Personally I think it very important to look to movies for love, for a thinking of love, in fact if it is not immediately within the family where else will you look towards, what will you listen to? In the age of the search bar (which obviously I am not against at the level of knowledge), it is nice to listen to this, since the word love need not appear for what we listen to to be about love - the results of the search are immediately present in the act of listening: to immediately listen for, and with, love, to prepare the organ of the ear to listen for it. We can say that the we exists without having to at first make the distinction between two bodies, but maybe we can say there are two voices in the sounds we are hearing. What is important is that there are no bodies in front of us when listening to this. I listened through headphones, and was reminded of talking on the phone with someone you want to be with, that you are not within your body when you do so. To generate new organs to listen with. Two quotes from Marx: “If you love without evoking love in return” + “Just as music alone awakens in man the sense of music, and just as the most beautiful music has no sense for the unmusical ear” - the preparation of new organs to be able to be able to hear - retroactively and in the process of determination, there are no boundaries, no inherent limitations to the organs we can create to be able to continue, ears without bodies, the infinite production of new organs without bodies - that the sexual disjunction of the two in love is this difference: the difference in two (sexual) organs is clearer in thinking the two attempting to create infinitely new organs to interact, and they are different infinities so it is tough to assign measure, or rather, exchange- it is not reducible simply to exchange and use, we are attempting to invent a new world of appearances with our new organs, thus not in the non-world of market. In listening I wonder about the spaces that this will play. Listening to it I am reminded of Wallace Stevens’ ‘description without place’ since this is the question, how to describe new organs that cannot be placed in the space of exchange, that is the struggle at least as I understand it: how to create spaces to be in love, it is a very concrete struggle as it leads to the question, can you only love if you can afford a space, afford some property to be with your lover when jobs are disappearing and, barring UBI, is love only for the rich, who can afford a space? Who do you listen to? At one point does the family, the friends, the state, etc become some-one to listen to that can interrupt the immanent two you are attempting to create? When can you start listening? I think the scandal of Freud is also: children understand what love is - I mean ask any child of divorce and at 4 years old they know absolutely what has happened (and this question of age in relation to truth, there are geniuses of math who are young, those playing violin at 2 years old, etc.) The movement here: falling in love - in love - fights - break-ups - reunions - i love you - doubts - betrayal - loss (and here I am assuming that this is at the level of being, at the level of appearing there can be different orders) - this movement requires (the creation of) spaces to be able to do this. You cannot fight and break up and i love you and doubt and reunite in front of everyone (since every-one is not and cannot be totalized). If we had worlds enough, and time - there is no immanent end to the organs we can create and the new worlds of appearances that come with it, there is no capital R reason why love needs to end, we just exhaust the worlds - so it is good to listen to some sayings subtracted from the worlds they appear, and know they are true, because we need to start with some philosophical forcing, in anticipation of the loves to come from without and within since in love there is the moment of opening and closing where it is difficult to see which is which so you have to listen, and also speak, so maybe you can still create new worlds, to house the silences as well. Two voices, two silences, and the names are only known by the lovers themselves.
"Partly inspired by Marclay’s The Clock" - what I remembered most about it, I was in Toronto seeing it with my friend, and it is the same time zone as Montréal where I was living at the time, so it was difficult to say when I leave The Clock, and it reminded me of the myth of the cave, as in, how do I know I am outside the cave? In fact the claim of exteriority is a pure cut. For example, at 3:29pm, we do not simply see one clock at 3:29pm, but at least two. We also do not cut from a 3:29pm to another, but the moment the clock strikes 3:29pm, twice. This is not an isolated incident. At 9:10pm we donʼt even see a clock, instead we see someone counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and the phrase “9,10” counts-as-now. In the first case there is the possibility of perhaps for every image that shows 3:29pm, that is, every image belonging to 3:29pm, but this also includes the clock becoming 3:29pm, as well as the possibility of showing the seconds in between, milliseconds, or any distinction whatever. In this way, the set of parts concerning any time whatever exceeds the set itself. Inclusion is in excess to belonging. But by how much? At another point, around 9:15pm, a watch is “regulated” (these are the words of the woman ʻfixingʼ a manʼs watch in the scene to coincide with the time). And at another point in the same hour, there is a close-up of a watch whose hands change by will of the person with the watch. Thus what succeeds a particular time can be absolutely chosen. It is never clear how much the inclusion of all the times that exist within a particular time exceeds the time itself, but it is clear it can be decided, as long as it does indeed succeed the time before. These moments of ʻfixingʼ a clock show that even within the bad infinity of The Clock, it is made clear that time is a purely subjective choice, and at any moment we can break with repetition and enter the domain of succession. I would look at my phone during The Clock, and would only see the time if there were no messages, and seeing the time, I would still be in The Clock. If there was a text message, from someone I loved, and my pocket against my leg as an organ understands a vibration can be a ‘hey this might be a message from someone you love.’ I would no longer be in the cave, I can claim exteriority. To partially quote a friend: from immanence of immanence, to immanence of externality, to externality of immanence, to externality of externality -
To love is to assert the difference within the same which makes me identical to myself, an identity without identity, and it’s what we listen for, and with. After the invention of music, the ear will have been what it will have been through what it enables and what consequences it unfolds, unlawfully. So far in Masha Tupitsyn’s Love Sounds we have about 20 minutes, which will become a day, which brings up the question what is a true day, a day dedicated to thinking a truth in a world, when a day is only a day when we think our new organs in the future anterior, take time to listen and after love we will always have had a loving ear.
"New organs without bodies." Yes.
Isiah Medina on my forthcoming aural history of love, Love Sounds. The above video is the 21 min trailer.