more thoughts on these:
in terms of recent/current reading on speculative realism, seems to be connected to in-itself vs. for-itself. different kinds of space (textural vs. representational, grid vs. more organic lines). as a sort of impenetrable surface with lateral movement & no illusion of depth it seems to be more closely linked to an attempt to translate the space of the in-itself (?)
empty patches where graph paper shows through partly a materialist gesture, or about the process, or juxtaposition of entirely different kinds of space (that can’t be superimposed or resolved?)
through the slow drawing process time might also be implicated. but it’s a flat time: no progression or disturbance. nothing like an event in human terms (if they look a bit like pages from a comic, it’s one not only without a plot, but without anything else that would normally be associated with any kind of storytelling form. not really even a setting: contextless, undefined, with no edges).
the drawings also make me think of teshigahara’s woman in the dunes; the many shots of sand at different magnifications & as landscape. textural, & as something alien & completely opposed (not antagonistically, but in terms of its properties & nature), to the human characters (its nature remains unapproachable no matter how close to it they are). the same sense of something that seems to exist entirely on its own terms, with its own relations to other objects & within itself, like a whole plane of existence running parallel to, not touching, the human plane.
extract from in the dust of this planet, eugene thacker, zero books:
The world-in-itself is a paradoxical concept; the moment we think it and attempt to act on it, it ceases to be the world-in-itself and becomes the world-for-us. A significant part of this paradoxical world-in-itself is grounded by scientific inquiry – both the production of scientific knowledge of the world and the technical means of acting on and intervening in the world. Even though there is something out there that is not the world-for-us, and even though we can name it the world-in-itself, this latter constitutes a horizon for thought, always receding just beyond the bounds of intelligibility. Tragically, we are most reminded of the world-in-itself when the world-in-itself is manifest in the form of natural disasters. The discussions on the long-term impact of climate change also evoke this reminder of the world-in-itself, as the specter of extinction furtively looms over such discussions. Using advanced predictive models, we have even imagined what would happen to the world if we as human beings were to become extinct. So, while we can never experience the world-in-itself, we seem to be almost fatalistically drawn to it, perhaps as a limit that defines who we are as human beings. Let us call this spectral and speculative world the world-without-us.
In a sense, the world-without-us allows us to think the world-in-itself, without getting caught up in a vicious circle of logical paradox. The world-in-itself may co-exist with the world-for-us – indeed the human being is defined by its impressive capacity for not recognizing this distinction. By contrast, the world-without-us cannot co-exist with the human world-for-us; the world-without-us is the subtraction of the human from the world. To say that the world-without-us is antagonistic to the human is to attempt to put things in human terms, in the terms of the world-for-us. To say that the world-without-us is neutral with respect to the human, is to attempt to put things in the terms of the world-in-itself. The world-without-us lies somewhere in between, in a nebulous zone that is at once impersonal and horrific. The world-without-us is as much a cultural concept as it is a scientific one, and, as this book attempts to show, it is in the genres of supernatural horror and science fiction that we most frequently find attempts to think about, and to confront the difficult thought of, the world-without-us.
(extract via thoughtcatalog, haven’t got round to getting a copy yet because i bought graham harman’s book on hp lovecraft instead)