if the latter, the continuing self-awareness of the narrative voice loses its bid for familiarity, merely becoming coy.
And while there are much longer passages that attempt to balance the cavalier with a more classic theoretical approach, there is rarely a concern for followthrough. Notes on Conceptualisms is less a treatise and more a manifesto, albeit one for a school of writing that already overflows and is perhaps made up entirely of the same. From the first, NoC is concerned with allegory, and models itself as such. With the belief being here that "one does not need to 'read' the work as much as think about the idea of the work," NoC similarly refuses detailed research in favor of declarations; musings about an idea about ideas.
In this, NoC offers itself not so much as work to be absorbed as one to be thumbed through--the tendency to skip through exegesis in favor of the next quotable snippet almost seems more in keeping with the texts' aims. Moreover, the question becomes whether or not the work is to be read at all, or whether the appearance of a scholarly text is here the goal rather than the generation of practical content.
Consider this passage, spread out over several pages with an assortment of examples and asides:
"Note the allegorical difference between appropriation techniques that elevate the banal...and works that level the elevated...note what degree the authorial framing of text as art removes aesthetic control from the reader...note the regime under which conceptual writing has flowered is the repressive market economy...capitalism has a knack for devouring and absorbing everything in its path--including any critique of capitalism."
With the bells and whistles removed, it's questionable whether NoC's niched audience will feel any sense of revelation at the connection here between art and capital. "This is a banal observation, nonetheless true," the text is quick to offer within the same passage. And perhaps Notes' mercurial sense of purpose lies in the fact that is less concerned with breaking new ground than with functioning as, as Fitterman states in the introduction, "a primer"--a fraternity handbook for the initiated to pass down to initiates.
This leads into the book's concerns over the use of mechanical reproduction of conceptual work (and later, mechanical generation of conceptual work via the internet). Here, the tools of capital are reappropriated on the page as an extension of the reappropriation taking place in the development of the conceptual writing under discussion. "In search-engine poetry...both construction and constraint are informed by market needs and consumer inquiries (a procedural loop)...Conceptual writing reinserts the malignancy while re-enacting the purge."
Again, NoC takes pains to paint the obvious in tones of the radical, with dubious results. There's little to be gained in the ways the book rehashes conceptual writing reenactment of capital, and additional nuance and detail is needed to provide new tension. If the text's inability to add depth to the conversation is, in fact, an intentional failure, then the reader is left with very little agency. To revel in the text or be repelled by it are both conditions of the work, which throws into question what essential difference exists between it and the baroque in the first place.
It may be that NoC's interest in uniting the disparate is the secret heart of the work--to render all writing as conceptual, and none of it. Everything/nothing. "Allegorical writing," it reads (and by this it means conceptual writing as well), "does not aim to critique the culture industry from afar, but to mirror it directly...the critique is in the reframing. The critique of the critique is in the echoing."
Which leaves us with our own version of Godwin's Law, this time replacing Hitler for Duchamp: as a conversation about conceptualism grows longer, the inevitably of a comparison to Duchamp's Fountain approaches 1. The definition of art is in the frame.
But if Fountain thrust the question of conceptual art into a public forum, Notes reveals that no one is more concerned with what makes conceptualism than conceptualists themselves. I For a "primer," it's quite the insider text, requiring a working knowledge of conceptualist canon. It is reflective rather than instructive--and again, escapes critique because failure to achieve its aims is one of its aims.
The constant paradox of the work -- analysis without, critique without, theory without -- is not just exhausting. What is undermined is not just the work's content, but the passion of its argument. At its worst, Notes feels cute. It feels like a game that believes itself entertaining for the impossibility of winning it.
June 21, 2018
...and a word is worth a thousand pictures. Use them all.
These notes are powerful insights on how creative writing has been evolving, between meaning and visuality. It's a very fresh and pleasant book to read.
These notes are powerful insights on how creative writing has been evolving, between meaning and visuality. It's a very fresh and pleasant book to read.
May 11, 2013
Was considering assigning this for a class I'm putting together, but though there are moments that are very interesting, as a whole the book fell short of my hopes. The Fitterman section seemed a little too enamored of its own brilliance, as evidenced by the reliance on fairly obtuse language and a lot of the kind of name-dropping reference that is fine for notational purposes but I think is really a kind of self-satisfied flouting of ones' own library. Though I had read most (not all) of the authors referenced, and so knew enough to decipher the encoded references, I would never expect my students to have to wallow through that. Still, a great source for other texts I might have them look at, so that's useful anyways.
Vanessa Place's section was much more engaging. But there was less engagement with the idea of conceptualism, more joy in the act of writing a kind of manifesto but less to say perhaps.
Still, for anyone interested in conceptual writing this is a great little text to read over.
[Read the full review: http://alluringlyshort.com/2013/05/11...]
Vanessa Place's section was much more engaging. But there was less engagement with the idea of conceptualism, more joy in the act of writing a kind of manifesto but less to say perhaps.
Still, for anyone interested in conceptual writing this is a great little text to read over.
[Read the full review: http://alluringlyshort.com/2013/05/11...]
June 16, 2011
Reading this alongside Adrienne Rich, _Poetry & Commitment_. An entirely different "take" on the problem of the political and the aesthetic.
*
Just don't know how to take this manifesto (if that's what it is). . . If it's serious, which I think it is, then I have real reservations . . . which can be summed up with the bizarre proposition of the "sobject" of conceptual poetics . . . On the other hand, if this is just meant to be funny, a good laugh, then I did at times giggle. If it's both--some kind of Joycean joco-seriousness--then I find that a bit too easy. Again, just don't know how to take it.
*
Just don't know how to take this manifesto (if that's what it is). . . If it's serious, which I think it is, then I have real reservations . . . which can be summed up with the bizarre proposition of the "sobject" of conceptual poetics . . . On the other hand, if this is just meant to be funny, a good laugh, then I did at times giggle. If it's both--some kind of Joycean joco-seriousness--then I find that a bit too easy. Again, just don't know how to take it.
September 21, 2013
leaning towards the bloody than the bland, almost: bloooooody. there are hardly tears; there were more lachrymal conceptions. fortunately, the concept was thick and i think there was mention of zizek and, so many echoes of ranciere. almost fascination. and kilometric examples! which is forbiddenly fruitful, for someone who wants to usher an arrogant, a deadpanly arrogant novelty
February 24, 2015
Disjointed snippets of half-formed ideas on conceptual writing that read like post-structural pastiche run through a Markov chain generator. Still, the realization that conceptual writing is a crisis of interiority and dominate viewpoints is a self-aware critique seemingly lost on others.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews