READER ‘*-j’ SAYS

‘An artefact in a museum is the perfect way to deconstruct this relationship between image and object. The artefact is only valuable by virtue of the historic context given at the time of its discovery, archive, preservation, conservation and display. All these stages of ‘meaning’ recontextualize the object, creating the significance by generating an image external by way of texts and other objects ect…so there are as many contexts for an object as there are interpretive strategies…

So the object exists because of its image, and the object is another violent representation of the already-violent image. Object and image are in a relationship of physical and ephemeral, original and reproduction of the self, and in the self’s relationship to violence.

So this meteorite or stone represents an event on a different time scale, or on the other side is considered stable and inanimate? I think one should assume that every conception and condition of an ‘Object’ corresponds to a specific form of the ‘subject’..That every organism is something akin to the articulation of a specific milieu or force field? How ever this would mean that the question of the soul needs to be posed….

So what if the soul was the medium for such events? after all, each of us is capable of distinguishing the difference between an un-animated conversation and an animated one…’