Black and Blur

This page intentionally left blank

 consent not to be a single being

Black
and Blur

FRED MOTEN

duke university press  durham and london  2017

© 2017 Duke University Press
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of Amer­i­ca on
acid-­free paper ∞
Designed by Amy Ruth Buchanan
Typeset in Miller Text by Westchester
Publishing Services

Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­

Publication Data
Names: Moten, Fred, author.
Title: Black and blur / Fred Moten.
Description: Durham : Duke University
Press, 2017. | Series: Consent not to be a
single being ; v. [1] | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: lccn 2017024176 (print) |
lccn 2017039278 (ebook)
isbn 9780822372226 (ebook)
isbn 9780822370062 (hardcover : alk. paper)
isbn 9780822370161 (pbk. : alk. paper)
Subjects: lcsh: Blacks—­Race identity—­
United States. | African Americans—­Race
identity. | African diaspora.
Classification: lcc e185.625 (ebook) |
lcc e185.625 .m684 2017 (print) |
ddc 305.896/073—­dc23
lc rec­ord available at https://­lccn.loc​.­gov​
/­2017024176

Cover art: Harold Mendez, but I sound

better since you cut my throat, 2013–2014.
Digital print transferred from unique
pinhole photo­graph. 20″ x 24″. Courtesy
of the artist.
 CONTE NTS

Preface / vii 14. Amuse-­Bouche / 174

Acknowl­edgments / xv 15. Collective Head / 184

16. Cornered, Taken, Made to

1. Not In Between / 1
Leave / 198
2. Interpolation and
17. Enjoy All Monsters / 206
Interpellation / 28
18. Some Extrasubtitles for
3. Magic of Objects / 34
Wildness / 212
4. Sonata Quasi Una
19. To Feel, to Feel More, to
Fantasia / 40
Feel More Than / 215
5. Taste Dissonance Flavor
20. Irruptions and Incoherences
Escape (Preface to a Solo by
for Jimmie Durham / 219
Miles Davis) / 66
21. Black and Blue on White.
6. The New International of
In and And in Space. / 226
Rhythmic Feel/ings / 86
22. Blue Vespers / 230
7. The Phonographic Mise-en
Scène / 118 23. The Blur and Breathe
Books / 245
8. Liner Notes for Lick
Piece / 134 24. Entanglement and
Virtuosity / 270
9. Rough Americana / 147
25. Bobby Lee’s Hands / 280
10. Nothing, Every­thing / 152

11. Nowhere, Everywhere / 158

Notes / 285
12. Nobody, Every­body / 168
Works Cited / 317
13. Remind / 170
Index / 329
This page intentionally left blank
 PR E FACE

The essays in Black and Blur attempt a par­tic­u­lar kind of failure, trying hard
not to succeed in some final and complete determination ­either of them-
selves or of their aim, blackness, which is, but so serially and variously, that
it is given nowhere as emphatically as in rituals of renomination, when the
given is all but immediately taken away. Such predication is, as Nathaniel
Mackey says, “unremitting”—­a constant economy and mechanics of fugitive
making where the subject is hopelessly troubled by, in being emphatically
detached from, the action whose agent it is supposed to be.1 Indeed, our
resistant, relentlessly impossible object is subjectless predication, subject-
less escape, escape from subjection, in and through the para­legal flaw that
animates and exhausts the language of ontology. Constant escape is an ode
to impurity, an obliteration of the last word. We remain to insist upon this
errant, interstitial insistence, an activity that is, from the perspective that be-
lieves in perspective, at best, occult and, at worst, obscene. T ­ hese essays aim
for that insistence at its best and at its worst as it is given in objects that
­won’t be objects ­after all.
In its primary concern with art, Black and Blur takes up where In the
Break: The Aesthetics of the Black Radical Tradition leaves off.2 In the Break
was my first book and is, therefore, the cause and the object of a ­great deal
of agony. For instance, I suffered, and continue to suffer, over the first sen-
tence, which I ­can’t repeat ­because it was meant to be second. I can only tell
you what the first sentence was supposed to be: “Per­for­mance is the re­sis­
tance of the object.” Sadly, agony over the absence of the right sentence is not
lessened when I consider that ­there is something wrong with it, and when
I recognize that most of the writing collected in Black and Blur—­and its
companion volumes, Stolen Life and The Universal Machine—­attempts to
figure out what’s wrong with it and, moreover, to understand the relation-
ship between the devotional practice that is given in recitation of the sen-
tence “blackness is x” and the analytic practice that moves to place ­under
an ineradicable erasure the terms per­for­mance and object. ­There is a rich,
rigorous, power­ful, and utterly necessary analytic of anti-­blackness that en-
ables that devotional practice. But to be committed to the anti-­and ante-­
categorical predication of blackness—­even as such engagement moves by
way of what Mackey also calls “an eruptive critique of predication’s rickety
spin rewound as endowment,” even in order to seek the anticipatory changes
that evade what Saidiya Hartman calls “the incompatible predications of the
freed”—is to subordinate, by a mea­sure so small that it constitutes mea­sure’s
eclipse, the critical analy­sis of anti-­blackness to the celebratory analy­sis of
blackness.3 To celebrate is to solemnify, in practice. This is done not to avoid
or ameliorate the hard truths of anti-­blackness but in the ser­vice of its vio-
lent eradication. ­There is an open set of sentences of the kind blackness is
x and we should chant them all, not only for and in the residual critique of
mastery such chanting bears but also in devoted instantiation, sustenance
and defense of the irregular. What is endowment that it can be rewound?
What is it to rewind the given? What is it to wound it? What is it to be given
to this wounding and rewinding? Mobilized in predication, blackness mobi-
lizes predication not only against but also before itself.
The ­great importance of Hartman’s work is given, in part, in its framing
and amplification of the question concerning the weight of anti-­blackness
in and upon the general proj­ect of black study. It allows and requires us
to consider the relation of anti-­blackness as an object of study—if ­there is
relation and if it is the object—to the aim of her, and our, work. Any such
consideration must be concerned with how blackness bears what Hartman
calls the “diffusion” of the terror of anti-­blackness. For me, this question of
bearing is also crucial and In the Break is a preliminary attempt to form it.
Subordination is not detachment. Disappearance is not absence. If black-
ness ­will have never been thought when detached from anti-­blackness, nei-
ther ­will anti-­blackness have been thought outside the facticity of blackness
as anti-­blackness’s spur and anticipation; moreover, neither blackness nor
anti-­blackness are to be seen beneath the appearances that tell of them. The
interinanimation of thinking and writing collected ­here might be character-
ized as a kind of dualism, but I hope it would be better understood by way of
some tarrying with Hartman’s notion of diffusion, which is inseparable from
a certain notion of apposition conceived of not as therapy but alternative
operation.
In my attempt to amplify and understand the scream of Frederick Doug-
lass’s Aunt Hester, which he recalls and reconfigures throughout his body of

viii / preface
autobiographical work in successive iterations of the brutal sexual vio­lence
to which it violently and aninaugurally responds, I began to consider that
the scream’s content is not simply unrepresentable but instantiates, rather,
an alternative to repre­sen­ta­tion. Such consideration does no such t­hing as
empty the scream of content. It makes no such gesture. Rather, it seeks ­after
what the scream contains (and pours out), and ­after the way that content
is passed on—­too terribly and too beautifully—in black art. In seeking ­after
that content and its irrepressible outpouring, distance from the vicious se-
riality of Aunt Hester’s rape, and the general “theft of the body,” in Hortense
Spillers’s terms, it can be said to (dis)embody, is impossible.4 Any such dis-
tance could only ever be an absolute nearness, an absolute proximity, which
a certain invocation of suture might approach, but with g ­ reat imprecision.
Black art neither sutures nor is sutured to trauma. T ­ here’s no remembering,
no healing. T ­ here is, rather, a perpetual cutting, a constancy of expansive
and enfolding rupture and wound, a rewind that tends to exhaust the meta-
physics upon which the idea of redress is grounded. That trauma—or, more
precisely the materiality of her violation and of the vio­lence that makes that
beating pos­si­ble and legible and, in the view of the violator, necessary—is
carried in and transmitted by Aunt Hester’s scream as a fundamental aspect
of its own most ineluctable and irresistible sharpness and serration. This
bearing and transmission are irreducible in the scream even if the scream is
irreducible to them. Aunt Hester’s scream cannot be emptied of the content
it pours out in excess and disruption of meaning, of the modality of subjec-
tivity or subjective embodiment that makes and interprets meaning, and of
the sense of world or spatiotemporal coherence or global positioning or pro-
prioceptive coordination that constitutes what Amiri Baraka might call the
“place/meant” of possessed and/or possessive individuation. Aunt Hester’s
scream is flesh’s dispossessive share and sharing, and the question, r­ eally, for
­those who attend to it, is ­whether it is enough. My tendency is to believe that
in the material spirit of its absolute poverty, Aunt Hester’s scream is optimal,
as absolute wealth. Where some might see in my analy­sis a decoupling of
her scream from the context of vio­lence, I think of myself as having tried,
and in the intervening years having continued to try, to forward a broader,
richer, and more detailed understanding of that context. Not only are Aunt
Hester’s scream and its content themselves uncontained by the bound­aries
that emerge in the relay between self, world, and repre­sen­ta­tion but the vio-
lent context of that scream and its content, and the very content of vio­lence
itself, are so uncontained, as well. In the Break was a preliminary report on

preface / ix
my attempt to study the nature of this uncontainment of and in content.
Somehow, in extension of that study, Black and Blur manages to be more
preliminary still.
I remain convinced that Aunt Hester’s scream is diffused in but not diluted
by black ­music in par­tic­u­lar and black art in general. But if this is so it is
­because her rape, as well as Douglass’s vari­ous repre­sen­ta­tions of it, is an aes-
thetic act. Evidently, the violent art of anti-­blackness ­isn’t hard to master. My
concern, however, is with the vio­lence to which that violent art responds—­a
necessarily prior consent, an unremitting predication, the practice of an en-
vironment that is reducible neither to an act nor to its agent. This brushes up
against the question of what the terms diffusion and cele­bration bear and is,
therefore, a question for Hartman, who writes:

Therefore, rather than try to convey the routinized vio­lence of slavery

and its aftermath through invocations of the shocking and the terrible,
I have chosen to look elsewhere and consider t­hose scenes in which
terror can hardly be discerned—­slaves dancing in the quarters, the out-
rageous darky antics of the minstrel stage, the constitution of human-
ity in slave law, and the fashioning of the self-­possessed individual. By
defamiliarizing the familiar, I hope to illuminate the terror of the mun-
dane and quotidian rather than exploit the shocking spectacle. What
concerns me h ­ ere is the diffusion of terror [Moten’s emphasis] and the
vio­lence perpetrated ­under the rubric of plea­sure, paternalism and
property. Consequently, the scenes of subjection examined h ­ ere focus
on the enactment of subjugation and the constitution of the subject
and include the blows delivered to Topsy and Zip coon on the popu­lar
stage, slaves coerced to dance in the marketplace, the simulation of ­will
in slave law, the fashioning of identity, and the pro­cess of individuation
and normalization.5

In the Break also began with an attempt to engage Hartman; as you can
see, I c­ an’t get started any other way. What I can say more clearly ­here than I
did t­ here is that I have no difference with Hartman that is not already given
in and by Hartman. It is her work, for instance, which requires our skepti-
cism regarding any opposition between the mundane and quotidian, on the
one hand, and the shocking and spectacular, on the other, not only at the
level of their effects but at the level of their attendant affects as well. Simi-
larly, vio­lence perpetrated ­under the rubric of plea­sure demands our study
not just b
­ ecause its commission is in relation to paternalism and property

x / preface
but also ­because anticipatorily alternative modalities of such vio­lence in-
duce paternalism and property as regulatory modes of response. If the slave
own­er’s enjoyment of enslaved song and dance is rightly to be understood
as a mode of violent appropriation it can only adequately be so understood
alongside the fact of the expropriative, radically improper vio­lence that is
held in and pours out from song and dance in blackness. ­Because the terror
that infuses black m ­ usic “can hardly be discerned,” say, in Louis Armstrong’s
extraordinary rendition of “What a Wonderful World,” I thought, in In the
Break, I would talk about it via Max Roach’s and Abbey Lincoln’s “Triptych.”
The point was precisely to follow Hartman in her concern for the diffusion of
terror. Indeed, I have been trying critically to understand and also creatively
to augment that diffusion. This is to say, more generally, that my work, in
bent echo of Hartman and Spillers, of Denise Ferreira da Silva and Laura
Harris, is invested in the analy­sis, preservation, and diffusion of the violent
“affectability” of “the aesthetic sociality of blackness,” to which the vio­lence
of the slave own­er/settler responds and to whose regulatory and reactionary
vio­lence it responds, in anticipation.6 For some, diffusion might mean some-
thing like the pro­cess by which molecules intermingle; or maybe it means
something like the net movement of molecules from an area of high to one
of low concentration, thereby signaling dilution. My willingness to claim the
term, to express my own concern with it, holds out (for) something other than
­either of ­these. It does so by way of, and in thinking along with, Hartman.
With regard to the ­matter in question, first of all, the vio­lence of which we
speak is non-­particulate, which is to say that it is not a m
­ atter of its intermin-
gling with some i­ magined counterpart or moving from a state of high concen-
tration to low. The concentration is both constant and incalculable precisely
in its being non-­particulate. At stake is an ambience that is both more and
less than atmospheric. In this regard, diffusion might be said imprecisely to
name something that the intersection of gravitation and non-­locality only
slightly less imprecisely names. It is a pouring forth, a holding or spreading
out, or a ­running over that never runs out and is never over; a disbursal more
than a dispersal; a funding that is not so much founding as continual finding
of that which is never lost in being lost. It is the terrible preparation of a t­ able
for a feast of burial and ascension. Neither the vio­lence nor the suffering it
induces, nor the alternative to that vio­lence that anticipates even while it can-
not but bear that vio­lence, are submissive to the normative ethical calculus
from whose exterior some propose to speak, as dissident or supplicant, advo-
cate or prosecutor, in the classic, (self-)righteous, unavoidably contradictory

preface / xi
and neurotic stance of the impossible subjectivity that is our accursed share.
Against the grain of that stance, which always laments standing from outside
of and in opposition to its framework, black art, or the predication of black-
ness, is not avoidance but immersion, not aggrandizement but an absolute
humility.
Hartman writes, with ­great precision, “The event of captivity and enslave-
ment engenders the necessity of redress, the inevitability of its failure, and
the constancy of repetition yielded by this failure.”7 But ­here’s the ­thing. The
event of captivity and enslavement is not an event. Event ­isn’t even close to
being the right word for this unremitting non-­remittance, as Hartman’s own
writing shows and proves. This formulation is testament to the ways she ex-
hausts the language and conceptual apparatuses with which she was given
to work. Precisely b ­ ecause she establishes with such clarity that slavery condi-
tions an aftermath that bears it, an afterlife that extends it, Hartman uses up
the word event. ­There’s nothing left of it, nothing left in it for us. Moreover,
the ubiquity of such exhaustion in her work is why faithful reading of Hart-
man’s must be deviant. Her work, it seems to me, is for building, rather than
scolding, that deviance. In this regard, the notion of time that underwrites the
very idea of the event is also offline. Event, ­here, is fantasmatic in a way that
Hartman teaches us to understand when she teaches us to ask: “What if the
presumed endowments of man—­conscience, sentiment, and reason—­rather
than assuring liberty or negating slavery acted to yoke slavery and freedom?”8
­Here, again, in her very invocation of them, Hartman establishes for us that
none of the terms she deploys are adequate. When slavery is understood to
have always been yoked to freedom all throughout the history of man; when
(the so-­called ­free) man’s yoking to the figure of the slave is also, of necessity,
understood to be yoked to his strug­gle against the ­free man for his freedom
(and the ambiguity of “his” is, ­here, intentional), then what w
­ e’re talking
about is better, if still inadequately, understood as durational field rather
than event. Some may want to invoke the notion of the traumatic event and
its repetition in order to preserve the appeal to the very idea of redress even
­after it is shown to be impossible. This is the aporia that some might think I
seek to fill and forget by invoking black art. Jazz does not dis­appear the prob­
lem; it is the prob­lem, and ­will not dis­appear. It is, moreover, the prob­lem’s
diffusion, which is to say that what it thereby brings into relief is the very idea
of the prob­lem. Is a prob­lem that ­can’t be solved still a prob­lem? Is an aporia
a prob­lem or, in fact, an avoidance of the prob­lem, a philosophically induced
conundrum predicated upon certain metaphysical and mechanical assump-

xii / preface
tions that cannot be justified? Let’s imagine that the latter is true. Then, this
absent prob­lem, which dis­appears in what appears to be inhabitation of the
prob­lem of redress, is the prob­lem of the alternative whose emergence is not
in redress’s impossibility but rather in its exhaustion. Aunt Hester’s scream is
that exhaust, in which a certain intramural absolution is, in fact, given in and
as the expression of an irredeemable and incalculable suffering from which
­there is no decoupling since it has no boundary and can be individuated and
possessed neither in time nor in space, whose commonplace formulations it
therefore obliterates. This is why, as Wadada Leo Smith has said, it hurts to
play this m
­ usic. The m­ usic is a riotous solemnity, a terrible beauty. It hurts
so much that we have to celebrate. That we have to celebrate is what hurts so
much. Exhaustive cele­bration of and in and through our suffering, which is
neither distant nor sutured, is black study. That continually rewound and
remade claim upon our monstrosity—­our miracle, our showing, which is
neither near nor far, as Spillers shows—is black feminism, the animaterial
ecol­ogy of black and thoughtful stolen life as it steals away. That unending
remediation, in passage, as consent, in which the estrangement of natality is
maternal operation-­in-­exhabitation of diffusion and entanglement, marking
the displacement of being and singularity, is blackness. In ­these essays, I am
trying to think that, and say that, in as many ways as pos­si­ble.

preface / xiii
This page intentionally left blank
 ACKNOW L­E DGME NTS

“Consent not to be a single being” is Christopher Winks’s translation of

Édouard Glissant’s phrase consent à n’être plus un seul. The occasion of
Glissant’s utterance is an interview with scholar and filmmaker Manthia Di-
awara in which Glissant is asked to reflect upon the irony of traversing the
Atlantic on the Queen Mary II while having written and thought so devot-
edly and brilliantly on the ­middle passage and its meaning. The term con­
sent ­doesn’t merely defy but rather unravels a set of normative discourses
on agency that are e­ ither denied to or unsuccessfully sal­vaged for t­ hose who
remain in ­middle passage which is, as Cedric Robinson and Ruth Wilson
Gilmore have said, eternal. For Glissant, consent, which is not so much an
act but a nonperformative condition or ecological disposition, is another way
of approaching what he calls the “poetics of relation.” With the utmost rever-
ence and re­spect, I have been trying to think passage, by way of Winks’s ver-
sion of Glissant’s words, against the grain of relation and the individuation
that relation seems unable not to bear. I would like to think ­these essays are
messages entanglement sends out to itself and I want to acknowledge, ­here,
some of the beautiful and significant differences that nourish and enable this
sending.
­These essays emerge from long collaborative study with Laura Harris, and
with Stefano Harney. Their making has been so influenced by the fundamen-
tal, mandatory examples of Glissant and Robinson, and of Amiri Baraka,
Julian Boyd, Octavia Butler, Betty Car­ter, William Corbett, Angela Davis,
Samuel R. Delany, Jacques Derrida, Thornton Dial, Charles Gaines, Gayl
Jones, Martin Kilson, Nathaniel Mackey, Robert O’Meally, William Parker,
M. NourbeSe Philip, Avital Ronell, Hortense Spillers, and Cecil Taylor, that
proper citation is impossible and superfluous.
They w ­ ere nurtured in friendship, in vari­ous forms of intellectual and
artistic fellowship, and in a bunch of dif­fer­ent kinds of conversation with
Sadia Abbas, John Akomfrah, Julie Tetel Andresen, Samiya Bashir, Ian
Baucom, Herman Bennett, Anselm Berrigan, Rachel Blau Du Plessis, boy-
child, Rizvana Bradley, Dhanveer Brar, Daphne Brooks, Jayna Brown, Bar-
bara Browning, Tisa Bryant, Adam Bush, Judith Butler, Garnette Cadogan,
Manolo Callahan, Julie Carr, J. Kameron Car­ter, Sarah Cervenak, Nahum
Chandler, Kandice Chuh, miriam cooke, Ashon Crawley, Cathy Davidson,
Danny Dawson, Colin Dayan, Andrea Denny-­Brown, Manthia Diawara,
Joseph Diaz, Harry Dodge, Joe Donahue, Jennifer Doyle, Lisa Duggan, Brent
Edwards, Erica Edwards, David Eng, Mercedes Eng, Lynne Feeley, Denise
Ferreira da Silva, Licia Fiol-­Matta, Jonathan Flatley, Nicole Fleetwood, Ju-
dith Jackson Fossett, Cindy Franklin, Malik Gaines, Theaster Gates, Ruth
Wilson Gilmore, Renee Gladman, Macarena Gomez Barris, Avery Gordon,
Maxine Gordon, Renée Green, Farah Griffin, George Haggerty, Jack Halber-
stam, Lauren Halsey, Sora Han, Michael Hanchard, Keith Harris, Deirdra
Harris-­Kelley, Saidiya Hartman, Mathias Heyden, Sharon Holland, Karla
Holloway, Sandra Hopwood, Jonathan Howard, Vijay Iyer, Arthur Jafa, Alan
Jackson, Willie Jennings, R. A. Judy, David Kazanjian, Doug Kearney, John
Keene, Elleza Kelley, Robin Kelley, Kara Keeling, Bhanu Kapil, Jodi Kim,
Mariam Lam, Ann Lauterbach, Ralph Lemon, Zoe Leonard, André Lep-
ecki, George Lewis, Glenn Ligon, Akira Lippit, David Lloyd, Errol Louis,
Katherine McKittrick, Dawn Lundy Martin, Farid Matuk, Harold Mendez,
Herbie Miller, Seth Moglen, Pete Moore, Damien-­Adia Morassa, Jennifer
Morgan, Jennifer Lynne Morgan, Tracie Morris, Mark Anthony Neal, Linda
Nellany, Maggie Nelson, Cecily Nicholson, Aldon Nielsen, Linda Norton,
Zita Nunes, Tavia Nyong’o, Ann Pellegrini, Ben Piekut, Öykü Potuoğlu-­Cook,
Claudia Rankine, Joan Retallack, Ed Roberson, Dylan Rodriguez, Atef Said,
Josie Saldaña, George Sanchez, Ines Schaber, Darieck Scott, Richard Schech-
ner, Rebecca Schneider, Tonika Sealy, Jared Sexton, Setsu Shigematsu, Karen
Shimakawa, Tom Sheehan, Andrea Smith, Darrell Smith, Fiona Somerset,
Greg Tate, Diana Taylor, Kelly Taylor, Kenneth Howard Taylor, Wu Tsang, Deb
Vargas, Alex Vazquez, Hypatia Vourloumis, Bryan Wagner, Gayle Wald,
Priscilla Wald, Anne Waldman, Maurice Wallace, Alexander Weheliye, Alys
Weinbaum, Allen Weiss, Frank Wilderson, Joshua Marie Wilkinson, Terrion
Williamson, Ronaldo Wilson, Karen Tei Yamashita, and Rachel Zolf. ­There are
so many o­ thers, whose names ­don’t come to me just now even if their thoughts
and voices do. I’ll thank them now, anonymously and collectively and even
though I think this is the best and purest way, I’ll ask them for forgiveness, too.
Love and thanks to the Jazz Study Group, Issues in Critical Investigation,
the Anti-­Colonial Machine and The Formation.

xvi / acknowl­edgments
 I appreciate the generosity and indulgence of Duke University Press and,
more specifically, Susan Albury, Elizabeth Ault, Amy Buchanan, and Ken
Wissoker. And thanks to Alex Alston for preparing the bibliography and
Celia Braves for preparing the index.
All the folks I have mentioned, and a w ­ hole bunch more, make it pos­si­ble
also to offer this book in cele­bration of what is lost in Lindon Barrett, Julian
Boyd, Elouise Bush, Thelma Foote, Nasser Hussain, Richard Iton, Chris-
topher Jackson, Marie Jenkins, Kathryne Lindberg, Bertha Marks, Masao
Miyoshi, José Muñoz, and Cedric Robinson; and what is found, ­every day,
a million times a day, in Laura, Lorenzo, and Julian. The lost and found are
incalculable.
Earlier versions of some of the essays collected h­ ere appeared in the jour-
nals tdr/The Drama Review, Callaloo, Hambone; Cambridge Opera Jour­
nal, ­Women and Per­for­mance, and The Journal of the Society of American
­Music. Earlier versions of o­ thers appeared in the following books: Experi­
mental Sound and Radio, ed. Allen Weiss (mit Press); Aural Cultures, ed.
Sylvia Mieszkowski, Joy Smith, and Marijke de Valck (Rodopi); Ben Patter­
son: Born in the State of flux/us, ed. Valerie Cassel Oliver (Con­temporary
Arts Museum Houston); Theaster Gates: My ­Labor Is My Protest, ed. Honey
Luard (White Cube); Harold Mendez: but I sound better since you cut my
throat (exhibition, Three Walls, Chicago); Dancers, Buildings and P ­ eople in
the Streets: Danspace Proj­ect Platform 2015, ed. Claudia La Rocco; Thomas
Hirschhorn, Gramsci Monument, ed. Stephen Hoban, Yasmil Raymond, and
Kelly Kivland (Walther König/Dia Art Foundation); Gregor Jansen, et al.,
How to Remain ­Human, ed. Rose Bouthiller and Megan Lynch Reich, with
Elena Harvey Collins (Museum of Con­temporary Art, Cleveland); Elodie
Evers et al., Wu Tsang: Not in My Language (Köln, Verlag der Buchhand-
lung Walther König); Or­ga­nize Your Own, ed. Anthony Romero (Soberscove
Press); Anne Ellegood, Jimmie Durham: At the Center of the World (The
Hammer Museum).

acknowl­e dgments  /  xvii

This page intentionally left blank
chapter 1

Not In
Between
1.
Remembering the Pres­ent—­the lyrical, ethno-­historio-­graphic, paint­erly en-
counter between Tshibumba Kanda Matulu and Johannes Fabian, retrieves
Patrice Lumumba and the postcolonial ­future he desired and symbolizes.1
The narrative lyricism that is given by way of technological mediation in the
radio addresses of Lumumba, a lyricism whose supplemental force cuts and
augments the authoritarian danger of the radiophonic voice and the neo­
co­lo­nial recapitulations of historical recitation, is part of what Tshibumba
attempts to reproduce in his art. Moreover, this lyricism is embedded in their
visual registers by way of the mediation of their own voices and the voice, if
you ­will, of a general phonography. In this sense Tshibumba—by way of and,
to an extent, against Fabian—­reinstantiates the lyric singularity, manifest
always and everywhere as surplus, which is the material spirit of the postco-
lonial f­ uture. This frayed singularity moves through the opposition of Afro-­
diasporic particularities and the universality that the West has mistakenly
called its own. In order to understand this spirit of the postcolonial f­ uture as
revolutionary, intellectual force we must make a detour through the work of
C. L. R. James and Cedric Robinson.

2.
The writing of history becomes ever more difficult. The power of God
or the weakness of man, Chris­tian­ity or the divine right of kings to
govern wrong, can easily be made responsible for the downfall of states
and the birth of new socie­ties. Such elementary conceptions lend them-
selves willingly to narrative treatment and from Tacitus to Macaulay,
from Thucydides to Green, the traditionally famous historians have
been more artist than scientist: they wrote so well ­because they saw
 so ­little. ­Today by a natu­ral reaction we tend to a personification of
the social forces, g
­ reat men being merely or nearly instruments in the
hand of economic destiny. As so often the truth does not lie in between.
­Great men make history, but only such history as it is pos­si­ble for them
to make. Their freedom of achievement is limited by the necessities of
their environment. To portray the limits of ­those necessities and the
realisation, complete or partial, of all possibilities, that is the true busi-
ness of the historian.2

In The Black Jacobins, the Ca­rib­bean, the not in between, emerges nar-
ratively, in resistant aural per­for­mances, as the function of a materialist
aesthetics and an aestheticized po­liti­cal economy of appositional collision.
And so James ­will speak of a broken dialectic, ditch jumping, a spare serial
logic disrupted by something missing. But how does the appeal he w ­ ill am-
plify through concepts of Africa, of the African, work in this emergent self-­
consciousness of the Ca­rib­bean, in par­tic­u­lar, and new world blackness in
general, this postcollisive per­for­mance, this cut dialectic and not in-­between
submergence? What does the African bring to the “rendezvous of victory”?
The theory and practice of revolution is bound to the way the individual
emerges as a theoretical possibility and phenomenological actuality in and
out of the revolutionary ensemble. James is interested and implicated in this
relation and operates in a translinguistic, Antillean harmonic unison. He is
interested and implicated in the way that the truth of (such) relation lies not
in between its ele­ments. Therefore, James reopens the Afro-­diasporic tradi-
tions’ long, meditative, and practical concern with spacing, incommensura-
bility, and rupture. He works in relation to, at some distance from, and not in
between that concern and a Euro-­philosophical theorization of aporia. James
indicates that the question of comportment ­toward such issues, ­toward the
form and content of the cut, is tied to another opposition—­that between lyric
and narrative—­that in turn shapes yet another fundamental disjunction be-
tween the science and the art of history. The question, whose answer inhabits
the not-­in-­between that both marks and is James’s phrasing, concerns the
irruptive placement—­manifest in the practice of his writing and activism, his
historical movement and research—of the outside in James’s work; it con-
cerns the way the literary achievement of exteriority embodies a theoretical
achievement that is nothing less than a complex recasting of the dialectic.
The recasting of the dialectic that James’s phrasing embodies and is di-
rected ­toward disrupts the convergence of literary meaning and bourgeois

2 / chapter 1
production that comes into its own with that reification of the sentence
that animates and is animated by the rise of novelistic techniques of nar-
ration. Such disruption is noisy; and such unruly and ongoing reemergence
of sound in lit­er­a­ture is crucial ­because the lyrical interruption of narra-
tive marks a dif­fer­ent mode, within the same mode, of literary production,
one that might be said to stem from something like what James might have
called a socialism already in place in the factory, something like what Louis
Althusser, ­after Karl Marx and by way of Frantz Fanon and Peter Brooks,
would call a communism in the occult interstices of the market, in the cut
outside of market relations and market aesthetics. This dif­fer­ent mode is
­shaped by re­sis­tances. Transferences structure that mode of organ­ization out
of which comes another (mode of ) aesthetic content. So a phrasal disruption
of the sentence is crucial; so poetry remains to be seen and heard so to speak,
and in excess of the sentence ­because it breaks up meaning’s conditions of
production. But how do we address that privileging of narrative that might
rightly be seen to emerge from a certain politics, a certain theory of history,
a certain desire? Not by opposition; by augmentation. This means an atten-
tion to the lyric, to the lyric’s auto-­explosion, to the auto-­explosion the lyric
gives to narrative. This means paying attention to the t­hing (to what en-
dures of the object’s disruptive anticipation of itself, to the commodity that
screams its fetish character and the w ­ hole of its secret against the [deafness
of the] proper) that notes the presence of that desire, that takes into account
the lyric’s infusion with narrative, that sees the historicity and po­liti­cal desire
of the lyric precisely as the refusal that animates and is one possibility of the
fetish character, the possibility of f­ree association and total repre­sen­ta­tion
that emerges from a transference that is only pos­si­ble in the form of the open
secret, by thinking the rhythm of world and ­thing.
New grammar can emerge from conventional writing as another writing
infused with another sensuality, where the visual might expand t­ oward
hieroglyphic, from purely phonetic, meaning and where aurality further serves
to disrupt and trou­ble meaning ­toward content. David Walker, for instance,
understood this, as it ­were, before Jacques Derrida who, in Of Grammatol­
ogy, initiates a critique of the valorization of speech over writing that is
a­ lways driven not only to infuse speech with writing but to infuse writing
with speech and, deeper still, with what Amiri Baraka calls, u ­ nder the ru-
bric of poetry, “musicked speech.”3 The complex interplay between speech
and writing (rather than the s­ imple reversal of the valorization of speech
over writing to which that interplay is often reduced) that animates Of

not in between / 3
Grammatology touches on issues fundamental to the black radical tradi-
tion that James explores and embodies. I want to address the constructed,
nonoppositional, material interplay between writing and speech, narrative
and lyric, the Eu­ro­pean and the African—or, to invoke James’s phrasing, En-
lightenment and Darkness. It provides the framework for new revolution-
ary theory, practice, and identity that is marked in the form and content of
Jamesian phrasing as the location and time of the not-­in-­between, where
phonography rewrites the relation between writing and the unfinished work
of man. This is to say that I want to address the nature of the address.
Toussaint L’Ouverture’s failure was the failure of enlightenment, not of
darkness.4

If he was convinced that San Domingo would decay without the ben-
efits of the French connection, [Toussaint] was equally certain that
slavery could never be restored. Between ­these two certainties he, in
whom penetrating vision and prompt decision had become second
nature, became the embodiment of oscillation. His allegiance to the
French Revolution and all it opened out for mankind in general and
the ­people of San Domingo in par­tic­ul­ar, this had made him what he
was. But this in the end ruined him.
Perhaps for him to have expected more than the bare freedom
was too much for the time. With that alone Dessalines was satis-
fied, and perhaps the proof that freedom alone was pos­si­ble lies in
the fact that to ensure it Dessalines, that faithful adjutant, had to see
that Toussaint was removed from the scene. Toussaint was attempt-
ing the impossible—­the impossible that was for him the only real­ity
that mattered. The realities to which the historian is condemned ­will
at times simplify the tragic alternatives with which he was faced. But
­these factual statements and the judgments they demand must not
be allowed to obscure or minimize the truly tragic character of his
dilemma, one of the most remarkable of which ­there is an au­then­tic
historical rec­ord.
But in a deeper sense the life and death are not truly tragic. Pro-
metheus, Hamlet, Lear, Phèdre, Ahab, assert what may be the perma-
nent impulses of the ­human condition against the claims of organised
society. They do this in the face of imminent or even certain destruc-
tion, and their defiance propels them to heights which make of their
defeat a sacrifice which adds to our conception of ­human grandeur.5

4 / chapter 1
Toussaint is in a lesser category. His splendid powers do not rise but
decline. Where formerly he was distinguished above all for his prompt
and fearless estimate of what­ever faced him, we ­shall see him, we have
already seen him, misjudging events and p ­ eople, vacillating in princi­
ple, and losing both the fear of his enemies and the confidence of his
own supporters.
The hamartia, the tragic flaw, which we have constructed from Ar-
istotle, was in Toussaint not a moral weakness. It was a specific error,
a total miscalculation of the constituent events. Yet what is lost by the
imaginative freedom and creative logic of g ­ reat dramatists is to some
degree atoned for by the historical actuality of his dilemma. It would
therefore be a ­mistake to see him merely as a po­liti­cal figure in a re-
mote West Indian island. If his story does not approach the greater
dramatic creations, in its social significance and ­human appeal it far
exceeds the last days at St. Helena and that apotheosis of accumula-
tion and degradation, the suicide in the Wilhelmstrasse. The Greek
tragedians could always go to their gods for a dramatic embodiment
of fate, the dike which rules over a world neither they nor we ever
made. But not Shakespeare himself could have found such a dramatic
embodiment of fate as Toussaint strug­gled against, Bonaparte him-
self; nor could the furthest imagination have envisaged the entry of
the chorus, of the ex-­slaves themselves, as the arbiters of their own
fate. Toussaint’s certainty of this as the ultimate and irresistible resolu-
tion of the prob­lem to which he refused to limit himself, that explains
his ­mistakes and atones for them.6

Dessalines undertook the defence. He threw up a redoubt at some dis-

tance from Crête-­à-­Pierrot, left detachments to man them both, and
went to meet Debelle who was coming south ­towards Verettes to make
contact with Boudet. Dessalines would not give ­battle but retired
t­ oward Crête-­à-­Pierrot, keeping his forces just ahead of the hotly pur-
suing Debelle. As he reached the ditch which surrounded the fortress
Dessalines jumped into it and all his men followed, leaving the French
exposed. A withering fire from the fortress mowed them down. Four
hundred fell and two generals w ­ ere wounded. Hastily retreating, they
took up position outside the fortress and sent to Leclerc for reinforce-
ments. Dessalines entered the fortress and completed the preparations
for the defence. But already his untutored mind had leapt forward to

not in between / 5
 the only solution, and, unlike Toussaint, he was taking his men into his
confidence. As they prepared the defence he talked to them.
“Take courage, I tell you, take courage. The French w ­ ill not be able
to remain long in San Domingo. They w ­ ill do well at first, but soon they
­ ill fall ill and die like flies. Listen! If Dessalines surrenders to them a
w
hundred times he ­will deceive them a hundred times. I repeat, take
courage, and you ­will see that when the French are few we ­shall ha-
rass them, we ­shall beat them, we ­shall burn the harvests and retire
to the mountains. They w ­ ill not be able to guard the country and they
­will have to leave. Then I ­shall make you in­de­pen­dent. ­There ­will be
no more whites among us.” In­de­pen­dence. It was the first time that
a leader had put it before his men. ­Here was not only a programme,
but tactics. The lying and treacherous Bonaparte and Leclerc had met
their match.7

­ hese are some passages in The Black Jacobins that allow us to ground the
T
not-­in-­between and also to disclose, by way of James’s characteristic style,
the impact of phrasing on the interinanimation of theory and history. And
­here I want explic­itly to think about The Black Jacobins in two ways: 1) as
the narrative description, on the one hand, of Toussaint’s expansive vision
and practical failure and, on the other hand, of his Lieutenant Dessalines’s
limited vision and practical success; and 2) as the irruption into that narra-
tive of a radical energy, an exterior lyricism, whose implied victory has not
been achieved or met (but which we are slowly working our way to in the
name and spirit of Lumumba). I’m interested in the moments in James’s texts
in which he points to that energy, in which his phrasing rec­ords, is infused
with or engraved by, that energy’s phonographic weight. This is to say that
I’m interested in t­hose moments in James’s historiography when meaning
is cut and augmented by the very in­de­pen­dent syntaxes and outer noises—­
conveying new and revolutionary content, mysterious and black magical
politico-­economic spells and spellings—­that James would rec­ord. ­Those mo-
ments help to structure a collisive interplay in the work that is not in between
but outside of the broad-­edged narrative/historical trajectory of a familiar
dialectical lineage now cut and augmented by the serrated lyricism of what
Robinson calls the “black radical tradition.” I intend to pay some brief atten-
tion to the mechanics of James’s lyrical history in order to think what might
appear only as a contradiction indicative of a failure. It would have been a
failure on the part of the author that replicates the military/po­liti­cal failure

6 / chapter 1
of Toussaint, a failure that operates perhaps in spite of, perhaps ­because of, the
author’s mastery. I think it is, however, something more than failure, more
than some static or unproductive contradiction; that it indicates something
that remains to be discovered in black radicalism.
What I’m interested in at this juncture could be thought, more specifi-
cally, as the question of what Robinson reads in James as a problematic
enchantment of/with Hegel, one, to use Nathaniel Mackey’s terms, both
premature and postexpectant. ­Here James is working in direct confronta-
tion, working through the opposition of subjective and objective freedom,
undermining Hegel’s attachment to the figure of Napoleon Bonaparte, in
excess of that historical trajectory/dialectic for which Bonaparte is telic.
And Toussaint, all hooked up and bound to the French, trapped in the no-­
man’s-­land between liberty (abstract-­subjective-­telic-­white) and in­de­pen­
dence (national-­objective-­present-­black: the position Dessalines seemingly
naturally slips into) hips us, by way of James, to the need for something not
in between ­these formulations. For James, the desire is for something not in
between darkness and enlightenment, something not in between Dessalines
and Toussaint. And ­we’ve got to think what it means not just for Dessalines
to take the men into his confidence but to talk to them. We’ve got to think
the form of that talk as well as its content, in untutored and broken dialect,
unretouched, addressed to his followers and not to the French, sounded and
not written and rewritten, seemingly unmediated by the graphic, and, fi­nally,
concerned not with liberty but with in­de­pen­dence. The opposition between
Toussaint and Dessalines, between (the desire for what is called) enlighten-
ment and (the adherence to what is called) darkness, between direction to
the French and direction to the slaves, is also between speech and writing.
Dessalines leaps forward; he jumps into the ditch, sounding, descending.
That jumping descent is coded as a jumping forward. Another dialectic. It’s
what James’s phrasing does to the sentence. Oscillation, bridging over to
leaping forward, jumping into. This is a question of m ­ usic.
In Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition,8 Robinson
speaks of James’s reaction to the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the complicity
of the nonfascist bourgeois states and the silence of the antifascist left. Rob-
inson speaks of that reaction as the moment when the tutelage of Eu­ro­pean
radical thought in James is broken. That emergence from a tutelage at once
self-­imposed and imposed by external forces is marked by The Black Jacobins
and by its phrasing. What is the relationship between James’s breaking of this
tutelage and (his repre­sen­ta­tions of) Dessalines’s untutoredness, on the one

not in between / 7
hand, and Toussaint’s inability to break that tutelage on the other? James’s
phrasing occupies the place not in between ­these. Robinson says: “The force
of the Black radical tradition merged with the exigencies of the Black masses
in movement to form a new theory and ideology in James’ writings.”9 Yes, but
how does this actually work? Is merge the right word? Is this new delinea-
tion, this Dessalineation, in James’s writing only at the level of a convergence
of black radical thought and black mass movement? Does the end of his tu-
torship ­under Euro-­radical thought constitute an erasure of that thought?
Should it? What language does he offer to describe this movement? If, as
James says in the appendix to The Black Jacobins titled “From Toussaint
L’Ouverture to Fidel Castro,” the road to West Indian national identity (and
liberation) led through Africa, then how can we think the relation between
Africa and the not-­in-­between?10 The return to Africa is coded as a kind of
­future exteriority that is already t­ here, the externalizing force of something
already ­there, the revolution that is, somehow, brought with us, ­there when we
got ­here, and left ­behind in a sound, a loud hurrah enacting a certain inter-
ference of and with what is falsely described as common sense and reason, the
material hyperrationality of the undercommons.
Robinson writes of James’s fascination with Hegel’s mode of argumenta-
tion, played out most fully in Notes on Dialectics, as an obvious prob­lem, a
limitation of James’s work. He objects to the Hegelian “distillation of history
into rich concentrates used solely for the grounding of abstract discourse”
and to the Marxian combativeness of the style, s­haped by a “dismissive
tongue used to humiliate opposition.”11 I want to think about The Black Jaco­
bins, by way of Robinson’s analy­sis and of the concept of the not-­in-­between,
as a kind of anacrusis, a prefatory and dialectal bent note on/of dialectics.
I want to look more closely at that style in order to look more closely at what
Robinson calls James’s “lyrical and sometimes mischievous literary ‘voice,’ ”
to think about how the far-­reaching prob­lems that are embedded in the par-
adoxical notion of literary voice play themselves out in the form and content
of James’s work as well as in the revolutionary theory and practice he would
­there both know and mimetically reproduce.12 This is to ask how literary
voice and po­liti­cal theory and practice are disrupted by the external and ex-
ternalizing force of a sound not in between notes and words, not in between
languages, in the not-­in-­between of accent, a sound that bends the regula-
tory musicological frame of notes, the hermeneutic insistence of the mean-
ing of words, the national imperatives of Eu­ro­pean idioms, the dialect that
reconstitutes dialectic as reason, historical motive, liberatory polyrhythm.

8 / chapter 1
­There is, in the work, a lyric disruption of a certain Eu­ro­pe­anized notion
of public/national history and historical trajectory as well as an exterior/
African disruption of the interiority of Eu­ro­pean lyric. The property sang,
the commodities shrieked. Jumping in the ditch, revolutionary tactic and
dance, lingering in the space between the notes, descending into the depths
of the m­ usic. James seems to assert that Toussaint might have acted had
he jumped, like Dessalines, into the ditch of Vodun ritual and revolutionary
movement, slipping into darkness, into the musical breaks of the history he
was making and by which he was enveloped, into ­those nodes of time, where
it leaps forward, new rhythm and all. But that leap forward depends upon
that sounding. And again, somehow, this is not in between.
Robinson argues that while the Eu­ro­pean radical tradition had been
formed by and in relation to the bourgeoisie, a black radical tradition had
formed in­de­pen­dently, another tradition of radical re­sis­tance, another and
separate revolutionary culture, another origination of re­sis­tance outside of
the historical trajectories of ­either Marx or Hegel, not in between them at the
same time as in excess of their oppositional limitations, the one racial, the
other classed. This is to say, in Robinson’s terms, that “black radicalism . . . ​
cannot be understood within the par­tic­u­lar context of its genesis.”13 Rob-
inson says black radicalism’s emergence “implied (and James did not see
this) that bourgeois culture and thought and ideology w ­ ere irrelevant to the
development of revolutionary consciousness among Black and other Third
World ­peoples. It broke with the evolutionist chain in, the closed dialectic
of, historical materialism.”14 This break or arrhythmia: is it a complete de-
tachment from that temporal/historical trajectory or is it a displacement, a
retemporization disruptive of the very idea of absolute break and, by exten-
sion, an augmentative curvature of old harmonic notions of convergence or
hybridity, a dissonant bending of the dialectic and its notes? Again, I think
James’s content, when seen in the context of a closer look at the mechanics
of his phrasing, moves in another implication—­not of the irrelevance of the
bourgeoisie and by extension, in the breaking from or out of the evolutionist
chain and closed dialectic of historical materialism, but in a dialectal bend-
ing of that dialectic that stems from a radical consciousness that cuts and
anticipates, but is at the same time cut and anticipated by, Marxism. This is
to say that the black radical tradition, as embodied in the figures of James
and, for that m
­ atter, Robinson, has a complex origin of rupture and colli-
sion that moves across a range of negations of Eu­rope. This is to say that the
impossible location of the chain of origins of this tradition requires some

not in between / 9
movement in the not-­in-­between of conditions and foundations, some im-
provisation through that opposition, taking into account both retention and
disruption, originality and response, in the tradition. Song is a privileged
site of such improvisation, and the not-­in-­between signifies a collision that
guarantees the ongoing presence and the irrecoverable possibility of what
gets coded as conditions and foundations. ­There and not t­ here, not hybrid,
not in between marks the presence and loss of Africa. Blackness and black
radicalism are not in between but neither one nor the other. New ­things,
new spaces, new times demand lyrical innovation and intervention, formal
maneuverings that often serve to bring to the theoretical and practical t­ able
what­ever meaning c­ an’t. Phrasing, where form—­grammar, sound—­cuts and
augments meaning in the production of content, is where implication most
properly resides.
Every­thing ­here depends upon some kind of not-­in-­between suspension
and propulsion, a certain arrhythmia, the breakdown of the too-­smooth his-
torical trajectory of Eu­ro­pean domination and accumulative apotheosis that
circulates around the conjunction of Hegel and Bonaparte. The line of that
dialectic has got to be broken by another dialect; the trajectory of that nar-
rative has got to be disrupted by some kind of lyric materiality. Neverthe-
less, according to James, such punctuation, such interruption of the sentence
and law of Euro-­history cannot or ­ought not devolve into hesitation. ­Here,
James’s critique of Toussaint’s hesitation might be understood as the forecast
of a certain postcolonial aura that is structured around such hesitation, its
connection to a kind of hybridizing encounter of the in between, an oscillative
lingering eternally prefatory to action, whose value depends upon the ongo-
ing and necessarily groundless—­and therefore doubly paradoxical—­assertion
that “freedom’s basis [is] in the indeterminate.”15 The not-­in-­between of this
opposition would be some kind of syncopated but nonhesitational phras-
ing, the kind of phrasing James gets at when he puts this notion forward. It
would be not in between enlightenment and darkness, narrative and lyric,
all of that. In a letter to the French Directory on November 5, 1789, a letter
James identifies as a milestone in Toussaint’s c­ areer, a letter whose phras-
ing James situates not in between truth and bombast, a letter whose aural
origins in broken dialect are obsessively reworked in order to make pos­si­ble
their entry into historical dialectic (but always carry­ing the revolutionary
force of that dialect; how much energy ­will it have? can it be sustained?),
Toussaint writes: “I ­shall never hesitate between the safety of San Domingo
and my personal happiness; but I have nothing to fear.” It’s the rhythm of

10 / chapter 1
the phrasing ­here that’s so profound, that James is always trying both to
channel and raise to the level of theoretical princi­ple and historical motive;
the form and content of a dialectic of the not-­in-­between, of a disruptive
but nonhesitational rhythm, of an identity and revolutionary po­liti­cal stance
and movement not in between enlightenment and darkness (blackness), of
a historiographical practice not in between narrative and lyric, disruptive of
the rupture (between science and art, knowledge and mimesis) in histori-
ography, illustrative of his belief that “the violent conflicts of our age enable
our practised vision to see into the very bones of previous revolutions more
easily than heretofore. Yet for that very reason it is impossible to recollect
historical emotions in that tranquility which a g­ reat En­glish writer, too nar­
rowly, associated with poetry alone.”16 The recollection of historical emo-
tions requires that which exceeds tranquility and ­here, poetry is understood
not only to have no mono­poly on such tranquility but is also perhaps given as
that which is in excess of tranquility itself. We ­don’t appeal to prose, then, for
that excess of tranquility required to recollect historical emotion; rather we
see how poetry is marked by an excess of tranquility, a lyric and dialectical
drive that brings the noise of such emotion. Not in between verse and prose,
tranquility and turbulence.
The inevitability of that relation as Derrida would understand it, the na-
ture of the dialectic or of the possibility of another dialectic as James would
understand it, the place of the dialectic with regard to freedom, the relation
between dialectic and dialect, the sonic irruption of the outside, of the not-­
in-­between of the dialectic or of another dialectic, the refusal of an oscilla-
tion that seems, ultimately, to be part and parcel of the dialectic, the failure
of its own internal resources to achieve the Aufhebung ­toward which it is di-
rected and how that failure manifests itself in the colonial encounter: this
would be Homi Bhabha’s failure, perhaps Fanon’s failure, the failure of Black
Skins, White Masks and of the objectifying encounter, the failure that comes
into relief when we look at The Wretched of the Earth (and which Robinson,
above all, hips us to) and when we see the Dessalineation of Fanon, if you w ­ ill,
the reassertion of a dialect—­carrying all the history of diaspora, all the history
of proletarianization—­into the dialectic. ­Here we mean something beyond
simply a breakdown of the sententious along some oscillative and caesuric
lines. The dialect carries breaking sound as well as broken grammar. And
if the dialectic is the pulse of freedom, what’s the nature of that pulse, its
time? What bombs are dropped ­there? Must the pulse, the rhythm, be f­ree
in order to keep the time of freedom, to break unfree time, usher in new

not in between / 11
times? This is what the infusement of lyric into historiographic narrative
would do. The ­free pulse of a new dialect/ic is what animates James’s phras-
ing, even if only intermittently, even if only in such a way as to replicate with
differences something of the form, perhaps, of Toussaint’s failure, a failure
not of enlightenment but bound up in what­ever oscillation occurs between
enlightenment and darkness. Toussaint and Dessalines, anticolonial leader-
ship and an anticolonial “proletariat,” narrative and lyric, the idealization
and materialization of freedom, of its trajectory and its presence.
Fi­nally, for James the essence of a ­thing is its animation, its aspect or
internal temporal-­historical constituency, as much what it s­ hall be as what
it is and has been. This animation is a universalizing force, the generaliz-
able, avant-­garde, politico-­aesthetic (we might say musical) energy of pro-
letarianization. This requires rethinking the proletariat, at its transcendent
moment, as more than a paradox. The proletariat realizes, actualizes, and
universalizes man through, on the other side of, strug­gle and differentia-
tion, through production, though the ongoing production and consumption
of per­for­mances. The avant-­garde is in the audience. The new universal is
listening. What Robinson sees as a paradox, the unaccountable derivation
of the proletariat from the bourgeoisie, James understands as one of ­those
punctuated equilibria of the dialectic, an effect of syncopation in phrasing,
the not-­in-­between.17 Leaps! Leaps! Leaps! A mystery of aufheben. This is
why Hegel is so impor­tant for James, why the nature of the dialectic is so
crucial. ­Because it is all bound up in the relation of the bourgeoisie to the
proletariat, in how to get from one to the other, in how one fulfills the etio-
lated universalism of the other. This is the f­ uture in the pres­ent, the invasion
from the inside, socialism in the factory. It is the manifold content of the
being of the worker, the trace of what the worker ­shall be that is the worker’s
essence. This is why, for James, the essence of Lenin is what he “surely” would
have said if he’d lived, determined by what he did say right before he died.
This kind of move is what Cornelius Castoriadis calls absolutism. It’s what
he critiques in Marx (and Robinson endorses this critique). But this mode
of reading or improvisation, this anticipatory critique or f­ uture anterior ma-
neuver, is the dialectic, for James. Titles like The Invading Socialist Society
or The ­Future in the Pres­ent offer a glimpse of something power­ful in James’s
phrasing: he puts forward for us a notion of an internal incursion that can
be seen in relation to an interior force of exteriorization, moving t­oward a
possibility coded as outside, an actuality inside. Inside and outside are, then,
not only positions but forces; and the not-­in-­between marks an insistence in

12 / chapter 1
the black radical tradition that is embodied in ancient and unpre­ce­dented
phrasing. To insist, along with James, on this kind of fullness, on this Ca­rib­
be­anness that exists only as a function of a return not to authenticity but to
Africa, is to recognize, along with Wilson Harris or Édouard Glissant, that
black radicalism is done necessarily in relation to or u ­ nder ­water, something
occurring in sound, as sounding, in depth, like a Dolphic-­Mackeyan depth
charge. This implies that the black radical tradition is not, though it is noth-
ing other than, grounded in African foundations; that it is sounded in the
impossible return to Africa that is not antifoundationalist but improvisatory
of foundations; that it is a turn t­ oward a specific exteriority; that it is not only
an insistent previousness in evasion of each and e­ very natal occasion but the
trace and forecast of a f­ uture in the pres­ent and in the past h ­ ere and t­ here,
old-­new, the revolutionary noise left and brought and met, not in between.18

3.
All that was in preparation for an engagement with the rec­ord of an ap-
positional collision between an ethnographer and an in­for­mant. In this
case, however, the richness that cuts and augments ­every such encounter,
making it always so much more than most ethnographers ever realize in
their recording and analy­sis, is given in a more or less explicit and conscious
way by the ethnographer. In this encounter between ethnographer and in­for­
mant, Johannes Fabian is conscious of himself as mediator and sponsor and
Tshibumba Kanda Matulu is conscious of himself as painter and historian.
I want to read the po­liti­cal reason they amplify in their dialogue, though I
begin with some remarks of Fabian, whose placement of Tshibumba is useful
not only for the information it gives regarding Tshibumba’s relation to Lu-
mumba but for the example of an increasingly broken critico-­administrative
codification that it sets.

When an exceptional artist such as Tshibumba Kanda Matulu broke away

from genre painting and defined himself as a historian, he went to ­great
lengths to stress national unity, if only b
­ ecause he needed the nation as
the subject of a history whose narrative he could oppose to colonial and
academic accounts. In this re­spect Tshibumba emulated his hero Patrice
Lumumba, who pursued his resolutely unitarian course ­because he knew
this was the only way to establish his country as a po­liti­cal power vis-­à-­vis
the former colonizer and on the international scene.19

not in between / 13
 T: I am good, for instance, at the kinds of pictures you have in your
­house, the historical ­ones.
F: Mm-­hmm.
T: I’m strong in history. Of the flogging ­there [points to “Colonie
Belge, painting 34] I can do three a day. Pictures of Lumumba I
can do two a day, if I work ­hard.
F: Mm-­hmm.
T: ­Because you must seek to work with care on detail.20

A few days ­later (on December 16, 1973), we met again and picked up
where we had left off. Most of the paintings turned out to be about histor-
ical events, especially the life of Lumumba. Could you do more of ­those, I
asked (and this may have been the moment our proj­ect was born, in any
case it was the moment I realized that Tshibumba had ambitions beyond
painting the few historical subjects that had become an accepted genre).

T: I’ll come with a lot.

F: Pictures showing Lumumba’s history?
T: History and nothing but history.
F: But, as you said, you are an historian.
T: Fine.
F: And an artist.
T: I am an artist, yes, I am a historian.21

Tshibumba moves, ­here, in a kind of contrapuntal surplus and disruption of

the proj­ect Fabian rightly and problematically sees as collaborative. This is
not only in recorded pauses and interjections, sounds usually unassimilable
to writing, but in the syntax of the response as well, a break of ethnographic
grammar marked by no special spelling, by neither ellipsis nor emphasis.
It’s just the old rhythmic break of the non/response, cutting the flow of the
interview, the continuity of an encounter still too laden with power. “Fine.”

“I am an
artist, yes,
I am a historian.”

This broken phrasing marks something on the order of a fantasy, bears what­
ever polyphonic disturbance even the accompaniment of the utterance leaves
­behind in its percussive recapitulation of what Fabian might other­wise think

14 / chapter 1
of as the natu­ral separation of the aesthetic and historical proj­ects and im-
pulses. Of course, it’s not just the time of the ethnographer that Tshibumba
cuts; it’s the time of neo­co­lo­nial­ism as well, moments and progressions that
are not but nothing other than the same. The noncontemporaneity of t­ hese
mo(ve)ments is crucial. What is the relationship between Mobutu’s “retour
à l’authenticité” and the ethnographic proj­ect? How does the one enable
the other, literally allowing Fabian’s proj­ect in all of its specificity, in all of
its self-­consciousness in relation to the prob­lem of noncontemporaneity in
anthropology, as a product of the linkage of neocolonialism and anthropol-
ogy? Tshibumba’s historico-­aesthetic proj­ect is enabled by Fabian’s, so much
so that one is tempted along with Fabian to understand it as a joint affair.
But the proj­ect of ethnography seems never fully able to separate itself from
the desire for authenticity or originarity that marks an essential ele­ment of
Mobutuism. Lumumba always moved outside of such recourse or regression
and Tshibumba moves in his spirit, arguing almost at the outset of his proj­ect
that “our ‘recourse to authenticity’ is r­ eally a ‘blind return’ to the past.”22 This
initial formulation marks a stark counterpoint to Mobutu. That starkness is
both muted and amplified by the rhythmic complexity of its repetition:

President Mobutu said on October 10, 1973, at the United Nations—­

may I quote?—­“Recourse to authenticity is not a narrow nationalism, a
blind return to the past.” All right, that is how he spoke. On reflection—­
the way I see it—­this is true. B­ ecause—­it’s the story of the black man
himself that I’m explaining to you, right?

We go [back]—it is a blind return to the past. The t­ hing is, we d

­ on’t
know the ancestors anymore; we have lost that knowledge.23

­ ere Tshibumba repeats his claims with differences. The differences are
H
prompted not only by the danger of such speaking about/against Mobutu
in Zaire in 1973, dangers Fabian amply points out, but by the necessity of a
historico-­aesthetic proj­ect whose adequacy depends, precisely, upon the tran-
scendence of mere return. Tshibumba’s proj­ect is necessarily a reconstruc-
tive, resurrective one, an image of totality seeking to capture the complex and
multidirectional times and the manifold social layers of another understand-
ing of development. The rhythm of the paintings and the interviews with
Fabian mark all of this all of the time. Lumumba’s death is constitutive h ­ ere
in its lack, as is his spirit in its supplementarity. This is part but not all of
what Tshibumba is ­after when he characterizes Lumumba as the “Lord Jesus

not in between / 15
of Zaire.” ­Here we can look at three modes of Fabian’s transcription, thinking
their difference among other t­hings. This is, for Fabian, a crucial moment
where “­there is no attempt . . . ​to escape into allegory. Speaking in the first
person, and actually giving his name and profession, [Tshibumba] asserts
his authorship of the story and assumes responsibility for its emplotment.”24
What happens via this mediation? What does Fabian assert/insert? Is it ever
not aesthetic?

You see that I made three crosses back t­ here. [About] the meaning of
this picture, I am saying that Lumumba d[ied; he interrupts himself
and makes a new start] I, in my opinion, I, the artist Tshibumba, I see
that Lumumba was like the Lord Jesus of Zaire.25

So he died, but we ­don’t know where his body lies. ­There are suspicions.
Some say they threw it into sulfuric acid, or what do you call it? If you
put a h­ uman body or what­ever in it, this acid leaves only a liquid and
some solid residue, and that’s it. That is what some ­people said. In any
event, you see that I painted three crosses back t­ here. I am saying—­I,
speaking for myself, as the artist Tshibumba—­that in my view, Lu-
mumba was the Lord Jesus of Zaire. Above I painted six stars, ­because
he died for unity. And I think you see the blood that is flowing from his
side, how it spreads and writes something on the ground: Unity. What
this means is that Lumumba died for the unity of Zaire.26

F: Where is this scene? I ­don’t recognize it; is it out in the bush?

T: The ­actual place? In my thoughts it was inside a h ­ ouse. But then
I did it in this way in order make the death more vis­i­ble. ­Were I to
pres­ent the scene inside the colors would not come out and it would
not be as impressive. . . . ​And the three crosses you see ­there, that is
my idea. B ­ ecause when I followed his history, I saw that Lumumba
was like the Lord Jesus. He died the same way Jesus did: between
two ­others. And he was tied up the way Jesus was. It was just the
same.27

Fabian outlines early in the text a certain apparatus, his curatorial choices.
They are, first and foremost, typographic, visual, but their visuality marks
always the inflection of the aural.

Each painting . . . ​is introduced by portions of Tshibumba’s narrative,

which appear in sans serif type below the painting itself. They are fol-

16 / chapter 1
 lowed by excerpts from our conversations about the picture, with the
speakers marked T for Tshibumba and F for Fabian . . . ​I must empha-
size that not every­thing that was recorded was displayed. . . . ​In the
narrative passages, traces of conversation—­brief interjections, repeti-
tions, hesitations, and much of the redundancy that characterize oral
performance—­have been silently omitted.28

Nevertheless, one notes with gratitude that Fabian, in his ethnographic/

methodological essays, takes pains to recover the exigency and surplus of oral
per­for­mance. One wants to say that this surplus of aurality 1) is Tshibumba’s
aesthetics and politics and 2) infuses the paintings as well as the utterance/
per­for­mance around the paintings—­accompaniment as essence in politics
and aesthetics.
Tshibumba’s transcendence of genre and its “predictable creativity” is seen
by Fabian as a transcendence or disregard of the aesthetic as well. More
precisely, for Fabian, “What [Tshibumba] says about art and aesthetics—
or for that m
­ atter, about painting—­remains of secondary importance com-
pared to his ambitions as a historian. What he does as a painter is absolutely
essential to his work as a historian.”29 However, Tshibumba’s reprise of Fa-
bian’s pause at a juncture that in the po­liti­cal reason of Tshibumba gives no
pause opens us to the question of ­whether the aesthetic—as something he
enacts and, in so d­ oing, theorizes—is elemental not only to Tshibumba’s his-
toriographic ambition but to his po­liti­cal desire as well. This is to say that the
lyrico-­narrative singularity that bears the content of Lumumba’s po­liti­cal ut-
terance/accompaniment, which is the essence and vehicle of African po­liti­cal
reason in its universality, is an aesthetic concern, situated at the asymptotic
nonconvergence of the autonomous aesthetic and the autonomous po­liti­cal.
Moreover, the ethnographic object ruptures ethnography generatively, breaks
ethnography’s laws; but this is only pos­si­ble ­because of ethnography. This is
history and nothing but history.

T: That means we are all historians.

F: That is true.
T: They are writers, I am a ­painter.
F: Mm-­hmm.
T: But we are the same; we join [forces].
F: Mm-­hmm.
T: ­Because a man cannot have a complete life without a w
­ oman, only
if he is with a ­woman.

not in between / 17
 F: Mm-­hmm.
T: It’s like a ­marriage.
F: Mm-­hmm.30

The dramatics/erotics of the ethnographic encounter sounds differently h

­ ere
and now. ­Here Fabian indicates his method for forging an attunement to
that sound in the discourses on the paintings:

The texts that make up the Prelude, unlike the ones that accompany
the paintings, are attempts at literal translation. Repetition, monosyl-
labic interjection, repair, and other ele­ments of live conversation are
preserved in this version, and only a few brief passages are omitted
(marked by three dots). Just as shapes and shades are worked out in
a painting, sometimes with much brushwork, sometimes by merely
a few strokes, so are ideas developed in oral communication, which is
characterized by both redundancy and ellipsis—­too much and too
­little for the reader who was not pres­ent in the flow of speech and can-
not benefit from clues that get filtered out when speech is transposed
into writing.31

Fabian’s method opts for a faithful transcription of ­these discursive per­for­

mances rather than a faithful transcription of the utterance. This is to say, in
Austinian terms, that Fabian transcribes the accompaniment of the utterance
as well as the utterance. In this sense, he violates Austinian princi­ples to which
the transcribers of Austin’s lectures faithfully and faithlessly adhere. Implicit
in Fabian’s decision is that the content of Tshibumba’s work depends upon
his faithless, faithful transcription. From this we extrapolate that the content
of Lumumba’s life and speeches—­which is to say the essence of Lumum-
ba’s politics, the essence of African po­liti­cal rationality—­depends upon the
lyrico-­narrative singularity of what cuts, augments, accompanies his utter-
ance. This is to say that the rhythmic or temporal disruption and disloca-
tion of Tshibumba, which occurs not only in his aural responses to Fabian
but in the paintings as well (note, as Fabian does, the massive and content-­
filled compression of space, time, and history in Painting 5, which features
fifteenth-­century explorer Diego Cao in a nineteenth-­century pith helmet,
marking the concentration of a transnational history of colonialism into an
enframed moment; and this is not some reduction, some “essential section”
of African development, the mark of some out-­of-­time African “contempo-
raneity” somehow both in and out of Hegelian totality and temporality; it is

18 / chapter 1
rather a framed but internally differentiated “moment” in which the move-
ment and stasis of colonialism is given in all of its punctuated duration), is
accompanied by a tonal supplement that is, again, in both the paintings and
the aural responses to Fabian.
I would call, ­here, echoing Lumumba, for a po­liti­cal radiophonics, a po­
liti­cal phonography beyond mere transposition, improvising through the
opposition and—­carrying forward the content—of faithful and faithless
transcription. This requires thinking what it means to speak of the paintings
and what accompanies them. Not just text but sound. Sound and content.
The sound and content of Tshibumba and Lumumba are recorded in the
paintings, reconstituting them not only against (what Derrida might call
the law of ) genre but as phonographic history as well. So that what occurs
in the paintings is not prior to or outside of writing, but part of an ongoing
reconstitution of writing and the po­liti­cal reason writing (and reading) allows.
The edgy lyricism of the painting that shows up as an irreducible trace of its
production—­brushwork and out, off color—is Lumumba’s spirit, the spirit
of a postcolonial f­uture, the breath of the utterance that is also the breath
of its accompaniment. So that the internal, theatrical difference of the utter-
ance and the irreducibly differential phonic substance that is the utterance’s
material and mystical shell mark the point where the essence and, for lack of
a better term, (aural) appearance of the speech converge.
Is this accompaniment like that of the pauses, repetitions, noises, si-
lences, that accompany the utterances of the prelude? What justifies the ab-
sence of t­ hese accompaniments? Are they r­ eally absent? How can we begin
to speak of and hear the aural accompaniments of the painting that are not
only under­neath, but in it? Deleuze and Guattari give us a clue that might
be expanded:

The refrain is sonorous par excellence, but it can as easily develop its
force into a sickly sweet ditty as into the purest motif, or Vinteuil’s ­little
phrase. And sometimes the two combine: Beethoven used a “signature
tune.” The potential fascism of ­music. Overall, we may say that ­music
is plugged into a machinic phylum infinitely more power­ful than that
of painting: a line of selective pressure. That is why the musician has a
dif­fer­ent relation to the p
­ eople, machines, and the established powers
than does the painter. In par­tic­u­lar, the established powers feel a keen
need to control the distribution of black holes and lines of deterritori-
alization in this phylum of sounds, in order to ward off or appropriate

not in between / 19
 the effects of musical machinism. Paint­ers, at least as commonly por-
trayed, may be much more open socially, much more po­liti­cal, and less
controlled from without and within. That is b ­ ecause each time they
paint, they must create or re­create a phylum, and they must do so on
the basis of bodies of light and color they themselves produce, whereas
musicians have at their disposal a kind of germinal continuity, even if
it is latent or indirect, on the basis of which they produce sound bod-
ies. Two dif­fer­ent movements of creation: one goes from soma to ger­
men, and the other from germen to soma. The paint­er’s refrain is like
the flip side of the musicians, a negative of ­music.32

It is precisely in the too much and too l­ittle of redundancy and ellipsis—­cut
and augmentation—­that a surplus lyricism in form and sometimes in con-
tent mirrors the structure of the po­liti­cal totality, the par­tic­u­lar and invagi-
native universality, that Lumumba was ­after in the first place, that provides
for us, now, the aesthetic analog of an anarchy in excess of democ­ratization,
an anarchy given not as the absence of ground but as ground’s improvisation
in the absence of origin, something along the lines of what Fabian, ­here,
anticipates:

Combining what I gleaned from Power and Per­for­mance with what I

learned from the study of charismatic authority and popu­lar historiology,
I come to a conclusion that ­will prob­ably be perceived as scandalous:
Po­liti­cal anarchy must be seriously considered as a realistic option
for, and outcome of, “democ­ratization,” if the term is to mean po­liti­cal
thought and action from the bottom up rather than just the importing
or imposing of institutions whose history, ­after all, has been insepa-
rable from cap­i­tal­ist and imperialist expansion. . . . ​
Anarchy as a rational option is emphatically not to be confused
with pseudorealistic analyses of a factual breakdown and descent into
Hobbesian chaos demanding brutal outside response in the form of
outright intervention and ultimately po­liti­cal recolonization. Nor could
anarchy be a rational option if it ­were conceived in mere negative
terms—as the absence of effective government. It should be thought of
as a discursive terrain of contestation, and it w
­ ill be up to Africans—­
the ­people as well as ­those certified intellectuals who think from and
for the p­ eople—to invent or reinvent models and institutions of po­liti­
cal life that make pos­si­ble survival with dignity. . . . ​

20 / chapter 1
 Fi­nally, it should be obvious that I am not assigning anarchic
democ­ratization to Africans. Ernest Wamba dia Wamba—­who has
for many years been working on the palaver, communal litigation, as a
­viable form of dealing with power—­points out . . . ​that “democracy must
be conceptualized at the level of the w ­ hole planet Earth.” If anarchy is a
realistic option of democ­ratization, it may have to be considered glob-
ally. I think that, in a time where once comfortable compartmentaliza-
tions and distinctions between demo­cratic and nondemo­cratic socie­ties
are getting blurred, few need to be convinced that this is so. Therefore
serious thoughts about Africa, and the study of democ­ratization ­there,
is anything but a m ­ atter of bringing ready solutions to that continent.
Democ­ratization as a solution is the prob­lem.33

What is the relation between Lumumba’s surplus lyricism—­its lyrical dis-

ruption of the politics of meaning, of democracy as the politics of meaning—­
and anarchization? Every­thing. And what have ­these to do with a certain
eclipse or cut of genre, a generic or sexual cut? Perhaps this: that Lumumba’s
transcendence of genre corresponds with Tshibumba’s. Tshibumba achieves
the memorialization or historicization, the recording and amplification, of
Lumumba’s lyricism in painting, a mode of painting that cuts genre precisely
by way of its reproduction and incorporation of that lyricism, its reproduc-
tion of Lumumba’s sound.
What are we to make of this? How does this signify? How do we think
this beyond signification, on the other side of a certain set of restrictions of
language, out from the outside of the discourse on value? By way of the fact
that the object moves. Animating the paintings, fluxing their objectivity, is the
spirit/value (if not some purely repre­sen­ta­tional or significational meaning)
of a postcolonial f­uture. This spirit of the f­uture works in conjunction with
the ways in which the paintings are meant, as part of their commodification,
to bring certain t­hings to mind, to induce certain memories, even memo-
ries of the pres­ent. Po­liti­cal, migrational, choreatic. The m
­ usic is the vehicle,
drives and is the car. ­These are phenomena that we might fruitfully think in
Eisensteinian terms. The paintings constitute what Sergei Eisenstein recog-
nized in Leonardo da Vinci’s The Deluge—­notes for a painting never done, de-
scription figured by Eisenstein as a “shooting script”—as an early experiment
in audio-­visual relationships.34 “[Such] forms included ‘overtonal’ montage.
This kind of synchronization has been touched upon . . . ​in connection with
Old and New. By this perhaps not altogether exact term, we are to understand

not in between / 21
an intricate polyphony, and a perception of the pieces (of both ­music and
picture) as a ­whole. This totality becomes the f­ actor of perception which syn-
thesizes the original image ­towards the final revelation of which all of our
activity has been directed.”35 Eisenstein moves ­toward an analy­sis of color
in film as the decisive ele­ment for “the question of pictorial and aural corre­
spondence, ­whether absolute or relative—as an indication of specific ­human
emotions.”36 And in this movement he ­will introduce a term that seems pecu-
liarly well-­designed to encompass what it is that Tshibumba accomplishes:
“chromophonic or color-­sound montage” where montage, at its most basic,
is “Piece A, derived from the ele­ments of the theme being developed, and
Piece B, derived from the same source, in juxtaposition giv[ing] birth to the
image in which the thematic ­matter is most clearly embodied.”37 The the-
matic ­matter, in this case, is the material spirit of the postcolonial f­ uture.
Tshibumba derives something from colonialism (by way of Fabian, by way
of the ethnographic encounter which they both perform in a kind of animat-
ing contamination; this something is what we might call the opportunity
of the book, the sequencing the book allows and the dissemination of that
montagic form)—­a certain modernity in techniques of form and subjectivity.
But ­these are means. The work remembers its originary animation, its un-
achieved natal occasion, its before: the postcolonial f­ uture. And this memory
drives it and instantiates what the work would enact. If Fabian’s ethnographic
per­for­mance is meant to produce and convey knowledge about Tshibumba’s
culture, this must be understood as a mediational condition of possibility for
a certain movement of Tshibumba’s work and as the echo or con­temporary
manifestation of ­those social and politico-­economic conditions that make
Fabian’s work pos­si­ble and the work of Fabian and Tshibumba necessary.
But Fabian’s ethnographic per­for­mance is, at the same time, made pos­si­ble
by and contained within the trajectory of Tshibumba’s work. Fabian’s aim is
within Tshibumba’s circle or frame. But Tshibumba’s aim and work abounds
and exceeds Fabian’s. Tshibumba’s work is (animated by the spirit/value)
(a repre­sen­ta­tion, which is to say a memory) of a postcolonial f­ uture prefigu-
ratively cutting any return or recourse to authenticity.
Fabian speaks of the irruption of the outside into the per­for­mance/​
production of the proj­ect, the sound of the plane during a moment in which
Tshibumba inserts commentary into his painted narration where aerial
bombing is central; the insertion of commentary into narration in general.
­These irruptions lead Fabian to speak of the reproduction rather than the

22 / chapter 1
repre­sen­ta­tion of knowledge. ­These irruptions, however, ­don’t stop Fabian’s
privileging of the historical over the aesthetic. It’s as if his notion of the
aesthetic is too narrow to admit modes of repre­sen­ta­tion that are not im-
mediately opposed to production. Such reconstructive modes are precisely
what Tshibumba is about as paint­er/historian and po­liti­cal thinker in the
Lumumba tradition. So that if Fabian understands Tshibumba’s proj­ect as a
win­dow onto culture, a logic with history, a way of fulfilling his anthropolog-
ical responsibility “to represent Tshibumba and his work in such a way that
they add to or deepen our knowledge of the culture in which they emerged,”
he understands it only partially. This is to say that the aesthetico-­political
(historical) encounter in Tshibumba’s work operates in a way that calls the
idea of culture into question rather than merely illuminating that idea in
some par­tic­u­lar manifestation. This is to say that each of the paintings, the
relations between the paintings and the per­for­mance that emerges from
them and out of which they emerge, constitute an articulated combination
that is, itself, always cut and augmented by a rhythmic and tonal surplus
that is the difference between them that is common to them. Culture is a
false, allegorical totality, an object given in a methodology that works in and
­toward the eclipse of the aesthetic and the (po­liti­cal/economic) historical,
that means to stand in for the complexity of the social totality, that moves in
relation to the articulated combination, the interinanimative autonomy, of
the aesthetic and the politico-­economic. The deepening of “our” knowledge
of a culture has intense connections to the return to authenticity. ­Here is
where the ethnographic and the neo­co­lo­nial proj­ects converge in a certain
specificity. ­Here, also, is where the postcolonial proj­ect is reconstructed.
Fabian is constitutive of ­every aspect of this complex. He is a necessary
condition of the resurrection of a (geo)po­liti­cal aesthetic. And it’s all about
the irruption of the outside not just as a paradoxically essential accident
of per­for­mance but as a fundamental ele­ment of the African po­liti­cal aes-
thetic, of African po­liti­cal reason. What Fabian sees as “an instance of . . . ​
the intrusion of materiality into the immaterial world of repre­sen­ta­tion,”
where “[noise] establishes physical presence,” is, more precisely, a moment
that reveals that fundamental im/materiality of repre­sen­ta­tion of which
Tshibumba is aware and upon which he depends as aesthetic and po­liti­cal
theorist and practitioner. And if noise establishes presence it establishes it
at a distance: of space in the case of the plane (which is t­ here and not t­ here,
above and before, our hearing of it marking proximity and its other all the

not in between / 23
time), of time in the case of Lumumba (­whether memorialized in song or
in Mobutu’s totalitarian radio). All this is to say that our interest in the per­
for­mance of the painting must be alloyed by an interest in per­for­mance in
the painting—as sound and rhythm, as musical or radiophonic transfer. And
­ ere we get to painting 97, by way of one of Fabian’s less aggressively edited
h
transcriptions.

T: . . . ​I went inside my h­ ouse and thought e­ very which way I was
capable of. I failed. Just as I was about to go to sleep I put the radio
down at the head of the bed. Then sleep took me. A ­ fter sleep had
taken hold of me I dreamed this and that, always with the idea that
I should receive the f­ uture and what it would be like. But I failed
completely. I just listened to the m ­ usic. It began to play and it was
already ­midnight.
F: Mm-­hmm.
T: As the ­music was playing, it brought me a dream. I dreamed this
building, the way you see it. I ­didn’t r­ eally see that it was a building;
it was in a dream, and the colors I put—­all this was in the dream—­but
it did not sit still. You [= I] would look, and it was just dif­fer­ent. Now,
the ­music they began to sing—it was the night program about the
Revolution—­they began to sing a song, “Let us pray for a hundred
years for Mobutu.” All right. Now, the vision I had [mawazo ile na­
liona, lit. “the thought I saw”] was this: ­There ­were ­those skeletons
that ­were coming out of this building, ­here and t­ here, on both ­sides.
F: Mm-­hmm.
T: Then this one [­here] comes. Then mournful singing started in
female voices; that was ­there on the side of the building. So sleep
had carried me [away], and I dreamed ­those skeletons . . . ​38

Fabian breaks h
­ ere, following an interruption of Tshibumba’s in which an-
other painting is spoken of, a painting too dangerous to circulate or carry
around, and so gives us a chance to do the same. In the break we notice the
aspect dawning of Tshibumba’s vision. Internally differentiated, it would not
sit still—it was animated. And we notice Fabian’s footnotes where the term
animation is said to refer to “the dancing and singing of praise songs for the
party that accompanied all public occasions at the time.”39 Tshibumba by
way of Fabian points us to the truly revolutionary force of such accompani-
ment, its change in aspect out of the control of Mobutu, infused by another
spirit. ­After the break Tshibumba resumes:

24 / chapter 1
 [T]: You see the skeleton standing up. Then they played another song
that ­really woke me up, a song that Tabu Ley used to sing long
ago: [in Lingala] “soki okutani na Lumumba okoloba nini.”40

And ­here follows another interruption repeated by Fabian. This interrup-

tion is an aside on the importance of dreams in traditional African culture.
Fabian does not include it. “Then he resumed his account exactly at the point
where he had inserted his reflection.”41

[T:] Now the tall skeleton just stood upright at the time. Then I
woke up and began to tell my wife about it. Also, I was full of
fear. When I thought about ­things [other paintings] to do, I
failed [to come up with any]. Then I thought: No, I’ll do that
painting exactly the way my dream was. ­Because what Mr. Fa-
bian asked me was ­whether I could do the ­future. All right.
While such thoughts went by me, I set out to dream what was
asked for. Actually, I did not consciously think anything, the
ideas I had came as a surprise, [for instance] when t­ hose skel-
etons appeared ­there. In my sleep I ran as fast as I could, and I
was startled to hear that they ­were singing this song, “Kashama
Nkoy.” That was the song they began to sing.
F: “Kashama Nkoy”?
T: “Kashama Nkoy”; it’s a rec­ord by Tabu Ley.
F: Mm-­hmm.
T: Now, he was speaking in Lingala; in Swahili he [would have]
said: [first repeats the Lingala phrase] “soki okutani Lumumba:
okuloba nini?” Which is to say: If you ­were to meet Lumumba
right now, what would you say? All right. I woke up with a start
and told my wife about it.
F: I see.42

This is what it is to receive the spirit of the postcolonial f­ uture. The recording
of Tshibumba’s dream, the recording of his passion, is all bound up with Lu-
mumba’s passion, where passion is not only suffering but an overwhelming
aesthesis, a massive and surprising sensual experience that happens to you,
an irruption of the outside in its fullness with regard to e­ very sense, where
the ensemble of the senses is established by way of each of the senses becom-
ing theoreticians in their practice. To do the ­future, paint the dream exactly
as it was, animation and all, not standing still and all. What it ­will then mean

not in between / 25
to meet Lumumba; a general responsibility, the possibility of a scandal and
a chance, for and in excess of Mobutu. Fabian’s attunement to the perfor-
mative aspects of Tshibumba’s painting is crucial ­here but not far-­reaching
enough. His attention to Tshibumba’s rhythm, his performative timing, his
filmic cuts, the way the static frame incorporates movement are all welcome
but all bound up with an aesthetic and po­liti­cal reason that undermines the
notion of culture Fabian is interested in illustrating. You ­can’t talk about per­
for­mance without talking about the aesthetic. And when you talk about the
aesthetic ­you’ve got to talk about it in its interinanimative autonomy vis-­à-­
vis the po­liti­cal. And when you talk about all that, ­you’re not talking about
“culture” anymore. And ­here, the ­simple opposition between per­for­mance
and recording, production and reproduction, are broken down by the ines-
capable fact of the surplus that is and marks the aesthetic and the po­liti­cal
in their difference and commonality. Fabian is to be commended and ap-
preciated for his intuition regarding the presence of truth in Tshibumba’s
work, even in the “vociferous silences” of his truly popu­lar history. But that
truth cannot ever be detached from a truly radical aesthesis that is a ­matter
of danger for the big shots. Tshibumba has Fabian know that he thought
about the ­future even before Fabian commissioned him to; that thought is
aesthetic and po­liti­cal in Lumumba’s spirit, the material spirit of the post-
colonial f­ uture.

4.
So the not-­in-­between and the postcolonial, which return now as the ques-
tion of the ­future, can be thought in terms of the relations between sound,
image, and value. Marx images the commodity as soundless and the theory
of value he puts forward depends upon that reduction—or, more precisely,
impossibility—of phonic substance. He calls upon us to imagine the com-
modity speaking, ventriloquizing, b ­ ecause he knows it cannot, knows that
if it said something the understanding given its valuation as a function of
its silence would be inadequate. So that the substance of the sound in the
image/commodity requires a revision, an improvisation of the l­abor theory
of value. And it is impor­tant that the sound infuses the commodity/image/
frame and is other than that which would operate on a parallel track. This
would mark a difference between the sound of the painting and the sound of
film that is decisive and momentary to the extent that it quickly invades the
internal structure of film form and film frame. This is that excess of Deleuze

26 / chapter 1
where sound track is redoubled by/as sound-­image but in a way way out
from Saussure’s deployment of this term. This aural infusement of the visual,
the very constitution of the visual in and with the aural, each condition of
the other’s possibility, each cutting and in abundance of the other, is, again, a
theoretical disruption, the natal occasion of new sciences (of value) given by
way of the material inspiration of the phonically infused frame. Tshibumba’s
work is an exemplary site of this occasion, this improvisation through the
opposition of description and prescription, repre­sen­ta­tional memory and
theoretical vision, totalizing allegory and cognitive mapping. It marks a his-
torical and aesthetic compulsion; a compulsion to make or to produce ­every
day; to produce contradiction, painting, theory; to produce the lyrical, ev-
eryday disruption of ethnography, art, history, and what is not in between.43

not in between / 27
chapter 2

Interpolation
and Interpellation
Imagine incessant listening. It might provide g ­ reat plea­sure and, in so d
­ oing,
produce ­great consternation and anxious questioning about the nature of
such plea­sure. ­Those questions might concern the psycho-­political effects or
politico-­economic grounds of the submission of oneself to such plea­sure. But
in the end, both the fact and the depth of the questioning that is produced in
immersion in Bach’s Mass in B Minor seems always to amount to something
that’s all good.
But for a long time I’ve been caught up in an obsessive relationship with
a song called “Ghetto Supastar,” performed by Pras, Ol’ Dirty Bastard, and
Mýa. The song was produced by Pras and Wyclef Jean and contains what is
referred to in the liner notes as an “interpolation” of Barry Gibbs’s “Islands
in the Stream” (originally recorded by Kenny Rogers and Dolly Parton). I
want to draw you into this interplay of plea­sure and questioning produced by
“Ghetto Supastar,” but ­there are ­those who would never admit the possibil-
ity that such an object bears depths that could produce such interplay. For
some, this would indicate the object’s fundamental lack of aesthetic value.
For ­others who would champion the devaluation of the aesthetic, “Ghetto
Supastar” might be valorized precisely b­ ecause it has no value or, more to the
point, works against the very idea. Then ­there are ­others for whom the song
signifies a disavowal of depth, of the under­neath, in the interest of crossing
over into popularity. I want to work with and against the possibility of all t­ hese
formulations.
Let me repeat, then, that the plea­sure I derive from “Ghetto Supastar”
raises questions. How could one derive plea­sure from such a ­thing? And, if
y­ ou’ve got some inkling about the first question, then what does it mean to
derive such plea­sure? Is such plea­sure what Theodor Adorno would dispar-
age as “culinary,” an effect of an evacuation of reason that’s bound to a certain
giving up of, which is to say, giving oneself up to, the body and its base or
basic (or bassic) functions?1 Is this a kind of plea­sure that’s too much a func-
tion of the hook, of being hooked to or by the addictive repetition of a catchy
tune? Or, more drastically, does this song reveal what requires Althusser to
claim (by way of, and in parody of, Kant) that aesthetic judgment in general
is “no more than a branch of taste, i.e. of gastronomy”?2 ­Either way, some
attention to the song’s flavor and my plea­sure in it is required. I want to
think that flavor in relation to a desire for ­music that is im/properly and
unanxiously po­liti­cal. That which Cedric Robinson calls “the black radical
tradition” has been acting on and out and theorizing that desire for a long,
long time.
The themes of culinary enjoyment and musico-­political desire have a re-
animative, quickening function. They bring life and noise, and offer up a bit of
anima and aroma, which airs out vari­ous venues that had been overwhelmed
by a kind of putrefaction, the smell of death that hovers over even ­those spaces
where folks are talking about re­sis­tance or hybridity or citizenship or what­
ever while believing or being driven by a belief that the times we live in or
the modes of thinking that are now prevalent are, to use Judith Butler’s
term, “post-­liberatory.”3 It’s not that what Butler says is not true; or that if
­she’d said preliberatory that w ­ ouldn’t have been true as well; it is, rather,
that ­here in this vestibule, where we belatedly await our own invention of,
our own coming upon, the liberatory, we operate within an incessant escape
that might be said to cohabitate with incessant listening. The taste and smell
of ­music messes up the very idea of the liberatory as well as its before and
­after. But the point is that it’s not enough to assert the need for ­music or
even to imagine a relation to the vari­ous contexts of vari­ous embarrassed
discussions of freedom that would invoke Q-­Tip, formerly of the group A
Tribe Called Quest, when he says, “the job of resurrectors is to wake up the
dead.” This leads to another question: Why would anyone want to revive
such contexts? Moreover, ­there is the question of the incorporation of the
­music into the larger culture, into the culture industry and thereby into an
ensemble of relations of cultural production that now also determine the
corporatized and industrialized production of academic stuff, which is to say
not only what is called academic knowledge but also what are called academ-
ics; fi­nally (and back to the m
­ atter at hand), what about the incorporation
of “Ghetto Supastar” into the soundtrack of Warren Beatty’s film Bulworth?
This question, in its turn, raises o­ thers: that of the film’s appropriation of
the black radical tradition and its sounds; that of the American Left’s aggres-
sive and ambivalent incorporation of that tradition in general, its insight (at

interpolation and interpellation / 29

once primitivist and progressive) concerning that tradition’s special, vexed,
complex, hopeful—­indeed, necessarily utopian—­relation to aesthetic, po­liti­
cal, and libidinal freedom (and servitude). This, along with a valorization of
a kind of hybridity that ­ought to make anyone who has ever valorized hybrid-
ity pause, is what the film both represents and enacts. But let this slide, too,
though it’s right to point out that the last ensemble of questions requires at
least some thought regarding the fetish character of Halle Berry and her
secret. What I w­ ill try to get to is bound up with the radical impossibility and
undesirability of detaching the fetish character of the commodity from the
commodity.
The main t­ hing, in the end, is to think about what the foreclosure of ­music
has wrought where ­music is understood not only as a mode of organ­ization
but, more fundamentally, as phonic substance, phonic materiality irreduc-
ible to any interpretation but antithetical to any assertion of the absence of
content. This could be about the utopian function of dropping science where
dropping signifies a critical, if appositional, engagement and dissemination
rather than a mere and misguided dismissal. Obviously this interplay of sci-
ence and utopia has to do with Marx, with the divided Marx that Althusser
produces (without discovering), with the Marx that is beyond Marx, accord-
ing to Antonio Negri, or the Marx that is before Marx. This last Marx, the one
that is before Marx, is the one w ­ e’re ­after insofar as he is anticipated in and
by the black radical tradition. This essay just responds to a Marxian inter-
pellative call that was itself anticipated by the black radical tradition, always
already cut and augmented by an anticipatory interpolation. “Ghetto Supa-
star” extends that tradition by exemplifying its formal operations, even if on
what some would think of as modest terrain, while awaiting the exaltation
that life-­giving and anticipatory revision makes pos­si­ble. This is, in other
words, what Pras and Mýa and Ol’ Dirty Bastard do to and for “Islands in the
Stream,” which, in the version performed by Kenny Rogers and Dolly Parton,
had a tune that did not fully exist—or, more precisely, was not fully alive—­
until Pras ‘n’ em killed it. The black radical tradition contains numerous other
examples of such anticipatory interpolations, vicious revisions of the original
that keep on giving it birth while keeping on evading the natal occasion.

This brings me to another version of “Ghetto Supastar,” a novel cowritten

by Pras and kris ex, and to the theoretical scene that version revises. The
novel begins by anticipating its end. It tells the story of Diamond St. James,
a young rapper struggling to escape the dangers of a (stereo)typical urban

30 / chapter 2
nightmare by entering into the even more fearsome world of the culture in-
dustry. Diamond’s strug­gle is to be in and not of the latter, to be of and not
in the former. His ­music would both instantiate and represent that strug­gle.
The opening of the novel anticipates its end by showing us a mature and suc-
cessful Diamond, fending off the interpellative telephone calls of his publicist
and of his old partner in street crime, the now incarcerated Michael. Michael’s
call literally interrupts, via call waiting, that of the industry, given in the form
of a call from Diamond’s agent, knowingly figured as the one who endangers,
by way of a kind of protection, Diamond’s agency. You could say, then, that the
novel is all about the vexed possibilities of resisting interpellation, a possibility
given in musical interpolation. But Althusser makes sure to let you know that
interpellation is, in essence, more fearsome than ­these initial examples. The
interpellative call is exemplified by the call or sound (as KRS-­One has had
it—­“Whoop! Whoop!”) of the police rather than that of the publicist or old
runnin’ buddy. Pras figures that more fundamental and dangerous figure in
the novel as well. Check it out:

He was two blocks away when he noticed a beat cop eyeing him
knowingly.
Diamond d ­ idn’t know what to think. He’d been through so much,
done so much, seen so much in the past week, that he knew he was
­under arrest for something. It d ­ idn’t ­matter what it was—he was sure
that he was guilty. It was a long time coming, and he knew the rules—
he ­wouldn’t turn on Michael or Mr. B for all the amnesty in the world.
“Hey,” the cop called, moving closer with a smile. “What’s up?”
Diamond just looked at him. He knew the tricks, the traps, and the
­runnings. His mouth stayed shut.
The officer grinned widely. “You ­don’t remember me, do you?”
Diamond peered under­neath the man’s cap.
“St. James—no Walkmans in the hall,” he bellowed with a laugh.
Diamond smiled. It was Nixon—he used to be a security guard
when Diamond was in high school.
“What’s up man?” Nixon smiled. “What you been up to? How’s the
rapping ­thing? I hear ­you’re still ­doing it.”
“Yeah, yeah, no doubt,” Diamond said anxiously. He was never more
than passing acquaintances with the man when he was in high school,
and now, even in parts removed from his home turf, he did not want to
be seen cavorting with the police.

interpolation and interpellation / 31

 “You ever thought about getting down with the force?” Nixon asked
with a recruiting smile. “It pays pretty well. You know,” he said with
secrecy, “we need more ­brothers in blue.”
“Yeah,” Diamond said. He needed to get the conversation over with
as soon as pos­si­ble.
“I’m fresh out the acad­emy,” beamed Nixon, proudly. “­They’ll be
testing again in a few weeks. You ­don’t want to miss it.”
“Yeah, yeah.”
“All you have to do is go down to a precinct and pick up an
application—­you have your diploma, right?”
“Nah,” Diamond lied, hoping it would be deter the man and send
him on his way.
“Well, you gotta get your G.E.D., b
­ rother,” Nixon advised. “And sani-
tation is testing next Tuesday. It may be too late for that one—­but my
­sister works ­there, she could help you out if you ­really want it. Let me
get your number and I’ll call you with all the info.”
Diamond rattled off any seven numbers. The cop asked him to re-
peat the numbers four dif­fer­ent ways, obviously part of his training to
discern when t­ hose damned detainees w ­ ere trying to pull a fast one.
Had he not so much practice memorizing his rhymes he would have
faltered.
“Alright, ­brother,” Nixon said, slapping palms with the boy off
beat, proud that he was able to merge his acad­emy training, street
savvy, and inside connects to the hood in one triumphant moment of
community policing. He would run a search on the boy when he got
back to the station ­house that night. Hell, he’d make sergeant sooner
than anyone thought.4

Diamond comes upon the policeman and his gaze rather than being sur-
prised by it from b
­ ehind in the now-­classic Althusserian scene; so ­we’re
working in the impossibility of a certain kind of surprise that comes on line
when such scenes are transposed into a dif­fer­ent venue and recast with dif­
fer­ent prospective subjects. It takes a special kind of subject-­in-­waiting to be
surprised by the presence of the police or, more problematically, to respond
to that surprising hail in a way that betrays the uncut version of what But-
ler calls a “passionate attachment” to the law.5 Happily, this special kind of
subject-­in-­waiting is not the universal model. Instead, ­we’ve got Diamond,
the sentient, sounding object of a power­ful gaze. His re­sis­tance to that power

32 / chapter 2
predates it, indeed is the condition of possibility not only for that power but
for a response to that power that is knowing, strategic, appositional. Nixon’s
interpellative call has practically e­ very institutional apparatus b
­ ehind it:
school; the seductive, mystico-­economic power of civil ser­vice and civil sur-
veillance in the form of “the force”; even the vulgar parody of a kind of filial
concern. And even if his insidious demand for recognition works in tandem
with Diamond’s multiply sourced feelings of guilt, the object resists h ­ ere and
in so d ­ oing rearticulates the condition of possibility of the liberatory. Nixon’s
attempt to reinitialize the “scene of subjection,” to replicate the scene of his
own subjection, is cut by another mode of organ­ization, the (necessarily mu-
sical) theater of objection, black per­for­mance as the re­sis­tance of the object.
This is to say that black musical per­for­mance once again offers for us an
instance of itself as the ongoing reproduction of that which disrupts reproduc-
tion from within the very pro­cess of reproduction of the conditions of cap­
i­tal­ist production (that pro­cess being the original [aim and] object of study
for Althusser’s famous essay). What is invoked ­here, what remains ­here to be
activated, is not merely an internalization of the outside as lost object but the
always already given possibility of the exteriority of the inside, the becoming-­
object of the speaking, singing, commodified object. This becoming-­object
of the object, this re­sis­tance of the object that is (black) per­for­mance, that is
the ongoing reproduction of the black radical tradition, that is the black pro-
letarianization of bourgeois form, the sound of the sentimental avant-­garde’s
interpolative noncorrespondence to time and tune, is the activation of an ex-
teriority that is out from the outside, cutting the inside/outside circuitry of
mourning and melancholia.6 ­Here utopia is reconfigured in a morning song,
at morning time, by a moan of pain and joy. “Ghetto Supastar” carries that
sound, a mo’nin’ for morning, as the beginning of a day made even closer
when the dead awaken to a kind of working for, the working for all of the liv-
ing, all who have lived, all whose lives have been stolen, all who s­ hall live in
stealing (their lives) away.

interpolation and interpellation / 33

chapter 3

Magic of
Objects
Per­for­mance studies is a very young discipline but its youth ­hasn’t stopped
some of its found­ers from characterizing it as postdisciplinary. For me, this
characterization is troubling, since the terms per­for­mance and performativity—
in the promiscuity of their applications and in the very indefinition of their
own specific concept of an object of study—­often threaten to assert themselves
as the ground of ­every pos­si­ble area of study. When faced with the conflict
between global desire and an objectless locality where disciplinarity and disci-
pline are eclipsed, one is called upon to ask certain questions that converge, I
think, with the theme of this gathering. Is the postdiscipline a good model for
the changing U.S. acad­emy and, more broadly, for the forging of some under-
standing of the relation between humanity and the humanities?
Permit me, and please forgive, a long quotation from Randy Martin’s
brilliant book, Critical Moves, wherein Martin begins to address some of ­these
issues:

Insofar as structure and agency retain the discrete separation of ob-

ject and subject, practice emerges instead as the already amalgamated
pro­cess of ­these last two terms. From the perspective of practice, it is
no longer pos­si­ble to insert h
­ uman activity into a fixed landscape of
social structure; both moments are formed in perpetual motion.
Where this insight has its immediate po­liti­cal application is to the
series of practices articulated through race, class, gender, and sexu-
ality. Each of t­hese words points to a systematic structuration that
appropriates dif­fer­ent forms of surplus through racism, exploitation,
sexism and homophobia. By extending a productionist model to do-
mains not generally associated with an economy oriented t­oward
exchange, I want to take seriously Marx’s understanding of capitalism.
He treats it as forcibly constituting, by the very organ­izing bound­aries
 it erects and then transgresses, in pursuit of increasing magnitudes of
surplus, the global collectivity, the “combination, due to association,”
that he understood as the socialization of l­abor. . . . ​That race, class,
gender, and sexuality, as the very materiality of social identity, are also
produced in the pro­cess indicates the practical generativity—­the ongo-
ing social capacity to render life as history—­necessary for any cultural
product. Therefore, it is not that a productionist approach assigns race,
class, gender, and sexuality the same history, po­liti­cal effects, or practi-
cal means. Instead, this approach is intended to imagine the context
for critical analy­sis that would grant t­ hese four articulating structures
historicity, politics, and practice in relation to one another, that is, in a
manner that is mutually recognizable.
To speak of practices rather than objects of knowledge as what dis-
ciplines serve privileges the capacity for production over the already
given product-­object as a founding epistemological premise. The focus
on practices also allows production to be named historically so as to
situate it with re­spect to existing po­liti­cal mobilizations.1

I would briefly add a small set of formulations:

1. The epistemological shift that Marx allows, wherein practices are

thought as if for the first time, as if in eclipse of objects, can itself
be thought as an irruption of or into the sciences of value. I study
black per­for­mances that are anticipatory manifestations of that
shift/irruption.
2. Black per­for­mances work the second “as if ” above in a specific
way. The eclipse of objects by practices is a head, a necessary
opening, that vanishes in the improvisatory work of t­ hose who are
not but nothing other than objects themselves. (Black) per­for­
mances are re­sis­tances of the object and the object is in that it
resists, is in that it is always the practice of re­sis­tance. And if we
understand race, class, gender, and sexuality as the materiality of
social identity, as the surplus effect and condition of possibility of
production, then we can also understand the ongoing, resistive
force of such materiality as it plays itself out in/as the work of art.
This is to say that ­these four articulating structures must not only
be granted historicity, politics, and practice, but aesthesis as well.
This is also to say that the concept of the object of per­for­mance
studies is (in) practice precisely at the convergence of the surplus

magic of objects / 35
 (in all the richness with which Martin formulates it—as, in short,
the ongoing possibility or hope of a minoritarian insurgence) and
the aesthetic.
3. ­Here is a particularly vicious irony: the assertion that a contin-
gent postdisciplinarity characterizes per­for­mance studies allows
the assumption and nonrecognition of hierarchies that legitimate
one methodology, one mode of per­for­mance, one archive, at the
expense of ­others. ­These issues are fundamental to the possibili-
ties and impossibilities of minoritarian citizenship in per­for­mance
studies, particularly when the would-be minoritarian citizen con-
stitutes the embodiment not only of racial, class, gender, sexual, or
national difference, but of analytic modes that constitute a certain
desire for the nonstatist or nonstatic, for a dynamic concept of the
object of per­for­mance studies, an object-­in-­practice. This indi-
cates something crucial, fi­nally, about not only the impossibility
but also the undesirability of minoritarian citizenship, even as it
does nothing what­ever to militate against all of what’s problematic
in the denial of citizenship and all of what is needful in the fight
against the effects of such denial. The point, however, is what mi-
nority does to the state, what minority ­ought to do—­legitimately
and rigorously—to the state of per­for­mance studies. The question
remains: How can minority help to abolish the statist and static
institutionality of per­for­mance studies while, si­mul­ta­neously,
reopening the possibility of establishing the concept of the object-­
in-­practice of per­for­mance studies? ­Here, I am referring to and
thinking by way of May Joseph’s Nomadic Identities: The Per­
for­mance of Citizenship. In Nomadic Identities, Joseph offers an
extended meditation on the undecidability or indefiniteness of
citizenship that never denies and ever more richly describes the
real­ity of the experience of citizenship. To think citizenship as an
experience is to think citizenship as a phenomenological prob­lem
and yet, as Ludwig Wittgenstein says, the existence of phenom-
enological prob­lems does not obscure the fact that ­there is no phe-
nomenology, no adequate phenomenological language. The locale
where phenomenality resides in the absence of phenomenology is
also the home of performance—­the object-­in-­practice/the object-­
in-­resistance. Citizenships, in this sense, are therefore (like) a set
of per­for­mances. How can we avoid the inevitably failed applica-

36 / chapter 3
tion of inadequate languages to phenomena like citizenships and
per­for­mances? How can we move through the oscillational logic
that places per­for­mances and citizenships between appearance
and disappearance or, more generally, merely between? T ­ hese
are the questions upon which Nomadic Identities is, if you ­will,
kinetically grounded. Joseph describes her book as delving into
a sphere of “ner­vous enactment.” Ner­vous enactment perfectly
describes the possibilities and impossibilities of minoritarian
citizenship in the state of per­for­mance studies in par­tic­u­lar and in
the United States acad­emy in general. Ultimately, we would move
beyond ner­vous enactment in the interest of a genuine engage-
ment with the concept of the object of per­for­mance studies as
well as with the concept of the universality in all of its resonances
with the happy and tragic possibilities of the very ideas of the
universal and/or the global. Such a move might best be described
as disidentificatory in Jose Muñoz’s sense of the term. It would be
marked by an appositionality with regard to the state of per­for­
mance studies that would itself be doubled by a renewed apposi-
tion of that state to disciplinarity itself, one that would shake that
state’s foundations. This is to say that the authoritarian comfort
derived from the concept of the postdisciplinary—­a comfort not
unlike that B. F. Skinner derived from his pioneering conception
of the posthuman—­would be eschewed. And ­here I ­don’t wish to
alarm any of ­those I invoke in this essay who might, in spite of
their intense detachment from anything like a Skinnerian legacy,
not be as sanguine as me about embracing any kind of human-
ism—or even the idea of the humanities—no ­matter how unpre­ce­
dented. Nevertheless, it seems to me that thinking the concept of
the object of per­for­mance studies implies a convergence between
the establishment of per­for­mance studies’ disciplinarity and an
extension of the black radical po­liti­cal/intellectual/aesthetic tradi-
tion that would work also within the proj­ect, which I think of now
as Chomskyan, of the development of a theory of ­human nature
(though it would disrupt Chomsky’s scientism precisely by paying
attention to the inconsistent totality of any and all non-­“well-­
formed” ­human ­things). I assume the connection between the
development of a theory of ­human nature and ­human develop-
ment as such. The articulation of that connection is the theory of

magic of objects / 37
 history. This requires the exposure of that vicious irony I mention
above. Indeterminacy d ­ oesn’t ground freedom or equality (by way
of some magic operation whereby the absence of basis becomes
a basis). Rather, they are part of a complex field of scandal and
chance, wherein the very idea of ground remains to be retheorized
along lines established by Joseph among ­others. Meanwhile, the
illusion of the postdiscipline is a ruse of illegitimate discplinarity.
Perhaps if we think minority in relation to the surplus, perhaps if
we accede to the surplus’s demand that any thought of the object
take into account its nature as practice, we can move t­ oward
abolishing the state of per­for­mance studies in the interest of per­
for­mance studies and in the interest of an ever more fundamental
transformation of the U.S. acad­emy and its relation to the world.
­Here, abolition is to be thought as a kind of radical deconstruction
and reconstruction, an out but rooted embrace of per­for­mance
studies’ locality in the interest of the promise of its globality. So
that the study of black per­for­mances is a condition of possibility of
per­for­mance studies in par­tic­u­lar and the American university in
general, neither of which has happened yet.

Earlier I spoke of the improvisatory ­labor of objects. My experience in Cuba

has been one of a place animated by such l­ abor which is always fraught with
the dangerous traces of a terrible past and an uncertain ­future and is no
less necessary for being so troubled. To put it in Martin’s updated Marxist
terms, the production of surplus—­along with that which it produces and is
produced by, “race, class, gender and sexuality as the very materiality of social
identity”—­has reemerged ­here with a vengeance. Surplus is the very magic of
objects, their fetish character, their mysterious secret. That magic can be ter-
rible, can produce some of the effects that have given some of us visitors pause
or consternation precisely ­because ­those effects are so familiar to us being
from the United States, the natu­ral habitat of the hustle and its vari­ous com-
plications, choreographies, and degradations. But t­here is also a liberatory
force of the surplus, the magic of objects, which we see h ­ ere in the midst of
its very transformation, that requires us to make that undeniable claim on
the revolution that it seems we Yanquis have no right to make. That claim
is undeniable not only ­because of the uncanny familiarity of ­faces, bodies,
and gestures that one has never seen before but also ­because of the central-
ity of the revolution to our own po­liti­cal formations and reformations. And

38 / chapter 3
yet, for many reasons, that centrality is not as central as it should be, and so
being ­here becomes or ­ought to become an occasion for radically rethinking
our own po­liti­cal positions and practices. In the end, the magic of objects, the
magic of the surplus, is a rough t­ hing that we cannot simply abjure. I think
that this is shown ­here over and over again; when I went to the Museo de
la Revolución yesterday this magic was shown over and over again, most af-
fectingly in the diorama where Ché Guevara and Camilo Cienfuegos move
through the Sierra Maestra in a full, purposeful, now arrested stride. They
­were already and have become again magic objects. Their examples live. Raul
Castro speaks especially of Camilo’s “always trying to improvise a kind of joy.”
That’s what revolution is. Such improvisation is, however, an almost always
painful strug­gle that is constantly in need of renewal and recalibration. That
work always remains to be done both h ­ ere and in the United States, and the
connection between ­those strug­gles needs constantly to be thought as they
are, in and from both locales, humbly claimed and lovingly critiqued. Mean-
while, the revolution remains, in all its force, our object of desire and our
model though it is, perhaps, the very reemergent minoritarian insurgence
that the revolution in some sense subsumed that w ­ ill animate it, grace it with
the par­tic­u­lar kind of black magic that is indispensable to the necessary cut-
ting and augmentation of that of the dollar. And perhaps this minoritarian
insurgence ­will draw strength from and give strength to its infinitesimally
but unbridgeably distant twin in the United States, whose ongoing submer-
gence is paradoxically indicated by our presence h ­ ere t­ oday. The irony is that
the magic of objects, the magic of the surplus, drives both this reemergence
and this submergence. The question is how more fully to merge that errant
magic with our own most ­human desires. Addressing this question is our
improvisational task.

magic of objects / 39
chapter 4

Sonata
Quasi Una Fantasia
François Girard’s Thirty Two Short Films about Glenn Gould is situated at a
double encounter: of fiction and biography, and of two animating drives of
cinema—­the fantastic and the documentary. I want to address some aspects
of that encounter, its performativity, temporality, and residue. Part of that
residue is a field of other, suddenly inoperative, oppositions, for instance that
given by Theodor Adorno in Beethoven: The Philosophy of M ­ usic: “It is as a
dynamic totality, not as a series of pictures, that ­great ­music comes to be an
internal world theater.”1 ­Here, the contest between m ­ usic and cinema that
was decisive for Adorno is explic­itly staged. ­Music, as dynamic totality, is un-
derstood to move and work in excess of linear sequence that, it is implied, is
­shaped and burdened by an essential sameness. ­Music’s temporality consti-
tutes a resource for re­sis­tance to that deadening rigor, which so often appears
to lead to the reduction of aesthetic material to mere entertainment. But cin-
ema and ­music cannot be so simply opposed, as the constant musicality of,
for instance, Sergei Eisenstein’s montage and some of the terms—­overtonal,
contrapuntal—he used to describe and theorize it suggest. Moreover, Adorno
knew this. His awareness of the necessary vulnerability of a seriality that is
essential to ­music was operative in his analy­sis of Beethoven, particularly of
Beethoven’s restructuring of the repetitive linearity of the sonata form.2 In the
case of op. 27, which is, at once both famous and forgotten, that restructur-
ing occurs by way of contrapuntal means: quasi una fantasia—­like a fantasy,
where fantasy refers to a mode of polyphonic composition that is at once
improvisatory, transportive (of composer, performer, and listener), and mon-
tagic (not only in its sequencing of musical sections that are not thematically
connected but in its yoking together of seemingly disparate emotional con-
tents). In Beethoven, then, the essential seriality of ­music is mirrored, broken,
and infused by a fundamental counterpoint that is latent in the series and
whose excavation and theorization awaits something like Eisenstein’s elab-
oration of the specific materiality of the cinematic apparatus for its proper
occasion. That occasion is given again by Girard, whose work allows us to
linger where dynamic totality interacts with serial picturing, where poly-
phonic, polyrhythmic, multiply lined fantasy cuts and augments—­and is cut
and augmented by—­the singular and straightforward adequation of a linear
temporality that is often understood to be essential to documentation.
­There is a scene in Girard’s film in which the ­great, preternaturally and
unnaturally rhythmic, romantically antiromantic, antitheatrically hyper-
performative, solitary, multiply voiced, irreducibly and transhistorically
baroque, pianist Glenn Gould is portrayed playing a recording of his inter-
pretation of Beethoven’s Piano Sonata 13, op. 27, no. 1, “Quasi una Fantasia.”3
In the scene’s complex of per­for­mances, auditions, and technical repro-
ductions and mediations, certain conventions that are meant to deter-
mine the strange attraction and estranged relation between sound and
image are exceeded as an essential musicality of cinema becomes clear.
That musicality is no more evident than in the high fantastical additive
ruptures of seriality that documentation can neither assimilate nor con-
trol to the extent that it is driven by them. The “internal world theater”
of which Adorno both tells and dreams is located where t­hese ele­ments
converge. This would end up being something like Quasi una fantasia a
­little something like something like the contrapuntal in film, the dynamics
of filmic counterpoint, which would be not only at the level of the sound/
image relation, but also at the level of the relation between the documen-
tary and the fantastic as drives. So that this is about the ­music of film, its
mode of organ­ization, the dynamic totality of a series of pictures. How
does fantasy shape and disrupt the documentary drive of the fictionally
hyped and disrupted biopic? By way of a specific and essential contrapun-
tality of film wherein the seemingly determining seriality of documentary
drive is disrupted by a splice.
Gould would have approved of this splice, which is a slice of life. The
short film titled Hamburg documents an incident that occurred in the fall
of 1958 at the Vier Jahreszeiten ­Hotel in Hamburg—­a place Gould called
his Zauberberg, and which might best be understood as musical and cin-
ematic development’s last resort—­while recovering from one of his frequent,
concert-­canceling illnesses. Gould recalled this convalescence as “the best
month of my life—in many ways the most impor­tant precisely ­because it was
the most solitary. . . . ​Knowing nobody in Hamburg turned out to be the
greatest blessing in the world. I guess this was my Hans Castorp period; it

sonata quasi una fantasia / 41

was ­really marvelous. T
­ here is a sense of exaltation . . . ​it’s the only word that
r­ eally applies to that kind of aloneness.”4 Otto Friedrich, one of Gould’s bi-
ographers, recites the scene. ­We’ll have his recitation first before reading the
stage directions of Girard’s fantastic, fantasmatic reprise:

The only t­hing that could have made Gould’s incarceration even
better was a sense of the admiration of the outside world. And this
too came to him in the new recording of his glittering per­for­mance
of Beethoven’s First Concerto, which included his own rather densely
contrapuntal cadenzas. “I have been exulting for two days now in our
Beethoven #1, which has sent me,” he wrote to Vladimir Golschmann,
who had provided the orchestral accompaniment. “I hope you have
heard it and are as proud of it as I am. T
­ here is a real joie de vivre about
it from beginning to end.” And then ­there occurred a charming scene,
when Gould was playing his new rec­ord of the Beethoven concerto in
his ­hotel sickroom, and a chambermaid stopped to listen. “The maid,”
he wrote, “is standing entranced in the doorway with a mop in her
hands, transfixed by the cadenza to movement #1 which is on the
phonograph—­it’s just ended and she’s just bowed and gone on to the
next room.”5

INT. DAY. THE ­HOTEL ROOM

Gould crosses the floor, anxiously unwrapping the package. He talks

into the phone.

G.G.
[to the phone]

. . . ​No, no, I . . . ​concerts tomorrow and Monday cancelled of course—­

not ­can’t sell. That means something entirely dif­fer­ent.

The chambermaid is finished. Gould stops her before she can leave.

G.G.
Wait, wait . . . ​please stay.

Gould escorts her back into the room. He gestures for her to sit in an
armchair in the centre of the room.

CHAMBERMAID
Aber mein herr, entschuldigung Ich muss arbeiten.

42 / chapter 4
Gould again gestures for her to sit. He takes the rec­ord he has un-
wrapped over to the gramophone and sets it up, drawing the curtains
over the win­dow.

G.G.
[still talking into the phone]
No . . . ​go ahead . . . ​Yes . . . ​that’s absolutely flawless. Could you send it
off immediately, please. Room 318. Thank you.

He hangs up. ­There is a moment of awkward silence. Gould turns to

face the chambermaid. She seems somewhat uncomfortable, wonder-
ing what he is about to do. Keeping his eyes on her, he backs over to
the rec­ord player and drops the needle. Suddenly, t­ here is a miraculous
outpouring of m ­ usic. The m
­ usic fills the room with a rush of emotion,
unmistakably Beethoven.

The Allegretto from Sonata #13 is heard with all its nostalgic candour.
Gould, however, remains unconvinced. He steps b ­ ehind the armchair
and lowers himself to the chambermaid’s ear level. ­After listening in-
tently for a moment or two, he crosses back to the phonograph and deli-
cately adjusts the treble and bass knobs. Then it’s back b ­ ehind the chair
for another listen. This time he seems satisfied. He sits b
­ ehind the maid.

The chambermaid has now completely given up on her schedule and

resigned herself to this odd pre­sen­ta­tion. As the m
­ usic plays, her anxi-
ety is gradually allayed and her apprehensions are translated into cu-
riosity. She examines her obliging captor and submits herself to the
­music. Gould, in turn, watches his audience. He holds his breath so as
not to disturb the flow of the ­music.

Suddenly, she looks directly at him [THUS BREAKING THE ANO-

NYMITY]. As he watches, she rises and picks up the rec­ord cover. Her
suspicions are confirmed when she sees Gould’s picture on the sleeve.
She looks back at him. Their eyes meet and lock. In respectful silence,
she turns away and walks slowly to the win­dow. Gould awaits the judg-
ment. The chambermaid pulls herself together and offers him her hand.

The ­music comes to an end.

CHAMBERMAID
Danke Schoen6

sonata quasi una fantasia / 43

 In Girard’s composition of his scene, the ­music is Beethoven’s; it is un-
derstood unmistakably to be so; it is as if the viewer w­ ill have recognized it
not only ­because it carries Beethoven’s unique signature but also b ­ ecause it
bears, in and beyond that signature, a par­tic­u­lar kind of candor, a truth or
truthfulness that is aligned with but uncut by nostalgia’s fantasmatic force.
This alleged mode of truth is, however, always shadowed by the untruth that
bears and/or accompanies it in an illicit partnership (Adorno calls it art’s Be­
wegungsgesetz, or law of motion) that lends itself to and structures the truth
of this par­tic­u­lar cinematic document. The m­ usic’s truth is troubled by its
chronological placement, disturbed by and in the very instant of its having
been replayed and seized in the absence—­and also in the performative forg-
ery or reforging—of the signature. This is to say not only that the Thirteenth
Piano Sonata is often remarked, when remarked at all, as unremarkable and
uncharacteristic by Beethoven scholars, but, moreover, that the allegretto of
Sonata no. 13 could not have been the Beethoven Gould replayed for the
chambermaid that day in 1958 b ­ ecause Gould recorded it in August 1981, a
year before his death.7 Indeed, the ­music upon which Gould insisted that day
in Hamburg was, in the end, not Beethoven’s at all but Gould’s substitutive
and disruptive augmentation of him. Girard’s direction obscures the a­ lbum
cover, such concealment revealing a certain ruse of sequence and history.8
Instead of portraying an almost surreptitious and unforced (meta-)audition
in which Gould, in his cell, in his solitude, is caught (or, perhaps more pre-
cisely, overheard) listening to his own “densely contrapuntal” self-­assertion
into Beethoven’s First Piano Concerto, Girard imaginatively, fantastically,
substitutes a scene in which the chambermaid is rendered captive audience
to a recording that had not yet been made. Where is the truth in this series
of pictures? Between the dynamic totality of the sonata’s expansion and the
positive negation of the cadenza’s counterpoint? Between documentary and
fantastic versions of the event? What is gained and lost in the event’s being
given other­wise?
The short film directly preceding Hamburg, Glenn Gould Meets Glenn
Gould, is also taken, as it w
­ ere, from real life. It is a dramatization of Gould’s
already dramatic and imaginary interview of himself, an imaginary inter-
view that took place as interior dialogue and broken, externalized solilo-
quy. In the interview, Gould, against as well as before himself, allows us to
­understand “Hamburg” as the re-­imagined dream of a transcendence—on
the part of a mourning audience, angry at Gould’s self-­imposed absence, like
a suicide—of Gould’s ideal 0:1 relationship between audience and performer:

44 / chapter 4
 g.g.: Mr. Gould, I d
­ on’t feel we should allow this dialogue to degen-
erate into idle banter. It’s obvious that ­you’ve never savored the
joys of a one-­to-­one relationship with a listener.
G.G.: I always thought that, managerially speaking, a twenty-­eight-­
hundred-­to-­one relationship was the concert hall ideal.
g.g.: I ­don’t want to split statistics with you. I’ve tried to pose the
question with all candor, and—­
G.G.: Well then, I’ll try to answer likewise. It seems to me that if
­we’re ­going to get waylaid by the numbers game, I’ll have to
plump for a zero-­to-­one relationship as between audience and
artist, and that’s where the moral objection comes in.
g.g.: I’m afraid I ­don’t quite grasp that point, Mr. Gould. Do you
want to run through it again?
G.G.: I simply feel that the artist should be granted, both for his sake
and that of his public—­and let me get on the rec­ord right now
the fact that I’m not at all happy with words like “public” and
“artist”; I’m not happy with the hierarchical implications of
that kind of terminology—­that he should be granted anonym-
ity. He should be permitted to operate in secret, as it w ­ ere,
unconcerned with—or, better still, unaware of—­the presumed
demands of the marketplace—­which demands, given sufficient
indifference on the part of a sufficient number of artists, w ­ ill
simply dis­appear. And given their disappearance, the artist w ­ ill
then abandon his false sense of “public” responsibility, and his
“public” ­will relinquish its role of servile de­pen­den­cy.”9

The technologically mediated relationship of anonymity Gould calls for ­here,

which he thought was a logical historical development in which the servility
and dependence of the audience that is removed from its own performative
capacity is cut by a kind of mechanized guarantee that ­there is ­music, is aug-
mented in Hamburg by the presence of Gould, manipulating the controls
of the rec­ord player, adjusting the playback, getting it just right. But Girard
unfaithfully indulges in Gould’s fantasy of an absolute noncorrespondence
of absence and absolute singularity, substituting for it the dream of a captive
audition, the auditor as servant, mobility and response circumscribed, even
though, in the end, she is empowered not only by the limits within which
she makes her choice but also by the way the performer’s control seems in-
evitably to slide into a servility all its own. What does Hamburg represent in

sonata quasi una fantasia / 45

the film? Not that solitude that made it, for Gould, the happiest moment of
his life and not only the fantasy of Gould’s return to live, if mediated, per­
for­mance. Perhaps, rather, it marks two interminable interinanimations: of
(the flight of or into) solitude and the (constrained, constraining) knowledge
of counterpoint; of composed, compositional, preformed, performative sub-
jectivity and imposed, improvisational thingliness.
(Gould substitutes his own phono-­manipulative power, given in the inter-
stice between performer and audience, given as his own, specially informed
auditory position, for the chambermaid’s auditory servility; at the same time,
in order to transcend that servility, by way of a certain proximity with the new
hybrid performer/listener, the chambermaid must be rendered captive. This
is to recognize that the traditional concertgoer, however servile, could always
leave the concert hall. The relation/conflict between captivity and servility
has to be played out on the person/body of the female chambermaid. How is
she to be placed within a general phonic history of the servant girl? Perhaps
this is where the question concerning the relation between counterpoint and
thingliness—­between the baroque and blackness—­returns. Meanwhile, the
audience is liberated by having been compelled to listen; only the spellbound
are capable of flight. Moreover, the listener, having entered a fugue state, is
inhabited by the artist—­which is to say by the artist’s position, as opposed
to her personality, which remains hidden, absent. Nevertheless, the audi-
ence, forced truly to listen, takes up or is taken on by a certain productive
function—­a transferred or even transverse musical responsibility. Held, she
­will have been freed by becoming more than herself in having been brought
up short of herself, by having inhabited an aesthetic position that inhabits
and inhibits her. Did she take on his knowledge [of counterpoint] with his
power? Note that “take” substitutes for “put” h ­ ere, in order to mark how
the difference between a meta­phorics of position and one of apparel fails to
signify. The taking up of a position must also bear the weight of bearing, of
gest and gesture, of wearing and of being worn, of clothing and the imposi-
tion of non-­nakedness, which is to say that what’s at stake is an imposition
of form as well as what­ever attends the knowledge of nakedness. The servant
girl, in her thingliness, which is to say her terribleness, is saved from the
fate of formlessness, of bareness, while also bearing the knowledge of having
been naked [for bare life only emerges against the backdrop of violation, the
enactment of what ­will have been a retroactive withdrawal of form and the
subsequent ascription and internalization of nakedness]. This is to say, more
explic­itly, that nakedness is an interior formulation. Her uniform, which is

46 / chapter 4
her nakedness, justifies a demand that assumes her necessary availability to
the imposition of a liberatory constraint. She improvises in and against and
out of that imposition. She dances ­under the groove of Gould’s extraordinary
rendition.)
The fantastic in film, in ­these musico-­technical senses, might be part of a
complex metafantasy, a counterpoint not only between psychoanalytic and
musical conceptions of fantasy, but between this relation and the contra-
puntal relation between the fantastic and the documentary as cinematic and
narrative drives. Consider the fantastic relation between counterpoint and
imagination, the interconnected but athematic relation that is montage as
such. A question of form and content and fantasy is situated at the point of
that conjunction. Furthermore, fantasy requires thinking the intensity of the
connection between the technical languages of classical ­music, psychoanal-
ysis, and cinema. Is the documentary drive, not only against but also in its
seriality, necessarily fantastical? Perhaps Gould’s own (radio/stereophonic)
documentary practice holds a clue. For Gould, The Idea of North, the first
section in his Solitude Trilogy, the beginning of his experimentation in what
he called “contrapuntal radio,” was an occasion for the dramatic disruption
of documentary linearity. How do we think this in relation to Thirty Two
Short Films? How do we think contrapuntal radio in relation not only to the
multiple tracks, lines, voices, and characters of extradocumentary cinema and
of contrapuntal m ­ usic, but also in relation also to what Peter Ostwald, another
of Gould’s biographers and a psychiatrist, speaks of as Gould’s pathological
experience of hearing voices?10 Perhaps dramatic documentary emerges from
a sort of obsessive and compositional overhearing—­a discomposing loss or
lack of normative composure that happens to or is imposed upon the com-
poser in diners, at the telephone, in sites where interview and inner view
converge, where simultaneity works through and over sequence, marking the
motivation ­behind the valorization of fantasy. In a way, The Idea of North is
analog to Sonata Quasi Una Fantasia in its extra-­as opposed to nonformal-
ity, its prologue a trio sonata that veers off and out, centrifugally, into fugue.11
The repressed, “densely contrapuntal” cadenza to Beethoven’s First Piano
Concerto has to reemerge somewhere in the film, at that moment, perhaps,
when, as Gould remarks, “one must try to invent a form which expresses
the limitations of form, which takes as its point of departure the terror of
formlessness.”12
Thirty Two Short Films about Glenn Gould begins and ends with an aria
and is thus structured and numbered like the Goldberg Variations, Bach’s

sonata quasi una fantasia / 47

masterful set of contrapuntal piano exercises, Gould’s brilliant recording
and rerecording of which framed his ­career. Yet ­these poles are not absolute
beginnings and endings and, further, they shadow even more crucial and
attenuated origins and terminations. We could look, then, at Hamburg and
Leaving as short films that have the function which the aria is supposed to
have; and we could look at Beethoven’s First Piano Concerto and his Thir-
teenth Piano Sonata as having a certain relation to Gould’s c­ areer as a ­whole
that p­ eople often assign to the recordings of the Goldberg Variations. This
is to say that we might think Gould as more properly represented not in
his creative submission to the already structured contrapuntal essence of
Bach but in his amplification of a certain contrapuntal trace in Beethoven
that serves to soften what Gould understands to be Beethoven’s Napoleonic
heroism while allowing Gould both to deny and to indulge his own. The film
parallels this structure by representing Gould’s per­for­mances, his complex
ambivalence regarding per­for­mance in its relation to the recording, and his
especially complicated relation to and desire for female audition in spite of
his protestations regarding an almost morally necessary withdrawal or ano-
nymity of the artist. Mechanical reproduction and telephonic communica-
tion are employed to make pos­si­ble this virtual detachment. In choosing the
Thirteenth Piano Sonata over the First Piano Concerto, Girard chooses to
withdraw the more fully contrapuntal and disruptive m ­ usic in the interest of
making a more fully contrapuntal film, a more fully true b ­ ecause fantastic,
document. This, in part, ­because the simultaneity such splicing allows marks
a place where the pres­ent and the absent, the living and the dead, converge.
The desire that is fantasy, simultaneity, is the desire for and disavowal of con-
trol over the interlocutor; the desire for a certain communication via solitude;
the desire for an ideal polyphony in silence and solitude; the desire for the
contrapuntal, perhaps pathological, ecstasy of solitude. And it is Eisenstein
who thinks a temporal-­pictorial conflict, a musical and thus contrapuntal
form of montage, a certain field of and for gesture that is the object and lo-
cale conjured by Gould’s absent presence, that is not but nothing other than
the “internal world theater” that Adorno senses in Beethoven and of which
he continues to dream.
For Adorno, “Beethoven’s ­music does not merely contain ‘Romantic ele­
ments,’ as ­music historians maintain, but has the ­whole of Romanticism and
its critique within itself.”13 Gould understands this; this explains his pro-
found ambivalence regarding Beethoven. Beethoven’s possession of (and by)
romanticism and its critique would necessarily repel and attract one who, in

48 / chapter 4
his mode of per­for­mance, on the one hand, and in his theoretical formula-
tions, on the other, both embodied and disavowed romanticism. Some fur-
ther formulations of Adorno are instructive ­here:

The prima vista most striking formalistic residue in Beethoven—­the

reprise, the recurrence, unshaken despite all structural dynamics,
of what has been voided—is not just external and conventional. Its
purpose is to confirm the pro­cess as its own result, as occurs uncon-
sciously in social practice. Not by chance are some of Beethoven’s most
pregnant conceptions designed for the instant of the reprise as the re-
currence of the same. They justify, as the result of a pro­cess, what was
once before. It is exceedingly illuminating that Hegelian philosophy—­
whose categories can be applied without vio­lence to ­every detail of a
­music that cannot possibly have been exposed to any Hegelian “influ-
ence” in terms of the history of ideas—­that this philosophy knows the
reprise as does Beethoven’s ­music: the last chapter of the Phenomenol­
ogy, the absolute knowledge, has no other content than to summarize
the total work which claims to have already gained the identity of sub-
ject and object, in religion.
But that the affirmative gestures of the reprise in some of Beethoven’s
greatest symphonic movements assume the force of a crushing repres-
sion, of an authoritarian “That’s how it is,” that the decorative gestures
overshoot the musical events—­this is the tribute Beethoven was forced
to pay to the ideological character whose spell extends even to the
most sublime m ­ usic ever to aim at freedom ­under continued unfree-
dom. The self-­exaggerating assurance that the return of the first is the
meaning, the self-­revelation of immanence as transcendence—­this is
the cryptogram for the senselessness of a merely self-­producing real­ity
that has been welded together into a system. Its substitute for meaning
is continuous functioning.14

Knowingly or not, Beethoven was an objective follower of this idea.

He produces the total unity of the obligatory style by dynamization.
The several ele­ments no longer follow one another in a discrete se-
quence; they pass into rational unity through a continuous pro­cess
effectuated by themselves. The conception lies already, so to speak,
charted in the state of the prob­lem offered to Beethoven by the sonata
form of Haydn and Mozart, the form in which diversity evens out into
unity but keeps diverging from it while the form remains an abstract

sonata quasi una fantasia / 49

 sheath over the diversity. The irreducible vision, in an eye that in the
most advanced production of his time, in the masterly pieces of the
other two Viennese classicists, could read the question in which their
perfection transcended itself and called for something e­ lse. This was
how he dealt with the crux of the dynamic form, with the reprise, the
conjuring of static sameness amid a total becoming. In conserving it,
he has grasped the reprise as a prob­lem. He seeks to rescue the objec-
tive formal canon that has been rendered impotent, as Kant rescued
the categories: by once more deducing it from the liberated subjectiv-
ity. The reprise is as much brought on by the dynamic pro­cess as it ex
post facto vindicates the pro­cess, so to speak, as its result. In this
vindication the pro­cess has passed on what was then ­going to drive
irresistibly beyond it.15

The dynamic sonata form in itself evoked its subjective fulfillment

even while hampering it as a tectonic schema. Beethoven’s technical
flair united the contradictory postulates, obeying one through the
other. As the obstetrician of such formal objectivity he spoke for the
social emancipation of the subject, ultimately for the idea of a united
society of the autonomously active. In the esthetic picture of a league of
­free men he went beyond bourgeois society. As art as appearance can
be given the lie by the social real­ity that appears in it, it is permitted,
conversely, to exceed the bounds of a real­ity whose suffering imperfec-
tions are what conjures up art.16

How does the imperative to repeat manifest itself in the age of mechani-
cal reproduction when the a­ ctual per­for­mance of the repetition can be sub-
stituted, even voided? One must move, despite Adorno’s distaste, precisely
where immanence and transcendence converge, precisely in order to get at
this cryptogram, to get at the kernel that reveals or marks the autocritical ro-
mantic stage of enlightenment’s autocritical devolution to mere functioning
(as, ­here, Adorno—­after Max Weber and Martin Heidegger—­would have it).
But what of Adorno’s fearful and repetitive “revelation” of repetition’s debt-­
ridden submission to the unfreedom it would internally disrupt? Of course,
that to which Adorno shows a certain generosity, ­here, is only and severely
vilified by him when it is manifest in jazz. And, the functionality of his repeti-
tions of Weber and Heidegger and, above all, of himself, is left unremarked.
This is to say that the question of the politico-­philosophical work such an
argument does is left hanging when, in our supposedly postideological mo-

50 / chapter 4
ment, it works, certainly in spite of Adorno’s best instincts and hopes, as
a kind of dampening, a resignation in spite of his theoretical refashion-
ing and disavowal of resignation. But perhaps t­ here is something Adorno
missed about repetition’s resistance—as opposed and in addition to its
(re)capitulation—to resignation. ­These are alliterative, repeating questions
of rhythm. Technically, ­these are questions of the splice, of the deconstruc-
tion and reconstruction of per­for­mance’s temporality by another technical
apparatus. The time of per­for­mance, the time of documentary, the time of
biography ­will be, now, fantastic.
At stake in Beethoven’s m ­ usic (especially in his setting into [com]motion
of the sonata form), according to Adorno, is the birth of a new science and the
idea of “a united society of the autonomously active.” What is the relation of
montage to this progressive rationality? What occurs in the filmic repre­sen­
ta­tion of ­music, this attempt to document the truth of a musical per­for­mance,
to interpret cinematically the truth in m ­ usic, to form some unity out of the
diversity of modes of expression whose unique totalities and temporalities
seem, according to Adorno, to be incompatible? How can the seemingly an-
tifantastic essence of film, as discrete sequence and documentary drive, hope
to make a fantasy of film and ­music?
Girard represents the playing of a recording. The performer “captured”
on the recording plays the recording. He plays it for the maid who is cleaning
up his room. We know him to be one who valorizes recordings over live per­
for­mances. The playback is, nevertheless, a per­for­mance. It is a per­for­mance
that marks, above all, a certain effect of rhythm. What does syncopation do
to the sequence? What is the relation between the reprise, the sonata’s serial
development, montagic sequencing and the documentary drive when all are
subject to syncopation—­when all occur, as it ­were, within the syncopic black-
out of an imaginary event? How can film be both a dynamic totality and a
sequence of pictures, both fantasy and documentary?
Note that for Adorno the “authoritarian ‘that’s how it is’ ” of the reprise
has a function similar to that of the backbeat, namely the signification of
the ever-­functioning of the hard, authoritarian line. But if the reprise, and
the sequence it intimates, can work within the drive for a freedom even in
unfreedom in Beethoven, why ­can’t it work similarly in film, in twentieth-­
century black m
­ usic, the two g ­ reat aesthetico-­political discoveries of “our
modernity,” the two ­great fulfillments of mechanical reproduction and its
age, the two sides of a coin that Adorno disavows as if the enclosures or
constraints by which they are ­shaped at the level of their form as well as

sonata quasi una fantasia / 51

at the level of the content of their repre­sen­ta­tions bring the dialectic to a
halt? We can ask this question of Adorno with regard to Glenn Gould and the
film made about him. The relations between musical fantasy and fantasy-­in-­
documentary drive return now by way of Freud and the hint of any operative
racialization ­will, of necessity, be more pronounced.
In The Language of Psycho-­Analysis, Laplanche and Pontalis define fan-
tasy in this way:

Phantasy: Imaginary scene in which the subject is a protagonist, rep-

resenting the fulfilment of a wish (in the last analy­sis, an unconscious
wish) in a manner that is distorted to a greater or lesser extent by de-
fensive pro­cesses.
Phantasy has a number of dif­fer­ent modes: conscious phantasies or
daydreams, unconscious phantasies like t­ hose uncovered by analy­sis as
the structures under­lying a manifest content, and primal phantasies.
I. The German word “Phantasie” means imagination, though less
in the philosophical sense of the faculty of imagining (Einbildungsk­
raft) than in the sense of the world of the imagination, its contents and
the creative activity which animates it. Freud exploited t­ hese dif­fer­ent
connotations of the German usage.17

Freud “refines” the distinction between fantasy and real­ity ­after dispens-
ing with the seduction theory. In this refinement or displacement the op-
erative distinction is now that between material and psychical real­ity, where
psychical real­ity refers to “a nucleus within the [‘internal world’] which is
heterogeneous and resistant and which is alone in being truly ‘real’ as com-
pared with the majority of psychical phenomena.”18 This move by Freud is
in­ter­est­ing since it reinscribes a distinction, within psychical phenomena,
between the real and its Other. It also locates the real in re­sis­tance, in a cer-
tain heterogeneity that we could think of as (the) contrapuntal, psychical
real­ity as a dramatic counterpoint animating the internal world. ­Here we
could speak, with Adorno, of the dynamic totality of the psyche, the melodra-
matic, musical theatricality of the internal world. Still, a sharp distinction
remains between psychical and material real­ity that makes one won­der not
only about the status of something we might call the external world theater
(the social totality), but also about the relative place of sound—is it to be
reduced or amplified?—in the formation of the internal and external worlds
(as theaters). ­These are questions concerning a certain relation between the
analytic encounter and ­music that move beyond any ascription of musical-

52 / chapter 4
ity to psychical real­ity. ­Here, also, resides an echo of pianist Cecil Taylor’s
assertion that improvisation is self-­analysis, an echo echoed by Gould’s
form-­creating ambitions, prefigured by Beethoven’s injection of improvisa-
tional fantasy into the sonata form, an injection clearly pronounced in the
Thirteenth Piano Sonata. When thinking the self-­analytic origins of psycho-
analysis, Taylor’s formulation becomes crucial. It’s all bound up with what
drives Freudian discovery. Laplanche and Pontalis explain: “[Freud] refuses
to be restricted to a choice between one approach, which treats phantasy as
a distorted derivative of the memory of ­actual fortuitous events, and another
one which deprives phantasy of any specific real­ity and looks upon it merely
as an imaginary expression designed to conceal the real­ity of the instinctual
dynamic. The typical phantasies uncovered by psycho-­analysis led Freud to
postulate the existence of unconscious schemata transcending individual
lived experience and supposedly transmitted by heredity: t­hese he called
primal phantasies.”19 Primal phantasies hook up with what are referred to
in Freud’s work as “our” “phyloge­ne­tic heritage,” “man’s ‘archaic heritage,’ ”
our “congenital libidinal f­ actors.” The question concerns w
­ hether or not this
move to ele­ments transcending individual experience is fantastical itself.
This is the question of Freud’s discovery as phyloge­ne­tic fantasy, a (kantra-
puntal) fantasy not only of the universality (or “intersubjective validity”) of
the internal world, but paradoxically of that universality’s emergence and in
relation to a structuring and originary difference since such interiority, in the
Freudian moment, is given in exclusion (from the [racialized] right/status/
opportunity to claim or forge such interiority). Note that fantasy is under-
stood ­here to be the ground of both acting out and repetition. How might
we think their relation each to the other? ­Here, fantasia could be thought
of as the source of, rather than some prophylactic against, the reprise. Simi-
larly, Beethoven’s injection of fantasia into the form of the sonata could be
understood as guaranteeing a certain reprise of the reprise, ordering and
structuring another mode of its maintenance. This both confirms and dis-
turbs Adorno.
­These questions are all connected to the question of the topological po-
sition of phantasy. Its phyloge­ne­tic provenance, ­here, is to be thought, in
relation to its position and movement in the psyche. How and where does
it move? Where does phantasy start? Laplanche and Pontalis continue: “In
the dream-­work phantasy is to be found at both poles of the pro­cess: on the
one hand, it is bound to the deepest unconscious wishes, to the “cap­i­tal­ist”
aspect of the dream, while at the other extreme it has a part to play in the

sonata quasi una fantasia / 53

secondary revision. The two extremities of the dream pro­cess and the two
corresponding modes of phantasy seem therefore to join up, or at least to
be linked internally with each other—­they appear, as it w
­ ere, to symbolise
20
each other.” Phantasy moves in a complex series as a dynamic totality; as
if by way of some faster-­than-­light communication it appears to be at two
positions at once or ­there appears to be some strange connection or spooky
action at a distance moving between the poles at which fantasy seems, si­
mul­ta­neously, to be located. In “The Unconscious” (1915), Freud establishes
a link, according to Laplanche and Pontalis, between ­those aspects of phan-
tasy which seem to be farthest away from one another:

On the one hand, they [phantasies] are highly organised, ­free from self-­
contradiction, have made use of ­every acquisition of the system Cs. and
would hardly be distinguished in our judgement from the formations of
that system. On the other hand, they are unconscious and are incapable
of becoming conscious. Thus qualitatively they belong to the system
Pcs., but factually to the Ucs. Their origin is what decides their fate.
We may compare them with individuals of mixed race who, taken all
round, resemble white men, but who betray their coloured descent by
some striking feature or other, and on that account are excluded from
­ eople.21
society and enjoy none of the privileges of white p

Most striking h­ ere, though, is a manifestation of the phyloge­ne­tically fan-

tastical in Freud, which is made more striking when seen in relation to the
case of Beethoven, the uniqueness or outness of his personality which leads
Adorno to a characterization of Beethoven as fatherless child, in the Althus-
serian sense, out from the bourgeoisie he symbolizes and helps to shape, of
doubtful or shadowed origin. Adorno figures Beethoven as an arch-­bourgeois
protégé of aristocrats, on the one hand, but is hip to “reports on Beethoven’s
personality [that] leave ­little doubt of his anticonventional nature, a combi-
nation of sansculottism with Fichtean braggadocio . . . ​[that] recurs in the
plebian habitus of his humanity.” Adorno thinks this in relation to loneli-
ness, the self-­positing subjectivity of the self-­acknowledged mindowner, as
opposed and in relation to landowner; but we might also think this in terms,
again, of a racialized, and therefore impossible to contain, lawlessness that,
in the case of Gould playing Beethoven, manifests itself at the convergence
and as the blurring, of composition (or of a certain compositional compe-
tence, resulting from a regulative, antisentimental musical education) and
per­for­mance.22 At any rate, the myth of origin in Freud is strong ­here, but

54 / chapter 4
the complex pathways of phantasy make one think that establishing its ori-
gins is more complicated than Freud would have it. The claim to an originary
connection is always broken. This would be the sexual cut of phantasy, its
cryptographic heritage. It allows us to activate and elaborate, past Freud, the
distinction between origin and initiality that he posits in his discussion of
the drives in An Outline of Psycho-­Analysis.
Laplanche and Pontalis begin to get at this in elaborating the relation
between phantasy and desire:

Even in their least elaborate forms, phantasies do not appear to be

reducible to an intentional aim on the part of the desiring subject:

a. Even where they can be summed up in a single sentence, phan-

tasies are still scripts (scénarios) of organised scenes which are
capable of dramatisation—­usually in visual form.
b. The subject is invariably pres­ent in ­these scenes; even in the case
of the “primal scene,” from which it might appear that he was ex-
cluded, he does in fact have a part to play not only as an observer
but also as a participant, when he interrupts the parents’ coitus.
c. It is not an object that the subject imagines and aims at, so to
speak, but rather a sequence in which the subject has his own
part to play and in which permutations of roles and attributions
are pos­si­ble. [The reader’s attention is drawn, in par­tic­u­lar, to
Freud’s analy­sis of the phantasy ‘ “A Child is Being Beaten” ’ and
to the syntactical changes which this sentence undergoes; cf. also
the transformations of the homosexual phantasy in the account
of the Schreber case].
d. In so far as desire is articulated in this way through phantasy, phan-
tasy is also the locus of defensive operations: it facilitates the most
primitive of defence pro­cesses, such as turning round upon the sub-
jects own self, reversal into the opposite, negation and projection.
e. Such defences are themselves inseparably bound up with the pri-
mary function of phantasy, namely the mise-­en-­scène of desire—­a
mise-­en-­scène in which what is prohibited (l’interdit) is always
pres­ent in the ­actual formation of the wish.23

Now ­there’s an immediate drive ­toward this thinking of sequence, syntax,

sentence, and mise-­en-­scène: the cinematics of ­these formations get us back
to that cinematics of a par­tic­u­lar ­music, jazz, of which Adorno is so scared,

sonata quasi una fantasia / 55

precisely ­because it threatens to devolve into that vulgarity of temporality
that Derrida eschews. But it d­ oesn’t move ­there precisely ­because of the
presence of phantasy as organ­izing counterpoint. W­ e’re still left, however,
with dramatization as a possibility that Girard exploits, we might say. H­ ere
we can think, again, of the Hamburg film/script/scenario as a kind of fan-
tasy, the fantasy of another audition, an audition mediated by the record-
ing. The fantastical structure of the one on one, and, then, the maid starts
humming, singing back, echoing Gould’s own humming silenced by the
recording but pres­ent in its inaudibility and impossible to suppress. What
is totality: a contrapuntal sequence without origin, a world theater/world
imagination irrupting through the opposition of internal and external? How
does slavery—or the Euro-­Afro-­American encounter/eclipse—­inhabit the
structure of Freudian discovery?24 Can we say that phantasy is structured
like a sonata, a sonata quasi una fantasia? What w ­ ill this reversal have to
say for the structure of the unconscious in general; that it is structured not
like a language but like ­music? What of Adorno’s invocation of the crypto-
gram: can it be thought in relation to the phasic sequencing of phantasy,
its evasion of origin, the oscillational rummaging of/between the sexes that
constitutes the phasal relay or reversible/reprisal “development” of phantasy,
the sexes initial but not original in relation to the motive forces of repres-
sion in general, which is what psychoanalysis is a­ fter in the end? Fi­nally,
what more can we say now about the relations between Freudian fantasy and
counterpoint, counterpoint and cinema?
Please permit me three more lengthy quotations, of Gilles Deleuze and Félix
Guattari, Adorno, and Edward Said.

Beethoven produced the most astonishing polyphonic richness with

relatively scanty themes of three or four notes. T
­ here is a material
proliferation that goes hand in hand with a dissolution of form (in-
volution) but is at the same time accompanied by a continuous de-
velopment of form.25

The more harmony freed itself from the triad, or more generally from
the scheme of superimposed thirds; the more chords ­were created by
si­mul­ta­neously sounded notes; and above all, the more each note in
the chord was able to maintain its separate identity, instead of melt-
ing into the homogeneous sonorities that operate with the simplest
harmonic combinations—­the more the chords became polyphonic in
themselves. With the increasingly dissonant character of harmony,

56 / chapter 4
 the tension in individual sonorities also increased. No sonority was
self-­contained, like the old consonance, the “resolution” [Auflösung].
­Every sonority seemed to be laden with energy, to point beyond it-
self, and ­every one of the distinct individual notes contained within
it required an in­de­pen­dent “melodic” continuation of its own, instead
of t­here being a succession of one synthesized overall sonority a­ fter
another. This emancipation of individual notes from their chord was
prob­ably what Schoenberg had in mind when he spoke of the instinc-
tual life of sonorities.26

To master counterpoint is therefore in a way almost to play God, as

Adrian Leverkühn, the hero of Thomas Mann’s Dr. Faustus, under-
stands. Counterpoint is the total ordering of sound, the complete man-
agement of time, the minute subdivision of musical space, an absolute
absorption for the intellect. ­Running through the history of Western
­music, from Palestrina and Bach to the dodecaphonic rigors of Schön-
berg, Berg, and Webern, is a contrapuntal mania for inclusiveness, and
it is a power­ful allusion to this that informs Mann’s Hitlerian version
of a pact with the devil in Faustus, a novel about a polyphonic German
artist whose aesthetic fate encapsulates his nation’s overreaching folly.
Gould’s contrapuntal per­for­mances come as close as I can imagine to
delivering an inkling of what might be at stake in the composition and
per­for­mance of counterpoint, minus perhaps any grossly po­liti­cal im-
port. Not the least of this achievement, however, is that he never re-
coils from the comic possibility that high counterpoint may only be a
parody, pure form aspiring to the role of world-­historical wisdom.
In fine, Gould’s playing enables the listener to experience Bach’s
contrapuntal excesses—­for they are that, beautifully and exorbitantly—
as no other pianist has. We are convinced that no one could do coun-
terpoint, reproduce and understand Bach’s fiendish skill, more than
Gould. Hence he seems to perform at the limit where ­music, ratio-
nality, and the physical incarnation of both in the performer’s fin­gers
come together.27

What can we make of this instinctual life of sonorities in cinema and of

the tendency of individual notes (frames/narrative units/short films [for
our purposes in Girard]) to spin off and ­free themselves? This is a ques-
tion that Eisenstein asks in “A Dialectical Approach to Film Form” in re-
gard to conflict or counterpoint in film. And the question of counterpoint

sonata quasi una fantasia / 57

within something that manifests itself as a singular linearity is something we
can think through Said’s invocation of Leverkühn, through the way Gould’s
work, his portrayal in this film, seems to constitute the interinanimation of
subject and object, harmony and counterpoint, singularity and multiplicity,
Castorpian seclusion and Leverkühnian desire for polyphonic knowledge.
One seeks the truth, as it ­were, contrapuntally, by way of a kind of question-
ing. That questioning takes the form of a kind of repeating. Such questioning
in Gould is what Leonard Bern­stein loved: “That’s why,” he says, “[Gould]
made so many experimental changes of tempi. He would play the same Mo-
zart sonata-­movement adagio one time and presto the next, when actually
it’s supposed to be neither. He was not trying to attract attention, but looking
for the truth. I loved that in him.”28
Such questioning takes the form of interior dialogue, of listening to one’s
own voices, a listening that manifests itself externally as side effect and sound
effect in Gould’s per­for­mances on stage and on rec­ord, in his musical and
literary compositions, in his self-­conducted interviews. The prerequisite for
honoring this interior multiplicity is solitude, what Adorno might hear as a
romantic, subjective Beethovenesque loneliness. As he says, regarding Bach,
“the par­tic­u­lar polyphonic techniques used . . . ​to construct musical objectiv-
ity themselves presupposed subjectivization.”29 The materiality of an ­actual
interplay exists as a kind of occasion, at best, as a kind of competitive false-
ness, at worst. Gould seems to have thought of the concerto generally as
oscillating between ­these two possibilities. The magnificent and solitary mul-
tiplicity of voices in the head to which they should aspire is given in The Idea
of North or in our repressed cadenza, perhaps more than in the allegretto
from Beethoven’s Thirteenth Piano Sonata. To be truthful to yourself is a
contrapuntal task that manifests itself as multiple solitude in fictional splice.
The documentary drive is at the conjunction of a certain elaborative and
developmental energy in form and content, on the one hand, and the fact of
something actually happening. The fantastic (or speculative, as Samuel R.
Delany teaches us) is all bound up with a certain repre­sen­ta­tion of what
­hasn’t happened yet. And what has and h ­ asn’t happened play out at the level
of formal development as well as at the repre­sen­ta­tion of facts or events. This
is to say that the disruption, postponement, or unmasking of development
might be given not only in the creative force that animates e­ very note, not
only in the tension between sameness and difference held within an hereto-
fore undiscovered repetition, but also in what Adorno might dismiss as mere
image, gross peinture, decorative gesture, or—in what many of Gould’s crit-

58 / chapter 4
ics dismissed in his playing as frenzied excess—­the overblown ecstasy that
always accompanies classical m ­ usic per­for­mance as a threat of embarrass-
ment in a certain revelation of unseemly origins, some dark song or secret
at and before its heart (where every­thing that Adorno reviles u
­ nder rubric of
prematurity is given again by way of what Nathaniel Mackey desires in the
name of the postexpectant). Is the trace of the contrapuntal in Beethoven to
which Gould is so attuned a racial mark, the mark of someone being beaten,
the mark of another beat? One could spin off a fantasy, ­here, on Beethoven’s al-
legedly Moorish origins, what Adorno refers to in class terms as his position or
movement beyond bourgeois society. And this trace might ­here seem to work
not only as the trace of romanticism in Beethoven but also as the trace and
condition of possibility of its critique, in Adorno’s terms—­the out, improvi-
sational rationality of a basso continuo, a mystery train, an idea of south. Of
course, so much of Gould’s story, of Girard’s fantastic documentation of it,
is all bound up with Gould’s profound ambivalence regarding per­for­mance.
That ambivalence is marked especially clearly, h ­ ere, in a conversation about
film.

Gould: I’ve a feeling that [film’]s changed our sense of distance . . . ​,

and I know that since film became more and more impor­tant
to me in the last de­cade or so, I’ve begun to think of ­music
dimensionally in a way that just ­hadn’t occurred before. You
see, I have a feeling that what ­we’re ­going to do eventually
is forget about this funny notion that ­we’ve carried over into
the recording of ­music strictly as a legacy, and a very poor
one, of the concert hall. Which is to say that we should sit
the listener down in front of his stereo speakers and confront
him box-­like with an experience. I ­don’t think that ­we’re sup-
posed to confront him with anything at all, and I think that
one way in which that can be broken through (and I’m trying
this now ­because I think that it’s the salvation of the audio
recording at a time when video recording may very well play
a large part in our ­future), is to think in terms of multiple
perspectives—­multiple perspectives which represent and
which choreograph and which set forth the work as purely
and as analytically as we can . . . ​
Davis: Would it be fair to say or to suggest that, for example, in the
opening of the Beethoven Hammerclavier Sonata, you might

sonata quasi una fantasia / 59

 take ­those opening big chords in a very close microphone
perspective, practically inside the piano lid and, the minute
the sound got soft again, the minute the next musical idea
came in, all of a sudden your microphoning was taken way off
in the distance ­until it gradually approached the piano like . . . ​
Gould: Precisely, that way you could convey precisely what the motion
of that piece is, just as an animator could convey to you what
it’s all about. You w
­ ouldn’t violate the ­music; ­there would be
no sense in violating the m ­ usic. What you would violate is
the ubiquitous, too-­long-­held perspective of the concert hall,
which has kept us g ­ oing and in business for a long time but . . . ​
Davis: Well certainly the two experiences can be complementary to
one another and even though the concert hall experience has
admitted severe limitations I think it would be nonetheless
worthwhile recalling that ­music is a performed art . . . ​
Gould: Yes, but must it always pass through the mediation of a
performer who is just that? I mean is it not pos­si­ble that
some sort of masterful technician could guide it much more
successfully?30

Note that in the midst of Gould’s explanations of his withdrawal from per­
for­mance, one c­an’t help but remark the recurrent invocation and cele­
bration of a distance very much like the Benjaminian aura that animates a
prefigurative critique of Girard’s attempts at a mediated restoration of the
live. His portrayal of a fussy Gould obsessively positioning the chambermaid
in Hamburg might have been described by Gould both as a poor legacy of the
concert hall and as an attempt to overcome that legacy by emphasizing a spa-
tiality in musical per­for­mance and audition with which video recording and,
more specifically, filmic animation (and this is in evidence in Girard’s film as
well) is more thoroughly and analytically concerned than is audio recording.
Yet the truth of a certain spatial performativity in Gould’s recording as much
as in his live per­for­mances is given all throughout the film, and in Hamburg
in par­tic­u­lar, by way of a splicing upon which Gould could only have smiled.
Joseph Roddy writes that, for Gould,

as for most good pianists, a per­for­mance is far more than a ­matter of

giving sound and musical shape to a set of symbols that the composer
has fixed on paper; it is an attempt to deliver a perfect copy of the
ideal per­for­mance he can hear in his head at any time, even when his

60 / chapter 4
 hands are in his pockets. When Gould talks about piano playing, he
often illustrates his points by singing out sections of ­these ideal per­
for­mances, and when he is giving a recital he sings along in an interior
monologue, usually just sort of an audible mutter. On the stage, he
conscientiously tries to keep the mutter inaudible, but sometimes—­
not as rarely as he would wish—in the m ­ iddle of a recital he slips and
breaks into full song, which can be heard loud and clear all the way to
the back of the hall.
Ordinarily, abundant side effects of this sort are the by-­products of
a con-­molto-­amore performing style—­a style that can easily tear any
musical passion to tatters. This is not true of Gould. Frenzied as he ap-
pears to the eye, his ­music is essentially dispassionate . . . ​31

And ­here is Peter Ostwald’s version of what I’ve come to think of as (the
necessarily fantastic) “original” of what is, in turn, fantastically documented
in Hamburg:

He was practicing a fugue by Mozart, K. 394, when the maid turned

on the vacuum cleaner close to the piano. Suddenly his playing was
shrouded in mechanical noise, a sensation he found not at all unpleas-
ant. The way Glenn reported this experience l­ater on was that “in the
louder passages, this luminously diatonic ­music in which Mozart delib-
erately imitates the technique of Sebastian Bach became surrounded
with a halo of vibrato, rather the effect that you might get if you sang in
the bathtub with both ears full of ­water and shook your head from side
to side all at once.” The vacuum cleaner obviously interfered with his
perception of the sound he was producing on the piano, but it height-
ened his perception of the movements he was making to produce that
sound. “I could feel, of course—­I could sense the tactile relation to the
keyboard, which is replete with its own kind of acoustical associations,
and I could imagine what I was ­doing, but I ­couldn’t actually hear it.”
What has happened was that the masking noise of the vacuum
cleaner had shifted Glenn’s attention to the internal sensations of his
body and away from the acoustical results of his playing. It was like a
trip to the interior—­and he enjoyed it. The interruption of auditory
feedback led to a heightened awareness of how he moved his fin­gers
while playing, a new tactile awareness of himself.
 . . . ​For Gould, the result of his experience with impeded sound
perception was that it made him more keenly appreciate the difference

sonata quasi una fantasia / 61

 between ­music heard abstractly in the inner mind and m
­ usic produced
concretely by playing an instrument. The ­simple trick of vacuum
cleaner noise had accomplished for him something akin to what deaf-
ness did to Beethoven. “I could imagine what I was ­doing,” Glenn said,
“but I c­ ouldn’t actually hear it.” And like many an introverted artist
who may at times prefer the products of the imagination to the result-
ing creative effort, he enjoyed his inner hearing more than his outer
per­for­mance. “The strange ­thing was that all of it suddenly sounded
better than it had without the vacuum cleaner, and t­ hose parts which
I ­couldn’t actually hear sounded best of all.32

This necessary transcendence of aurality—­wherein the valorization of the

fantastical (as inner sound or sound image) is given in the reduction of pho-
nic substance—is linked, for Gould, to a no less necessary transcendence of
the tactile.

Now, the point is that you have to begin, I think, by finding a way to
any instrument that gets rid of the w ­ hole notion that the instrument
pres­ents you with a set of tactile prob­lems—it does, of course, but you
have to reduce t­ hose prob­lems to their own square root, so to speak,
and having done that, adapt to any kind of situation in relation to that
square root. The prob­lem then is to have a sufficient advance and/or
extra-­tactile experience of the m­ usic so that anything that the piano
does ­isn’t permitted to get in the way. In my own case, my means
­toward this is to spend most of the time away from the piano, which
can be difficult b­ ecause you occasionally want to hear what it sounds
like. But a certain analytical ideal (which is somehow contradictory,
I ­can’t quite think how—­I’m a bit stupid t­oday, but anyway . . . ​), an
analytical completeness, at any rate, is theoretically pos­si­ble as long as
you stay away from the piano. The moment you go to it y­ ou’re ­going
to diminish that completeness by tactile compromise. Now, at some
point that compromise is inevitable, but the degree to which you can
minimize its effect is the degree to which you can reach out for the
ideal that ­we’re talking about.33

This passage reveals that Gould is a serial fantasist engaged in the sequen-
tial dematerialization of origin, the abstraction of and from tactile, auditory
beginning(s). Perhaps the life that is or­ga­nized around an open sequence
of techno-­performative avoidances of per­for­mance is best understood as a

62 / chapter 4
series of short films that w
­ ill have, in turn, become the broken, figurative
ground for thirty-­two more—­each “original” event is a dematerializing fan-
tasy composed of dematerialized events. The story is a cut sequence of cut
sequences, an ongoing festival of splice and replay, relay and playback—­the
serial and fantastic revision of an always already broken backstory. If Ham­
burg represents an a­ ctual event that prefigures or is mixed with more vexed
and difficult relations with immigrant maids in Canada (one remembers the
maid in the subsequent short film “Crossed Paths” who said the Italian and
Jamaican maids who worked at the Inn at the Park in Toronto, where Gould
kept a small studio, ­wouldn’t serve him ­because they thought he was some
kind of pervert; of course, in a glorious sense he was some kind of pervert,
as any cursory thinking of the erotics of this encounter, this forced audition,
must reveal), it might also be prefigured by and mixed with a famous prior
encounter with a maid, one whose disruption of Gould’s practice/per­for­
mance opened up w ­ hole new possibilities of performance-­in-­audition for
him. ­Here, questions of overtone, counterpoint, and per­for­mance touch on
the constitutive relation of fantasy to documentary. One thinks, especially,
of the importance in Gould of the analytic, which he and Adorno both see
as a necessary function of counterpoint, of how it is thought in relation
to a certain framing, as well as a certain fragmentation, an irreducible dis-
creteness and discretion of its ele­ments, both of which are paradoxically
essential to the secret, fantasmatic ­wholeness of (the) composition. This
consideration, in turn, must touch on how Gould understands what he calls
the image of the m ­ usic, its workings in relation to a reduction of phonic
substance and tactile experience that the partial withdrawal of per­for­mance
partially enacts.
While Adorno requires recognition of the distinction between phonic
substance or sound and musical material, Gould demands reduction of the
tactile experience as well so that he might conceptualize what he c­ an’t imag-
ine, imagine what he cannot hear. It is, however, by way of ecstatic singing
and humming, irruptively involuntary movements of/and conduction, the
supposedly degraded and degrading accompaniments of the pianistic utter-
ance, that Gould achieves a certain content or essential ­music whose out-
ward manifestation is the irreducible sound of the piano and his irrepressible
phono-­choreographic accompaniment. That ensemble of accompaniment—­
composition’s disruptively constitutive innermost extremity, the native
fugue-­state of being-­composed—is essential to that content; it is its condi-
tion of possibility. It is the embarrassment not simply of m
­ usic’s irreducible

sonata quasi una fantasia / 63

materiality but of the origin and end of ­music’s fantastic transcendence of
that materiality in that materiality that is the source of what we might call
Gould’s per­for­mance anxiety, which is allayed and relayed in his per­for­mance
of and through his love affair with the mediating force of forced microphonic
rendition and stereophonic audition. This is all to say that Gould’s record-
ings bear the trace, and Girard’s film insists upon, the centrality of visual,
tactile, and aural experience—­a performativity that improvises through the
opposition of media and the immediate—to the abstract truth in m ­ usic. By
way of fantasy, the recordings and the film document this unconcealment.
Such animateriality always verges on scandal, w ­ hether it takes the form of
discomposing song or abducted listening. Such fantasy, or counterpoint, in
­music and in cinema, is what Eisenstein theorizes h
­ ere.

Hence, with only one step from visual vibrations to acoustic vibra-
tions, we find ourselves in the field of ­music. From the domain of the
spatial-­pictorial—to the domain of the temporal-­pictorial—­where
the same law rules. For counterpoint is to m ­ usic not only the form
of composition, but is altogether the basic ­factor for the possibility of
tone perception and tone differentiation . . . . ​
In the moving image (cinema) we have, so to speak, the synthesis
of two counterpoints—­the spatial counterpoint of graphic art and the
temporal counterpoint of ­music.34

Conflict within a thesis (an abstract idea)—­formulates itself in the

dialectics of the sub-­title—­forms itself spatially in the conflict within
the shot—­and explodes with increasing intensity in montage-­conflict
among the separate shots: This is fully analogous to ­human psycho-
logical expression. This is a conflict of motives, which can be compre-
hended in three phases.

I. Purely verbal utterance. Without intonation—­expression in speech.

II. Gesticulatory (mimic-­intonational) expression. Projection of the
conflict onto the ­whole expressive bodily system of man. Gesture
of bodily movement and gesture of intonation.
III. Projection of the conflict into space. With an intensification of
motives, the zigzag of manic expression is propelled into the
surrounding space following the same formula of distortion.
A zigzag of expression arising from the spatial division caused
by man moving in space. Mise-­en-­scène.35

64 / chapter 4
Eisenstein moves through strictures regarding any taking into account of the
merely gestural, of the decorative, or of accompaniments of the per­for­mance
as it is reduced to a mere, but ideal, utterance. Such strictures, in relation to
Gould, would be debilitating given the necessary relation in his per­for­mance
between phonic substance, gesture, accompaniment, non-­meaning, and truth.
Thankfully, Girard is extraordinarily attuned to this supplementary complex
in sections like “Practice” and “Passion according to Gould.” ­Here, Gould is
portrayed by actor Colm Feore in ecstatic gesture-­in-­stillness intensified to
movement-­in-­space. Such gesture and movement is prompted in the one by
the ideal image of the m­ usic (whose playback, in Gould’s mind, substitutes
for the tactility of practice) and in the other by the recording and a more
literal playback that prompts gestures of conduction, movement around the
room, a sort of possession, Gould held by a kind of quickening power. The
playback mediates, then, not only between Gould and his ideal and danger-
ous audience, but between Gould and the ideality of the ­music, an ideality
undercut by the tactility of playing and the materiality of sound. Thus the
accompaniments of the utterance, and the merely gestural, in Gould, work
to extend a certain reduction of tactile, material, phonic substance while, at
the same time, disrupting any pos­si­ble reduction of mere gesture or mere ac-
companiment of the utterance or mere nonmeaning, any pos­si­ble reduction
of every­thing to what would correspond, in m ­ usic, to a textual or linguistic
meaning. Fi­nally, all this is bound up with how Eisenstein—­both in relation
to and in opposition to Adorno, in ways clearly manifest in the content of
both Gould’s ­music and Girard’s film—­helps us to think montagic sequenc-
ing as counterpoint, dynamic totality as fantastic-­documentary drive. Out
of nothing, out of the mere insignificance of irreducible, conflictual seriality,
comes every­thing.

sonata quasi una fantasia / 65

chapter 5

Taste
Dissonance Flavor
Escape (Preface to a
Solo by Miles Davis)
The object of theory is not something immediate, of which theory might

carry home a replica. Knowledge has not, like the state police, a rogues’ gal-

lery of its objects. Rather, it conceives them as it conveys them; ­else it would

be content to describe the façade. As Brecht did admit, ­after all, the crite-

rion of sense perception—­overstretched and problematic even in its proper

place—is not applicable to radically indirect society. What immigrated into

the object as the law of its motion [Bewegungsgesetz], inevitably concealed

by the ideological form of the phenomenon, eludes that criterion.—­T HEODOR

ADORNO , Aesthetic Theory

I was sent, tell that to history.—­L ORNA GOODISON , “Nanny”

To speak when and where one is not supposed to speak is to resist an even
more fundamental disqualification: that such spatiotemporally disruptive
enunciation relinquishes the possibility of thought or of being thought inso-
far as one (merely) provides the material conditions (in speech that is, as it
­ ere, beneath speech; speech borne in a phonocarnality that refuses to dis-
w
avow itself ) for another’s thought and for another’s being thought. But ques-
tions arise (when the transcendental aesthetic goes underground): What
happens if, impossibly, the ­matter that prompts thought—­the purportedly
bare materiality that is sent as an originary deviance inaugurating the very
power that ­will, by a tortuous road of self-­regulation, contain it—is m
­ atter
of and for thought? What does being-­sent (and by what? by whom? for what
exploitative and/or salvific cause?), in what has been thought to be the im-
possibility of its being thought or of its thinking, in a materiality whose ar-
rival might now be seen as the disruption rather than condition of a given
epistemological line or chord, mean? What does being-­sent into the terrible
pathways and precincts of the h­ uman do to or for the ­human? What happens
when we consider and enact the aesthetic, epistemological, and ontological
escape of and from being-­sent? I would like to address ­these questions—­
irruptions of that “thematics of flight,” ­toward and within which Hortense
Spillers moves, which forms the inspiriting, locomotive foundation of the
theory and history of blackness—in the form of some hyperbolic liner notes
given in the idiom of black studies, which Cedric Robinson calls “the critique
of western civilization” and which could also be understood as a critique of
enlightenment and even as a critique of judgment from the position of what
Robinson might call an eternally alien immanence or, more precisely, from a
radical materiality whose animation (fantasy of another [form-­of-]life) has
been overlooked by masterful looking.1

Scarsign
Harriet Jacobs composed Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl in secret, “at
irregular intervals,” in the confines of an exhausted domesticity from which
she had long been on the run.2 Her work exemplifies that operation u ­ nder the
constraints of antiabolitionist discipline and surveillance that is essential to
black intellectuality. Black art is often concerned with showing this operation.
Black art stages it, performs it, by way of ­things breaking and entering and
exiting the exclusionary frame of the putatively ennobling, quickening repre­
sen­ta­tions to which they are submitted, paradoxically, as the very enflesh-
ment of the un-­or subrepresentable; by way of parts improperly rupturing
the w/holes to which they ­will have never belonged or never have been fully
relegated but by which they have been enveloped; by way of outlaws moving
without moving against the law they constitute; by way of captured motion
constantly escaping in a cell like St. Jerome. Insofar as Jacobs cannot give
the consent that, nevertheless, she can withhold, she consents not to be a
single being. She is, therefore, a prob­lem, a question, posed and thereby

taste dissonance flavor escape / 67

revealing an agency that is interdicted, caught in the interval, but no less
real. This interdicted agency of the interval, the interred, the incident; this
agency that is revealed in the incident, by way of injury, by way of the in-
junction against action and self-­certainty; this anagential movement of the
­thing disowns or unowns knowledge (of slavery, of desire) in the name of
another, inappropriate knowledge, a knowledge of the inappropriable. I am
concerned with the discovery of this knowledge and its secret location, con-
cerned that this knowledge is locatable, that it is, as it ­were, held somewhere.
Eventually this turns out to be a musical concern that one approaches by way
of lit­er­a­ture, painting, photography, and the essential structural apparatus
and narrativity of cinema. I hope this concern ­will, in its turn, allow a more
complete understanding of (black) per­for­mance as the irruption of the ­thing
through the re­sis­tance of the object.
This concern requires that once more I begin again or that I echo, with
differences, my vari­ous beginnings. What is it to be thrown into the story
of another’s development; and to be thrown into that story as both an in-
terruption of it and as its condition of possibility; and to have that irrup-
tion be understood as both an ordering and a disordering movement? And
what if one has something like one’s own story to tell? One engages, then,
in the production of a subplot, a plot against the plot, contrapuntal, fantas-
tic, ­underground—­a fugitive turn or stealing away (as Nathaniel Mackey
or Saidiya Hartman might put it), enacted by a runaway tongue or dissent-
ing body (as Harryette Mullen or Daphne Brooks might have it), from the
story within the story.3 Lydia Maria Child’s editing was meant to regulate
Jacobs’s disruptions of the master narrative, but the irregular and its other
regulations ­were already operative in Jacobs’s work as a special attunement
to a certain temporal insurrection in the ­music of constantly escaping slaves
and to the status and force of a certain gap between emotional appearance
and emotional real­ity. Jacobs’s writing is infused by the m
­ usic she overhears.
That infusion occurs momently, carry­ing forward narrative disruption as a
kind of anarchic princi­ple. Stories d­ on’t survive this kind of t­hing intact;
(good) taste demands this kind of disowning t­hing be disavowed. H ­ ere’s a
prime example in her text of the kind of ­thing that’s too hard to take:

I sat in my usual place on the floor near the win­dow where I could hear
much that was said in the street without being seen. The ­family had re-
tired for the night, and all was still. I sat t­ here thinking of my c­ hildren,
when I heard a low strain of ­music. A band of serenaders ­were ­under

68 / chapter 5
 the win­dow playing “Home, sweet home.” I listened till the sounds did
not seem like ­music, but like the moaning of ­children. It seemed as
if my heart would burst. I ­rose from my sitting posture, and knelt. A
streak of moonlight was on the floor before me, and in the midst of it
appeared the forms of my two ­children. They vanished; but I had seen
them distinctly. Some ­will call it a dream, ­others a vision.4

In the crawlspace above the main floor of her grand­mother’s ­house, where
she confined herself for more than seven years in order to escape mastery’s
sexual predation (in this first instance a Southern man with Southern princi­
ples), Harriet Jacobs (and/or Linda Brent, her shadowed, shadowing double
and counteraffective effect) is on the way to cinema, precisely at the place
where fantasy and document, ­music and moaning, movement and pictur-
ing converge. Hers is an amazing medley of shifts, a choreography in con-
finement, internal to a frame it instantiates and shatters. It’s the story of a
certain cinematic production and spectatorship prompted by transformative
overhearing, driven by broken, visionary steps. This lawless freedom of the
imagination, in all the radicality of its adherence to art’s law of motion, oc-
curs in a space Mackey would characterize as both cramped and capacious, a
spacing Jacques Derrida would recognize as a scene of writing, that Hortense
Spillers has called a scrawlspace, in which Jacobs/Linda writes against what
Maurice Wallace calls the “spectragraphic surrogacy of the black ­woman’s
body,” in a tale that is punctuated, which is to say advanced, by small gestures
of secret listening that cross into what emerges by way of having been relin-
quished, the impossible image of the incalculably distant c­ hildren, just a few
feet away from her, whom Jacobs has and cannot have, sees and cannot see.5
Incalculable distance crosses into incalculable rhythm: Jacobs extends
her escape in part by imitating the rickety walking of sailors but her destina-
tion turns out to be the rickety bridge between t­ hings and the w ­ hole they
(de)form. This is Jacobs’s fugitive trajectory, her autobiographical problem-
atic. She is not the one who would stand in for the one that is not the one. Her
solo—­which must be indexed to a line of solos that are equally, impossibly,
underwritten, overflowed and overflown—is constituted and vexed by a set
of unlikely interplays: of written life and the paradox of escape via graphic
capture; of the pedagogical imperative and the double edges of thingliness
and being-­representative; of the audio-­visuality of a complaint that can only
be given both in more than one voice and in that solitary, autobiographical
telling that is always in less than one voice; of aesthetic criminality and the

taste dissonance flavor escape / 69

madness—as opposed to the absence—of the work. The “loophole of retreat”
through and within which Jacobs sees and overhears while ­under the con-
stant threat of being seen and overheard, is a scar and a sign.6

Cata­logue Number 308

(The Black Apparatus Is a ­Little Girl)
Consider (the m ­ usic of ) the interplay of lit­er­a­ture, painting, photography,
and cinema—an interplay or interstice or interval that could be called, by
way of Michael Fried but very much against his grain, theatre.7 This requires
concern for the story that animates that interplay and the apparatus that is
necessary for both that interplay and that story to be carried out (where and
when it is carried out precisely by way of the animating force of the inter-
val). I w
­ ill be concerned with a spasmodic trajectory, a line constituted by
its fracture, a turn that turns on and against itself, that moves t­oward and
away from and around the photo­graph of a ­little girl in a kind of art historical
dimensionality that ­will bring into focus at the moment of its having been
made secret an instance of the black apparatus, of the sound/image of the
black in the modern Euro-­American audiovisual imagination.8 This photo­
graph opens onto a Philadelphia story. The capital of nineteenth-­century
American photography and the point of departure for nineteenth-­century
pseudo-­and social-­scientific study of the negro is a scene we have to enter,
following Tera Hunter in her investigation of the postemancipation strug­
gle of black ­women workers to “ ’joy their freedom” and, on the other hand,
channeling Hartman’s wariness regarding the vexed history and interdicted
possibility of black enjoyment and its doubled edge.9 Entrance into that
scene and its disciplinary pleasures means entering the history of the pose
and its fictions that are carried in this image by a ­little girl’s inaudible and
imperceptible phono-­choreographic quickening. In the photo­graph, she quick-
ens against being stilled, studied, buried, stolen, as she steals away, moving
without moving, like Harriet Jacobs.
I’m interested in the motion of the work, of the thing-­at-­work, at the in-
tersection of cinema and ­music. The undisciplined image of a ­little girl re-
sides ­there in a stillness that is always partial. It breaks the law that it bodies
forth, the law of motion it lays down but cannot still. This law is the essence
of a Philadelphia Story, of a Philadelphia Negro, having waited u ­ ntil what is
given in literary reproduction is unheld, now, in mechanical reproduction.
It’s not about breaking the law of motion. Nor is it that the law of motion

70 / chapter 5
exists criminally, fugitively, that the law of motion is a being against the law
in all of its constitutive fugal, improvisational, fantastical terribleness. The
black apparatus, black per­for­mance, the ­thing’s interruption of the object in
re­sis­tance, blackness-­as-­fugitivity, the teleological princi­ple in suspense, the
broken breaking bridge and broken circle, cuts the revolt become law, lies
before the law, not as a criminality that is of the law but rather as a criminality
that is before the law. The Negro must be still, but must still be moving. She
steals away from forced movement in stillness. Meanwhile, ­music and cinema
must show movement in stillness and so, who better to deploy in the ser­vice
of that proj­ect? What public produces such forms? What public is produced
by such forms? Early cinema and neue musik move from disruptive attraction
to seamless arc, a forced movement embedded in the stillness of the ­little girl.
Specific individual attribution of the photo­graph is problematic; it was
taken at Thomas Eakins’s studio in Philadelphia by him or someone in his
circle. The ­little girl is posed as an unarticulated question. She poses a ques-
tion. The posing of the question is a gift. The ­little girl is posed. She poses. The
­little girl is (ap)posed, apposes. She is embedded in the history of a pose: the
history of the pose of the t­ hing, the commodity (stop now to consider what
it is to be a person); the history of the pose of the prostitute; the history of
the working girl; the history of the impossible domestic; the history of the
metoikos; the history of the inside-­outsiders of the city of brotherly love; the
history of the outlaw; the history of fugitive gatherings inside the city. (Har-
riet Jacobs speaks of the crisis that ensued in her North Carolina “home”
town immediately a­ fter Nat Turner’s insurrection: “No two p ­ eople that had
the slightest tinge of color in their f­ aces dared to be seen talking together.”10
­Later, Du Bois reveals, in his cata­log of the laws pertaining to the Negro in
Philadelphia, that such crisis was eternal, that it elicited a kind of endless
and terrorizing war on “terror” manifest in acts like the 1700 law against
the “tumultuous gathering” of two or more blacks in the city but unable to
­ ere on their master’s business.11 The l­ittle girl poses a
establish that they w
prob­lem, posing as a prob­lem, as a kind of thrownness; thrown into a prob­
lem and a pose and that pose’s history, she exposes the venal etiolation of
publicness that imposes exposure upon her; in her nakedness, fi­nally, a form
of life and the emergency it prompts is held and revealed.
In The Painting of Modern Life, T. J. Clark says Olympia has a choice,
working against the definition of the prostitute offered by Henri Turot, for
whom prostitution implies “first venality and second absence of choice.”12 For
Turot, further, the prostitute’s very existence depends upon the temporary

taste dissonance flavor escape / 71

relations she entertains with her customers, the subjects, relations that are
public and without love. An absence of privacy, then, where privacy implies a
self-­possession aligned not only with reason, ­will, choice, but also with feel-
ing or with the ability to feel. An absence of sovereignty where sovereignty
implies a kind of autopositioning, a positioning of oneself in relation to one-
self, an autocritical autopositioning that moves against what it is to be posi-
tioned, to be posed by another, to be rendered and, as such, to be rendered
inhuman, to be placed in some kind of mutual apposition with the in/human
and the animal (the black female servant; the lascivious ­little cat). The ­little
girl’s image extends a line traced by Clark from Olympia’s pose, to the pose
of Titian’s The Venus of Urbino. That line moves within the history of the
idealization and rematerialization of the nude, the history of the prostitute
as artist’s model, the history of the wresting of modeling from prostitution
and the yoking of it to pedagogy.
In The Black Female Body: A Photographic History, Deborah Willis and
Carla Williams excavate the condition of possibility of a choice for the one
who is said to have no choice, moving by way of Hugh Honour’s phrasing to
reveal what and who have been hidden on the edge of the image, which is
also an archive. They pay attention to the “slaves of the Slaves of Lust,” most
famously given in the figure of Olympia’s maid, and narrate a transition in
which the black female shifts from upright servitude to “the salacious sexu-
alization of the reclining body.”13 Clark’s art historical line is worried, as it
­were, by another that cuts and enfolds it; by an underground that shadows,
edges, blurs, and surrounds it. That underground ungrounds Clark’s smooth
trajectory. Willis and Williams show how such tilling is accomplished by se-
crets who are, and who deconstruct, and who reconstruct a (secret) archive
that is extended beyond the l­ittle girl in Afro-­diasporic photography that
can respond to her pose or being posed with Seydou Keïta’s reappropria-
tive chastity or the expropriative challenge of Colleen Simpson’s interdicted
gaze.14 The point, however, is that by way of the emergence of Olympia’s ser-
vant from shadow, the l­ittle girl brings to the surface what had always lain
at the heart of this history, as if Eakins, by way of the photo­graph, brings
this line to its true self which is its end, as if the social force that had been
allegorically represented by way of the painting can only now be realistically
presented by way of the mechanical apparatus.
Olympia was shown in the Salon of 1865. Eakins began studying in Paris
a year l­ater. Eakins was in town for the retrospective of Édouard Manet’s
work that included Olympia and the Dejeuner. Of the 1868 Salon he writes:

72 / chapter 5
“­There are not more than twenty pictures in the ­whole lot that I would want.
The ­great paint­ers ­don’t care to exhibit ­there at all. Couture Isabey Bonnat
Meisonnier [sic] have nothing. The rest of the paint­ers make naked ­women,
standing sitting lying down flying dancing d ­ oing nothing which they call
Phyrnes, Venuses, nymphs, hermaphrodites, houris & Greek proper names.”15
What Eakins wants, and what he w ­ ill ­later incorporate, seems clearly to be,
at least in part, what Manet offers. Eakins w ­ ill fully commit himself to a kind
of paint­erly natu­ral description whose teleological princi­ple is everywhere
illuminated but dark to itself. His paintings exhibit a scientism that moves
in the direction of an ever-­greater accuracy that is, itself, the effect of an ever-­
greater deanimation of the body, the profound and necessary in/accuracy of
the picture. This near-­pathological deanimation (of the image, of the body,
as exemplified in a painting like The Gross Clinic) is in the interest of a cer-
tain photographic naturalism that seeks to reflect and to attach itself to a
law of development or movement—­the mechanics of a more-­than-­personal
history. I’m thinking, now, of the relation between the law of the movement
of the body (by way of or in relation to the anatomical rigor in whose ser­vice
he would put photography but for whose ser­vice photography would have to
recognize its own inadequacy, an inadequacy that tends, eventually, t­ oward
Eadweard Muybridge—­whose work Eakins championed—­and the mechani-
cal reproduction of motion, but which has to take a l­ittle detour into the
seedy studios of Francis Galton’s evolutionary criminology) and the law of a
narrative development that we could think in terms of the story that must
accompany the dispersion of sovereignty, a story animated by the interplay
of race and teleology, a story that animates the par­tic­u­lar scientific aims of
Herbert Spencer to which Eakins makes a special appeal. Eakins seeks to
discover, by way of the picture and, then, of the motion picture, the laws of
movement, of motion in history as well as the motion of bodies. Such discov-
ery comes by way of the consideration of the movement of the image as such;
of the impossibility of its internal movement, the illusion of a movement
imposed, transversally, from outside. From tableaux-­vivant to movement-­
image, The Philadelphia Negro is a story that cinema is meant to tell. Cin-
ematic means are directed t­ oward this telling and must deploy, in a range of
obsessive ways, the si­mul­ta­neously invisible and hypervisible image and its
forced, disruptive movement and gathering. Philadelphia is where Galton’s
aggregative superimposition of the criminal visage, his overlayering of the
rogue’s gallery of evolutionary criminology’s objects of knowledge, is taken
up in the serialization and de-­layering of the palimpsest, in the ser­vice of

taste dissonance flavor escape / 73

Eakins’s naturalistic obsession with the p
­ roduction of the illusory movement
of an individual body, so that the laws of such movement might be discovered
and extended ­toward Cynthia Wiggins’s critical redeployments of a black fe-
male image always crossing the borders between invisibility and hypervisibil-
ity, seriality and aesthetic criminality, as well as ­toward the kind of advanced
cinematic technique that shows us the way back into cinema’s racial ground.16
My point is that the story that cinema tells in general is held within the
frozen and deanimated image of a l­ ittle girl. Cinema is the animation of that
image. Animation forced upon, then stolen from, an invisible flower that
has the look of a flower that is looked at. Between Olympia and her maid
lies, poses, this ­little girl, awaiting movement (the imposition of a natu­ral
anatomical law of motion/the imposition of a natu­ral, racial law of devel-
opment). The ­little girl blurs Olympia and her maid, blurs hypervisibility
and invisibility, marking impurity, disease and degradation not only with
the prostitute’s direct gaze but with blackness as the essence of what is
supposed to be always already degraded and degrading female sexuality.
Animation releases a range of potential energies held within the story that
awaits its telling. The story of racialized biopower is the story of this conden-
sation and dispersal of the image and its time. In 1882 the image had to be con-
centrated, fully condensed, made entirely full by its animating story before
being infused with and dispersed by movement so that a story could be told.
We witness the full animation of the image (however much it awaits activa-
tion) by way of the full deanimation of the l­ittle girl. This is about how the
interplay of painting, photography, and cinema begins to tell the story that
animates it, the story of the interplay between freedom and determination,
between movement and containment; the story of what Michel Foucault has
called “the subjugation of bodies and the control of populations”;17 the story
of a set of concentric l­egal and philosophical naturalisms; the story of the
(imposed and stolen) life of the ­thing u
­ nder (the constant threat of ) sover-
eignty’s power of death and its gentler, diffused but no less terrible, no less
sententious, modern administration.
She is placed, then, within a certain history of sexuality, of life and death,
of troubled and troubling enjoyment; within the art-­historical trajectory of
the female nude which is, it turns out, nothing other than a history of race;
and within a history of photography as a scientizing aid for realist painting
which, in the extremity of its fidelity, makes pos­si­ble the profoundly imagi-
nary unleashing of the very motion upon whose arrest its fidelity depends.
Imaginary motion is unleashed, to be more precise, by way of the interplay

74 / chapter 5
of fidelity and seriality. Motion within the frame is stilled so that motion
between frames can be activated. H­ ere’s where fidelity and capture converge.
Seriality makes a motion out of stillness, a one out of a many: so that the
essence of cinema is a field wherein the most fundamental questions are en-
acted formally and at the level of film’s submission to the structure of nar-
rative. At the same time, blackness—in its relation to a certain fundamental
criminality that accompanies being-­sent—is the background against which
­these issues emerge. Po(i)sed between emergent techniques of motion cap-
ture and composite imaging, she is held at the crossroads of the history of
art and the history of science, the history of race and the history of sexuality.
This intersection is where Eakins’s fascination with photography is inappro-
priately inaugurated, extending similar predilections in, and posing similar
questions as, Manet. But Eakins turns to an a­ ctual thinking of the photo­
graph as such, one that moved from its relation to the quest for anatomical
fidelity to a concern for its capacities for the enactment of narration and the
simulation of movement. The photo­graph displaces the prefatory, prepara-
tory sketch. No painting follows from it. This study of a sent ­thing is a study
for nothing that seems to be much ado about nothing precisely insofar as she
is placed within the history of posing’s relation to the trafficked w­ oman (to
a sexuality whose criminality lies in and before the fact that it is marketed).
That placement si­mul­ta­neously enacts and justifies her further placement
within a movement of fugitive framing and the criminological photographic
capture that responds to it. That movement and its attempted seizure are on
the way to cinema. At the same time that she is posed or placed within t­ hese
intersecting trajectories, the singularity of the photo­graph—­its detachment
from the movement and/or development that the series makes pos­si­ble—­
seems to imply her being held. She lies, as it ­were, in a bare frame or cell, a
photographic, choreographic, phonographic scrawlspace in which nothing is
given to look at—no props, no t­ hings, no décor—­save the arabesque printed
couch that serves as a kind of pedestal for a literal t­ hing, an anthropomor-
phized nothing. The girl on the couch stands in for what had been given
earlier in this pose’s history as décor. And it is precisely in this stillness, as
this seizure, as a momentous enactment of escape, as fugitive momentum,
that she constitutes a dissonance in the histories to which she is submitted
and marks the dissonance of any attempt to harmonize them. She is a link
within and between ­these lines even as she arrests and solicits both of them.
I speak of her placement, her position (within a structure), thereby raising,
by way of a kind of submergence, the question of her agency, her transverse,

taste dissonance flavor escape / 75

auto-­excessive intervention in the history of agency. To attempt to locate her
agency is precisely to mark the fact that it lies, impossibly, in her position,
in an appositional force derived from being-­posed, from being-­sent, from
being-­located. Her agency is in her location in the interval, in and as the
break. This is what it is to take, while apposing, the object position with
something like that dual force of holding and outpouring that Heidegger
attributes to the ­thing which, in its defiance of the ennobling force of repre­
sen­ta­tion, ennobles repre­sen­ta­tion.
Jacobs famously recites the moment at which she became aware that she
was a slave. Hers is also a sexual moment, poised between awakening, fit-
ful awareness, and nightmare, when one becomes aware of one’s placement
within aestheticized, scientistic trajectories of predation and pursuit. But the
moment in which you enter into the knowledge of slavery, of yourself as a
slave, is the moment you begin to think about freedom, the moment in which
you know or begin to know or to produce knowledge of freedom, the moment
at which you become a fugitive, the moment at which you begin to escape in
ways that trou­ble the structures of subjection that—as Hartman shows with
such severe clarity—­overdetermine freedom. This is the musical moment
of the photo­graph. It’s not just that this is not a story to be passed on, not a
story that stories can simply pass; for insofar as t­ hese formulations are true,
this is not just one story among o ­ thers. If it could be said that D. W. Griffith
establishes certain rules and techniques of cinematic narrative, activating
­those ruptural suspensions that move narrative film to a level that exceeds
the realm of mere attraction, then it remains to focus more intently on the
par­tic­u­lar story that he had to tell, which is the teleological mechanization
of the image. It’s no accident that the story of the disciplinary animation of
the image comes more fully into its own by way of the black apparatus. I’m
thinking, ­here, outside of the opposition between narrative cinema and non-
narrative cinema in order to think the question of the essential narrativity
of cinema in its relation to the question of discipline or, to use more precisely
Foucault’s terminology, the question concerning sovereignty, biopower, and
their interplay. This question turns out to be a historical one, articulable by
way of the new apparatuses of aesthetic modernity (montage, dissonance, ab-
straction, and the emancipation of their seriality) and of the black apparatus.
The beginning of The Birth of a Nation asserts that every­thing was fine till they
came (as if of their own ­free ­will or by way of some combination of accident and
corruption like Africanized bees), seeds of disunion breaking out criminally in
dance, in the intervallic everyday step and fall of a runaway editorial blade, in

76 / chapter 5
the complications of rhythm correspondent with fugitive—if never quite fully
emancipated—­dissonance, in the contagious disruption of polite, policed, le-
gitimately po­liti­cal gesture, in abstract, thingly anti-­and antefiguration.

Some Relationships
Adorno opens a late essay called “On Some Relationships between M ­ usic and
Painting” with the following claim: “The self-­evident, that ­music is a tem-
poral art, that it unfolds in time, means, in the dual sense, that time is not
self-­evident for it, that it has time as its prob­lem. It must create temporal
relationships among its constituent parts, justify their temporal relationship,
synthesize them through time. Conversely, it itself must act upon time, not
lose itself to it; must stem itself against the empty flood.”18 ­Music “binds it-
self to time at the same time as it sets itself against it,” thereby embodying
art’s Bewegungsgesetz, its law of movement, which Adorno characterizes as
the revolt against the fact that “the inner consistency through which art-
works participate in truth always involves their untruth.”19 ­Music’s broken
interiority—­and the rebellion against that brokenness that redoubles it, that
becomes the artwork’s law of movement—­manifests itself severally, in anti-
nomian ensemble: as the juxtaposition of truth and untruth, stillness and
movement, freedom and constraint, temporality and spatiality, structure
and expression, ­matter and writing, regression and advance, part and w ­ hole.
­Music, as the temporal art (Zeitkunst), “is equivalent to the objectification
of time,” Adorno adds.20 Moreover, he states, “If time is the medium that,
as flowing, seems to resist e­ very reification, nevertheless m
­ usic’s temporal-
ity is the very aspect through which it actually congeals into something that
survives independently—an object, a ­thing, so to speak.”21 ­Music consists
of the organ­ization of events so that they do not dissolve or pass away but
rather coalesce into a t­ hing that seems to suspend time precisely by bodying
forth a temporal progression that belies thingliness. Adorno adds, “What one
terms musical form is therefore its temporal order. The nomenclature “form”
refers the temporal articulation of ­music to the ideal of its spatialization.”22
I’m interested, fi­nally, in the fact that this reference is unbound, in Mackey’s
terms, precisely by the irreducible materiality that constitutes and deforms
the musical work and the musical sign. Even if the objectification of time
is made pos­si­ble by what Harryette Mullen might call a kind of “spirit writ-
ing,” a fetishizing secrecy of technique from which the work emerges, such
writing does not undermine and is indeed made pos­si­ble by an irreducible

taste dissonance flavor escape / 77

 ­ ere, as writing.23
materiality that lies before the work as well and, as it w
When Adorno says, “The most extreme esthetic pro­gress is intertwined with
regression,” this interarticulation of writing and ­matter—­something akin
to what Deleuze and Guattari call “bodily inscription”—is part of what he
means.24 Adorno ­will speak of this material graphesis by way of the meta­
phor of electricity, which Akira Lippit requires us to consider in relation to
animality and animation, as animeta­phor.25 This animeta­phorical electricity
lies between the hieroglyphic and the seismographic in Adorno’s discourse,
in the realm of nonsubjective language (akin to what Walter Benjamin calls
“object-­language”). Adorno is ­after a mode of writing that, in its renunciation
of the communicative function, exemplifies an abandonment to impulse that
“has an affinity with pure expression in­de­pen­dent not only of its relation as a
signifier to something that is meant to be expressed, but also of its kindred re-
lation to an expressive subject that is identical with itself. This affinity reveals
itself as a break between the sign and what it signifies.”26 This brokedown,
broke-­off musico-­painterly écriture is, and not only in its impulsiveness, pre-
cariously close to what shows up for Adorno as an almost absolute antipathy.
This bodily inscription, this hieroglyphic-­seismographic register, where
mimetic and expressive impulses asymptotically (non-)converge, at the (dis)
juncture of (abstract) painting and (atonal) ­music, is again what remains to
be thought in and as the law of (e)motion. This is the place where Adorno ad-
dresses the transcendental clue of musico-­painterly (in)separability, namely
that “musical theory cannot manage without . . . ​quasi-­optical term[s].”27 But
while Adorno sees a fundamental asymmetry such that the theory of painting
and the theory of m­ usic approach each other awkwardly and unsuccessfully,
that approach still constitutes another transcendental clue that allows some-
thing like a more precise, b
­ ecause improper, naming (an antinomial and an-
tinomian nomenclature) of m
­ usic and painting in their articulate difference
from one another: on the one hand, this interarticulation is theater; on the
other hand, it is cinema.
In the meantime, it’s still necessary to consider Adorno’s attention to that
temporalization of painting as Raumkunst that corresponds to the spatial-
ization of m
­ usic as Zeitkunst. If, as Adorno says, “The nomenclature ‘form’
refers the temporal articulation of ­music to the ideal of its spatialization,”

It is no less true that painting, Raumkunst, the spatial art, as a re-

working of space, means its dynamization and negation. Its idea ap-
proaches transcendence t­oward time. T
­ hose pictures seem the most

78 / chapter 5
 successful in which what is absolutely simultaneous seems like a pas-
sage of time that is holding its breath; this, not least, is what distin-
guishes it from sculpture. That the history of painting amounts to its
growing dynamization is only another way of saying the same t­ hing. In
their contradiction, the arts merge into one another.28

This too must be thought in relation to art’s Bewegungsgesetz. (In both paint-
ing and ­music the law of motion redoubles itself in a way that is fateful for
cinema’s mixing of sound and image. I want to consider cinema, by way of
Adorno’s consideration of some relations between painting and m ­ usic, not
as hybridities or interstices or “pseudomorphos[e]s,” but rather as noncon-
vergent interarticulation—­the transcendental aesthetic given in a kind of
material performativity.29) The paradoxically mobile stasis of artworks w ­ ill
manifest itself as simultaneity.

In a picture, every­thing is simultaneous. Its synthesis consists in bringing

together ­things that exist next to each other in space, in transforming
the formal princi­ple of simultaneity into the structure of the specific
unity of the ele­ments in the painting. Yet this pro­cess, as a pro­cess that
is immanent in the ­thing itself, and by no means belongs merely to the
mode of its production, is essentially one of its tensions. If t­hese are
lacking, if the ele­ments of the painting do not seek to get away from
each other, do not, indeed, contradict each other, then ­there is only a
preartistic coexistence, no synthesis. Tension, however, can in no way
be conceived without the ele­ment of the temporal. For this reason,
time is immanent in the painting, apart from the time that is spent
on its production. To this extent, the objectivization and the balance
of tensions in the painting are sedimented time. In the context of his
chapter on schematization [q.v.], Kant observes that even the pure act
of thinking involves traversing the temporal series as a necessary con-
dition of its possibility, and not only of its empirical realization. The
more emphatically a painting pres­ents itself, the more time is stored
up in it.30

Adorno, working against his own opposition of m ­ usic as internal world the-
ater to cinema as a mere series of pictures, reintroduces the law of motion by
way of the Kantian notion of the necessity to thought of motion, of travers-
ing the temporal series. This is to articulate the “­little heresy” that says the
condition of possibility of ­music as an internal world theater is, precisely, its

taste dissonance flavor escape / 79

temporalization as a series of pictures, events, details, frames, crawlspaces,
each with their own internal strife and syntax.31 Time is immanent in the
painting as tension, the ele­ments set in relation to one another trying to get
away from one another. We could think this in relation to the history of the
pose, the history of the composition: the nude from Titian to Manet to the
l­ittle girl that Eakins seeks to possess. The becoming-­theater of ­music—of,
for instance, the symphony, or the truly symphonic as opposed to radio sym-
phonic Beethoven—is always threatened, however, by the very seriality that
makes it pos­si­ble. For Adorno, the radio symphony

ceases to be a drama and becomes an epical form, or, to make the com-
parison in less archaic terms, a narrative. And narrative it becomes
in an even more literal sense, too. The par­tic­u­lar, when chipped off
from the unity of the symphony [as trivia, quotation, reductively ex-
pressive detail], still retains a trace of the unity in which it functioned.
A genuine symphonic theme, even if it takes the w ­ hole musical stage
and seems to be temporarily hypostatized and to desert the rest of the
­music, is nonetheless of such a kind as to impress upon one that it is
actually nothing in itself but basically something “out of ” something
­ hole.32
­else. Even in its isolation it bears the mark of the w

The denigrative invocation of narrative is instructive ­here if only ­because it

confronts us with the duality of the l­ ittle girl. The photo­graph contains a nar-
rative, a story, a history. It is something out of something e­ lse, an emergent
object, of the ­whole of the story. At the same time, as Adorno w ­ ill get to in
his “­Little Heresy,” this expressive detail, this picture, in its paradoxical tem-
poralization, not only bears the theatrical continuum, as it w ­ ere, but makes
that continuum pos­si­ble. As problematic as the image character of radio (or
of the photo­graph) might be, it must be understood, in Adorno’s terms, as
the regressive motive of aesthetic advance. As Adorno writes:

In highly or­ga­nized ­music . . . ​the ­whole is in the pro­cess of becoming,

not abstractly preconceived, not a pattern into which the parts need
merely to be inserted. On the contrary, the musical ­whole is essentially
a ­whole composed of parts that follow each other for a reason, and only
to this extent is it a w
­ hole. . . . ​The ­whole is articulated by relations that
extend forward and backward, by anticipation and recollection, con-
trast and proximity. Unarticulated, not divided into parts, it would dis-
solve into mere identity with itself. To comprehend ­music adequately, it

80 / chapter 5
 is necessary to hear the phenomena that appear h
­ ere and now in rela-
tion to what has gone on before and, in anticipation, to what w
­ ill come
­after. In the pro­cess, the moment of pure pres­ent time, the ­here and
now, always retains a certain immediacy, without which the relation
to the ­whole, to that which is mediated, would no more be produced
than vice versa.”33

To fight the one-­sided emphasis on the hearing of the ­whole that he himself
advances in his valorization of structural listening, Adorno would rehabili-
tate the moment of pure pres­ent time in the interest of the narrativity that it
bears, a narrativity which ­here is not opposed to but is the condition of possi-
bility of the symphony’s theatricality. “The right way to hear ­music includes a
spontaneous awareness of the non-­identity of the ­whole and the parts as well
as of the synthesis that unites the two.”34 The law of motion returns as that
interinanimation of result and pro­cess that marks the demise of “overarch-
ing forms to which the ear could entrust itself blindly.”35 This impossible au-
diovisuality, this no-­longer-­operative blind trust of the ear, demands “exakte
phantasie,” the precise improvisation of foresight, of a kind of insight of and
through prophetic blindness, that I wish to think of in relation to the fugitive
and the fugue, where phantasie holds imagination (in its lawless freedom,
as the essential criminality of the law of [e]motion), improvisation, and the
cut augmentation of rationality that is associated with the fugal interplay of
voices. In the absence of overarching form, one turns to detail, to the unit
of expression, as the condition of possibility of the ­whole, its anticipatory
and retrospective—­premature and postexpectant—­effect. The ­whole is now
given in something like an Ellisonian lingering in or over individual detail, in
the depth, as it ­were, of such detail’s surface, which is already stereoplexed
in a black and blue underground scene. This phonographic movement be-
tween suspension and submergence becomes a critical model. The point,
­here, is to think the ­little girl in all of ­these terms—as exact imagination and
expressive detail; as the possibility and effect of the ­whole of the story that is
held within and animates the image—an anthology of material detail that,
while nothing in itself, gets to the nothing that is not ­there and the nothing
that is, like a snowman. Part of what’s at stake ­here, at the level of affect and
of the modes of bodily inscription or grapho-­mimesis embedded in the pose
and its vexed relation to the everyday, is the breakdown of the rigid opposi-
tion that Adorno makes between improvisation and writing, an opposition
based on the assumption that “the act of notation is essential to art m
­ usic,

taste dissonance flavor escape / 81

not incidental. Without writing [­there can be] no highly or­ga­nized ­music;
the historical distinction between improvisation and musica composita co-
incides qualitatively with that between laxness and musical articulation.
This qualitative relationship of ­music to its vis­i­ble insignia, without which
it could neither possess nor construct out duration, points clearly to space
as a condition of its objectification.”36 I want to consider improvisation as
precisely that material graphesis which is, for Adorno, essential to the syn-
tax, the articulation of individual detail, that makes the or­ga­nized ­whole
a possibility. Composition is imagining improvisation—­quasi una fantasia.
Improvisation is the animative, electric, hieroglyphic-­seismographic tension
that cuts the pose while also being its condition of possibility, even as the
pose is the condition of possibility of the ­whole in its unavoidably narrative,
unavoidably fantastic theatricality. All of this is embedded in the image of
the ­little girl. ­Here’s where the vis­i­ble insignia is, again, a bodily and perfor-
mative inscription, everyday and ordinary recomposition and/or reposition-
ing, the audiovisual recording of a choreography of the scene of overhearing
which, like the opera, requires a natu­ral history, but one not quite so easily
dismissive. What if we consider that improvisation is the unacknowledged
grapho-­spatiality of material writing—­the arrangement of ­people at the
scene as audiovisual condition and effect?
Such arrangement goes hand in hand with the effects of writing’s irre-
ducibility to communication and is bound up with the state of affairs of our
modernity—­and the place of the black apparatus within that modernity—­
wherein “écriture in ­music and painting cannot be direct writing, only en-
coded writing; other­wise it remains mere imitation. Hence écriture has a
historical character; it is modern. It is set f­ree on the strength of what in
painting, with a devastating expression, ­people have taken to calling ab-
straction, through distraction of attention from its object-­relatedness. In
­music this has occurred through the mortal contraction of all its imitative
moments, not only its programmatically descriptive ele­ments, but its tra-
ditional expressivity, as well.”37 Adorno speaks of this mortal contraction as
that abandonment of ­music to its impulse that is essential to atonality, to the
emancipation of the dissonance. The question concerns what telling a story
is now, in the age of the emancipation of dissonance and in the age of a kind
of abstraction, a distraction of attention from the object and from what­ever
narrative material is held within the image of the object, that accompanies
Eakins’s photographic scientism as a kind of mechanically reproduced an-
ticipation. This is to say that Eakins’s work is active in the historical preface

82 / chapter 5
to the distraction from the ­thing that results in its reanimation and in its
replacement within the ­whole of the story. One day it might be pos­si­ble to
consider Eakins’s relation to abstraction, his relation to, say, Mondrian, which
would be revealed in a comparative analy­sis of their understandings of the
sociality that makes painting pos­si­ble and that painting would bring about—­
two relations to Bohemia and, by extension, to Bohemia’s relation to the black
(socio-)apparatus that w ­ ill have become the very model of the outskirts and
underground. (The ­little girl, decapitated by shadow and discomfort, is a fore-
thought and pathway, an anticipation of cubism’s broken portraiture.) Then
we would know what the ­little girl has to do with, how she is embedded in
and as, narrative and ­music in, say, Victory Boogie-­Woogie (the new abstract
arrangement of ­things on the streets of a public sphere whose blackness can
only be fully acknowledged in the wake of disaster).
While Adorno’s late work gets us to the point of a necessary revaluation
of the musical moment, it remains impossible to forget how much grief
he ­gave such moments in the thirties. In “The Fetish Character in M ­ usic
and the Regression of Listening,” Adorno begins with the formulation that
“­music represents at once the immediate manifestation of impulse and the
locus of its taming” in order to investigate the ways that the con­temporary
“golden age” of musical taste was only properly understood as the era of its
almost complete degradation. When tameness is taken for abandon, when
amusement no longer amuses, what obtains is a general anesthesia, a numb-
ness that is paradoxically induced by what Adorno calls “the recklessness of a
singer with a golden throat or an instrumentalist of lip-­smacking euphony,”
ele­ments that once “entered into ­great m­ usic and ­were transformed in it; but
­great ­music did not dissolve into them. In the multiplicity of stimulus and
expression, its greatness is shown as a force for synthesis. Not only does the
musical synthesis preserve the unity of appearance and protect it from fall-
ing apart into diffuse culinary moments, but in such unity, in the relation of
par­tic­u­lar moments to an evolving w
­ hole, ­there is also preserved the image
of a social condition in which above ­those par­tic­ul­ar moments of happiness
would be more than mere appearance.”38 My concern has been with the re-
lation between fugitivity and the musical moment, between escape and the
frame. Adorno, a­ fter Kant, is, on the other hand, interested in freedom. If
freedom is a m
­ atter of taste, perhaps escape is a m
­ atter of flavor. I’ve never
been one to heed Adorno’s call to exclude “all culinary delights.”39 Indeed,
I won­der what is lost in adhering to an ancient line in which the culinary
indexes the sense that signifies a sensual degradation irrupting into the

taste dissonance flavor escape / 83

breach between taste and the supersensual. Deeper still, the lip-­smacking
(geschlekt) euphony of the instrumentalist seems always to carry with it the
unique varietal character (geschlecht) of some quite par­tic­u­lar local soil. In
“On Jazz,” Adorno is already concerned that the trumpeter’s embouchure
carries a racial mark, a coloristic effect that bespeaks servitude, hysteria, im-
potence, or prematurity. But what if the constitution of the ­whole is precisely
the intensified reproduction and internal structure of the climax (however
premature or, more precisely, untimely), sustained and interrupted. That’s
what jazz is—in the break that is and breaks the climax. Tarrying, linger-
ing, (productive) of bone-­deep listening. Consider Marvin Gaye’s plea “­Don’t
make me wait” as a profound manifestation of musical patience, offered by
someone who has been waiting for a long time, uttered so far b ­ ehind the beat
40
that its adherence is a kind of displacement. His is a climax way too long in
coming. It is Adorno who is impatient, who simply cannot wait for, refuses
to wait upon, the continually auto-­augmentative miniature that the black ap-
paratus affords. It is, perhaps, an impatience born of the legitimate critique
of the delusional work to which the black apparatus has been put. Neverthe-
less, Adorno relinquishes something that he cannot live without. This is to
say that ­there is an experience of listening that Adorno cannot imagine ­until
he begins seriously to meditate on the possibilities for structural listening
that are held within the long-­playing phonograph rec­ord. His ­little heretical
deviance from the doctrine of musical ends, and even musical resolution or
resoluteness, comes ­later, might even be said to manifest the fits, starts, and
lyrical condensation and fragmentation that Adorno himself associates with
late work of ­others.
The real issue, it turns out, is the relationship between au­then­tic, as op-
posed to virtual, dissonance and the constitution of the cell, the frame, the
crawlspace, the magic/fatal circle. Constant escape is uneasy. It demands
the blinking intermittence, the radical flight, of a certain experience of con-
straint that ­will have been best understood as sustained, unflinching fan-
tasy, as a look through or away, listening to and playing over, ­under. Perhaps
constant escape is what we mean when we say freedom; perhaps constant
escape is that which is mistreated in the dissembling invocation of freedom
and the disappointing underachievement/s of emancipation. This is to say
that Adorno is correct, however venomously, when he says, “to make oneself
a jazz expert . . . ​one must have much f­ree time and ­little freedom.”41 He’s
just wrong in thinking, however momentarily, that this condition is not his
own. That momentary delusion is lost when he speaks of “the terror which

84 / chapter 5
Schönberg and Webern spread.” That terror stems “not from their incom-
prehensibility but from the fact that they are all too correctly understood.
Their ­music gives form to that anxiety, that terror, that insight into the cata-
strophic situation which o­ thers merely evade by regressing. They are called
individualists, and yet their work is nothing but a single dialogue with the
powers which destroy individuality—­powers whose “formless shadows” fall
gigantically on their ­music. In ­music, too, collective powers are liquidating
an individuality past saving, but against them only individuals are capable
of consciously representing the aims of collectivity.”42 This is a pure expres-
sion of the per­sis­tent and terrible dialectic of constant escape, a condition
with which many musicians beside Webern and Schoenberg are more than
intimate. Think of the ones who ­were sent. Sent, ­because they already left
and carry leaving with them like a scar; they want to go. Always they have
already left and still are not arriving. How unfortunate for Adorno that the
­music one most loathes might best exemplify the fugitive impetus one most
loves! It’s difficult not to think of that convergence of patience and lateness
as Miles Davis’s personal temporal coordinate.

Crawlspace
­ here’s a band playing outside the booth; the riff is a mode of confinement: the
T
ear and hand of Gil Evans drive Miles who is placed, composed, arranged.43
He shoots up an octave, ascending into the underground; narrates a constric-
tion that he dances out of by dancing in. Dissonance escapes into a kind of
resolution and victory is deferred by this successful outcome, as when Ja-
cobs’s mistress buys her freedom, thereby stealing her triumph. But this is
an old-­new sonority’s old-­new complaint and Miles, like Jacobs, keeps ­going
past such emancipation by way of a deeper inhabitation of the song that
makes it seem as if he w­ ere young again, as if embarking for the first time
on the terrible journey t­ oward some new knowledge of (the) real­ity (princi­
ple), the new knowledge of homelessness and constant escape. With the
proper inappropriate differentiation, acknowledging what it is to own dis-
possession, which cannot be owned but by which one can be possessed, what
Adorno says of Beethoven—­that his is “the most sublime m ­ usic ever to aim
at freedom ­under continued unfreedom”—is applicable to Miles’s ascendant
Jacobsean swerve in and out of the confinements of Gersh­win’s composition
and Evans’s arrangement.44 Freedom in unfreedom is flight and this m­ usic
could be called the most sublime in the history of escape.45

taste dissonance flavor escape / 85

chapter 6

The New
International of
Rhythmic Feel/ings
This is Natures nest of Boxes; The Heavens containe the Earth, the Earth,

Cities, Cities, Men. And all t­hese are Concentrique; the common center to

them all, is decay, ruine; only that is Eccentrique, which was never made;

only that place, or garment rather, which we can imagine, but not demon­

strate, That light, which is the very emanation of the light of God, in which

the Saints ­shall dwell, with which the Saints ­shall be appareld, only that

bends not to this Center, to Ruine; that which was not made of Nothing, is

not threatened with this annhiliation. All other t­ hings are; even Angels, even

our soules; they move upon the same poles, they bend to the same Center;

and if they w
­ ere not made immortall by preservation, their Nature could not

keepe them from sinking to this center, Annihilation.—­J OHN DONNE , Devo­

tions upon Emergent Occasions

Artworks’ paradoxical nature, stasis, negates itself. The movement of art-

works must be at a standstill and thereby become vis­i­ble. Their immanent

pro­cessual character—­the ­legal pro­cess that they undertake against the

merely existing world that is external to them—is objective prior to their al-

liance with any party.—­T HEODOR W. ADORNO , Aesthetic Theory

Rupert Westmore Grant, the Trinidadian calypsonian known as Lord In-
vader, recorded “Crisis in Arkansas” in March 1959.1 Two months ­later,
bassist/composer Charles Mingus recorded “Fables of Faubus.”2 The con-
vergence of Mingus’s and Lord Invader’s musical indictments of former
Arkansas Governor Orval E. Faubus, who tried to prevent black students
from attending the all-­white L ­ ittle Rock Central High School in 1957, is of
interest ­because of what it reveals of the articulate divergences in aesthetic
and po­liti­cal ideology that animate Afro-­diasporic culture. Mingus’s poli-
tics are complicated by something Paul Gilroy has diagnosed elsewhere as
“African-­American exceptionalism”—an alleged parochialism derived, sup-
posedly and in part, from a sense of messianic singularity that accompanies
the refusal (however muted, however ongoing) of refused (however amelio-
rated, however suspended) national identification—­even as the explicit po­
liti­cal assertion embedded in calypso is something to which Mingus’s protest
impulse corresponds, and even as its musical forms and techniques are the
object of Mingus’s ambivalent desire.3 Meanwhile, Lord Invader’s pride in
his and his ­music’s West Indian origins is infused with its own complex and
problematic national politics of rhythm, even as it exhibits profound transna-
tional solidarity. The coincidence of their attention to Faubus occurs against
the historical backdrop of a triangle trade in bodies and ­labor that Cold War
politics updates into the trilateral movement of imperial troops, a long tra-
jectory of catastrophe that still engenders the re­sis­tance that prompted it.
In examining this coincidence, and placing it within the context of Lord In-
vader’s and Mingus’s musical ­careers and lineages, I hope to attend to some
of what is left for us to emulate and correct in the tradition of anticolonial,
antiracist, transoceanic aesthetic and po­liti­cal endeavor.
That Afro-­diasporic re­sis­tance to the very conditions of possibility of the
African diaspora often manifests itself as a kind of internal strife—­between
musicians and instruments, between (and within) locales and their corre-
sponding styles and between confinement and fugitivity in the constitution of
po­liti­cal aesthetics—is a ­matter that I would address with a kind of wary cele­
bration. To accomplish this, I must also consider the relation between Min-
gus’s po­liti­cal assertion, his formulation of the idea of “rotary perception”—­a
theory and practice of rhythmic flexibility in the ­music that he refused to call
jazz—­and his denigration of another ­great figure of the Los Angeles musi-
cal diaspora, Ornette Coleman. An international relay of seduction and mar-
keting ­will become apparent h
­ ere, one in which Mingus sees both Coleman
and the calypsonians as competitors and interlopers. ­Here, appositional

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 87

articulations—­however vexed, however burdened by the trace of what they
would appose—­emerge in (or, more precisely, as and by way of ) the space
between scenes, in intervals determined by barriers of sound and color. That
space moves, inhabits many zones, is inhabited by many times; the groove
that is this intervallic inhabitation moves with and along the chartable ir-
regularity of a curved plane (plain) or an oceanic (and interactive rhythmic)
feel (field). This irruptive and non-­full presence of and in the interval takes
the form of an anticipation and a medium; the before and interiority of an
outside as magnifier, as amplifier; the shadow of inhabitation as a t­ hing that
conditions apprehension attenuated by disappearance. You come upon ­these
inside-­outside ­things, ­these bootlegged, black-­market ­things, in the midst of
thinking about stolen life: the general equivalent who materializes as rough
translation and rough translator; the smuggler moving (messages between)
stolen property; the anarchic methodological constant; the emanation alive
in ­every essay. In this essay, the ­thing is German conductor Wilhelm Furt-
wängler, in all the non-­full, non-­simple blackness of a certain mediate, con-
ductive brokenness.
As the acerbic lyr­ics he throws in Faubus’s direction show, in addition
to his brilliant musical achievements, Mingus was a genius at showing con-
tempt. My concerns begin with the fact that some of his sharpest rebukes
are intermittently and ambivalently directed t­oward certain key figures in
a richly differentiated set of movements called “­free jazz,” particularly Cole-
man.4 When especially intent upon abusing Coleman’s musicianship, Mingus
called Coleman a “calypso player.” ­Here are two such instances, one from a
June 1964 interview with the French magazine Jazz, the other recalled in
To­night at Noon, the memoir of Mingus’s ­widow Sue Graham Mingus.

­ on’t talk to me about Ornette Coleman. T

D ­ here are a bunch of musi-
cians in the U.S. like him who are incapable of reading ­music and who
have his par­tic­u­lar approach. Coleman is a calypso player. Besides,
he’s West Indian. He ­doesn’t have anything to do with Kansas City,
Georgia or New Orleans. He ­doesn’t play southern ­music. He might
have come from Texas but that ­doesn’t stop his ­family from being ca-
lypso, the same as Sonny Rollins’s. All t­ hese musicians have, ­because
of their origins, a feeling that is entirely dif­fer­ent from ours. Sonny,
at the beginning of his c­ areer, had a lot of difficulties. He copied Bird
frantically. Now, fortunately, he’s found his way and got himself to-
gether. To return to Ornette, he c­ an’t play a theme as s­ imple as Body

88 / chapter 6
and Soul. He belongs, along with Cecil Taylor, to the category of in-
strumentalists who are incapable of interpreting a piece with chords
and an established progression. I remember trying to play with him.
Kenny Dorham and Max Roach w ­ ere with me that day. We started All
the ­Things You Are but at the end of a few mea­sures Ornette Coleman
­couldn’t keep tempo or follow the chords. He was completely lost. Let
him play calypsos.5

I met Charles Mingus shortly before midnight in July 1964. I’d gone

down to the Five Spot, a jazz club in lower Manhattan, ­because the
producer of a film I was acting in had commissioned a jazz soundtrack
from saxophonist Ornette Coleman—at least he thought he had
commissioned a soundtrack—­and my friend Sam Edwards, who was
working on the film, suggested I check out the scene. . . . ​
Mingus called for a ­bottle of Bordeaux—­his own, which he’d evi-
dently brought from home—­and was standing so close to our stools
that, as he drifted into wine talk with the bartender, I stole a glance at
his eyes. They w
­ ere large innocent eyes, I thought, vulnerable and ques-
tioning, deep brown amused eyes that darted about the room while he
remained fixed on his conversation with the man at the bar. I deci­ded to
ask Mingus w ­ hether he’d seen Ornette Coleman, the musician Sam and
I ­were looking for, whose f­ ree style of playing was still causing disputes
among jazz fans.
“You mean the calypso player?” Mingus replied scornfully. He looked
at me with curiosity. “You his old lady?” he asked.
“His ­mother?” I said. I ­hadn’t the faintest notion what he meant.
Mingus laughed. “No, baby, I mean his ­woman, his lady.”
“He’s writing some ­music for a movie I’m in.”
“You in a movie?” He seemed surprised. “With ­those teeth?”
Now I laughed. “It’s an underground movie,” I said. “­They’re not
fussy.” A missing tooth in the back of my mouth was hardly vis­i­ble—­
certainly it had never been singled out by a curious stranger.
“­Isn’t your d
­ addy rich?” Mingus persisted. I looked sideways at Sam.
He was sitting straight-­backed and noncommittal, staring at himself
in the mirror across the bar. I i­magined he was waiting to see exactly
how far down this communication failure was headed.6
At the edge of the spiral of musicians Probe sat cross-­legged on a
blue cloth, his soprano sax resting against his inner knee, his afro-­horn

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 89

 linking his ankles like a bridge. The afro-­horn was the newest axe to
cut the deadwood of the world. But Probe, since his return from exile,
had chosen only special times to reveal the new sound. T ­ here ­were
more rumors about it than ­there ­were ears and souls that had heard
the horn speak. Probe’s dark full head tilted ­toward the vibrations of
the m­ usic as if the ring of sound from the six wailing pieces was tight-
ening, creating a spiraling circle.
The black audience, unaware at first of its collectiveness, had begun
to move in a soundless rhythm as if it ­were the tiny twitchings of an
embryo. The waiters in the club fell against the wall, shadows, dark
pillars holding up the building and letting the ­free air purify the mind
of the club.
The drums took an oblique. Magwa’s hands, like the forked tongue
of a dark snake, probed the skins, probed the ­whole belly of the com-
ing circle. Haig’s alto arc, rapid piano incisions, Billy’s thin green flute
arcs and tangents, Stace’s examinations of his own trumpet discover-
ies, all fell separately, yet together, into a blanket which Mojohn had
begun weaving on bass when the set began. The audience breathed,
and Probe moved into the inner ranges of the sax.
Outside the Sound Barrier Club three white p ­ eople ­were opening
the door.7

According to Mingus, Coleman exhibits a harmonic ignorance that is

manifest as an inability to navigate the m
­ usic’s spatiotemporal structure. The
origin of ­these faults is double: idiomatic strangeness and technical incom-
petence. He ­doesn’t know where or when he is b ­ ecause he comes from the
wrong place, is of dubious, Antillean origins even if he is, in fact, from Texas,
even if he migrated, like Mingus, to New York by way of Los Angeles. And so
Coleman starts to fold, bending ­toward the center, the absolute singularity of
an inescapable point or beat. He loses force, loses drive, spiraling to nothing,
to confusion. He ­can’t keep up, ­can’t return and so the very figure of the black
musical centrifuge stands in for what Mingus despises ­under the rubric of
the centripetal, the concentrique. Coleman’s m ­ usic exhibits the deathly grav-
ity that goes with being out of the loop, outside the circle of occult musical
understanding and interpretive im/possibility that Frederick Douglass as-
sociates with knowledge of slavery, that Mingus associates with knowledge
of the South, that Henry Dumas associates with an embryonic collectivity,
born of a range of exiles, that is in part defined by the impenetrable attrac-

90 / chapter 6
tion it seems to hold for a kind of hipsterism that Dumas fictionalizes and
Sue Graham Mingus autobiographically rec­ords.8 But what if such rootless
rootedness is the deliberate aesthetic effect and affect of wanting out? When
does the decaying orbit of centripetal force itself become a kind of centrifugi-
tivity? How would one know the difference? More precisely, how would one
inhabit such eccentric, such impossible, ground? This is the essential ques-
tion concerning the radical in general and black radicalism in particular—­its
comportment t­ oward a center that is, if not nothing, certainly not t­ here. But
the question of such comportment cannot be dealt with by avoidance, no
­matter how vexing any or all par­tic­u­lar addresses of it have been or might be.
Moreover, the absent but determinate centers of such structures are multiple.
­There are many impossible origins ­toward which we must comport ourselves;
this is what might be called—in the full force of each of ­these terms—­the
question concerning the scored, scarred, richly internally differentiated, au-
thenticity of blackness. Mingus’s vexed, jealous, intolerant, ambivalent, beau-
tifully ugly attendance to this question—­his out inhabitation of the center
of the circle—is, therefore, of g
­ reat interest precisely b
­ ecause of its troubled
and troubling nature. From the broken and unbroken circle (of slavery) to
the vexed structures of musical emancipation and subjection; from ­Little
Rock Central High to the outskirts of town; from (Sweet) Home to Harlem:
“the thought of the outside,” in Michel Foucault’s terms, is bound up with
the centrifugal, the fugal, the fugacious, the fugitive, the “destination out,”
in Nathaniel Mackey’s terms.9 The experience of the (sparkle of the) outside
that resurfaced, according to Foucault, “at the very core of language” occurs
in relation to an upheaval that is au­then­tic however much it is broken in the
performance—at the core of language and everywhere else—of blackness.10
Mingus’s anti-­calypsonianism is all the more problematic if thought in
relation to the vast range of his Afro-­Latin moods and modes, his Spanish
tinge and turn and dinge, as Jelly Roll Morton + Robert Reid-­Pharr might
say, his cante moro or cante jondo as Mackey might say (­after Federico Gar-
cía Lorca).11 Mingus’s spatioaesthetic chauvinism had to do with what he
heard as a rhythmic and temporal structure whose vernacular linearity could
be said to bespeak both idiomatic singularity and elective bondage. Such
dismissal of the vernacular, which moves by placing its features u­ nder the
sign of the Ca­rib­bean, is all the more complex when seen within the con-
text of Mingus compositions such as “Wednesday Night Prayer Meeting,”
“Los Mariachis,” and “Haitian Fight Song”—­songs whose titles and musical
character reveal a profound engagement with southern U.S. and Ca­rib­bean

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 91

Afro-­diasporic vernaculars. At the same time, the supposed harmonic and
rhythmic deficits of calypso and ­free jazz mark a more general deficiency that
Mingus hears in Afro-­diasporic ­music when compared to Euro-­American
concert ­music. Sometimes it seems as if Mingus is in search of a certain ca-
pacity for freedom in ­music that is to be found ­either in Eu­ro­pean develop-
ment or Afro-­diasporic primitivity, but neither in some combination of t­ hese
imaginary poles nor in their deconstruction. And yet Mingus’s proper musi-
cal home is precisely this interstitial, interarticulatory space that “neither”
or “naught” signifies. This is to say, among other t­ hings, that the nationalist
discourse on jazz is generally structured, above all, by a deep ambivalence.
The way out of the limitations of jazz turns out to be nothing other than the
way back into ­those limits that constitute its absent ground. ­There are two
rhetorical strategies apparent in Mingus’s discourse on t­ hose limits: one is
the spatial chauvinism glanced at above; the other is a kind of spatiotem-
poral antifoundationalism in his musico-­theoretical discourse out of which
emerges the term rotary perception.12
Brian Priestly argues that Mingus’s practice and theory of “rotary per-
ception” begins to emerge in an experience of the frontier, in the vexed
cir­cuits of politico-­economic, aesthetic, and sexual desire that mark the
U.S.-­Mexico border, its cycles of conquest and conquest denial, its Afro-­
diasporic traces and erasures. Mingus’s Tijuana Moods, an a­ lbum recorded
in late July and early August 1957, just a few weeks before the National
Guard had to be deployed in order to escort nine black kids into ­Little Rock
Central High, replicates that circuitry. Of one of the signature tunes from
that a­ lbum, Priestly writes:

Dizzy Moods, apparently conceived while driving to Tijuana, was de-

scribed by Mingus before it was ever recorded: “Try a song like Dizzy
[Gillespie]’s Woody’n You, for example, and make some changes; fit
a church minor mode into the chord structure,” and in fact a bluesy
phrase in B flat minor is reiterated throughout the D flat circle of
4ths that constituted Gillespie’s original A section (based on the se-
quence of Fats Waller’s Blue Turning Grey and I’ve Got a Feeling I’m
Falling). Mingus’ B section, however, is in 6/4, but phrased in such
a way that the 4/4 time-­signature is still felt subliminally and it may
be that the idea of adapting this polyrhythmic approach (hinted at
in the C sections of [Mingus’ composition] Pithecanthropus) sur-
faced ­after the trip to Tijuana, since it is a fact that Mexican popu­lar

92 / chapter 6
 ­music is typically in multiples of three syncopated by multiples of
two.13

Priestly then quotes Mingus’s long-­time drummer Dannie Richmond on the

rapport they developed “in negotiating such novel terrain for jazz”:

I could see that [Mingus] stayed completely on top of the beat, so

much so that, in order for the tempo not to accelerate . . . ​I had to lay
back a bit. And, at the same time, let my stroke be on the same down-
beat as his, but just a fraction b
­ ehind it. . . . ​So that, when I would play
on the 2 and 4, and sometimes switch it around to 1 and 3, he liked
­these dif­fer­ent kind of changes that ­were taking place between the two
of us. And I think it was when we first started to play something in 6
that we knew the magic was ­there, and that we could within a second
be out of the 6 into a smashing 4/4 and not lose any of the dynamic
level that had preceded it.14

This rapport was cemented, according to Priestly, in the nine months of in-
tense collaboration in Mingus’s Jazz Workshop before the recording of Ti­
juana Moods. That period came to a kind of climax when Mingus said to
Richmond: “­You’re ­doing well, but now suppose you had to play a composi-
tion alone. How would you play it on the drums? . . . ​OK, if you had a dot
in the ­middle of your hand and you ­were ­going in a circle, it would have to
expand and go round and round, and get larger and larger. And at some point
it would have to stop, and then this same circle would have to come back
around, around, around to the ­little dot in the ­middle of your hand.”15 What’s
at stake h
­ ere—by way of Tijuana’s magic circle and broken market, by way
of Mingus’s self-­described massive appetite for sexual and aesthetic control,
his location of Tijuana as a key point on the cir­cuit on which ­those appetites
­were indulged, and his identification of Tijuana with his experience and un-
derstanding of his own self-­described hybridities—is Mingus’s sense of the
play of the centripetal and the centrifugal in this early formulation of what
he comes to call “rotary perception.”16 This new approach to negotiating the
circle and its border emerges from another border experience, from a ­music
whose idiomatic specificity Mingus has to learn in order to achieve or more
definitively to claim the kind of grounded eccentricity he desires. This is
where the resingularization of the Afro-­U.S. musical idiom (which w
­ e’ll come
to understand as an example of the reconstruction of techniques of feel) takes
and is taken by the time of Mexican cele­bration. But this is accomplished

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 93

within the context of Mingus’s other­wise distancing and denigrating re-
marks regarding another Afro-­diasporic ­music.
­Those remarks are inseparable from the emerging discourse on “rotary
perception.” That discourse is one of marketing as well as of a more “purely”
musical exigency. Mingus invents terms meant to compete with t­hose that
­were being attached to f­ ree jazz, especially to the m
­ usic of Coleman, the ca-
lypsonian. His intervention is intended to announce a musico-­theoretical
advance as well as to attract the critics and the ­women, thereby fostering a
dual seduction at the sound barrier. As Priestly shows, Mingus’s most well
known exposition on “rotary perception,” which occurs ­toward the end of
his autobiography Beneath the Underdog, comes from an interview that was
ghosted into an article in a British journal called Jazz News in July 1961.17
The article’s formulations on “rotary perception” come right a­ fter a diatribe
against John Coltrane, and other members of the jazz avant-­garde, whose
innovations Mingus felt he had anticipated with a rigor that proponents of
the new ­thing never approached. In Beneath the Underdog, Mingus’s expla-
nation of “rotary perception” comes in the midst of a seduction scene at the
start of a romantic relationship, a scene reminiscent of Mingus and Sue Gra-
ham’s initial encounter. The denigration of Trane, Ornette, or, more gener-
ally, ­free jazz in calypso terms is part of a courtship ritual that also includes
the codification of a new musico-­theoretical formulation springing from a
diasporic practice that crosses borders for its (im)proper articulation, and
which has its origins in a desire that is both discursive and commercial. As
­we’ll see, critics and historians of Trinidadian history and culture, like Gor-
don Rohlehr and Harvey Neptune, are helpful in placing Mingus’s comments
on Coleman within the context of the marketing of calypso in Amer­i­ca. Min-
gus is fighting a ­battle against two sets of invaders. ­These formulations on
“rotary perception,” then, are inextricably linked to the dismissal of Coleman
and calypso. And, as Priestly intimates, the dismissal is always accompanied
by a trace of indebtedness:

When I first introduced the name to the press, I admit it was only a
gimmick like “Third Stream.” I was tired of g ­ oing hungry and I wanted
to catch the public ear but, although the word was a gimmick, the
­music w
­ asn’t. . . . ​Swing proceeds in one direction only—­but this rotary
movement is, of course, circular. Previously jazz has been held back by
­people who think that every­thing must be played in the “heard” or ob-
vious pulse. . . . ​[Previously ­people regarded the notes as having to fall

94 / chapter 6
 on the centre of the beats in the bar, or at precise intervals from beat
to beat like clockwork. Three of four men in a rhythm section would
be accenting the same pulse]. . . . ​With “rotary perception” you may
imagine a circle round the beat. [This is necessary b
­ ecause when you
are playing you visualize this. It’s not parade ­music or dance ­music. If
you imagine the circle, then with a quartet formula each member can
play his notes anywhere around the beat. It gives him the feeling that
he has more trace.] The notes can fall at any point within the circle so
that the original feeling for the beat is not disturbed. If anyone in the
group loses confidence, one of the Quartet can hit the beat again. [The
pulse is inside you, only to remember the beat is impor­tant.]18

Again, this passage, as Priestly points out, is something like a rough draft for
what goes on in Beneath the Underdog. You’ll notice, though, refinements at
the level of a certain insight into the possibilities of intra-­ensemblic antago-
nism in jazz per­for­mance:

­ here was once a word used—­swing. Swing went in one direction, it

T
was linear, and every­thing had to be played with an obvious pulse and
that’s very restrictive. But I use the term “rotary perception.” If you get
a ­mental picture of the beat existing within a circle y­ ou’re more ­free to
improvise. ­People used to think the notes had to fall on the centre of
the beats in the bar at intervals like a metronome, with three or four
men in the rhythm section accenting the same pulse. That’s like parade
­music or dance m ­ usic. But imagine a circle surrounding each beat—­
each guy can play his notes anywhere in that circle and it gives him a
feeling he has more space. The notes fall anywhere inside the circle
but the original feeling for the beat i­sn’t changed. If one in the group
loses confidence, somebody hits the beat again. The pulse is inside you.
When ­you’re playing with musicians who think this way you can do
anything. Anybody can stop and let the ­others go on. It’s called stroll-
ing. In the old days when we got arrogant players on the stand we’d do
that—­just stop playing and a bad musician would be thrown.19

Throw the bad musician like a ­horse throwing a bad rider, a bad pos-
sessor. Refuse by way of induced confusion. The bad rider is not rhythmically
self-­sufficient, is radically distant from the complex inside/outside relation
to the circle taken up by the ones who know. The ones who know are pro-
tected from a certain decay that standing on the beat, that occupying the

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 95

center of the circle, ensures. The bad rider, on the other hand, succumbs to
that disciplinary cadence and, in so d­ oing, fails to know the relation that he
signifies. But why link calypso, with its supposedly insistent groove and pu-
tatively ­simple harmonies, with the rhythmic fugitivity and atonal errancy of
f­ ree jazz, modes of dissidence and dissonance which elsewhere Mingus lauds
and which his ­music both prefigures and emulates? And why do it by way of
both nationalist and regionalist discourse even as one engages in critiques of
the most egregious and brutal forms of American regional-­nationalist vulgar-
ity? Mingus’s work is partly an intense—­one might say typically modernist—­
activation of the desire for both advance and nostalgia. The freedom that
would allow unfettered musico-­structural development is tied to the forging
of minimal—­which could be construed as primitive—­musical forms. In the
end, however, w ­ e’ll see that Mingus’s idea of “rotary perception” corresponds
to musicologist Shannon Dudley’s description of the “interactive rhythmic
feel” of calypso (the very m ­ usic Mingus denigrates) in par­tic­u­lar, and Afro-­
diasporic m ­ usic in general—­where cometric accents coexist with the contra-
metric; where ­those accents can be both audible and inaudible.20 Against
the grain of his own nationalist assertions, Mingus is ­after the discrepant
drive of an international—as well as intranational and, even, contranational—­
musical ideal; a spatial universality that manifests itself as rigorously enacted
and interarticulate temporal differences.
In comparing Wilhelm Furtwängler’s and Arturo Toscanini’s divergent
modes of conducting Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, Herman Rapaport opens
up a ­couple of lines of inquiry that I ­will try to explore, lines having to do with
Furtwängler’s intuitions regarding Beethoven’s temporality and Toscanini’s
“Heideggerian” intuition regarding the thingly character of Beethoven’s
works. I want to think the relationship between thingliness and multitem-
porality, between ­these and the new politico-­aesthetic dispositions to come.
This ­will touch and trou­ble a certain discourse on nation and idiom that has
much to do with Mingus’s conflicted cosmopolitan desire. Rapaport writes:

What is entirely inimical is Furtwängler’s correct intuition that in

Beethoven ­there is no unifying tempo for any of the movements but
that each of the phrases exists in a temporality unique to itself. In other
words, ­there is no unified musical heading, but a non-­finite prolifera-
tion of multiple temporal idioms that the conductor conducts as just
so many hegemonic references. It’s precisely in this acknowledgement
of another temporality, never before disclosed in the history of mu-

96 / chapter 6
 sical conducting, that Furtwängler crosses the limit line of the mer-
curial or the merely mad for the sake of encountering what Derrida
calls the right-­to-­philosophy, a heading other than the heading in
which we thought we ­were being directed. It is in this new heading
that Furtwängler anticipates an entelechy that is very reminiscent of
Derrida’s advent of democracy in that the par­tic­u­lar is not at all sim-
ply submerged in the general. It is h ­ ere, furthermore, that ironically
the most tainted ­great musical per­for­mances in ­human history bear
out Adorno’s criteria for greatness in modern m ­ usic: the refusal of the
individual unit to meld into the general context while finding an inevi-
table niche ­there all the same.21

A discourse on the relation between jazz and democracy that moves from
Ralph Ellison to Hazel Carby w ­ ill have to be teased out and carefully read
in order to move, along with Rapaport, on a trajectory that allows an un-
derstanding of this tainted m ­ usic—­“conducted by Furtwängler in 1943 in
Berlin at a gala concert where high-­ranking Nazi officials ­were pres­ent”—as
“the fruit of evil,” but that recognizes that ­music’s indictment, as well as its
justification, of its origins precisely at the moment when it would seem to
claim, in the most problematic ways, idiomatic or national specificity. Rapa-
port’s question concerning the politics of musical heading or musical idiom,
the manifestation and disruption of heading in musical time, occurs by way
of his revisiting the historical encounter/agon between Furtwängler and
Toscanini.

In comparison, Toscanini, whose m ­ usic is the fruit of good [as a func-

tion of his refusal to perform for Nazis and his leaving Nazi-­controlled
Eu­rope for “the land of the ­free”], appears to be much more confining
and dictatorial. His m
­ usic refuses the kind of atomization and alterity
that would allow for a proliferation of hegemonic references. If Tosca-
nini has a philosophy, it is one of regimenting and of ranking, a phi-
losophy of bringing phrases and audiences in line with a work whose
truth is the occurrence of a conversation or debate that could take
place anywhere among anyone. It is in that regimentation of ­music as
a kind of cultural and po­liti­cal “tutti” that the arrival of a demo­cratic
moment can be glimpsed. For Toscanini, however, this heading can
only be reached if Beethoven is de-­transcendentalized or cut down to
size. The excesses of the particulars must never be allowed to escape
the grasp of a generality or mediocrity that restricts and contains. For

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 97

 ­those of you who would like definitive proof of this tendency, listen
to the long-­withheld recording of Toscanini’s 1949 per­for­mance of
Gersh­win’s An American in Paris where any hint of swing has been
carefully suppressed, a suppression that in the past has led to accusa-
tions of a decidedly un-­American agenda on Toscanini’s part. It would
be ­here, no doubt, that the race question can once again be raised on
the shore of another heading.22

In thinking Toscanini’s suppression of swing in Gersh­win as, at once, a

national and racial question and in thinking swing as the irruption of the
interior temporal alterity and constituency of the work, Rapaport erects the
frame of a bridge that would traverse the space(s) between time(s), (racial/
national) idiom(s) and ­thing(s). If this suppression of swing is indicative of
a kind of impoverished temporal understanding of Beethoven, then perhaps
the temporal divide that separates the Eu­ro­pean and African diasporas was
the occasion and possibility of a range of articulations and encounters that
might have made for another history altogether. ­We’ll return to the possibil-
ity of such idiomatic as well as historical recalibration by way of calypso while
recognizing that Toscanini may well stand in for a specific Eu­ro­pean concep-
tual deficit with regard to the complexities of Eu­ro­pe­an, as well as African
and Afro-­diasporic, musical time. In the meantime, as Rapaport argues, “it
is already not hard to see that the question of musical headings would be
in­ter­est­ing to pursue from the standpoint of the right to make art in terms
of a cosmo-­political context.”23 He then veers t­oward a consideration of the
philosophical in Furtwängler and Toscanini:

You may have already wondered if Toscanini was, indeed, quite as poor
a phi­los­o­pher as I have made him out to be. In fact, Toscanini shares
a Heideggerian insight about art reminiscent of a famous sentence
from “The Origins of the Work of Art.” “Beethoven’s quartets lie in the
storerooms of the publishing ­house like potatoes in a cellar.” That “all
works have [a] thingly character” (of course, this is not all Heidegger
has to say on the m
­ atter) was, very much, the philosophical head-
ing u
­ nder which Toscanini and his followers have been conducting
­music. What Toscanini hated, above all, was the metaphysical heading
of ­music—­the idea that the ­music is “something ­else over and above
the thingly ele­ment.” ­Here we should be aware of the metaphysical/
anti-­metaphysical headings ­under which Furtwängler and Toscanini
found themselves, something that would change their per­for­mances

98 / chapter 6
 greatly in relation to how we would estimate them. When Heidegger
tells us that “The art work is, to be sure, a t­hing that is made, but it
says something other than the mere ­thing itself. . . . ​The work makes
public something other than itself; it manifests something other; it is
an allegory,” he is raising an issue that Toscanini wanted to demystify,
the notion that the work must manifest itself as something other—­that
it manifest itself as having an other heading or course than the inter-
nal headings of the musical phrases. Provided we can imagine Tosca-
nini playing a certain Heideggerian kind of Beethoven, a Beethoven as
earthy as a dry sack of potatoes in the root-­cellar, but by no means rep-
resentative of one, we would then have to start asking questions about
­whether Toscanini and Furtwängler ­were actually headed in such dif­
fer­ent directions ­after all, since the hegemonic philosophical point of
reference would be a slice of German philosophy that would bring the
two conductors ­under somewhat of the same aesthetic heading.24

This same aesthetic heading is where idiom and thingliness would con-
verge, though immediately one is called upon to move, by way of Heidegger,
­toward another consideration of the t­hing or, if you w ­ ill, ­toward the other
that is already in the Heideggerian conception of the thingliness of the work
of art. That the thingliness of the artwork is bound up with its being made
bears a significance that ­will only intensify when the thingliness—­the vexed
history of commodification, objecthood, and “the natu­ral”—of its maker is
also considered. A line of objections—­a phrase of objection—­remains ­here
to be traced. That time line, such phrasing, intimates that which is over and
above the ­thing is in the ­thing, is the essence, in fact, of the ­thing. This is
to say—­after Heidegger and Rapaport and, necessarily, in another register—­
that the work is over and above itself, is other than itself, and that that other
heading is the exteriority that is given or is pos­si­ble only by way of the internal
headings of the musical phrases in all their canted singularity. To deny the
exteriority of ­these interior turns as an object of critico-­performative desire
is to foreclose any possibility of inhabitation of the work, any possibility of
sounding, of following the t­ hing’s internal headings, its internal differences,
­those multitemporal, nonunified, subliminally felt, unbound hegemonic ref-
erences. What Rapaport hears and abjures in Toscanini is what Mingus hears
and abjures in the military regularity of certain iron-­systemic rhythms in jazz
per­for­mance, which could ­either be thought of as suppressions of swing in
what passes for swing or as a dry and congealed thingliness in violation of the

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 99

very essence of the t­hing—an absence of meaning, if you w
­ ill, that requires
a transcendence of swing. If this is swing, Mingus seems to be saying, then
it never meant a t­hing. Meanwhile, Rapaport suggests that this “divisibility
and overlapping of musical headings” that he has begun to investigate by way
of Furtwängler and Toscanini, Heidegger and Derrida, might “point ­towards
a deconstruction of a Eurocentric horizon—­perhaps even the Eurocentric
itself—­that would exceed the unifying determinations of, say, the dialectical
stability of Eurocentric versus the post-­colonial.”25 Rapaport further suggests
that this deconstruction w ­ ill have required the recitation and analy­sis of an-
other story, that of the violinist, and “ravishing beauty,” Anne-­Sophie Mutter.
It strikes me that Mingus’s theory and practice brings another beauty into
the mix as a kind of deferral of Rapaport’s critical odyssey: Calypso. What
has Calypso to do with the m ­ usic—­and radical thingliness—of other times?
This is a question concerning the spatial politics of the groove. Such politics
is also always a sexual politics.
Why ­will Ornette Coleman come to occupy the place of this seductress
who makes you wait, who makes you lose or change your heading? How does
Mingus register, and how is he disrupted by, an arrhythmia that is driven by
and ­toward the postcolonial? How does calypso interrupt the iron idioms of
something that is called swing in ways that Mingus both loves and hates?
This all has, also, to do with thinking the harmonics of swing. Can we think
the cantedness—­the circularity, even—of calypso’s dissonance, a wandering
irresolution that Mingus hears in Coleman as illiteracy, a kind of absence
of sanctioned musical reason, a loss of musical self-­possession that Mingus
elsewhere desires and cultivates? What’s the relation between the hidden se-
ductress and the (outside) state of being-­lost? ­There is a certain fear of the
islands, of the Antilles, in Mingus’s discourse that is, at the same time, con-
tradicted by what might be called his lawless inhabitation of the musical bor-
derlands. In Mingus, the dream of a strolling musical walkabout and the fear
of musical homelessness and rootlessness that requires the grounded, pedes-
trian basics go hand in hand. Like Odysseus, the specter of a final resolution
or homecoming only engenders a final refusal of (the right of ) return. The
refusal leads Mingus repeatedly to Mexico—in search of a kind of rapacious,
imperial life and, ­later, during his fight with Lou Gehrig’s disease, in search
of a kind of respite, some non-­commercially driven deferral, and then ac­
cep­tance, of death—­and then to the Ganges, where his ashes ­were scattered
in the hope of the most radical return as nonreturn, the reincarnation of
a lovebird. This international reclamation and disavowal of national idiom

100 / chapter 6
marks the cross-­section of a cir­cuit worth exploring: Trinidad, India, Mex-
ico, the United States, Germany. One must discover now the other thingly
character—­the multiple temporality and interiority—of the market as well
as the artwork. This is a history of migration, interior invasion, excursion,
and return, of what Sarah Cervenak studies u ­ nder the rubric of a necessarily
circular, necessarily broken, wandering; the occult instability of the (intra-
and inter)national market: to be for such communism, the democracy that
lies before us, such liberation of surplus, is no ­simple being against regula-
tion.26 This is at the root of Mingus’s rootless ambivalence in all of its deter-
mined aggression.
Meanwhile, it must be considered that p ­ eople rebel against the beat like
they rebel against understanding, reason, law, and especially t­hose modes
of control that masquerade as abandon. But what’s the relation of the beat
to that other reason, that more complex interinanimation of law and imagi-
nation? And how do we deal with what Furtwängler, Rapaport, and Daniel
Barenboim might get to as the imperceptible errancies and delays of the beat
and its reason, understanding, law? This is a prob­lem or question concern-
ing the line. ­Here is Barenboim in a passage from his recently published
conversations with Edward Said that address Furtwängler’s mutable time. I
juxtapose them to a ­couple of excerpts from Karl Dietrich Gräwe’s descrip-
tion of the orga­nizational effects and choreographic affects of Furtwängler’s
conducting style. The passages concern imperceptible variation, the internal
differentiation of the simultaneous and a certain interinanimation of groove,
circle, and hand in Furtwängler’s mode of laying down the law.

Furtwängler believed implicitly in the fact that it was not only permis-
sible but necessary to have certain fluctuations of tempo, not only to
achieve the expression of each individual molecule but, on the other
hand, paradoxically, to achieve the sense of form, in order to have the
ebb and flow. You needed to have ­these imperceptible fluctuations in
order to achieve the sense of formal structure. Obviously, they have to
be imperceptible. This means that one of the main princi­ples of making
­music is the art of transition.27

­There has never been a dearth of critics to find fault with Furtwän-
gler’s straggling entries or his unstable tempi. (Toscanini called him
“il grande dilettante.”) An orchestral musician claims to have counted
how Furtwängler’s baton, describing a jagged line in its descent, beat
13 times like an irritated seismograph. [Like the irritated seismograph

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 101

 that is Erwartung.] The orchestra then managed, yielding to the sug-
gestive “overkill,” “to find its entry at some point.” If one listens to the
sound documents Furtwängler left ­behind, one ­will notice that the in-
struments rarely enter together: some dare to come in “too early,” o
­ thers
fi­nally succumb to the force of gravity and “fall into” the chord. The re-
sult, however, though at the cost of a wafer-­thin lack of synchronicity, is
a sonority of exceptional luminousness, warmth, fullness and weight.28

How did Furtwängler conduct? His high-­raised right arm made him
look like the incarnation of a Jupiter tonans. How did an orchestra
sound ­under Furtwängler? This question touches on some essential
considerations. Threatening gestures and demands for metrical rigour
­were not his way. Instead his right hand described gentle, circular move-
ments, like the shaping, modeling hand of a painter or sculptor. He did
not chisel at unyielding stone; he gave form to a soft, malleable sub-
stance, and it was always a product of the moment, binding, yet sub-
ject to revision, an ultima ratio, but valid only for the momentary act
of music-­making.29

The soft circularity of Furtwängler’s fitful starts, his falling into the beat
as if u
­ nder the influence of some kind of disrupted gravity or broken curva-
ture, offers a clue about that locale where rhythm, tempo, and a kind of dura-
tive simultaneity begin to merge in and as improvisation. Errancy is crucial
­here—­performance is, or is marked by, what elsewhere Mingus denigrates
as Coleman the calypsonian’s supposed confusion or lack of confidence. But
while Mingus’s figure of the illiterate outsider is a variation on the historic de-
valuation of the t­ hing’s supposedly lawless incapacity to intend, Barenboim’s
reflections on Furtwängler associate such errancy (or, in his terms, plasticity)
not only with profound concentration but also with the evanescence of per­
for­mance. Note, also, that immediately following the recording of the pas-
sage on “rotary perception” in Beneath the Underdog, an unfortunate British
critic asks Mingus about British jazz, about ­whether the British can play, to
which Mingus makes a reply based on unjustifiable notions of immutable,
untransferable, and irreducible idiomatic difference that quickly crosses into
a justifiable rant on the racial economics of jazz. The difference, by the way,
between Mingus and Barenboim is that Barenboim believes national idiom
is real but transferable. Mingus’s re­sis­tance to such “cosmopolitanism” is,
on the one hand, strategic and economic and, on the other hand, v­ iolated
constantly by his own compositional and performative practice. This is to say

102 / chapter 6
that Mingus’s procedure is all about the courting of such errant eccentricity,
the vexed re­sis­tance to a regulation that he must honor. This requires our
attunement to the expression, in Mingus’s errant, immigrant, fugitive law of
movement, of his desire for his compositions “to prove how beautifully one
can improvise against a basic structure.” That desire is constantly given in
the evanescent per­for­mances of his workshop, an ensemble, a set or class, a
­thing, realized in t­ hings, pres­ent at its/their own making or even, one might
say, at its/their own conduction.30
This means that we have to consider the relation between “rotary percep-
tion” and the kind of libidinally saturated image of the ­whole that Samuel R.
Delany speaks of in his autobiography The Motion of Light in ­Water, thereby
returning—by way of terrain that Carby explores in Race Men—to a kind of
rapport between The M ­ usic and a complex, dissonant range of sexuality that
black musicians flaunt and obsessively deny.31 This is a question concerning
light, where we might consider enlightenment in its relation to what Donne
calls “the very emanation of the light of God.” Said says, of his first seeing/hear-
ing Furtwängler in Cairo, “it was as if he w ­ ere an emanation,” an impression
whose deposed resonance becomes a more than methodological sensibility.32
And Barenboim speaks of the opening tremolo of Anton Bruckner’s Seventh
Symphony as the creation of an illusion “that it starts out of nowhere and
that sound creeps out of silence, like some beast coming out of the sea and
making itself felt before it is seen.”33 This is like Shelley’s understanding of
the skylark, or a kind of Levinasian insight into the Torah—­the feeling of
other­wise imperceptible natu­ral or super­natural law become sound. It’s not
to be dismissed for the very real light and heat that it gives off. This emana-
tion is stolen light and stolen life and it is inseparable from a radical spatial
politics of the groove. What does it mean to lay with it or in it? To lay with it
and to lay out, to refuse or walk away? To lay with something gingerly, with
a certain amount of lightness and reticence: is this the detachment of the
hipster, as Scott Saul would have it? In the very useful analy­sis of Mingus in
his book Freedom Is, Freedom ­Ain’t, Saul links the hipster’s detachment with
soul and with ­every solidity of the beat that might be associated with soul.34
But Mingus’s detachment is also from the beat or from its fixity and direct-
ness even as he weaves a kind of magic, protective circle round it. He would
protect the pulse, like any good bass player, while freeing himself from it, like
some impossible extension at the center of a womb-­like space. What Dudley
refers to—by way of J. Kwabena Nketia—as the “time-­line” is a projective
linearity that is also a central home, that is at once contained within and

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 103

projected from—­protected by and protective of—­the circle, a circle that al-
lows a kind of errant adherence and even makes pos­si­ble, fi­nally, an adamant
opting out unto silence, a meta-­(or mega-)exilic departure.35
In his analy­sis of the rhythmic correspondences and differences between
calypso and soca, calypso’s North American and Indian rhythm–­influenced
offspring, Dudley uses “the term ‘rhythmic feel,’ instead of ‘beat,’ ­because it
is more suggestive of the possibility that many rhythms can combine to pro-
duce a distinctive musical sensation.” Moreover, in an attempt to “explain the
interactive rhythmic feel of calypso” not as “a key rhythm around which the
­music is constructed” but, rather, as “the consistent musical logic and compos­
ite aesthetic effect of many parts which interact together rhythmically,” Dudley
moves ­toward a description of something on the order of a public sphere or
workers’ circle.36 The precision of Dudley’s description can be traced back
to what he characterizes as “early scholars’ erroneous perceptions of African
­music”: “Erich von Hornbostel, for example, was puzzled by the absence of a
regular pulse in the recordings he listened to and theorized that such a pulse
must be expressed not in sound but in the motion of the drummer raising his
hand to strike. A. M. Jones drew a new mea­sure line in his transcriptions of
Ewe ­music ­every time ­there was an accented beat, with the result that vari­
ous parts of the same ensemble w ­ ere portrayed as having dif­fer­ent, and very
irregular meters.”37
Is the fantasy of the arm-­raising event a kind of mirror image of Furtwän-
gler’s absent—or, at least, furtive—­downbeat, its replacement by the soft,
circular frenzy of divided and dividing starts (and fits), the dif­fer­ent and
irregular temporalities that are the essence of (the) ensemble as Furtwän-
gler knew and Rapaport reiterates (as the restrained but transformative
elongations of Gould’s second recording of the Goldberg Variations dem-
onstrate)?38 But how did the perception of the absence of a regular pulse in
African m­ usic become the perception of that same pulse’s often overwhelm-
ing presence in a certain discourse on Afro-­American ­music that is shared
by many musicians and critics ranging from Mingus to Adorno? Meanwhile,
though Dudley argues that more careful observation of and instruction in
African musical practices revealed that “the Western concept of meter—­a
commonly perceived, fixed number of equidistant ‘main beats,’ with a first
and last beat, that correspond to a musical period—is not foreign to Afri-
can ­music,” he is also careful to point out that “the traditional western time-­
signature” is an incomplete repre­sen­ta­tion of African meter:

104 / chapter 6
 What the time-­signature description of meter lacks is a way to dif-
ferentiate between the many patterns of accent that are pos­si­ble in a
musical period. Western listeners and musicians often assume that
the metric pulse w
­ ill be audibly articulated and that certain pulses
­ ill be consistently centered—­for example, the first quarter note in
w
3/4 time, the first and third quarter notes in 4/4 time, or the first and
eighth notes in 6/8 time. However, Mieczyslaw Kolinski points out
that that way of thinking caused Jones to misinterpret Ewe ­music, and
he reminds us that even in Western m ­ usic one finds both “cometric
and contrametric patterns” of accent. He asserts that “the interplay be-
tween ­these two types of organ­ization represents an essential aspect of
metro-­rhythmic structure.” Kosinski’s distinction acknowledges that
consistently recurring accents can be used for more than just indicat-
ing the downbeat and weak and strong pulses of the meter. In fact, in
much African m ­ usic the main beats, although they are conceived of
(and often articulated in the dancers’ steps), are not audibly accented.
Simha Arom refers to this phenomenon as “abstraction de mesure et
du temps fort.” The distinctions made by Kolinski (cometric versus
contrametric accents) and Arom (abstract versus audible meter) help
explain how African ­music is understood by Africans to be character-
ized by regular groupings of a steady pulse, even though that pulse is
not always audible.39

Dudley continues:

Robert Kauffman sums up the African perception simply and concisely

when he says that “Shona musicians . . . ​use the more dynamically tac-
tile term ‘feeling,’ to express what Western musicians more abstractly
call ‘meter.’ ” Of course, in Eu­ro­pean ­music ­there is clearly more variety
of rhythmic feel than what is recognized by the concepts of 4/4, 3/4,
6/8, and so on. It is just that Western concepts of meter have generally
overlooked this, focusing on the number of pulses, the subdivision, and
the downbeat. To illustrate this conceptual deficiency with an example,
saying a piece is “in 3/4 meter” would tell much less about its musical
character than describing the piece as having “a waltz feel.”40

Hence, the beauty and importance of Furtwängler: his quickening dis-

ruptions and curved multiplications of downbeat are improvised per­for­
mances against a certain conceptual poverty producing new techniques of

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 105

feeling. As Rapaport suggests, his conducting secures for Western concert
­ usic that distinction between time signature and accent, and the interplay
m
of temporal and phonic difference within accent, that is of ­great importance
to Mingus and constitutes, on the one hand, what is essential to his under-
standing of “rotary perception” and, on the other hand, what he seems to
refuse to hear in Coleman and calypso, namely, a refusal to hear the absence
of a regulatory mode that he both abjures and desires. Mingus thinks that
in the absence of a law of movement to break, calypso falls into the random
constraint of a death spiral. However, Dudley shows how the maintenance
of the circle’s integrity requires the l­ egal procedure of an articulated ensem-
ble, what Olly Wilson calls a “fixed rhythmic group” whose “rhythmic feel is
not produced by a single pattern . . . ​but is a composite generated by several
instruments that play repeated interlocking parts.”41 No hegemonic single
pattern means no sole instrument or player responsible for that pattern’s
upkeep. ­There is, rather, a shared responsibility that makes pos­si­ble the
shared possibilities of irresponsibility. More precisely, attuned and passion-
ate response is given both in the capacity to walk and to walk away. While
freeing the individual player—­say, the bass player—­within the fixed rhyth-
mic group or rhythm section from the sole burden of keeping time does
constitute a liberation from collective temporal constraint, such escape
or animation of the bottom is, itself, an effect of law. That law is a law of
(stasis in) motion and emotion, articulated in forced migration and (con)
strained revolt, whose truth is uttered in hermetic falsities and falsettos,
as the possession and dispossession of time.42
This law is a law of genre, or gender, as well. One of Mingus’s (and Cole-
man’s) greatest sidemen, Eric Dolphy, called his favorite of Mingus’s instru-
ments “The French Lady.”43 And both Duke Ellington and Kenny Clarke
problematically assert that the “drum is a ­woman.” The area that drum and
bass lay down constitutes that womb-­like, ­family circle of which Dumas
speaks, foregrounding a certain maternal responsibility whose fixed circum-
ference Mingus would, at the same time, rupture and redouble by invagina-
tion. He strains against a maternal responsibility that he can only abdicate
by disruptively confirming. Joni Mitchell, another of Mingus’s greatest col-
laborators, is like a man, Bob Dylan says, b
­ ecause she keeps her own time,
is allowed to “tell you what time it is,” and burns with that “untamed sense
of control” he attributes to old-­timey musician Roscoe Holcomb without
commenting on the sexual ambiguity of Holcomb’s complex, astronomical
registers.44 Such self-­sufficient irresponsibility is the province of men. The

106 / chapter 6
rhythm section, on the other hand, is matrical, a locus where metrical an-
tagonisms are mediated, where the regulative and diplomatic force of the
­ other is always tempered by her criminally empathic breaking of the law
m
she lays down, by her inhabitation of the space where per­for­mance and com-
modification meet. This is to say that this other hand is the in­de­pen­dent and
untimely same of the one hand; its rhythm is of a sliced section or session,
that other time of the ones who keep the other’s time if not their own, who
let the ­others take their time, who place time within that impulsive strife of
dis/possession that we call ­music, that breakdown or brokedown opposition
located at and as if an irruption of sound recorded by something like an ac-
cent meter.45
Bearing the constitutive force of catastrophic oppositional failure, Min-
gus’s formulations are an edifice built on the ruins of a ­legal discourse and
­legal pro­cess, the impossible law and endlessly disrupted trial of the general
economy of black maternity. What might be the sexual force of such nurtur-
ing? Mingus plays like a (play) ­mother; she keeps walking, walking away: they
touch and go like adjacent variations out of one another’s time but bridged by
an imperceptibly reminiscent tempo; like the mercantile maternal machinery
of a money jungle; like the broken stroll of The ([interactive rhythmic] Feel)
Trio; like The Awakening into a band. But “­these are men!” says William Carlos
Williams.46 Supposedly self-­possessive, t­ hey’re supposed to keep themselves
and/in their time. They ­don’t lose time, like the syncopic ones, the ones for
whom “swing is ‘(high lonesome) sound’ ” reconfiguring synoptic view, the
dis/possessors.47 Imagine the always paradoxical sovereign subject, contem-
plative in his cell, tortured by the unkept, unkempt time of a musician who is,
as it ­were, outside. The listener loses himself and is unmanned. The listener,
speaking aloud, can no longer hear, or bear, himself. This is the contretemps
of the soliloquy: having lost myself, subject now to another’s time, I speak to
myself before you, imploring me to find me. Against the grain of the soloist’s
proud time, the bass and drum lose the time they keep, holding it right ­there
where they almost lose their way, not doin’ no soloin’, as The Godfather of
Soul demands, ’cause it’s a m
­ other (who is impossible, who walks away, a­ in’t
it funny how time slips away, “slides away from the proposed,” steals away,
as life?).48 So what remains to be considered is something on the order of an
extralegal pro­cess, a metrical assertion against the law that still exercises an
uninstantiable matrical (ir)responsibility that is always before us, moving,
still, vis­i­ble, illusory, like a dot in the m
­ iddle of your hand, like the drive of
a French lady, a black w
­ oman, an impossible black m
­ other, in a crawlspace,

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 107

a bar, marked by a barricade or a barrier, a club. In the irreducible perme-
ability of the Sound Barrier Club, where ­things are “cramped and capacious,”
­things are driven.
It is this drive that determines what Dudley calls that par­tic­u­lar “re-
lationship between the fixed rhythm and the vocal part or instrumental
melodies and improvisations—­what Wilson refers to as the ‘variable rhyth-
mic group’ ”—­that is characteristic of calypso.49 Dudley argues that the calyp-
sonian sets off the interaction of fixity and variation by anticipating and de-
laying the accents of the rhythmic pattern. But Dudley encounters a certain
amount of trou­ble in characterizing that pattern which pres­ents itself with
differences often enough to defy the name. This is to say that the singer—­the
po­liti­cal soliloquist, the (unmanned) man of words—­performs variations on
a fixity that is always already in trou­ble. Interestingly, as Dudley points out
by way of the work of Rohlehr, in part ­because of the influence of jazz, many
early calypso recordings “used instrumental accompaniment that was rhyth-
mically inappropriate to calypso singing style.”50 This irruption of a certain
African American impropriety into the idiomatic specificity of Trinidadian
calypso’s fixed rhythmic group only redoubles the sense that the constant
disruption of the proper is the condition of possibility of rhythmic feel in
general. Many calypsonians from Lord Invader to David Rudder sing of “the
American social invasion,” on top of the American rhythmic invasion, which
is, it turns out, just another singularity from within a diasporic time that is
constituted by the geopo­liti­cal disturbances of invasion and im/migration
that it is most properly understood as constituting.51
This spatial politics of the ruptured groove, of the broken circle, corre-
sponds to t­hose “rhythmic nuances of the calypso singer” which are born
of an originary and formal impropriety.52 In this sense, what musicologist
Charles Keil calls “participatory discrepancies” might be best understood as
transcendental clues leading to a more accurate sense of idiom as a range of
anoriginal differences. In turn, the groove might be best understood as a circle
of such differences in which the players might be “in synch but in and out of
phase,” as Keil puts it; where the ­music comes fully into its own as something
other than itself.53 Rapaport, Barenboim, and Said all get into the groove of
Furtwängler’s Beethoven. In a way that is the same, and radically dif­fer­ent,
“rotary perception” is swing’s “originary displacement” (to use Nahum Dimitri
Chandler’s phrase), swing’s Afro-­American/Afro-­Caribbean/Afro-­Eurasian
eclipse.54 Swing is, in other words, an international incident; the groove is
not the groove; jazz is not what it is and as it is it is it is. The ­music instantiates

108 / chapter 6
the broken circle, the brokedown (public) sphere, the indecipherably break-
ing cipher, of black international fantasy.
Consider the grooved, fantastic circle and its (spatial) politics as some-
thing along the lines of what Mary Pat Brady, in an echo of Cherrie Moraga,
calls a “temporal geography.”55 Brady’s criticism is indispensable to a proper
understanding of Mingus’s border work, his linking of musical influence
with a mode of sexual tourism not unlike that which he decries when it takes
place on the Central Ave­nue of his heyday. That criticism is animated by
a critical awareness of the way the border marks and helps to instantiate
and perpetuate a collaborative pro­cess of imperial expansion that Edward
Spicer calls “cycles of conquest,” the imperial and counterimperial strife that
is both between the United States and Mexico and within them in their own
shifting scales and contours, strife that long predates 1848 and the signing
of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and that continues to trou­ble the forced
stabilities that larcenous pact was supposed to ensure.56 To be aware of this
history and truly attuned to its challenges—­even as one acknowledges the
gross asymmetries of this border strife; even if one is primarily and legiti-
mately driven by a critical and po­liti­cal desire to resist the current hegemonic
force of all kinds of U.S. imperial desires in their necessary articulation with
what Brady astutely describes as erotic-­imperial paranoia—­raises certain
overwhelming questions for the study of Mingus and of jazz. Can a politics,
aesthetics, and erotics of liberation be forged from the ongoing construction
of an identity that is based, on the one hand, in displacement and the re­
sis­tance to displacement, and, on the other hand, in imperial conquest and
exploitation and the establishment of bourgeois personhood, however in-
flected by bohemian style? Must revolutionary subjectivity also be geomet-
ric, geo­graph­i­cal subjectivity? If it must, how ­will it successfully detach itself
from empire’s spatial obsessions? How are the complex disarticulations and
rearticulations of space and subjectivity productive of theoretical insight and
po­liti­cal possibility?
Brady addresses ­these questions that are, in her work, partially animated by
the fact that (1) mestizaje (and its partner, in an uneasy and complex relation-
ship, indigenismo)—as scholars such as Herman Bennett, Martha Menchaca,
and Maria Josefina Saldaña-­Portillo have shown—­was a fundamental part of
the Mexican colonial and imperial proj­ects even as it now has been made to
operate within the framework and in the ser­vice of profound anti-­imperial and
anticolonial desire; (2) discourses of the border—­across a vast range of his-
torical articulations—­constitute something like a spatialization of mestizaje;

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 109

(3) the traversing and transversing of the shifting, bridge-­like (non-)terrain
between the United States and Mexico—or the more literal (in that they are
more extensive in their meta­phorical force) spaces between Aztlán and the
Valle de Mexico or Pacific Palisades and Watts—is that spatialization raised
to the level of somatic and discursive critical method.57 Brady is interested
in claiming that method for insurgent po­liti­cal and intellectual practice, and
her work offers a rigorous exemplification of that method—­the deconstruc-
tion of a state-­sanctioned imperial mestizaje meant to work in the ser­vice of
po­liti­cal homogeneity and colonial indigenismo that violently imposes itself
against the fugitive po­liti­cal force of nomads like the Apaches; the mobiliz-
ing reconstruction of the rich differentiations of the mix; and the critical
deployment and displacement of origin (or something, again, like “originary
displacement”). This movement—­the most salient particularity of Brady’s
critical discourse of the border, in par­tic­u­lar, and space, in general—is of
extreme value to African American expressive cultural criticism. A profound
discourse of the cut(, the groove and of their corollaries, the bridge and the
circle) animates that strain of the African American tradition that Cedric
Robinson calls black radicalism.58 Something akin to a continuing excavation
of the Mexican afromestiza—­whose erasure is always attenuated by the in-
sistent and irrepressible trace of her constitutive, migratory force (to which
Bennett, Menchaca, and Kevin Mulroy attest) for black radicalism in par­
tic­u­lar and radicalism in general—is a proj­ect to whose theoretical founda-
tions Brady makes a g ­ reat contribution.59 Mingus’s ­music also contributes to
that proj­ect though work like Brady’s is required in order to listen to Mingus
against his grain so that his contribution can be heard. Such work makes it
pos­si­ble to imagine—­indeed, demands the imagination of—­the border and
the cut, more properly, as interinanimate, so that blackness is understood as
an irreducible mestizaje (the mix as its condition, not its negation) whose in-
habitation is a nomadic bridge; and as the internal differentiation and exter-
nal transversality of what Robinson calls “the ontological totality.”60 Brady’s
work is something like a cornerstone of the span that would connect, say,
Brent Hayes Edwards’s analy­sis of “the practice of [African] diaspora” with
Rafael Pérez-­Torres’s reading of “the refiguring”—­and/or Genaro Padillo’s
reading of “the uses”—of Aztlán.61 The articulation of Aztlán and the African
diaspora, amplified and distorted originarily by originarily distorted Euro-­
American (and, for that ­matter, Asian American) voices and forces, sounds
like Mingus and forges, however fleetingly, what Matt Garcia might call “a
world of its own.” Mingus’s disavowal of the Ca­rib­bean ­can’t be properly un-

110 / chapter 6
derstood without taking into account the vexed productivity of his musico-­
sexual “romance” with a Mexico that ­will always have been both more and
less than itself.
It is no mere coincidence that the erotic-­imperial paranoia that marks the
United States’ and Mingus’s relation to Mexico can also be said to character-
ize U.S. relations to Trinidad. The incursion of U.S. power into colonial Trin-
idad’s geographic, social, and psychic space turns out to have been the vexed
field in which a certain Afro-­diasporic international contact was played out.
That contact, at least in part, took forms such as this:

Around 9 p.m. on Friday, April 16, 1943, a storm of sticks, ­bottles, and

stones sent residents of Basilon Street, Laventille, scurrying ­under
their beds. The source of the missiles, neighborhood folks would soon
find out, was a group new to the community and, indeed, new to colo-
nial Trinidad: African American soldiers. Helmeted and bare-­chested
in some cases, and bearing weapons in nearly all, the black men who
belonged to the 99th Anti-­Aircraft Regiment of the U.S. Army had set
out on a seek-­and-­destroy mission in one of Port of Spain’s most infa-
mous slums. The objects of their pursuit ­were the community’s self-­
proclaimed “robust men,” young, predominantly Afro-­ Trinidadian
males whose unabashed hostility and alleged hooliganism scandal-
ized “respectable society” in the British colony. How many “robust
men” the marauding members of the 99th found remains uncertain.
What is clear is that during the course of the night, ­these soldiers
wrought serious property damage and assaulted scores of neighbor-
hood men. In their wake, black Americans left broken win­dows and
dented walls, and, by the end of what outraged municipal representa-
tives condemned as a “wave of homicidal fury,” twenty-­four local men,
including four special reserve police officers, had to be hospitalized.62

Harvey Neptune shows how a marauding band of African American sol-

diers, perhaps in response to threats and acts against their safety and that
of some of their local female companions, sought out and attacked some of
Trinidad’s “robust men.” The “robust men”—­angered not so much by the loss
of “their” w
­ omen to the seductive powers of Yankee soldiers and their “Yan-
kee dollar” but, more precisely, by the troubled decisions through which local
­women asserted an attenuated sexual autonomy in the face of local mascu-
line control—­acted out a specific ambivalence ­toward black American sol-
diers and local Afro-­Trinidadian ­women to which ­those soldiers responded

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 111

in ways that w
­ ere also deeply ambivalent, ways that both reflected and re-
fracted the American schizo-­imperial imperative to liberate by destroying.63
On the one hand, according to Neptune, Trinidadians and other Ca­rib­bean
­peoples who immigrated to the United States viewed black Americans as the
highly constrained victims of a par­tic­u­lar and extremely violent and debilitat-
ing mode of racism to which they had not been subjected; on the other hand,
Neptune argues, Afro-­Trinidadians ­were impressed by the militant re­sis­tance
to racism among black U.S. soldiers—­manifest in the many clashes between
black and white soldiers that local blacks witnessed (with plea­sure when the
black soldiers came out on top)—­even though t­ hose soldiers w ­ ere operating
in their work and in their leisure by way of the force of massive neoimperial
state power directed against and within Trinidad. Indeed, that power was
solicited and welcomed by British colonial administrators precisely ­because
it might also serve to suppress the po­liti­cal mobilization of the island’s emer-
gent nonwhite working class.
Neptune allows us to understand, then, that the presence of black soldiers
from the United States produced oppressive and liberatory effects, both of
which ­were both embraced and rejected by Afro-­Trinidadian national mas-
culinity. Afro-­Trinidadians laid claim to certain protocols and performative
styles of African American masculinity that could be deployed in challenging
the slightly more subtle forms of white supremacy that served as the founda-
tion for the colonial order. But when the per­for­mances of African American
masculinity—­augmented by the privileges of American military power and the
force of the Yankee dollar—­were directed t­oward Afro-­Trinidadian ­women,
now constituted as objects of liberation and mastery (which is to say desire),
Afro-­Trinidadian men also laid claim to styles, protocols, and rhe­torics that
would bespeak a national identity distinct from (American) blackness.
The possibilities of diasporic contact and solidarity w
­ ere always struc-
tured, then, by a complex system of intramural and extramural antagonistic
hierarchies, a condition that has now only become more pronounced and
more articulated. Neptune’s work leads him t­ oward the question of w
­ hether
the black soldiers who spread around the “Yankee dollar” induced—or, more
precisely, aggravated—­that special kind of proprietary, homosocial, national
misogyny that can be associated with, say, the German racist hysteria over
the occupation of the Rheinland by Afro-­diasporic soldiers in the Allied
forces ­after World War I and the birth of the mixed-­race Rheinlandbas­
tarde, or with the complex exchange of resentments between northern and
southern black Americans, soldiers and nonsoldiers, in communities adja-

112 / chapter 6
cent to U.S. military bases that Amiri Baraka’s novel The System of Dante’s
Hell represents in the chapter “The Heretics.”64 One point, of course, is that
chauvinism is neither the exclusive domain of the U.S. component of the
diaspora nor absent in the internal relations of that component. The other
point is that what can be dismissed too easily u ­ nder the rubric of chauvinism
is determined by the striated re­sis­tance to a complex of invasions and expan-
sions. A complicated kind of interinanimative trou­ble is marked by the rough
historical coincidence of Lord Invader’s musical anticipation and rearticula-
tion of the Laventille uprising (both of which are enabled by the very inva-
sive militance—­something on the order of a pre-­occupation of rhythm and
romance—­against which they w ­ ere directed) and Furtwängler’s dissident
and dissonant inhabitation of the German musical tradition against t­hose
who would claim that tradition (and the unfettered right to expansion that
the tradition is supposed to ground) by way of the very ritualized per­for­
mance that his downbeat’s broken, circular script initiates and disturbs. At
the same time, both in spite of and ­because of this kind of trou­ble, the intra-
national and transnational nature of anticolonial, antiracist strug­gle is made
much more clear, leaving us with much to emulate and correct and many
questions to ask.
One such question is this: What identificatory claim is Lord Invader mak-
ing in the chorus of “Crisis in Arkansas”?

Please take off that black bow tie—­lay-­oh!

And that black tuxedo,
You callin’ us names, yet you wearin’ black,
Please take off every­thing black off your back.65

Consider that Lord Invader invokes blackness by way of his rhythmic

and phonic play on the color black. Mingus’s reference to blackness is, as it
­were, implied. However, Lord Invader’s multisyllabic irruption of accentual-­
metrical difference breaks and makes new musical (rhythmic/syntactic) law
in a way that Mingus would valorize. Consider also that Lord Invader moves
strenuously ­toward another arrangement of the social law as well, in his cri-
tique of U.S. domestic racial policy. In his lyr­ics he asserts his opposition to
Faubus and, more generally, to a reactionary apparatus whose ethical and
juridical dispositions ­were symbolized by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisen-
hower’s tardy response to the illegal obstruction of the students’ entrance
into ­Little Rock Central High. Mingus was, at first, prevented from any
such verbal assertion of any such po­liti­cal opposition; Columbia Rec­ords

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 113

suppressed his lyr­ics for “Fables of Faubus.” It was not ­until a year ­later,
when he (re-)recorded the “Original Faubus Fables” for Candid Rec­ords, that
his protest could be heard uncut.66 But even Mingus’s rerecording never ap-
proaches the canted but explic­itly identificatory claim on blackness—­which
si­mul­ta­neously constitutes the repeating ground and anarchic disruption
of the song’s universalizing claims—­that animates “Crisis in Arkansas.” One
could argue, furthermore, that the complexity of the variable rhythmic group
in “Crisis in Arkansas”—­led by a vocal per­for­mance whose accentual richness
is the dissonant effect and affect of lyrical po­liti­cal dissidence—is the aim of
Mingus’s agonistic approach to “fixed” rhythmic per­for­mance as well. Lord
Invader packs syllables into e­ very mea­sure with a precision that manifests
one moment as abundance, the next moment as economy, an interinani-
mation of more and less that bespeaks musical and po­liti­cal fugitivity. The
(sound of the) oppositional emergence that both prompts and responds to
the ongoing state of racial emergency is always non-­full, always non-­simple,
always on the run and not (fully or simply) on the one.
Amiri Baraka and Samuel R. Delany have both explored what might be
called the po­liti­cal feelings that attend an escape that is somehow both from
and within the musical bar line. In “Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-­
Precious Stones,” Delany aligns such fugitivity with the specific po­liti­cal insur-
gence of singers who move between worlds on the tracks of an underground
migratory cir­cuit, while Baraka, particularly and repeatedly in Black ­Music,
pays special attention to the way Coleman exemplifies the irruptive musical
liberator’s challenge to time and tune.67 Lord Invader’s escape is manifest,
however, as a kind of overactive cometric and contrametric inhabitation to
whose strict criminality—­for instance, the intensified negation and irruptive
rhythmic feel of the two equally necessary instances of “off ” in the chorus of
“Crisis”—­Mingus aspires, redoubling it to ever more anarchic effect in “Fables”:

Oh Lord! ­Don’t let them hang us.

Oh Lord! ­Don’t let them shoot us.
Oh Lord! ­Don’t let them tar and feather us.68

Such out-­of-­time re­sis­tance to—­such scarring of—­scansion is laid down

with the open deliberateness of a secret agent and with such an agent’s de­
mo­li­tionist and abolitionist intent against the very instruments and locale
of (mean) time. But Mingus’s disruption of regular meter can also be under-
stood as bearing the trace of subjugation to both commercial and aesthetic
regulation. One form that commercial regulation took was the U.S. record-

114 / chapter 6
ing industry’s attempt to circulate, and to determine the popu­lar reception
of, calypso as an ­imagined alternative to the po­liti­cal energy animating
World War II black American ­music. However, Lord Invader’s ­music reveals
the deep po­liti­cal affinity at the very heart of the ­imagined alternative. Min-
gus and Lord Invader share a po­liti­cal aesthetic that seeks to deploy strenu-
ous rhythmic and lyrical re­sis­tance to and within self-­imposed regulatory
forms in order to facilitate flight from externally imposed regulation. Such
flight is the ongoing per­for­mance of a shared diasporic legacy that is always
articulated in close proximity to intradiasporic conflict. African American
musicians’ per­sis­tent denigration and distancing of Ca­rib­bean rhythms and
sonorities and the deployment of t­ hose same ele­ments in the ser­vice of Ca­
rib­bean disavowals of an African American identity that is conceived as both
dominant and abject, intimate a complex, many-­sided ­whole.
The lines of stress and lines of flight that animate the Afro-­diasporic set,
the Afro-­diasporic gathering, compose a terrible richness. Why must Min-
gus’s neoabolitionist drive, or the King of Ghanaian highlife E. T. Mensah’s
pan-­Africanist musical and po­liti­cal impetus take the form and/or lyrical
content of calypso? Why is radical po­liti­cal desire all throughout the di-
aspora so often manifest as ever more complex reconstructions and de-
constructions, recoveries and concealments, of sonorities, rhythms, and
sensibilities derived from a home that seems to withdraw from e­ very re-
turn? Why does Fela Kuti’s insistent assertion of African idiomatic specific-
ity against the neo­co­lo­nial force of state-­sanctioned corruption and vio­lence
move with the complex in/direction of a Bootsy Collins bass line? What are
the conditions of possibility and maintenance of a kind of permanent and
unassimilable dissidence and dissonance, and why is it that such a forma-
tion seems destined to find its fullest articulation not only against but by way
of forms and resistant deformations that seem to confirm African American
cultural hegemony in the diaspora? How do we account for the popularity
of the aesthetic and po­liti­cal force of this permanent dissidence when it
emerges from the United States? Has this specific dissonance, which is both
national and antinational, which was born in ongoing modes of accumula-
tive exclusion that are unique in their severity and bred in what had been
and continues to be a radical detachment from power, attained hegemony
not only by way of the circulatory system of an unpre­ce­dented cultural im-
perialism, but also b
­ ecause it continues to bear the trace of a radical, antici-
patory opposition to state power that constitutes the fundamental ele­ment
of an identity?

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 115

 What’s at stake ­here is the question of comportment t­oward the irre-
ducible and constitutive specificity of a blackness that always manifests it-
self against the black-­Americanism that it manifests itself as. The abstract
and ­imagined space of internationalism, transnationalism, or the eternally
congealed and disappearing object/s of hybridity, with all the appeal of e­ very
other general equivalent, are not the same as a federation of disrupted locales.
However, though it is tempting to say that internationalism or diasporism have
become teleological princi­ples run amok—­false and empty universalities whose
excesses align them with imperial, neoliberal capitalism as an ideal and as a set
of commodities—­such a claim would not justify some easy disavowal of the in-
ternational, the diaspora, or, for that m
­ atter, the universal or the teleological. An
irreducible utopics of The International is still to be desired, against all positiv-
isms, against any vulgar reduction to the empirical encounter however post-­or
anti-­imperial that encounter might be or appear to be, even if no one can locate
it anywhere other than in its disrupted and disruptive locales. Meanwhile, the
disrupted and disruptive locale recedes and exceeds; aggressive, improvisational
assertions of a certain teleological princi­ple bring this into relief so that New
York or Port of Spain or Lagos are understood as that which The Interna-
tional and its feelings make pos­si­ble. At the same time, locale disrupts any
crystallization of teleological princi­ple: The International is in that it is in
the local—­the only and infinite pos­si­ble space (effect of an irreducible deictic
bond or bind) for that impossible place, the Internation. The International
markets itself in the very disrupted locale that is disruptive of The Interna-
tional; landscapes and markets, mountains and ­things, make accents and
(time) signatures. And it’s not difficult to point out complexities, crossings,
and antagonisms—­the point is what to make of them—­just as it’s not enough
to say this or that is an instance of internationalism. So that if this or that
par­tic­u­lar instance is understood as an irruption of internationalism, this is
in­ter­est­ing only in that it self-­destruktively raises the question: What is The
International? It is a question that is inseparable from a ­couple of ­others:
What is blackness? What is black Americanness?
The irreducible and constitutive specificity of blackness-­as-­black Ameri-
canness; the irreducibly vexed specificities of blackness in Afro-­diasporic
internationalism or in what is valorized or hoped for in the new comparativ-
ism: both are at issue h
­ ere. Vio­lence to t­ hese specificities, done in the name
of black American exceptionalism, intradiasporic hegemony, the black-­
white binary, or their most viciously legitimate critique o ­ ught to be resisted.
This is all just to say that it should still be permissible to study the disrupted

116 / chapter 6
and disruptive locales/objects of blackness-­in-­black Americanness, which
is what I think I’m ­doing when I listen to the John Donne/David Rudder/
Mary Pat Brady Trio. Moreover, such study is not only permissible but also
imperative ­because it makes pos­si­ble some more rigorous address of the real
question, namely that of the (constitutive force of blackness in the anti-­and
ante-­American, musico-­democratic assertion of The Black American) Inter-
national. This question—­which concerns what Akira Mizuta Lippit might
call the open history of the (objection to) “inalienable wrong”—­might also
complicate legitimate critical and theoretical disavowals of “states of injury”
and their relation to the putative degradation of left politics or to the inabil-
ity of left politics to think and enact new po­liti­cal dispositions.69 Perhaps
identities forged in severe injury might have something to do with a kind of
per­sis­tent re­sis­tance to (states of ) power and to taking power that not only
­will have clearly borne a deep attraction to ­those who remain excluded from
power, especially when ­others have taken power in their names (i.e., the
general constitution of what is called the postcolonial), but also w ­ ill have
served well the task of forming the genuinely new comportment, the out-­
from-­the-­outside ­thing, that is the aim and object of musical and po­liti­cal
fantasy. Such fantasy constitutes and is constituted by rigorous analy­sis of
the relation between blackness and the politics and aesthetics of a certain
claim on dispossession that w ­ ill have animated the range of musical home-
lessness with which I have h ­ ere been concerned. This dispossession, this re-
fusal, this objection—in all of its spatiotemporal complexity, in the full range
of its irregularities, in the objects and events of the vast range of sharp loca-
tions that link and differentiate Mingus and Lord Invader—is intact as sung,
strained, scripted, articulation; as a choreography dedicated to the crimi-
nal movement of hips; as the f­ree, rhythmic, de-­centering preservation of
structure. (Ornette Coleman called it “The Circle with a Hole in the ­Middle.”
When Mingus covered it, in spite of Coleman and himself, it called to him,
was revealed to him, was performed by him, as “The Circle with a [W]hole
in the M
­ iddle.) It is, therefore, productive of new singularities (which is to
say new ensembles). Blackness is the production, collection, and anarrange-
ment of new singularities (which is to say new ensembles). Diaspora is an
archive (gathering, set) of new t­hings productive of new t­hings (which is
to say new ensembles).70 The Charles Mingus/Lord Invader/Wilhelm Furt-
wängler Ensemble plays the radical spatial politics of the broken circle, the
radical temporal politics of the broken groove. It’s the New International of
Rhythmic Feel/ings.

the new international of rhythmic feel/ings / 117

Chapter 7

The
Phonographic
Mise-­En-­Scène
1.
For Theodor Adorno, the graphic reproduction of operatic per­for­mance means
that the primary scene of audition has shifted: from the theater—­and the telic
determinations ­toward which the natu­ral history of the theater tends—to the
living room, where ­people gather to listen to what they no longer concern
themselves to perform. The phonograph allows the vagaries and vulgarities of
the visuality of (operatic) per­for­mance to be held off or back by an auditory ex-
perience whose condition of possibility and whose end is the illusory recovery
of something literary—­and thus essentially visual. What remains is to begin an
attempt to see and hear what might be gained by moving through the opposi-
tion of the denigration of the recording in the discourse of per­for­mance and
the denigration of per­for­mance in the discourse of classical musicology. This
attempt is made by way of the 1993 recording of Arnold Schoenberg’s mono-
drama Erwartung, starring Jessye Norman as the opera’s single character,
Die Frau, with the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra ­under the baton of James
Levine.1 It is an attempt that has required reading with and against Adorno—­
which is to say listening to and for the sound that works in and against him.
It would be difficult to overstate the importance of writing for Adorno,
who understands the graphic as an interinanimation of drive and affect es-
sential to aesthetic experience, ­whether it be film (wherein montagic con-
stellation approaches writing) or m­ usic (whose authenticity is established
in a mode of audition that simulates composition, thereby sanctioning a
practically literary displacement of the musical per­for­mance in ­favor of the
musical work). Nevertheless, as essential as writing is to Adorno’s idea of
the aesthetic, as central as ­music is to that idea, phonography pres­ents a
prob­lem for Adorno to the extent that the complex scene of writing/reading/
rewriting that emerges in the interplay of audition and composition is me-
diated, if not re-­staged, by means of mechanical reproduction, even if such
mechanical reproduction might at some point make more feasible a form
of structural listening that ­will have reestablished composition’s priority by
sharpening the constitutive fantasy of composition’s originary moment.2
This is all to say that Adorno is critically aware of the tangled interaction
of writing and reproduction and its production of another, more fundamen-
tal, double bind. On the one hand, the reproductivity of writing confirms the
central distinction between technique and technology upon which stands
what­ever singularity is embedded in the internal structure of the work even
as it marks another distinction between original and copy. At the same time,
writing is perceived as that which delays or defers any immediate reference of
the copy to the original, an immediacy upon which, say, film depends u ­ nless
it adheres to a grapho-­montagic structure that is at once essential to and im-
manently critical of cinema.
To defer the immediacy, to disrupt the repre­sen­ta­tion, of the object: this,
for Adorno, is the true essence of film, of ­music, of art. Or, to put it in an-
other way: art must shift its representative function away from the object
and ­toward subjective experience. For the cinema, subjective experience is
given, as it w
­ ere, in montage; and to the extent that dissonance is most prop-
erly understood as deferral, as a disruption of immediacy-­as-­resolution; and
to the extent that abstraction is, too, the holding off, as it ­were, of any ­simple
and immediate experience of the object and of its story; and to the extent
that this deferral or disruption or, just as well, this indeterminate extension
of expectation can be understood as a kind of rupturally rhythmic, asynchro-
nous suspension better known as syncopation, then we can understand the
central importance for modernity, its aesthetics, and its politics of the en-
semble of montage, dissonance, abstraction, and syncopation that animate
the phonographic mise-­en-­scène.
The hybridities of the circus and of burlesque, which Adorno dismisses due
to what he terms their “venerable roughness and idiocy” in one of his “Trans-
parencies on Film,” are best understood as the interstitial sloughs wherein the
autonomous arts each in their specific singularity falter.3 ­These locales of
inarticulacy, spaces marked only in and as the warping, broken, and break-
ing articulation of objects, only in and as the site where one comes upon
or encounters the object, are also the hybrid modes of what Michael Fried
disparagingly characterizes—in its mid-­twentieth-­century manifestations in

the phonographic mise-­e n-­scène / 119

the plastic arts—as theater.4 ­These hybridities are the structured and struc-
turing origins of hybridities; they are the district, the bottom, the side, the
(cut) Cuba Addition, the terry, the plain as well as the “pro­cess of dilution
and bastardization” where misalliances of all paresthetic and un/natural (or
radically natu­ral) kinds come or come up or are come upon.5
Adorno valorizes montage as writing, the sensuous theorization of the in-
terval, while denying, even as he acknowledges the undeniability of, what­ever
emerges—­precisely as theoretical sensuousness—­from a certain lingering in,
or from whoever object lingers in, the interval. Whoever this object is is not just
what she is—­the apparatus, the dispositif; her in­ven­ted and philosophical sens-
ing is the anorigin of our modernity. In the par­tic­u­lar instance that interests
me right now—­one which cannot be seen not to operate at and in the audio-
visual convergence of musical composition, phonography, the animaterial and
animeta­phoric trace of cinema and the fantastic Gesamtkunstwerk(lichkeit)
of opera—­the object’s name is Jessye Norman, born and raised in, erupted out
of, the respectably asymptotic outside of the terr(itor)y of Augusta, Georgia.6
Meanwhile, the intervallic breaking of the flow is the flow’s condition of pos-
sibility and this, of course, is both good and bad. In the end, we are inter-
ested in the objection to (that is also the constitutive objection of and in) the
story—­the mellifluous off inside the drama; the montagic, dissonant, synco-
pated abstract; the criminal disruption of narrative; the grapho-­reproductive
improvisation of narrative; the black per­for­mance of narrative; the irreduc-
ible trace of (slave) narrative. The dramatic quarters of narrative is where
­we’re lingering now in this, in our, modernity. The portable dark continent,
not even all that far back in the woods.

2.
Access to the seeming remoteness of such seemingly wild space is made
more pos­si­ble by recognizing that, for Adorno, the graphic reproduction of
operatic per­for­mance means that the primary scene of audition has shifted
as well: from the theater—­and the telic determinations t­oward which the
natu­ral history of the theater tends—to the living room, where p
­ eople gather
to listen to what they no longer concern themselves to perform, where the re-
production of per­for­mance is brought to give notice to what the new technol-
ogies of reproduction make per­for­mance no longer able to reproduce, where
the stereo (and the tele­vi­sion and all their digital accoutrements)—­now even
more than in Adorno’s time—­eclipses the piano as the piece of furniture

120 / chapter 7
most iconic of bourgeois domesticity and accomplishment, where “through
the curves of the needle on the phonograph rec­ord ­music approached deci-
sively its true character as writing.”7 Thus the phonographic mise-­en-­scène,
­because of and despite the structuring degradations of the culture industry, is
revealed to be the most au­then­tic site of a mode of “structural listening” that
approaches reading, one where development (or its deferral or disavowal)
and the closed totality of the work become the objects of a kind of ocular-­
linguistic musical perception in which ­music’s textual essence comes to light.
As Rose Rosengard Subotnik puts it, this kind of structural listening “makes
more use of the eyes than of the ears,” though, for Adorno, the scene of pho-
nographic audition comes to constitute something like a prophylactic against
the degradation or waste of musical substance that is always given as a danger
of the ideological spectacle of operatic staging as well as the irreducible mate-
riality of sound, of the musical moment.8
Adorno’s valorization of the auditory phonographic relation to the literary
experience of the score displaces the effects and affects of sensuous visual-
ity that had seemed an inescapable by-­product of musical per­for­mance in
general and operatic per­for­mance in par­tic­ul­ ar. This is to say that the condi-
tion of possibility of the revalorization of sound is that its new phonographic
medium makes pos­si­ble—by way of its erasure of itself as medium or as the
medium of a medium, the vehicle of sound; and by way of the repetitive lis-
tening which it allows—­a more proximate relation of the experience of ­music
to its essence as writing. Sound comes back but only by way of its graphic
overwriting, underwriting, Ur-­writing. The phonograph enables the illusory
recovery of an architrace. At the same time, the vagaries and vulgarities of
the visual are held off or back by a phonography whose condition of possi-
bility and whose end is the illusory recovery of the essentially literary—­and
thus essentially visual—­experience. That experience—­literate or “structural
listening”—is imagining composition: the listener’s impossible inhabitation
of the imagination of the composer in order to discern t­ hose structural in-
tentions upon which the interinanimation of individual and universal au-
tonomy is supposed to rest.
What remains is to begin an attempt to see and hear what might be gained
by moving through the opposition of the denigration of the recording in the dis-
course of per­for­mance and the denigration of per­for­mance in the discourse of
“classical” musicology. So I’ve been preparing myself for Norman’s and Levine’s
recording. That preparation has meant reading with and against Adorno—­
which is to say listening to and for the sound that works in and against him.

the phonographic mise-­e n-­scène / 121

 3.
Schoenberg calls Erwartung the repre­sen­ta­tion “in slow motion [of ] every­
thing that occurs during a single second of maximum spiritual excitement,
stretching it out to half an hour.”9 Adorno describes the work in this way:

The monodrama Erwartung has as its heroine a w ­ oman looking for

her lover at night. She is subjected to all the terrors of darkness and in
the end comes upon his murdered corpse. She is consigned to ­music
in the very same way as a patient is to analy­sis. The admission of ha-
tred and desire, jealousy and forgiveness, and—­beyond all this—­the
entire symbolism of the unconscious is wrung from her; it is only in
the moment that the heroine becomes insane that the ­music recalls
its right to utter a consoling protest. The seismographic registration
of traumatic shock becomes, at the same time, the structural law of
the ­music. It forbids continuity and development. Musical language is
polarized according to its extremes: t­ owards gestures of shock resem-
bling bodily convulsions on the one hand, and on the other t­ owards a
crystalline standstill of a h
­ uman being whom anxiety c­ auses to freeze
10
in her tracks.

I’m interested in the convergence of ­music and writing, duration and discon-
tinuity, at the scene of literate audition and ­will attempt to justify and prop-
erly pose the following questions: Can we locate the body or, more generally
and precisely, fleshly materiality, at the scene where per­for­mance, recording,
and audition converge? What’s the relationship between phonography and
bodily inscription? How do the corporeal, visual, and tactile markers of ra-
cial and sexual difference shape the phonographic mise-­en-­scène?
If the seismographic register that is Erwartung comes fully into its own
not on stage but only in the fully equipped living room, undetermined by the
pre-­scriptive primitivity of embodied per­for­mance, it is liveness in and as its
somatic manifestation that has caused this deferral. Therefore, for Adorno,
it is imperative that the spectacular experience of the performing body
be disrupted in a scene of auditory reading that stages the protection of the
aesthetic and of subjectivity from the very sensual, ideological, and objective
impurities of style, theatricality, and per­for­mance that make the aesthetic
and subjectivity pos­si­ble. In the case of Erwartung, the subject w ­ ill have
been protected by the breakdown of the subject’s line. That paradoxically
prophylactic rupture is sutured, as it ­were, by a phonographic structural lis-

122 / chapter 7
tening “that, when successful,” according to Subotnik, “gives the listener the
sense of composing the piece as it actualizes itself in time.”11
This solicitation of the temporal coherence of the subject of musical
experience—­that appears as the ­imagined composure of the composer—is
the moral, so to speak, of Erwartung. The restoration of the subject ­will
have been made pos­si­ble by the subject’s having been broken by waiting.
If, as Susan McClary puts it, “tonality itself—­with its pro­cess of instilling
expectations and subsequently withholding promised fulfillment ­until cli-
max—is the principal musical means during the period from 1600 to 1900
for arousing and channeling desire”; and if the subject stands in as an effect
of the regulative channeling of aroused desire; then Erwartung, or expecta-
tion, can be understood as the knell of a new moment in musical history, the
moment when disruptive atonality trou­bles the twin essences (development
and a resolved, even resolutely coherent, totality) of the musical tradition
and the mode of subjectivity that tradition helps to form and deform.12 The
discontinuity that goes with the interminable extension of the moment is
nothing less than the rupture of development that is development’s last re-
sort, a rupture that phonography underscores.

4.
The evolution of Adorno’s attitude t­oward phonography marks something
like a path to the last resort. In his 1927 essay “The Curves of the Needle,”
Adorno writes:

Talking machines and phonograph rec­ ords seem to have suffered

the same historical fate as that which once befell photo­graphs: the
transition from artisanal to industrial production transforms not
only the technology of distribution but also that which is distrib-
uted. As the recordings become more perfect in terms of plasticity
and volume, the subtlety of color and the authenticity of vocal sound
declines as if the singer ­were being distanced more and more from
the apparatus. The rec­ords, now fabricated out of a dif­fer­ent mixture
of materials, wear out faster than the old ones. The incidental noises,
which have dis­appeared, nevertheless survive in the more shrill tone
of the instruments and the singing. In a similar fashion, history drove
out of photo­graphs the shy relation to the speechless object that still
reigned in daguerreotypes, replacing it with a photographic sovereignty

the phonographic mise-­e n-­scène / 123

 borrowed from lifeless psychological painting to which, furthermore,
it remains inferior. Artisanal compensations for the substantive loss
of quality are at odds with the real economic situation. In their early
phases, ­these technologies had the power to penetrate rationally the
reigning artistic practice. The moment one attempts to improve ­these
early technologies through an emphasis on concrete fidelity, the ex-
actness one has ascribed to them is exposed as an illusion by the very
technology itself. The positive tendency of consolidated technology
itself to pres­ent objects themselves in as unadorned a fashion as pos­si­
ble is, however, traversed by the ideological need of the ruling society,
which demands subjective reconciliation with t­ hese objects—­with the
reproduced voice as such, for example. In the aesthetic form of techno-
logical reproduction, ­these objects no longer possess their traditional
real­ity. The ambiguity of the results of forward-­moving technology—­
which does not tolerate any constraint—­confirms the ambiguity of the
pro­cess of forward-­moving rationality as such.13

This is a problematic that concerns narrative, where what is encoded as

the interplay of photography and lifeless psychological painting is more prop-
erly understood as the audiovisual locus of stolen life. Moreover, the entire
problematic of intolerance of constraint, in its positive and negative forms, is
at stake h­ ere—­power/capital’s intolerance of constraint, the slave’s intoler-
ance of constraint. W
­ e’ll see how this concerns the relation of Erwartung to
the photographic silence of the servant girl (the apparatus’s shy relation to the
speechless object) even as it is also about the shrillness of her scream. This is
about the convergence of new technology and speechless object, screaming
servant girl, unreproducibly reproduced and reproductive singer, the preg-
nant, material individual and her event. It is also about the criminalization
of forward movement that is irrevocably bound to the scream, to chromatic-­
libidinal saturation, to the end that is, at once, infinitely deferred and hope-
lessly premature.
Meanwhile, in the 1934 essay “The Form of the Phonograph Rec­ord”—as
he did seven years earlier in “The Curves of the Needle”—­Adorno figures
phonographic rec­ords as “herbaria” that provide the shrinking sounds (of a
­music whose per­for­mance is already understood as the somatically degraded
copy of a scriptural original) with a kind of archival space, an audiovisual-
ized display like some kind of auditory equivalent of the diorama.14 M­ usic
falls into an analog of naturalistic oil painting, where a kind of scientism or

124 / chapter 7
positivism lies inherent in the technical form. But even as Adorno decries the
muting privatization that is forced upon ­music by the emergent technologies
of the nineteenth-­century bourgeois era, the necessarily mutational force of
an essentially graphic form/medium arises for him as a positive value insofar
as it makes pos­si­ble a more genuinely literary musical experience. The strife
between eye and ear bears complications and ambivalences that remain.
This strug­gle between two ways of valorizing the muting of m ­ usic is
paralleled by two ways of valorizing the emergence of ­music as a private
experience. The complex relation between the private, the individual, and
loneliness is unique and necessary to Adorno’s way, despite the rich annoy-
ance of his par­tic­u­lar mode of provocation. A glancing, antipathetic en-
gagement with pregnant stillness and profligate shrillness lets us get at the
sexual dimensions of the ensemblic barrier to the last resort:

The relevance of the talking machines is debatable. The spatially lim-

ited effect of ­every such apparatus makes it into a utensil of the private
life that regulates the consumption of art in the nineteenth c­ entury. It
is the bourgeois f­ amily that gathers around the gramophone in order
to enjoy the m ­ usic that it itself—as was already the case in the feudal
household—is unable to perform. The fact that the public ­music of
that time—or at least the arioso works of the first half of the nine-
teenth ­century—­was absorbed into the rec­ord repertoire testifies to its
private character, which had been masked by its social pre­sen­ta­tion.
For the time being, Beethoven defies the gramophone. The diffuse and
atmospheric comfort of the small but bright gramophone sound cor-
responds to the humming gaslight and is not entirely foreign to the
whistling teakettle of bygone lit­er­a­ture. The gramophone belongs to
the pregnant stillness of individuals.15

Male voices can be reproduced better than female voices. The female
voice easily sounds shrill—­but not ­because the gramophone is incapa-
ble of conveying high tones, as is demonstrated by its adequate repro-
duction of the flute. Rather, in order to become unfettered, the female
voice requires the physical appearance of the body that carries it. But it
is just this body that the gramophone eliminates, thereby giving e­ very
female voice a sound that is needy and incomplete. Only t­ here where
the body itself resonates, where the self to which the gramophone re-
fers is identical with its sound, only t­ here does the gramophone have
its legitimate realm of validity: thus Caruso’s uncontested dominance.

the phonographic mise-­e n-­scène / 125

 Wherever sound is separated from the body—as with instruments—or
wherever it requires the body as a complement—as is the case with the
female voice—­gramophone reproduction becomes problematic.16

­ ere, the fact that the female voice is tainted by the bodily presence that it re-
H
quires in turn taints the phonograph that requires the very body from which
it promised to liberate us. Moreover, the degraded nature of the form is tied,
as we have already seen and ­will see again, to its incipient visuality. And while
phonographic rec­ords are “a virtual photo­graph of their o ­ wners, flattering
photo­graphs—­ideologies,” commodities that come to embody, in their por-
trayal of a pseudocultured ideal, something like the absence of individuality
that characterizes its consumer, t­here remains, again, a kind of memorial
hope that Adorno derives from the rec­ord—­the dead phonographic object,
in and despite its petrification, reification, commodification, and submission
to the degradation of possession, is invested with a life that would other­wise
vanish.17
In this sense, at this moment, Adorno begins to think more seriously the
rec­ord as a kind of writing, as letters from the dead that mark the condition
of possibility of an auditory augmentation of the musico-­literary experience
called structural listening. This is fi­nally and fully elaborated, in light of the
development of the technical apparatus’s temporal capacities, in the 1969
essay “Opera and the Long-­Playing Rec­ord” where Adorno writes: “The en-
tire musical lit­er­a­ture could now become available in quite-­authentic form
to listeners desirous of auditioning and studying such works at a time con­
ve­nient to them.”18 The long-­playing rec­ord “allows for the optimal pre­sen­
ta­tion of ­music, enabling it to recapture some of the force and intensity that
had been worn threadbare in the opera ­houses. Objectification, that is, a
concentration on m ­ usic as the true object of opera, may be linked to a per-
ception that is comparable to reading, to the immersion in a text.”19 He adds:

The ability to repeat long-­playing rec­ords, as well as parts of them, fos-

ters a familiarity which is hardly afforded by the ritual of per­for­mance.
Such rec­ords allow themselves to be possessed just as previously one
possessed art-­prints. But ­there remains hardly any means other than
possession, other than reification, through which one can get at any-
thing unmediated in this world—­and in art as well. . . . ​LPs provide the
opportunity—­more perfectly than the supposedly live performance—
to re­create without disturbance the temporal dimension essential to
operas.

126 / chapter 7
  . . . ​Similar to the fate that Proust ascribed to paintings in museums,
t­ hose recordings awaken to a second life in the wondrous dialogue with
the lonely and perceptive listeners, hibernating for purposes unknown.20

Indeed, hibernation, h
­ ere, is quite obviously meant to facilitate a structural
listening whose loneliness moves in some perfect correspondence with the
loneliness of the composer, especially Schoenberg’s loneliness, embodied
perhaps most purely in Erwartung, in relation to which Adorno writes, in
his 1948 Philosophy of Modern ­Music: “That the anxiety of the lonely be-
comes the law of aesthetic formal language, however, betrays something of
the secret of that loneliness. The reproach against the individualism of art is
so pathetically wretched simply ­because it overlooks the social nature of this
individualism. ‘Lonely discourse’ reveals more about social tendencies than
does communicative discourse. Schoenberg hit upon the social character of
loneliness by developing this lonely discourse to its ultimate extreme.”21
But why is this loneliness “of city dwellers totally unaware of one another”
best understood from within the singularity of the phonographic mise-­en-­
scène and out of the crowd of the concert hall?22 Is ­there a new or another
understanding of the sociality of loneliness embedded in certain qualities of
the black voice that Adorno elsewhere dismisses? Does the troubled voice,
the voice that is both more and less than complete, resocialize the iconic
loneliness of the phonographic mise-­en-­scène, its auditory extension of com-
position and its suppression of spectacle, even as the trace of operatic stag-
ing irrupts forcefully into phonographic audition by way of the racial-­visual
language that is indispensable not only for a critical engagement with opera
in par­tic­u­lar and Western m
­ usic in general but for any account—­anecdotal,
theoretical, empirical—of the social and, above all, psychological extremity
of loneliness as well? This is a question to which I’d like to turn, precisely by
way of the disruption that it implies.

5.
Such disruption—­wherein the development and coherence of the (musical)
subject is suspended within a fearfully crowded solitude—is one way both
to describe and theorize what Schoenberg called “the emancipation of the
dissonance.”23 Dissonance, as Charles Rosen understands it, implies neither
“disagreeable noise” nor the necessity of two notes being played together.
He writes:

the phonographic mise-­e n-­scène / 127

 ­There is nothing inherently unpleasant or nasty about a dissonance:
insofar as any chord can be said to be beautiful outside of the context
of a specific work of ­music, some of the most mellifluous are disso-
nances. They are even to most ears more attractive than consonances,
although in one re­spect less satisfying: they cannot be used to end
a piece or even a phrase (except, of course, if one wants to make an
­unusual effect of something incomplete, broken off in the m ­ iddle).
It is precisely this effect of ending, this cadential function, that de-
fines a consonance. A dissonance is any musical sound that must be re-
solved, i.e., followed by a consonance: a consonance is a musical sound
that needs no resolution, that can act as the final note, that rounds off a
cadence. Which sounds are to be consonances is determined at a given
historical moment by the prevailing musical style, and consonances
have varied radically according to the musical system developed in each
culture. . . . ​It is not, therefore, the ­human ear or ner­vous system that
decides what is a dissonance. . . . ​A dissonance is defined by its role in
the musical “language,” as it makes pos­si­ble the movement from ten-
sion to resolution which is at the heart of what may be generally called
expressivity.24

Rosen argues that dissonance, precisely in its irreducible relation to

the problematic of development, is fundamental to musical expression;
Schoenberg and Adorno imply that such expressivity is, necessarily, writ-
ten; and Subotnik shows that what allows for the disruptive and anticipa-
tory force of music-­as-­writing is the reduction of phonic materiality and
the submergence of the spectacle of the performing body. The traditional
mise-­en-­scène of operatic per­for­mance is thus abdured by Adorno, not only
­because it c­ auses the ignorant to m
­ istake sound for m
­ usic but b
­ ecause it
degrades ­music with the visual thereby enacting that vulgar hybridity that
Michael Fried calls theater. The phonographic mise-­en-­scène that Adorno
desires is a scene of subjection in Saidiya Hartman’s sense of the term;25
it is the locale where the ambivalent and timeless sublimity of the mu-
sical aspiration for “freedom ­under continued unfreedom” is continually
played out.26 But what if the unfreedom that covers freedom is precisely
that state of affairs that is characterized by the impossible forfeiture of a
haptic materiality that is understood to be tainted by madness, blackness,
and femininity?

128 / chapter 7
 Adorno’s criticism of jazz reveals that for him the body, in its material
objectivity, is always nothing other than that irreducible substance that must
be reduced precisely by way of a discursive pathologization of sensually ex-
perienced racial and sexual difference. Elsewhere, it might be pos­si­ble to
show that such pathologization is a, if not the, central teleological princi­
ple animating the Kantian line—­wherein natu­ral history subsumes natu­ral
description in a way that w ­ ill have had major implications for the dream
of a so­cio­log­i­cally and philosophically informed musicology—­that Adorno’s
work critically extends. For now, it is imperative that we recognize that the
phonographic mise-­en-­scène of subjection is the erstwhile staging of a sen-
sual and substantive reduction whose failure is revealed always and every-
where by the material trace—in Adorno’s writing of and on the ­music that he
loves—of the ­music that he loathes.
An anticipatory materiality discomposes the composer and his most faith-
ful structural listener, writing and reading them in their most immediate
graphic relations to a ­music that turns out to have existed only in the faith-
fully disruptive, disruptively constitutive occupation of it by the irreducible
materiality of pathologized racial and sexual difference. Such invaginative
piercing is decisive for, indeed generative of, a musical event that takes place
at the articulated combination of atonality and atotality. Jessye Norman’s
per­for­mance within the phonographic mise-­en-­scène is the recording of this
illegitimate birth, offering up something like a re­nais­sance of the dissonance
where rebirth and liberation converge, one carried in the change and trace of
a kind of crossing over, a translation of the body from unfreedom to freedom.
Her phonographic rematerialization of Erwartung disrupts discontinuity
with the radical force of an objective and objectional continuance, thereby
requiring a reconfiguration of the concept of writing as that which occurs
where per­for­mance and recording converge at the site of a bodily inscrip-
tion. Unsuspecting in his office, den, or living room, Adorno is being written
(on) and read by the syncopated vagaries of an un/broken line for which
Schoenberg’s composition is an ambivalent medium. I’d like, now, to begin
an approach t­ oward something like an unnatural descriptive history of this
operation, one that takes into account Rosen’s understanding of dissonance
while expanding it in order to be able to consider ­every micrological scar on
the surface of musical récit and recitation, ones that occur not only in the
movement from note to note but in the internal differentiation and multipli-
cation of ­every tone.

the phonographic mise-­e n-­scène / 129

 6.
At the end of Erwartung, at the very edge of expectation, Rosen describes an
effect—in lieu of tonality’s climactic resolution and the structural or formal
assurance it gives—in which all the tones/notes in the chromatic scale are
given, at vari­ous speeds, as something like that “dense interlock of competing
energies” that Sandra Richards has noted as correspondent to the deferred
but foundational presence (or, perhaps just as precisely, the suppressed but
resistant trace) of Ma Rainey in August Wilson’s Ma Rainey’s Black Bot­
tom.27 In Erwartung, as in Wilson’s play, what ­will have been overlooked as
“the unwritten, or an absence from the script [or score] is a potential pres-
ence implicit in [an always already phonographic] per­for­mance.”28
I want to think this potential per­for­mance in its relation to the so-­called
black sound in opera that moves, mysteriously, like some kind of photo-­
phonographic haint tautology. The sound is sometimes visually figured as a
certain aural duskiness, smokiness, or huskiness and sometimes character-
ized, by way of taste and/or touch, as rich and velvety. Often associated with
or understood as the trace of an ineradicable and collective pain, it’s then
figured as a plaintive quality where the plain in plaintive goes all the way
back to the plexed, cut, cutting augmentation of what Cedric Robinson calls
the “ontological totality” whose preservation is the essential task of black
radicalism.29 The black voice is also figured as deep and this is both spa-
tialized by way of a set of meta­phors of meaning, truth, and history (as op-
posed to surface, as opposed to any absolute newness) as well as anatomized
(wherein the sound is tied to a kind of deep-­throatedness that is sometimes
translated as a function of training but has often been linked to supposed
anatomo-­biological specificities of black bodies). Some just call the black
voice mellifluous, which brings to mind Rosen’s assertion that some of the
most mellifluous sounds are dissonances. On the other hand, the ugly beauty
of the low and the guttural are coded as black ­whether coming from a black
singer or not.30
One won­ders ­whether Adorno had an understanding of the relation be-
tween opera and blackness that was as fully formed as the following thoughts
he offers on the relation between jazz and blackness in his 1936 essay “On
Jazz”:

The relationship between jazz and black p­ eople is similar to that be-
tween salon ­music and the wandering fiddle players whom it so firmly

130 / chapter 7
 believes it has transcended—­the gypsies. According to Bartók, the
gypsies are supplied with this m­ usic by the cities; like commodity
consumption itself, the manufacture of jazz is also an urban phenom-
enon, and the skin of the black man functions as much as a coloristic
effect as does the silver of the saxophone. In no way does a triumphant
vitality make its entrance in t­hese bright musical commodities; the
European-­American entertainment business has subsequently hired
the [supposed] triumphant victors to appear as their flunkies and as
figures in the advertisements, and their triumph is merely a confus-
ing parody of colonial imperialism. To the extent that we can speak of
black ele­ments in the beginning of jazz, in ragtime perhaps, it is still
less archaic-­primitive self-­expression than the ­music of slaves; even in
the indigenous m ­ usic of the African interior, syncopation within the
example of a maintained mea­sured time seems only to belong to the
lower [social] level. Psychologically, the primal structure of jazz may
most closely suggest the spontaneous singing of servant girls. Society
has drawn its vital m ­ usic—­provided that it has not been made to order
from the very beginning—­not from the wild, but from the domesti-
cated body in bondage. The improvisational immediacy which consti-
tutes its partial success counts strictly among t­ hose attempts to break out
of the fetishized commodity world which want to escape that world with-
out ever changing it, thus moving ever deeper into its snare. . . . ​With jazz
a disenfranchised subjectivity plunges from the commodity world into
the commodity world; the system does not allow for a way out. What­ever
primordial instinct is recovered in this is not a longed-­for freedom, but
rather a regression through suppression.31

What’s the difference between the phono-­political weight of the dispropri-

ative event of servant girls singing—­the per­for­mance of fugitive ­music—­and
the full content of the reconstructive musical moment—­when abandonment
is sublated, rematerialized, transubstantiated in and by consoling protest—­
that constitutes the impossible end of Erwartung? That the latter is given
only in its alignment with the other, hidden tradition that the former em-
bodies is a relation whose suppression sometimes seems to be the most
essential function of Adorno’s m
­ usic criticism. The recovery of that line in
Schoenberg’s ­music makes necessary what Subotnik might have called post-
structural listening. But such listening ­will have already been anticipated
not only in the very m
­ usic that Adorno dismisses but also in the style of his

the phonographic mise-­e n-­scène / 131

dismissal. Adorno never talks as cogently about the interplay of development
and stasis, or even development and regression, as when he speaks of it in
relation to blackness, to femininity, to black femininity in and as jazz. It’s
as if the ­music that “is not what it is” is revealed to be—­both in the ­violated
maternity of its elusive but irreducible blacknesses and in the dis/possessed
materiality of its undeniable hybridities—­not only the essence of Erwartung
but also Adorno’s primary object and aim.
The scene that I have been imagining (or the imagining whose preface
I have been writing), in which Adorno listens to the irrepressibly visual,
haptic presence of Norman’s recording (wherein one is not only denied, by
the reproductive apparatus, immersion in the large-­scale musical-­theatrical
space that Adorno likens to a “magic circle [placed] around both artist and
audience that neither can escape,” but where one is instead confronted by
the fugitive thingliness of a black performing body and all of the historico-­
musical material/ity that it bears), is the condition of possibility of that rev-
elation.32 Adorno is interested precisely in the flight from that circle but
is profoundly troubled—to the point of the most stringent denials—by the
fact that that scene is located where the story of disenfranchised subjectivity
falling from the commodity world to the commodity world is displaced by
a convergence of personhood and audiovisual thingliness that takes flight
(fantastically, magically) within that circle. Such flight from within the
circle is the animating mark of m ­ usic Adorno reads and thereby produces
without discovering, amplifies without hearing.
You have to be used to the work of discerning value in that which is most
degraded, a kind of work which, even in what he might think of as its highest
form, Adorno would have seen as obscene, as having been determined totally
by the obscenity, fi­nally, of being seen, the obscenity of a degradation which
is at once ordinary and spectacular. Such discernment, such seeking, is the
task ­toward which Erwartung tends, a task written onto the voice that strains
to see, the voice that a necessarily social vision strains ­toward the figuring of
a nonexclusionary ensemble, as mise-­en-­scène turns to mise en abyme: “Oh,
bist du da . . . ​ich suchte.” (Oh, ­there you are, I was looking.) Norman sings
with the knowledge of an object in search of some­thing that she is, with a
trou­ble in the voice that theatricality lets us see, a trou­ble that is at once of
and before the extended encounter that structures the historical drama we
now inhabit.
Someday I’d like to be able to make somebody see and hear the objec-
tional and ontological sociality of the black voice, where being black is only

132 / chapter 7
being black in groups, where not only the group of blacks but the group as
such is given as an object of a specifically politicized fear and loathing pre-
cisely ­because of their collective and disruptive seeing. Adorno’s prob­lem is
not so much with disenfranchised subjectivity as with the abandonment of a
specifically individualized subjection, the sidestepping of the dialectical snare
of a freedom that exists only in unfreedom. That abandonment, as given in
jazz, is aligned by Adorno with the ­music of “the new objectivity.” Though any
relation jazz has to that movement is minimal, certainly jazz moves within
the history of a resistant, however commodified, objecthood, the history of an
aggressive audiovisual objection that constitutes nothing other than the black
and animating absent presence of Erwartung, the black t­hing that Adorno
­wouldn’t understand, that Norman’s objectional audiovisuality animates or
reproduces with each encounter. Blackness, which is to say black feminin-
ity, which is to say black per­for­mance, ­will have turned out to be the name
of the invaginative, the theatrical, the dissonant, the atonal, the atotal, the
sentimental, the experimental, the criminal, the melodramatic, the ordinary.
It is and bears an aesthetic of the trebled (troubled, doubled) seer’s voice dis-
turbed by being seen and seeing up ahead where escape, crossing over, trans-
lation ­will have meant the continual reanimative giving—­unto the very idea
of freedom—of the material.

the phonographic mise-­e n-­scène / 133

chapter 8

Liner
Notes for Lick Piece
I have this classic ­music background. I still love Beethoven, I still love Bach,

I still love Brahms. You look at my rec­ord collection and ­there’s . . . ​I hope I

­don’t have any Stockhausen—­but you know, every­thing ­else, Ravel and Ave-

naise. ­They’re ­there ­because they ­were ­great musicians, they ­were good com-

posers. The prob­lem that I had with how they w

­ ere perceived or how they

­were presented in a concert hall had nothing more to do with the ­music or

what they w
­ ere trying to do. It was much more about society—­who’s sitting in

the first row, how wavy is the hair of the conductor, does he wiggle his rear end

well, you know. And all of ­these marketing ­things . . . ​­really have nothing to

do with the ­music. . . . ​My three operas—­Madame Butterfly, Carmen, Tristan

and Isolde—­all three in one hour! Some ­people think of it as persiflage but it’s

not r­ eally that. It’s a tribute to them but reduced and pointed in a dif­fer­ent

direction so that “ah, that’s what it was about. It’s not about how much you

paid for your ticket or if you are in the royal box.”—­B ENJAMIN PATTERSON ,

Ben Patterson Tells Fluxus Stories (From 1962 to 2002)

­Music Discomposed
Nineteen sixty-­four was a big year in the history of what Rebecca Schneider
calls “the explicit body in per­for­mance.” Carolee Schneemann’s Site and Meat
Joy follow her actions for camera of the previous year, Eye/Body. ­These per­
for­mances are centered on a new mode of self-­presentation in which the
nude female body enacts a resistant reanimation of the aesthetic/sexual ob-
ject. The sensed becomes an artist in her practice, in disruptive continuance
of her trial. Is Benjamin Patterson allowed—or is he, in fact, required—to
take up and adjudicate this cause? ­There is a double operation that Schnei-
der aptly theorizes and describes, which renders Schneemann both eye and
body, both subject and object.

In Eye/Body Schneemann was not only image but image-­maker, and

it is this overt doubling across the explicit terrain of engenderment
which marks Eye/Body as historically significant for feminist per­
for­mance art. Though ­there are pos­si­ble impor­tant correlatives that
can be resurrected from history—­such as, as some suggest, the proto-­
performance of nineteenth-­century hysterics—in Eye/Body Schnee-
mann manipulated both her own live female body and her artist’s
agency without finding herself institutionalized as mentally ill. In-
stead, she found herself excommunicated from the “Art Stud Club.”
George Maciunas, ­father of Fluxus, declared her work too “messy” for
inclusion.1

Is that operation available to Patterson, particularly when he dons the worn

mantle of the artist in appearing to make explicit another’s body but not his
own? ­After Schneemann, to be clothed is to be recognized as having staked
a kind of claim, at the convergence of the explicit and the implicit. The claim
is illegitimate not only b
­ ecause the brutal authority of its object—­the power
to expose—­has been exposed but also ­because Patterson’s assertion of it must
remain unheard and invisible. The unrecognizability of the black male art-
ist is part of the general constitution of the atmosphere—­we’ll call it the art
world—­within and out of which Patterson’s work emerges. He stands, in that
world, as a prefigurative variation on Adrian P ­ iper’s mythic being, whose ac-
companying Kantian cartoon b ­ ubbles set off a body whose inherence in an
assumed bareness of life renders it explicit even when it is clothed. Antici-
pated by Schneemann, whom he anticipates, Patterson is subject to a double
exposure. Overexposed, in the glare of the nothing that is not t­ here and the
nothing that is, he dis­appears.
Something remains, however; not just a photo­graph but also the ghost it
captures (or the spirit that animates it). Patterson’s Lick Piece was performed
on May 9, 1964, at Flux-­hall, George Maciunas’s New York City loft. Peter
Moore’s photo­graph of the event becomes an event when accompanied by

liner notes for lick piece / 135

its inadvertent caption, Letty Eisenhauer’s recollection of its precipitation,
which is primarily composed of the per­for­mance of her explicit body, which
Patterson arranges in obscurity, as imposition.

I was jolted into a new appreciation of the work of Ben Patterson re-
cently when I was made aware that a per­for­mance piece, Lick, which
I had long attributed to Bob Watts, was r­ eally the work of Ben Patter-
son. ­Because the piece was performed nude, and was in the intimate
yet publicly accessible surroundings of the Fluxus Canal Street loft, it
was likely that Watts had to persuade me to do the per­for­mance. Lick
was presented on a very hot summer (or spring) (May 9, 1964) day.
My naked body was sprayed with whipped cream and the audience
was invited to “lick” it off. The cream curdled or melted and ran in dis-
gusting rivulets off my steamy body. My embarrassment and fear that
some stranger might actually lick me prob­ably also contributed to my
overheated state. I d ­ on’t think anyone in the audience volunteered to
lick the cream off. . . . ​Ben and Bob demonstrated, but neither of them
pursued the task with vigor. Lick may have been one of the culminat-
ing pieces in my history as an art world nude and in the Dada-­Fluxus
tradition of poking fun at the formal art convention of painting/sculpt-
ing the nude body and perhaps taking Duchamp’s Nude Descending a
Staircase a step further. This piece was only a “pubic hair” away from
being a “blue per­for­mance,” presenting as a public action a pos­si­ble
intimate portion of the sex act during a sexually conservative period.2

Unseen, unrecognized, bare in its clothing, in per­for­mance, the hypervis-

ible instrument is in position, has a plan, an open secret bearing more than
eye/I can see, more than sound can bear, of other ­musics. (See the Fluxus
ear in profile, naked in the disregard it suffers and enjoys, arranging the per­
for­mance.) Schneider reminds us that in Schneemann and Robert Morris’s
live version of Édouard Manet’s Olympia, the black maid is out of Site. In
something like the same place, at something like the same time, Eisenhauer
­mistakes Patterson for Bob Watts’s assistant, such convergence requiring us
to consider what the maid made as well as the relation, which ­will have
been insubordinate to that between artist and object, between artist and
servant. In Patterson’s case, by way of an old-­new musicopoetics of ser­vice
that underwrites and undermines the attempt to rebehave an already be-
haved nakedness and thereby become an artist, an eye, an I emerging from
an Other, the explicit body prepares, offers protocols, knows the score:

136 / chapter 8
 cover shapely female with whipped
cream
lick
. . . ​
topping of chopped nuts and cherries
is optional

As Phillip Auslander argues with regard to all the foundational figures of

the Fluxus movement, Patterson is a musician.3 His best-­known early works,
Paper Piece (1960) and Variations for Solo Bass (1961), as well as more re-
cent works like The River Mersey (2002) and Surveying Western Philosophy
Using China Tools (2003), bear this out. ­There is an ethical and aesthetic
obligation, then, to play back the photographic rec­ord. Lick Piece is one of
­those Fluxus works that seems always to have been more in the vein of per­
for­mance art than m ­ usic in what can be taken as its visual, tactile, gestural,
and culinary displacements of sound. But it is precisely by way of the gestural
and the culinary, which intimate that Patterson’s concerns rearticulate some
crucial formulations of Bertolt Brecht regarding the nature of opera, that the
sound of Patterson’s encrypted claim is revealed, as a kind of surprise.
Lick Piece’s claim to a place in the history of opera is staked by its update,
more than forty years ­later, in Patterson’s discompositions of Carmen and
Tristan and Isolde, which render asymptotic the seemingly remote trajecto-
ries of Brecht and Schneemann. This proximate nonconvergence moves by
way of intersection: consider the multiple positions that Patterson takes
up on stage. He conducts. He composes. He cooks. He consumes. He is
consumed. He serves. Focus is shifted—­intermittently, glancingly—­from
the bodies (which is to say the questions) that he poses. One of ­those bodies
is his, which remains explicit though it is not nude. The explicitness of the
black body, the explicit body’s blackness, is not only about the way a certain
lived experience can be said to bear the traces of bareness; nor is it encom-
passed in what it is to bear the only black body on site or on stage or in the
room or in the frame. For what is also brought into relief is a kind of dynamic
facticity, an “impossible purity,” that the irreducible interplay of blackness
and femininity bodies forth.4 Does the black (who is, by illegitimate defini-
tion, never legitimately an) artist, in his composition of the female nude,
also bear the bare sexuality that he exploits? Is the sheer corporeal fact of sex
centered only on her figure? Is the artist transported outside of the sexuality
that her exposure rearranges? Or does his black body remain in a reductive

liner notes for lick piece / 137

hypersexualization held in the danger of his own arranging hands? One way
to look at it is that Manet and his model and her maid and her cat occupy dif­
fer­ent worlds and dif­fer­ent times. If, by contrast, in Lick Piece Patterson and
Eisenhauer cohabitate, however temporarily, on the border between public
and private, theirs is a criminal occupation, a dangerously black as well as
blue preoccupation. The racial mark is emphatic but unremarked in Eisen-
hauer’s recollection. Perhaps it’s ­because she ­couldn’t have known that Pat-
terson was both composer and conductor when he was posed as a servant like
Olympia’s maid, helping her to prepare for visitors, within the tableaux’s nar-
rative frame, which is broken again by another of its constitutive ele­ments.
In real­ity, it is Bob Watts who helps Patterson help Eisenhauer so every­body
but her can help himself. Who could have known? When Patterson takes the
stage, ­music is discomposed and discomposes. Insofar as the servant was al-
ready ­there, helping to prepare the eye/body’s active repose, discomposition
is given, anoriginary, best understood as a kind of anticipatory refreshment.
Musical theater turned off Broadway at Canal Street, so it could get some-
thing to eat. Letty Eisenhauer has a ­recipe in the Fluxus cookbook. Right
down the street someone named Richard Eisenhauer designs and patents
food warmers. Lick it up. I mean, look it up. Google is a kind of gumbo, a
(web)site gag with endless permutations. It’s easy to overindulge. Does too
much whipped cream make you gag? It’s messy. Did Lick Piece make Maci-
unas laugh, or is it too deformed by the kind of messiness he hated, the kind
that got Schneemann kicked out of Fluxus, which she helped to start?5 ­There’s
a relationship between messiness and gagging, between the gag and the gag
reflex, between Fluxus and reflux, destructive re-­creativity and aesthetic in-
digestion. Fluxus traffics in acidity and corrosiveness. Messiness is its messi-
anic, maniacal double gesture. The expression, through Patterson, of “female
creative ­will” against, and therefore with, Maciunas’s ­will, disseminates over-
exposure, radiates overheating. Lick Piece must have made Maciunas laugh,
a recurring event that Patterson describes as a hacking cackle that more often
than not led to an asthma attack. Lick Piece must have made Maciunas gag.
He ­couldn’t have thought it was funny even though the gag became “[his]
litmus test for determining which works by whom would be included in a
Fluxus per­for­mance or publication.”6 Why was it that Schneemann turned
out to be insufficiently funny, too serious? Or was it that her seriousness
was too funny, too piercing, too scary insofar as it was always already pok-
ing fun at the (wrong) man, which is another good way to start some mess?
Schneemann certainly thinks it is fear that drives Maciunas unsuccessfully

138 / chapter 8
to try to gag her. He would have thrust something in her mouth, to keep it
open and thereby s­ ilent just as he thrust absurdities down the throat of the
art world, as Patterson implies. To prick, to wound, to make a thrust. To be a
prick. To resist being pricked, though when one is pricked, one laughs to the
point of gagging. Eisenhauer speaks of “George’s need to control or to work
with artists who w­ ere as constrained as he was[, which] governed not only
the artworks produced for sale but also the per­for­mance of the scores. Ay-­O’s
Fin­ger Boxes, neatly engineered and executed to fit into a briefcase, are a good
example of George’s aesthetic and his personality: pristine on the outside but
with a surprise—­obviously sexual and potentially sadistic—­when you poked
a fin­ger through the opening. . . . ​George did not like messes.” Did Lick Piece
make Maciunas laugh? Lick Piece, too, is more than meat joy. The gag, as
Patterson employs it, is more than “just a persiflage.” It’s a gig, a jest, on gest,
some notes, on gesture, on Google, on YouTube.

You Can Help Yourself, if  You Take Too Much

Giorgio Agamben writes, by way of Gilles de la Tourette’s descriptions of the
syndrome that would bear his name (and by way of an unfinished text of
Honoré de Balzac’s called “Theory of Bearing”), about a Eu­ro­pean bourgeoisie
that had, by the end of the nineteenth c­ entury, lost its gestures. The loss of
gesture is all bound up with the loss of sense. Both, in turn, are bound to
a double imposition: revolutionary agent of its own decay, the bourgeoisie
loses itself (its sense; its gestures) in being itself. Itself insofar as it acquires
itself, in loss of itself insofar as it constitutes itself by way of acquisition, the
general catastrophe of the general equivalent sets what Peter Brooks calls “the
melodramatic imagination” to work in an attempt to recover the sacredness
that regulative understanding constantly endangers. For Brecht, opera’s par­
tic­u­lar interinanimation of melos and drama is the gestic/gestural medium in
which this game of lost-­and-­found is serially played, replayed, long-­played, if
you ­will, like a rec­ord.
But what if the loss of gesture is more rigorously ­imagined as gesture’s
quickening, its internal differentiation, an enriched sounding and a con-
tinual initialization of the sacred? Giorgio Agamben speaks of bearing, of
carry­ing or carry­ing on, of gesture as enduring, as the emergence of pure
means without end, of the ­human as pure mediality. Gesture, then, is the
communication of communicability as, for Brecht, the theatrical activation
of gest makes pos­si­ble a movement from the realm of entertainment to that

liner notes for lick piece / 139

of mass communication. What characterizes gesture, Agamben adds, “is that
in it nothing is being produced or acted, but rather something is being en-
dured and supported. The gesture, in other words, opens the sphere of ethos
as the more proper sphere of that which is ­human. But in what way is an ac-
tion endured and supported? In what way does a res become a res gesta, that
is, in what way does a ­simple fact become an event?”7
This indexes a movement in the photo­graph of the explicit body in per­
for­mance that goes against the grain of its having been posited, of her having
been posed. Apposition is given in the form she bears, in bearing that moves
and sounds, in stillness and silence. It steps across the distance between
pose and gest, bridges the gap between gest and gesture, like a cinematic
event, an operatic happening. But this is to say that what is at stake is not
simply a reclamation of lost gesturality but something Brecht might recog-
nize as that rich internal differentiation of gesturality that he speaks of as
gest or, more precisely, as social gest. A certain fugitivity of the gest/ure ­will
have already been remarked in apposition, as it awaits its m ­ usic, in impure
mediality, for an irruption of that seemingly held, seemingly stilled, irregu-
larity (which Brecht associates with jazz and with what he calls “the free-
ing of the Negroes,” but which is figured more precisely when blackness and
escape combine to form the name of the general itinerant). This racialized
irregularity moves, now, not so much as what Brecht might have called gestic
­music or the ­music of social gest, but rather by way of a necessarily flavorful
advance, something Miles Davis called social ­music, which is what Patterson
discomposes, like a virus in Wagner’s finite score, like a form of life whose
active minoritization actually constitutes the princi­ple of finitude.
Brecht avows his antipathy to the culinary by staging and inducing glut-
tony. Eating too much whipped cream, for instance, ­will have been always
in bad taste but it can be put to use insofar as it exemplifies and exposes the
bourgeoisie’s self-­consumptive jones, which can be traced in opera’s devolu-
tionary arc.

The Magic Flute, Fidelio, Figaro all included ele­ments that ­were philo-
sophical, dynamic. And yet the ele­ment of philosophy, almost of dar-
ing, in ­these operas was so subordinated to the culinary princi­ple that
their sense was in effect tottering and was soon absorbed in sensual
satisfaction. Once its official “sense” had died away the opera was by
no means left bereft of sense, but had simply acquired another one—as
sense qua opera. The content had been smothered in the opera. Our

140 / chapter 8
 Wagnerites are now pleased to remember that the original Wagnerites
posited a sense of which they w
­ ere presumably aware. T
­ hose compos-
ers who stem from Wagner still insist on posing as phi­los­o­phers. A
philosophy which is of no use to man or beast, and can only be dis-
posed of as a means of sensual satisfaction. . . . ​We still maintain the
­whole highly-­developed technique which made this pose pos­si­ble: the
vulgarian strikes a philosophical attitude from which to conduct his
hackneyed ruminations. It is only from this point, from the death of
the sense (and it is understood that the sense could die), that we can
start to understand the further innovations which are now plaguing
opera: to see them as desperate attempts to supply this art with a post-
humous sense, a “new” sense, by which the sense comes ultimately to
lie in the ­music itself, so that the sequence of musical forms acquires
a sense simply qua sequence, and certain proportions, changes, ­etc.
from being a means are promoted to become an end.8

Sense totters and is then absorbed in sensual satisfaction. The absorption

of sense—of a philosophical, dynamic, daring ele­ment—­leads to the acquisi-
tion of another one, a value that w ­ ill have been, as it ­were, intrinsic to opera
as opera. At stake is the relation between self-­indulgent sensuality and fe-
tishization, the illusion that art is or could ever be for its own sake. Sense has
been absorbed by sensuality; content has been absorbed by form; operatic
innovation produces a pale afterlife of sense in the form of a purely formal
self-­reference or, perhaps more precisely, self-­regard. When opera acquires
another sense and then posits that acquisition as always already its own, it
asserts the acquisition of its form as an absolute value and the acquisition
of a certain fetishized sense of itself, of a sense of itself as (its) sensuality,
of that sensuality as the form that opera is, that opera has, and that opera
takes. This complex—­wherein acquisition and ele­ment, sense and sensuality,
blur—­disturbs and therefore reveals a deeply regulatory and fundamentally
Kantian impulse in Brecht, one whose rogu­ish object is the nonsense that
turns out to be irreducible in opera, the cantian irruptions or Kanted flights
that constitute its form while deforming its content. But the deformation of
content need not be understood as e­ ither its absorption or its death if one
can imagine that the one who is disposed of as a means of sensual satisfac-
tion, the one who is posed, posited, but who trou­bles the already given con-
tent and the already assumed agency of composition, is a phi­los­op ­ her; or,
perhaps more precisely, that insofar as t­ here is philosophy it moves only in

liner notes for lick piece / 141

and by way of her impossible, impossibly sounded and sounding movement.
Hers is an elemental philosophy of anacquisition, of that essential value of
the outside that cuts and augments suffering and enjoyment. Her apposi-
tion of the pose from its interior, moving theatrically against a range of ab-
sorptions by way of the operatic gest/ure of the working girl, is social gest
in social ­music, which Patterson’s performative, compositional conduction
discomposes.
The convergence of content and plea­sure is terrible. It is the cause and the
cost of flight. Therefore, Brecht must risk the scandal and the regression that
attends plea­sure. Brecht w­ ill, as it w
­ ere, allow himself to be absorbed by plea­
sure; ­he’ll have whisky or you’ll know why. Such absorption w ­ ill have been
both submission and release, a self-­sending that is carried out in the interest
of salvation, by way of being-­consumed, within which the necessarily dis-
agreeable, whose excessive flavor must be in bad taste, puts itself forward as
a kind of pharmakonic capsule meant to poison the glutton that consumes
it. A more subtle realization of the structurally necessary relation between
enjoyment, flight, and re­sis­tance that the culinary brings to life is, for Brecht,
nothing more than capitulation to the degraded and degrading hedonism of
the bourgeoisie in the form of false innovation. Brecht is prepared to let us
wallow in enjoyment in order to kill it; Patterson moves in and against his
wake.

The Opera’s Not Over . . . ​

Phonic materialization is a visual, gestural, theatrical affair accomplished
through a set of repeatable operations performed and interpreted severally,
separately, ­every time. M
­ usic is an encoding and deferral of phonic mate-
rial that is embedded and embodied in phonic materialization. The know-
ing enactment of this interplay of dematerialization and rematerialization is
Patterson’s métier, though more generally, Fluxus occupies, is preoccupied
with, the precarious balance between bare materiality and unsparing de-
materialization. ­Music’s bare life, its mere materiality, is, further, poised be-
tween gesture and the culinary, as if the rougher and more vulgar senses are
the most likely locale of the likeliest and severest threat. More m
­ atter, less
art? No. B­ ecause m
­ atter is only ever art’s delivery system. Deployed in the in-
terest of such delivery, opera is perhaps the most vulgar art form of all, born
in and by the vernacular, delivered gesturally, by bodies more likely than
not to be out of all compass, hyperbolic, hyperphysical, nonsensical. Opera

142 / chapter 8
always threatens, in the delivery of its material, to deliver nothing more. For
the refined, who see art’s ultimate refinement in dematerialization, opera
is an embarrassment. The bourgeoisie, who may or may not adhere to this
par­tic­u­lar understanding of refinement, are willing to pay for it in any case.
In advance of such embarrassment, the most radical movements t­ oward
dematerialization are the ones that are most bound to the material. Patter-
son not only enacts but also celebrates this paradox, reducing opera to its
most base and basic ele­ments. The materiality that insisted in and on such
per­for­mance is in the air or, more precisely, in the airlessness of cyberspace,
digitally recorded and disseminated but never by way of the transferable so-
lidity of the compact disc or the dvd. You can see for yourself on YouTube.9
The difference of this opera is in its being seen and seen again. Lip-­smacking,
mouthwatering, the hyperbolic body made explicit, fully detached now from
the sound (production) that would have justified such embodiment. T ­ here to
be consumed, enjoyed, and nothing more.
What led Conceptualists and Fluxists to dematerialize the work was,
precisely, the intensity with which the work had been given over to and
dis­appeared by the valuation of what was always immaterial in and to it.
Aesthetic acculturation, as ­Piper discusses it, tends ­toward dematerialization,
but so, too, does the re­sis­tance to it.10 The critique of aesthetic value (or,
more precisely, the critique of bourgeois aesthetic valuation) dis­appears but
for a kind of retrait of the material. This insight—­sense’s oscillation between
the lost and the found—is continually given and enacted in the work2—­the
setting to work of the work, the working on or over of opera. The explicit
invisibility of the servant is, too, a kind of dis/appearance. Within the stric-
tures of an ethics of dematerialization, Patterson dis/appears. He reemerges
in republication, in enactment, in repertory, by way of the recording and
its digital and cybernetic reproduction—­the paraontological remains of his
per­for­mances take the form of a sifting of and through remains, a contin-
ual serving of leftovers, of fucked-up, funny, generatively unfunky licks and
pieces of licks. ­Matter is art’s embarrassment; enjoyment is its shame. This
double illegitimacy betrays so much of what is valorized ­under the rubric
of Fluxus, which moves within a disingenuous forgetting of this fact, which
is, in turn, disingenuously and sometimes profitably forgotten. T
­ here was a
Fluxus show at the Hamburger Bahnhof, but Patterson’s train never made
it to the station. T
­ here is a structure of recognition in the retrospective—­
there was this man who did some ­things, made some ­things, or was involved
in a particularly resonant and in­ter­est­ing mode of making whose methods

liner notes for lick piece / 143

and pro­cesses of fabrication never left us with anything ready or present-­
to-­hand. ­There is, at the same time, a profound ethics of preparation—in the
absence of something made, on the performative outskirts or against
the phonographic backdrop of the ready-­made, Patterson works to make
t­ hings ready. His is an aesthetics of preparation; his privileged genre is the
­recipe, in which the combination of stringency and extravagance sometimes
achieves a kind of lyricism. At bottom, within and against a certain tradition
of the inhabited and abandoned bottom, where bassists walk and walk away,
Patterson cooks, prepares a t­able for us, a phrase resonant in its demand
that we prepare ourselves and in the fearsome imposition of its constantly
renewed offer to prepare us.
It’s not so much that t­ here is a thin line between licking and consump-
tion but rather that ­there is a thin line between their interinanimation and
a devouring that leaves nothing intact. But is anyone left intact? This is a
question concerning the culinary-­musical pleasures of the lick and what it
prepares in and for us. The virtuoso bassist (fore)plays for us, the lick ob-
stinately returns from variation, and we are prepared to make something
out of nothing. But why extend this sacrificial economy just for the sake of a
point you have to make? On the one hand, he prepares some food for us; on
the other he prepares it for himself, so he can eat in front of us. The careful
preparation is on stage in Patterson’s Carmen. The director as stagehand,
performer, prop, asks us to consider the long, unbreakable connection
­between ­music, sex, and food. The musical material, ennobled by its demate-
rialization, is rematerialized as dessert—­there is no question of nourishment
or necessity. Patterson conducts from onstage, a­ fter serving as stagehand.
The characters pres­ent themselves in and by way of a gift of material that the
players bear to the conductor’s hand. This transaction is staged but detached
from the ­music that constitutes that staging’s background. The ­music is not
played in the orchestra pit but played back offstage, as if Patterson put a
photo­graph on the phonograph. The ­music is the material trace of a prior
transaction. The players give themselves over to be blended, discomposed.
When opera becomes emphatically, self-­consciously culinary, it also be-
comes more emphatically visual. Staging, and consequent revisions and
invasions of the stage, predominate. The ­music is reduced to backdrop,
décor, which is what Adorno would have the long-­playing rec­ord remedy.
But Patterson deploys the lp and its compact variant to render visuality ever
more insistently, not in the interest of a non-­visual cum structural listening
(in which the visual experience to which the m
­ usic is made subordinate is

144 / chapter 8
eliminated so that the ­music itself can be seen and not heard) but rather in
the ser­vice of a total subordination of the musical material so that it can be
given, now, as staging. Opera replaces the spectacle of exertion in concert
with staged gestures that are both detached from and driven by the ­music
that is produced in the orchestral pit. Now the kinetics of musical production
is rendered more remote by mechanical reproduction. Reproduced ­music
brings unproductive gesture into relief. In this counterproductive mise-­en-­
scène the senses become conceptual in their practice. The sensory appara-
tus is recalibrated. Or, rather, it’s as if by way of Patterson we can now go
openly to the opera for what it is that we always wanted: something to enjoy.
The asceticism that attempted to separate ­music from food and that, more
generally, wished to protect hearing from the contamination of the other
senses and which had to use a kind of conceptual visuality to do so, thereby
undermining its own proj­ect, is hereby relinquished. The end of this open
enjoyment is the revaluation of means, which you can almost taste when
the bassist puts some flavor in your ear, which you can feel when the he-
gemony of the end, of the one who lives in the exclusive zone that ends
inhabit, which they have accumulated, where they accumulate, where they
exercise possession’s brutal imperatives, where they are exercised by owning,
where they await exorcism, having paid the highest pos­si­ble price for their
ticket, crossfades to black.
­Because he is a DJ, Patterson is able to distinguish owner­ship and enjoy-
ment. B ­ ecause he is a bassist, for whom the lick is, therefore, basic, Patterson
plays on and in and with the per­sis­tence, our repetitive consumption, of the
profane fragment, the culinary musical moment, the stock pattern or phrase
that always tempts and sometimes fills in the open possibility of social life that
attends the instrumentality to which such impure means consent. Patterson’s
solo variations act out in that opening, as if virtue and virtuosity—­now that
the bassist stages himself in the feminized locus of a culinary transaction, in
the interest of a plea­sure that is neither productive nor reproductive—­are
breaking up just to let you know that all along ­music was drama, a theatrical
symposium on the general antagonism. Lick Piece extends the discomposi-
tion of the lick—­and the lick’s discomposition of the work—­begun in Varia­
tions for Solo Bass, repeated with differences in Paper Piece’s torn ostinato of
tearing, and revived in Carmen and Tristan and Isolde’s reflexive, refluxive
commensality. Patterson, Fluxus’s practically unacknowledged remainder, is
given to festive, obstinate rupture of the familiar. He reconstructs Schnee-
mann’s Site specificity and regifts the puritanical indulgence Brecht confers

liner notes for lick piece / 145

upon opera. Enabled and disabled by the ­thing he would correct, rearrang-
ing the submissive aggression to which he aggressively submits himself, hav-
ing consented to become the more-­and-­less-­than-­singular instrument he
abusively prepares, Patterson performs the messy, irregular, earthy methods
and pro­cesses by which vio­lence overturns itself.

146 / chapter 8
chapter 9

Rough
Americana
At the beginning of the eponymous first track of Rough Americana, pianissimo
effects involve machines in acoustic ­music’s old proj­ect of soothing.1 Electronic
hush and calls to hush extend that proj­ect however much noise without sig-
nal is said other­wise to operate. A roar is preceded by a faraway approach to
melody and, ­after a minute, channel switching commences: percussive transfer
to sustained, but glottal, hum; beaten string to an orchestral sample of lost,
paradisal engines. It’s not that e­ very sound is in Rough Americana; rather,
­every sound is pos­si­ble ­there, ­here. DJ Mutamassik’s and Morgan Craft’s im-
provisational per­for­mance, recorded live in Brooklyn in 2002, moves within
a tradition of the extraordinary in that it reinitializes such possibility even as
it is radically ordinary in its emphatic rendering of the everyday beauties and
brutalities of a global sonic field structured as much by war and migration as
by the constant insistence and cele­bration of locale. This m ­ usic is driven by
the tension between its assertion of a new and unenclosed musical commons
and its depiction of the sounds that attend the ongoing politico-­economic
enclosure. Does the genre of work that works like that have a name? Black
­Music, I guess, which is all, which is the all something called Rough Ameri­
cana could ever have hoped to be. I am greatly tempted to call it ­Great Black
­Music, ancient and futurial, for the questions it raises. ­Those questions, of
course, have to do with how and what Rough Americana sounds. Does its
sounding of an idea of who and where we are (by way of what ­these musi-
cians call “electric black improvisation” or “Afro-­Asiatic roots and technology
­music”), its assertion of another mode of sociality breaking out of and into
already existing social life, sound good? Does it sound good in or ­because
of or in spite of that assertion and t­ hose ideas? Does sounding good ­matter
now? How does the ­matter of sound ­matter now?
In raising ­these questions, Rough Americana bears a collusive and cor-
rosive abstractness that faithfully disrupts the programmatic content, the
doctrinal accompaniment, that has constituted the historical impetus of
black ­music, ­whether that m
­ usic is characterized as an expression of sorrow
or its corollary, freedom. Moreover, it carries and (dis)articulates the terror
and delirium of enjoyment, of the party, the set, which is to say the con-
straint that paradoxically is that historical impetus. The incorporated diver-
gence or broken fold implied by “(dis)articulates” is fundamental in ­music
that gets with a program of refusal by refusing to get with the program. It
expresses the most radically au­then­tic possibility in the tradition by radically
challenging the traditional ground for any claim for or to authenticity. It does
so by way of broken thread and rough beauty. The m ­ usic sounds good and it
­matters that and how it does.
Consider the history of what has been done to strings in Amer­i­ca: pulled,
broken, frayed, bent, yanked, plucked, twisted, fingered, thumped, thumbed,
rubbed, burned, fuzzed, tuned, plugged, tied, bitten, bottle-­necked, box-­car’d,
mail-­ordered, masturbated, remastered, t­ hey’ve been suspended between
leeway and seizure all for an open set of sounds. Wire is tacked to a door-
frame. Minutemen and cannibals twang and warn. Strings have been loved
toughly like God loves the poor; and roughly, for the sake of reproduction.
­They’ve had to tolerate disinvestment and unfair trading. Giving props to the
improper but always subject to veiled conventions, ­they’ve been claimed by
me and the devil and whomever ­else. Often taken for evidence of roots and
rootlessness, t­ hey’ve been mobilized in the d­ oing and undoing of root work.
­They’ve been party to many illicit deals and seem to keep getting ­people into
and out of vari­ous jams. P­ eople break words to them. ­People make breaks
with them. Now Morgan Craft opens this ensemble of open sounds and
soundings by pulling stunts with them. Stunt guitar is like big air guitar, on
the half-­pipe, no engine, with somebody e­ lse’s wheels. The materiality of his
imaginary playing is shocked and amped so that a ­whole history of enabled
technical disability comes out as a ­whole new surprise virtuosity.
But stunts happen against the backdrop of a blank screen against which a
constructed background is projected. Sometimes the stuntman seeks escape
from the soundscape that is newly mixed for him; sometimes he accepts its
embrace. The broken chastity of marriage is intact and definite in Rough
Americana. Mutamassik turns the t­ ables on the very idea of the rhythm sec-
tion, singly reenacting it by way of sub-­division, as multiplicative incursion.
What she brings to the mix is the mix but her mélange is an effect of trou­ble,
of violent effects. The tracks of e­ very stunt are successfully taken beyond
their extremes to failure. What the track numbers indicate is not a new song

148 / chapter 9
but a portal between sets of scenes and series of illumined phrases that are
gathered in the formation of a soundscape already given but composed,
found but recombined, fugitively performed and on the run from prefor-
mation. Mutamassik is the working archivist of a way-­out soundscape, a
soundscape in which ways out are the essence of its code, a sound(e)scape.
She lays groundwork with a phonics of calculated wandering while the itin-
erant, acrobatic guitarist, riding in and out of blinds, is looking for a home.
The oldest song—of flight from settlers and settling in the hope of some
other settlement—is serially, collaboratively found and renewed in Rough
Americana. The liberated zone within which the songcatcher would move is,
however, virtual. The ubiquity of the military he­li­cop­ter, as much as Stock-
hausen’s he­li­cop­ter quartet, preaccompanies this ­music as if in surveillance
of a set of effects that call it into being. The one who would move within and
re­-create this soundscape does so critically, hastily, and with a kind of thrift
(manifest in the creative re-­fusing of what­ever fragments remain of what­
ever oppressive ­wholes one might have destructively refused) that shows up
as extravagance in a work that is not (simply) one.
Rough Americana contains massive, but also microscopic and micro-
phonic, interplay between pause and incursion, and the breaks between units
are small un-­uniform models of a larger break that Mutamassik and Craft
enact. “Air Raids” most emphatically questions the logic of track divisions,
pointing to the status of Rough Americana as continuous composition. This
is to say that the breaks between tracks—­some of immea­sur­able thinness,
­others whose thickness and color approach the notion of a border—­are part
of the composition. This is not to say that the idea of the track is disrespected,
that tracks are not laid down. On the contrary, the composition is given by
way of that ner­vous, nervy non-­self-­possession that seems to attend the state
of being musically possessed, letting us know that such train-­like, trane-­like
brokenness—­the chased, chasin’ (chaste, chastened) fugitivity of something
­running both from and ­after something—is the condition of possibility of
both continuity and composition. This bridge is not natu­ral but engineered,
so that the he­li­cop­ter, rather than silence, announces another track change.
When the he­li­cop­ter arrives, “Granma Dearest” begins. With slips of melody
under­neath, the chopper sounds too good to fly. Lower to the ground, the city
sounds beneath. Interrupted phone call interrupts, then Cecil speech scratch
Pickett to the closing jail door punctuation of “74m3.” But attempts to identify
the samples, to enumerate a set of multicultural, transnational building blocks,
when the most impor­tant ­thing is the ruined, reconstructive disposition of the

rough americana / 149
ensemble, ­don’t m
­ atter. What’s at stake, rather, is the profligacy of the break
within a serialized per­sis­tence, imposed by the conventions of the album/
cd itself, which makes its own deliberate approach to the idea of “the work.”
This sustained, collaborative break (that is composed of breaks) worries de-
velopment, totality, time, and the very nature of the operative unit within
and out of which something is presented that seems constantly to defy and
disrupt the very idea of the unit (scene, song, phrase, note).
But any analy­sis of the break in Rough Americana must be mixed (and this
fact must constantly be remixed, which is to say reiterated) with the realiza-
tion that its experiments in the architecture of sound are pos­si­ble only by way
of a massive condensatory drive. Rough Americana also revolves around the
paradox, which Adorno identifies with Webern, of total construction as a
means of achieving immediate utterance. This interplay of distillation and
elaboration is fundamental to the unsettling and resettling of the (musical)
unit. This ­music moves—­which is to say that a new musical form and a new
articulation of time emerge—by way of profligate interruption within an orgy
of musical moments. Concentrations of impurity serially interrupt and en-
tangle one another. Amer­i­cas—­loved and hated, loved and left, entered and
hated, stolen and loved—­are jagged; distilled but unfiltered, their anorigi-
nal flavor depends upon proximate impurities. Uncut Americana is given by
way of mergers and acquisitions as well as cuts and breaks. This is the com-
posed brokenness of the rough cut. This ­music erupts from the deadly social
life of way more than a thousand cuts and an endless series of incorpora-
tions. Somewhere h ­ ere but up ahead of us, this m
­ usic is one t­ hing with many
­things in it that compose and undo it for the common good. T ­ here’s a certain
amount of dreaming (musically pre-­and posttraumatic syndrome [grouped
signs and events; composed ­things and symptoms]) in Rough Americana. It’s
an expression of stress that salvage, recovery, and invention situate against
the placebo of old, bad, inaccurate, imperial news.
Sampling is, therefore—­and again in Adorno’s terms—­the ultimate, off-­
scale “­little heresy,” marking the return of the extended, twisted, broken
musical moment, where the high resolution of the edge is internal to and
multiplied in ­every broken unit. Each rupture of each arbitrarily determined,
deliberately given track delineates another mode of cut plea­sure, a frayed
satisfaction of rubbing or, even, of maceration, as in the Arabic Antillean
blur of “Calaloo” enacting the eclipse of melody by rhythm, the eclipse of
rhythm by slur, by unnotatable nere. At the same time, poised in the way a
bridge is immediately before collapsing, this ­music expresses the vio­lence

150 / chapter 9
of ­things fitting into a new, b
­ ecause newly destroyed, place. The beat’s com-
promised ability to withstand the agitation it engenders is further troubled
by outside agitators as well. “Amid Debris” is funk for ner­vous times, giving
about one hundred seconds of conventional dance before requiring parts of
the body to fly off in response to unforeseen complications. The implications
of Jimmy Nolen turn out to have been disruptive all along. This insight is
made pos­si­ble by Mutamassik’s and Craft’s research, which shows that black
(reconstruction) ­music is a ­music of ruins.
“Memphis USA” sticks with t­ hose funky disruptions that cut and redouble
b-­boy sensibility. Riley King was a Memphis DJ before reinitializing a long
stint of pre-­stunt guitar begun on a porch in Indianola, Mississippi. The edge
of Tennessee is one of two sites serving as Craft and Mutamassik’s spatio-
temporal musical coordinates, gateways to dif­f er­ent deltas, dif­f er­ent changes,
dif­fer­ent ancient resources. Rough Americana could be said to initiate a
new, transatlantic musical discourse of cotton when “Memphis Africa” asks
if disturbed minimalism is better known as black madrigal. Its rearranged
copresence of sonic instances confirms this soundscape of juxtapositions,
this seascape of changes. Who you next to? Who you rub? Who ran into you?
Who you r­ unning from? The sense of being allowed, but not to cohere, is
given in this alternation between etiolation and metastasis of form. So that
when “End” gestures t­ oward some kind of coming (non-)full circle, the lis-
tener can only conclude, before starting over again, that the reprise is meant
to indicate an open sore. The necessity of this cut conclusion, which Rough
Americana constantly utters, is inseparable from its orchestration which is,
itself, so complete as to necessitate this other set of questions regarding the
impossible being of what we listen to again, now, and have been listening
to all along—­the ­music of another common tongue, another common logic,
another (natu­ral and unnatural) common law.
When sonic extremity comes out of clash, embrace, and the mix/mar-
riage of the break, then what­ever retentions, abdications, augmentations,
and amputations of what­ever au­then­tic anti-­, sub-­, and/or extracultural
assertions—­independent of the history of false universalities—­make it pos­si­
ble and necessary to look for what one has come upon again, as if for the first
time: the new ­thing, the other ­thing, the black ­thing that it takes a certain
madness of “the work” to understand.
The New Black ­Music is this: find the source and then open it.

rough americana / 151
chapter 10

Nothing,
Every­thing
The poor . . . ​refers not to ­those who have nothing but to the wide multiplic-

ity of all ­those who are inserted in the mechanisms of social production re-

gardless of social order or property.—­A NTONIO NEGRI AND MICHAEL HARDT ,

Commonwealth

1.
I’m ­here to testify not only to Thornton Dial’s greatness but also to the fact
that he d
­ idn’t come from nothing. Mr. Dial has something to say: nothing ­will
come from nothing, speak again. Speak, so you can speak again. And then he
speaks again in this highly wrought, well-­wrought, overwrought iron, filled
with urge and air and flowers and bones like the animated skeleton of a fan-
tasy Babbage c­ ouldn’t have, a trip Turing c­ ouldn’t take, the différance engine/
touring machine that Mr. Dial designs, builds, and swings in immanent criti-
cal transcendence of privative brutality. When Mr. Dial speaks he flows; his
syntax is textural, its internal space occasioning infinite navigation t­ here and
in your head, where you can dance and make ­things, make frames for perme-
ation and breathing, for the cultivation of volunteers, of flowers that come up
through our bones to work steel, this w­ hole ­thing ­really keeps us workin’ our
mind, A Monument to the Minds of the ­Little Negro Steelworkers.

2.
You can think about Mr. Dial within a specifically black Marxist frame and
problematic but also within the context of certain radical aesthetic and so-
cial interventions made over the last forty years in Italy that fall u
­ nder the
rubrics of arte povera and autonomia operaia, both of which, insofar as they
also make something new, something e­ lse, out of Marx’s innovations, can be
situated in relation to the question of a nonoppositional relation between
wealth and poverty. B­ ecause he wields the hammer that they w­ ere thinking
about when they said hammer and sickle, hammer and hoe, Thornton Dial
also works the ground and surfaces of social theory, and this is neither acci-
dental nor a function of individual genius, however much Mr. Dial emphati-
cally asserts and makes vis­i­ble every­thing anyone ever thought they meant
by appealing to that notion. Mr. Dial as a black worker in the deep South,
moving down the line described by Hosea Hudson, the g ­ reat black Marx-
ist ­labor or­ga­nizer and strategist who spent time in and around the magic
foundries of Birmingham, Alabama, and its environs; and introduced, in
another register, by the pathbreaking historian Dianne Swann-­Wright who
talks about t­ hose richly improvisational practices of f­ amily planning, of more
than familial making, that blacks engaged in ­after “emancipation,” reconfig-
uring given understandings and valuations of wealth and property, owner­ship
and dispossession, having and giving, through a general, communal socio-­
ecopoetics that she indexes by way of an old, undercommon phrase, “a way
out of no way”; and introduced in still another register by Deborah McDow-
ell, the brilliant black feminist literary critic whose memoir Leaving Pipe
Shop thinks and illuminates the ordinary heroism that serially appeared in
and as the working class black social life of the neighborhood in Bessemer,
Alabama, that she and Mr. Dial each provisionally called home and ­will have
never been said—in having left—to have left ­behind.1 Consider the way ­labor
unrest and worker insurgency, mutual indebtedness and supposedly impos-
sible common sociality, animated Pipe Shop. ­These ele­ments ­were a big part
of the noise, the background radiation, out of which every­thing emerged, as
the light of a material breath.

3.
The autonomist aesthetic thrust of black radicalism is something liberation
theologians call a “preferential option for the poor.” But this demands that
we ask, a­ fter Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s formulation: What is it
that the poor, the ones who have nothing, have? What is this nothing? What
comes from it? T­ hese questions require some consideration of a social econ-
omy of dispossession, the social circulation of wealth that is manifest in pov-
erty and indebtedness. The poor are the ones without credit, but they are

nothing, every­thing / 153
indebted to one another. They make a preferential option for one another
in an infinite series, an incalculable web, of small acts of claiming and recla-
mation, conviviality and commensality, that constitute the renewal of—­and
the re­sis­tance to what­ever attempt to suppress—­their sociality, the everyday
and everynight making of the ones who work from c­ an’t see in the morning
­until can see in the morning. T ­ hese ­were the folks whom my grand­father,
much like Mr. Dial, called smart. I used to think that smart, in this usage,
was simply the opposite of lazy, but I have come to understand that what he
meant was that the p ­ eople who get up and go to work e­ very day get up and
go to school e­ very day. H
­ ere’s where the question of poverty and the ques-
tion of ­things brush up against the question of study. Consider Pipe Shop
not only as enclosure and relegation zone but also as refuge and university.
Its inhabitants are the keenest dialecticians, Brecht would say. They study
change; they are preoccupied with generativity in its irreducible relation to
decay. But what belongs to the poor, to the refugees, to the ones who study
change? Samuel R. Delany says that in order to have a transition you need
to be armed: What is the armature, the arsenal, of the poor, the ones who,
in having nothing, have every­thing? This question is inseparable from the
reconfiguration of a fundamental ontological question. How is t­ here every­
thing in, how does something come from, nothing? How can something,
how can some ­things, be in and out of no ­things, be in and out of nothing?
What is the relationship between something and nothing that animates our
understanding of poverty, of the vernacular, of the common, of their insur-
gent force, of their (de)generative, doubly incalculable wealth? Consider that
we live within the history of a double violation: the denigration of ­things and
the coincident devaluation of p ­ eople that are carried out at the conjuncture
of what is supposed to be their reduction to t­ hings and that is supposed to
be their exaltation above t­ hings. We have to linger, art requires and allows us
to linger, in the exhausted, exhaustive space between something and noth-
ing, nothing and every­thing, so that we can begin to understand again, how
the interrelation of wealth and poverty is all bound up with the question,
which is to say the study, in ­things, of nothingness and thingliness. But to
move along this trajectory I have to alter the testimony I bear; can I strip
myself down to nothing’s social and absolute fullness and be a monument to
Mr. Dial’s (and all the ­things on his) mind?

154 / chapter 10
 4.
Mr. Dial allows us to ask, and it is to him that the question o
­ ught to be di-
rected: Where can the work of (re)creative thinking be done in the midst of
the commercial enclosure of the art world, in the vocational enclosure of
the university, in the ideological enclosure that one might call, even though
both of its terms need radically to be called into question, the intellectu-
al’s public? The ascriptions of “self-­taught” or “outsider” are expressions of
desire and anxiety that redouble the structures of deprivation-­in-­privilege
to which they react. The long self-­imposition of austerity (which concep-
tualism/minimalism/pop reflect and to which they respond, sometimes
beautifully, as if by accident) in that narrow slice of the intellectual and
artistic milieu that delusionally thinks of itself as central is the perennial
inhabitation of a crisis. Sometimes it seems like we are trapped in the cor-
respondence of this assumed legitimacy of exclusion and precarity (in which
enclosure is exercised as a kind of right and disposability is understood to be
an essential quality of ­every earthly inhabitant). This is why we are so fortu-
nate that Mr. Dial extends a sociopoetic tradition of studying the eloquence
of ­things. That he is able to see that eloquence as depth, texture and syn-
tax, and visually and verbally to amplify the macrophonic assemblage that
we call the world, illuminates a certain problematic of lessons, in which how
and where he pursues this deep, rigorous, advanced learning is all bound up
with what he passes on to ­those who are willing to attend. The capacity to dis-
cover/invent t­ hings—­which is to say ­things of beauty—is not only something
with which Mr. Dial is richly endowed but is also one of his fundamental and
enduring themes. He is concerned with material and sensual emergences (of
light, flashes of eye/spirit, glints, echoes, cutting acts of speech that cut speech
in the interest of its formation) and with their subsequent fades and traces.
Mr. Dial’s studies of the interplay of the informal and form are evidence of
his rigorous training in both. Out of that training, but ongoingly in its midst,
as well, Mr. Dial works and speaks a ­whole other ecol­ogy of the t­ hing, of the
abundance of ­things in the refusal of what­ever notion of the disposable. This
is another essential theme in his work. One might speak of the biodiver-
sity of that work—of a kind of uncut imaginative generativity that studies
generativity; a generativity of the ­thing, de re, that is inseparable from its
degeneration and regeneration—­where such speaking puts ex nihilo to rest.
So Mr. Dial works words, too; his work is of the word, de dicto, serially let-
ting us know that ­there’s no such ­thing as nothing, as the out-­of-­nothing, as

nothing, every­thing / 155
making something out of nothing, of making a way out of no way. Mr. Dial
makes ­things out of ­things. ­There are ­things and he is educated in their elo-
quence. Mr. Dial allows and urges us to think the impermanence, the extraor-
dinary evanescence and ephemerality, of the indisposable (of that which was
not made of, and ­will not dis­appear into, nothing) as a kind of undercommon
divinity. That his works may someday fade or fall apart, not into nothing, but
rather into the informal, deformed, enforming somethings that they ­were and
never w­ ere (which is to say into the general condition of possibility that we
call the life cycle, the re-­cycle) is a massive, incalculable source of comfort-­in-­
disturbance. In ­these works, the richness of the informal is given to, but not
suppressed by, form. Someday, someone, something w ­ ill make some ­thing,
some one, some day, out of the fragments of (the) every­thing that Mr. Dial
has made. But what ­will be made then, what ­will be made again, what ­will be
remade again and again, is where and when some ­thing ­will emerge as the an-
archic princi­ple of creativity in exhaustion, the reanimation of the ex nihilo.

5.
That’s why I’m ­here to testify not only to Thornton Dial’s greatness but also to
the fact that he comes from nothing, out of nowhere, somewhere so old and
new that it’s beyond impossible, a maternal per­sis­tence in distanced birth for
which we have no data. He comes to let us know that ­there is such a ­thing
as nothing, such a place as nowhere, such a way as no way. He comes with
nothing but ­things, nothing but lore, nothing but remnants clothing the na-
kedness that is proclaimed in unflinching disenchantment by the ones who
(know what they) are supposed to know. But the t­ hing is, ­things speak the
nothing that is, that other presence, that underpresence, which is not only
an object and an engagement and a space to be studied but also a mode and
a plain and a place of study, where unknown ­things talk among themselves
despite periodic disturbance from surveillance and its all-­but-­disembodied
questioning.

—­What are you talking about?

—­Nothing.

Pipe Shop, as McDowell luminously remembers it, is an institute for ad-

vanced study; in Mr. Dial’s serial reconstruction of it, Pipe Shop is left and
borne, in and with the improper richness of the poor, who have something,
who have every­thing, in having nothing but the mechanisms of social pro-

156 / chapter 10
duction, in which they are inserted, in which they are, which they are. Along-
side the question of the preservation of Mr. Dial’s studies is the interminable
inquiry that they preserve (even in the relatively immediate question of their
decomposition; even in their incorporation of the fact and question of the
animate and interinanimate decomposition of normative works and norma-
tive selves; even in the relay the more-­than-­impossibly eloquent make—by
way of their irruptive, disruptive, recombinant, poetic force—­between some-
thing and nothing): the paraontological totality.

nothing, every­thing / 157
chapter 11

Nowhere,
Everywhere
Over the last five years, having previously had few opportunities beyond ­those
of his own devising to show his work, the range and force of Theaster Gates’s
visitation has been startling. His sculpture and installations, his per­for­
mances and urban plans, bear a kind of weight, bring a kind of noise, that, in
having come from everywhere while appearing to have come from nowhere,
require us to consider what and where everywhere and nowhere are. Neither
utopia nor dystopia, as they are generally conceived, this other, outer, inter-
space requires constant searching and research. A scattered commonness of
light and air and ground, everywhere has generally been precisely where art
criticism ­doesn’t look for its objects; everywhere is nowhere, a literal absence
of location, in the art world. But everywhere is precisely where Gates’s criti-
cal artistic practice is located. In the m
­ iddle of nowhere, on the south side of
Chicago, his hometown, the sweet home of homeless everywhere, in a newly
made row of abandoned ­houses, in unhoused collections, in objects regis-
tered neither as lost nor found, in the everyday grandeur and ungrounded-
ness of crossing, Gates finds impetus for, and evidence of, making. If you
listen to his visionary ­music, its cosmological groove forming sacred, earthly
space, on tour but lodged in the seeming impossibility of a monastery in
Kyoto, Mississippi, where absorptive chant and quickened moan dislodge
one another in a ­whole new investigation of nothingness, of what it is to
come from nothing, of what nothing is that it could be come from and come
upon with such generative restraint that neither Nishida Kitarō nor Frantz
Fanon could have i­magined it b ­ ecause they would have had to imagine
it together; or if you look at his long-­sung, dark speculation on Dave the
Potter—­nineteenth ­century South Carolina slave become twentieth-­century
Wisconsin cryptographer—­manifest as per­for­mances of thrownness in cen-
tering that coalesce into the amplified history an auctioned vessel can hold;
then it becomes pos­si­ble to feel that making.
 Gates’s institute and archive, his juke joint and ­temple, is The Dorchester
Proj­ect (2009), where an old two-­story building is serially cut—in contrapun-
tal echo of Gordon Matta-­Clark’s deconstructive and culinary impulses—­and
remixed into the library, tea shack, and general headquarters of the ongo-
ing symposium. This is the site of Glass Lantern Slide Archive Relocation
(2009)—an exorcising exercise in re­distribution that entailed the transport
of the University of Chicago Art History Department’s glass slide collection
“for reuse as per­for­mance material, research and speculation” into space the
university had defined itself against in a long history of incorporation and
exclusion.1 Gates places the weight of this act manifest in ­things among the
list of its methods and materials, causing us to muse, perhaps most fruit-
fully, against the backdrop of certain ballistic, hypercussive, x-­terminative
formulations, on relocation as aesthetic assertion. It’s as if his Uzi weighs six
tons or, more precisely, that he deals in the surreptitious publicity of pi-
rates, once thought to be the ­enemy of all, but now recognizable as students
of friendship. Indeed, The Dorchester Proj­ect resonates with an already con-
stantly given architectonic shift of study that Gates had begun to explore and
extend in the series of meals that his retrospective avatars the Yamaguchis
serve in Plate Convergence. By the end of such real and i­magined eve­nings
something—­food, feeling, the nation, the earth u ­ nder our feet—­had been
moved b ­ ecause Gates’s work is concerned with moving and being moved across
town or ­water or international bound­aries, through identity barriers and re-
strictive generic definitions, over impassive and impassable spatiotemporal
divides. It is difficult to come straight at the massively articulated, secretly in-
scribed libretto of a totality of work whose plane is so vast. Can you walk right
at another horizon? Perhaps a curve, or a fold, is the only pos­si­ble approach
to the general field of constraint and dispersion that are emblematized in new
sculpture such as In the Event of Race Riot (2011), objects in which the iconic
apparatus of racist crowd control, updating a long history of ­water terror that
stretches from the Gold Coast to the Leeward Islands, from Birmingham to
Birmingham, are themselves enframed by black aesthetic insurgency. Consid-
ering the coiled, winding dislocation where Gates is coming from—­Chicago,
Iowa, Cape Town; Amer­i­ca, Japan, Africa—­this necessity of bent approach
seems likely. Work and the playful disruption of the work such as he delivers
allows and requires you to rethink your self and its origins.
And that’s all good, since diaspora’s nonarrival continues in all its ter-
rible beauty. Can our sad anticipation of repair be given now to the new de-
parture that’s been waiting for us? Can we make a move(ment) that is also

nowhere, everywhere / 159
an open and internally differentiated inhabitation—­a general antagonism, a
place where you expected someone ­else to be, given in a bunch of l­ ittle irrup-
tions of being t­ here together that are never simply enough? How to sustain?
M. NourbeSe Philip, echoing Gavin Bryars, echoing the unnameable renamed
and their phonic remains, says sound never dis­appears in ­water.2 Her cryptan-
alytic immersion in the exhausted, mute, mutating language of animate cargo
muffled by socially dead captains marks and extends this per­sis­tence. Wor-
rying Olaudah Equiano’s line, violently reciting its unbooked passage, Philip
takes the juridical silencing of incidents and injuries deep and off the market
into antenarrative, in­ter­est­ing insofar as it is of the ones who are without
interests, the ones who, therefore, cannot have (a narrative). Fugal palimp-
sest. Fugued amnesia. Centrifugitive motet. T ­ hese are irreducible motifs of
black study in and of dispersion, in diffuse concert b ­ ecause, as Philip says, “I
­couldn’t go back down to that ship by myself.”3 Rakim says back to the lab to
replay that utterly naked declivity, the brutal pro­cess of recombination in the
experiment we claim and suffer. We w ­ ere sent—by history, Lorna Goodison
says—­not to be a single being, and David Kazanjian has established that we
are flashpoints in the w ­ ater, in the blessed inassurance and joyous profana-
tion of ­Little Walter’s sacred harp, misshaped note as the informal, to be read
and misread at sight, in the ongoing mishappening, where (il)­legal rec­ord,
manifest, and log become our saturated hymnal.4 “Do you remember the
days of slavery?”5 The impossible recalling that question’s urgent contempo-
raneity implies and demands is given, somehow, in that ­there is “under­neath
this En­glish another language floating.”6 Mass, mas, drone.
The movement Philip groans—­the undercommons, the underlanguage,
underground, underwater, which is the ­people’s macrophone—­wants to
know/make the relationship between form and instability, when the informal
becomes a form of life precisely insofar as it is where forms of life come from.
­There is an ecol­ogy of unaccountable self-­positing, unaccountable ­because
what’s more and less than self, disposed and without position or deposition,
makes this positing in refusing being bought and sold. The logistics—­the
analogistics, the ecologistics—of the unaccountable population is barely au-
dible, given only in distortion, which is our plain of code. The way a certain
burned-­out ­house or broke-­down truck is packed in and against the wave
of general deployment, depression, dust bowl. A boxcar full of mutual pil-
lows of zonged (zaumed) song that Steven Feld feels in a creek or in Accra.7
An echologistics. A metoikologistics. If the literary has been traditionally re-
served for the anti-­ecological, if it is aligned with the sovereign even when

160 / chapter 11
poised in/as the non-­space between the sovereign’s democ­ratization and
His endless trial, then Emily Dickinson and Harriet Jacobs, in their upper
rooms, are beautiful.8 They renovate sequestration, designing, as Maurice
Wallace teaches, the new public interior of a super­natural historicity that
black art’s acceleration of the material marks in and as massive and diffuse
production.9 Its corrosive, prolific regeneration takes the form of an open
set of containers, renewing the shipped’s fascination with the ship that goes
back through Philip, Édouard Glissant, Jacobs, Frederick Douglass, Equi-
ano, and beyond. The Superdome, the ­temple, the row h ­ ouse, the proj­ect,
the shack, the crawlspace are each a kind of vessel. The body is a vase, a
pot, an evanescence of eccentric thrownness. To get at the openness of ­these
carceral apparatuses of refuge, ­these dungeons of flight, ­these holds for fan-
tasy, is the vocation of the ones who have been po(i)sed between exclusion
and withholding, the ones who Brecht says study changes, the flightlings
who work fugitive memories of superhydration in the sound of down and out
avowing its own making and unmaking and remaking.10 At stake is a general
economy of imprisoned passage, an ante-­epistemology and para­ontology
of the excluded ­middle from which nothing is excluded, it’s non-­vulgar time
given in the eloquent vulgarity of everywhere out of nowhere. Passage is
the common underground, given in movement’s constant miscegenation of
force and voluntarity, of the modes of regenerative interaction that hold bod-
ies and populations together by tearing them apart. The poetics of passage
are everywhere, out of nowhere, even out of black Chicago’s mi­grant field,
with its emissive heaviness and changed flavor, its ungovernable binding and
charged color, its weakness and its strength.
This par­tic­u­lar occasion of Theaster Gates in London comes in the after-
math of a set of sharp provocations emerging from the field of Afro-­diasporic
cultural studies. Crucial questions regarding the efficacy of popu­lar culture
and/or mass intellectuality—­ and, more pointedly, the placement of the
range of U.S. particularities in the history of (black) Atlantic humanity and
humanities—­have been asked by a generation of brilliant scholars moving
in the wake of Paul Gilroy’s emphatic and per­sis­tent interrogation.11 What
would it mean, w­ ill it ever have been pos­si­ble, to be central to, or to authenti-
cally body forth the diaspora, its disciplines and discourses? Can centrality
and authenticity be, as any diasporic centrality and authenticity w
­ ill have
had to be, predicated on irreducible marginality? How would such interplay
move? How would it operate and what would it make pos­si­ble, even in the
field or out of the depths of its inhabitation in ongoing, radical interdiction?

nowhere, everywhere / 161
What ­will it have meant for such centrality and authenticity—­either in their
impossible actuality or in the rejection of or re­sis­tance to what­ever enuncia-
tion of the very ideas—to be taken to stand in for the poor, in general, even as
it is also taken to stand in for the rich, in general? The paradoxical nature of
­these questions is not meant to indicate that such convergences are impos-
sible; rather, what must be discerned is what such convergences mean or, in
their specific absence, what the phantasmatic ascription or assertion of such
convergences mean. What is it—­here, now, in a world of modern blackness—­
that Black Amer­i­ca indicates?
Gates’s love of collections (and divisions) makes it more pos­si­ble to ad-
dress t­ hese questions. He moves in the calculated drifting and promiscuous
repetition of an experiment that is concerned with one incalculably differen-
tiated ­thing: the fetish character of blackness and its open secret. He does
so by way of an extended, multisensorial investigation of a specific field of
inhabitation given in a vast archive of ­things. The informal precision of their
coalescence is given in that re­sis­tance to cata­log and category that marks
the extra-­American blackness of certain blacks in Chicago. That social field
is Gates’s curriculum. If this local abstraction moves us further along in the
general gathering of dispersal that is called black art and black life, it is not
­because of its centrality and authenticity but is, rather, ­because of its spe-
cific enactment of the marginality and minority that is the central and au­
then­tic feature of blackness understood as a general, generative princi­ple of
differentiation. Blackness is the name that has been assigned to difference
in common, the animaterial inscription of common differentiation, which
improvises through the distinction between logical structure and physical
embodiment. Physical embodiment is not this or that skin color or body
shape but haptic graph. Logical structure is not this or that determined or
determinate discursive frame but common informality.
The S-­curve marks, with the kind of plea­sure that is troubled from before
the very beginning, therefore troubling beginnings and therefore still good,
Gates’s richly vari­ous movements and inhabitations. The crossing of ­water
of and in his work is in mutual accompaniment of an internal dispersion in
local (American) space. His place-­making, thingly arrangements of ­things in
unlikely gardens, all ­under the general atmosphere of having been taken for
nothing in the ongoing, general (mis)calculation of nothing, moves to rec-
ognise and amplify unacknowledged wealth. He moves and makes ­things in
and out of t­ hings that are of this first nothing the elixir grown, plotting and
planning an incalculable multiplicity of ways in and out of no way. Some-

162 / chapter 11
thing keeps on coming out of nowhere, as in the Black Monks of Mississippi
and their extraBuddhist anaBaptist dirge, that cuts the difference between
cabin, jug, and body in new, topoietic valorizations of container and instru-
ment. Gates experiments in new habitable tactilities: (unannotated, atonal)
scale in rough brick grain inside and out to be walked around (in) (and out
of ). As ­things make the space they are and the space they in, as London is the
place for me insofar as it is i­sn’t, expatriate calypso and punked-up ska, the
­music of Zanzibar, and of Tunis, and of the townships, and of the Kalakuta
Republic, the African pan, the pan-­African t­ hing, that loving strife, that seri-
ally extracommunicative sound of the excommunicated, of the Delta’s pro-
fane ministers and sheikhs, on top of the world they are u ­ nder, unresolves
into an ode to nothing, the immea­sur­able means of an ongoing throwing
of ends and beginnings. I’m interested in the b section, the exclusionarily
included m ­ iddle, the bridge. B is for blurr, for the seriality of an extra r, divid-
ing movements like a fantasy, like Theaster Monk’s mood.
Gates keeps (not) arriving to tell us that the black history of monasticism
in Chicago is theatricality in the wind. Traveling players extend a coenobitic
drama of moving, of the moved, up 61 Highway. The south (side) is the seri-
ally dissed location of such dislocation. On the outskirts of or even under­
neath diaspora—­which seems, in its more or less official formation, to have
been all but ceded to eternally prospective homeowners—­remains a certain
commitment to wilderness, to wilder equal d ­ aughters, equal sons, whose out
situation is set aside in the normative Atlantic relay. The conflict between the
­water’s edge and up the country is all up in every­body. Sometimes, it’s just
the way some folks say theater, thee-­ā-­tuh, theaster, the actor, the actor slash
director, the speculactor, that post-­Boalian loop and plan and conduit and
vestibule. T
­ here’s a curve, a function, that w
­ on’t stop, keeps getting deeper, as
constant potential interplay between exponentiality and saturation, crescendo
and decrescendo, plural and curl, theactive, thelonial reverb of incalculably
small beginnings, more but without majority, approach but without climax
or seizure, this constant irruptive unfolding of planning. The Dorchester
Proj­ect works this way; Plate Convergence works this way—as field and feast
for black study, for the university of abandon, an old-­new massive intellec-
tual fête of dispersed word and flavor given again and again in the growth,
the evangelical permeation, of a population, how it sustains and revives, how
it survives contingency and removal and occupation, its preoccupation with
opening and renewal, in an interminable drama of contact. Chicago has seen
this before in the counterprojects of the proj­ects; in East Garfield Park’s or

nowhere, everywhere / 163
­Grand Crossing’s or Maywood’s or Mayfield’s advanced doo-­wop seminars
and revolutionary breakfasts; in the small acts, minor strains, and new an-
gled arcs of critical making, tearing shit up in the general rupture; in difficult
caresses theorized and distributed in velvet lounges, where Muhal Richard
Abrams and Fred Anderson are maudmarthian dandelion farmers in the an-
tipresidential legacy of communal organ­izing. Gates speaks about what it
would mean to be a good citizen of Chicago; but it seems to me that he be-
comes something other than a citizen, detached from po­liti­cal ambition and,
more generally and more importantly, from the po­liti­cal as the exclusionary
field structured by citizenship’s necessary anti-­universality. He is, however,
a mobile inhabitant, joining in agitation other inhabitants who have been
committed, intellectually, spiritually, aesthetically, to another inhabitation.
Lading is in our nature, says this anarepetitive sound, with a phonoaberrant
h in it, just so you always remember that it always sounded like something.
Theaster Gates, cultural planner, is an anti-­, antecitizen of Chicago, where
what’s happening is that it ­hasn’t happened yet, where the dispersed disrupts
(in) her terribly beautiful dispersal.
Disruption takes the form of architectural hair. Or the face become color
field—­skin become fabric—­whose broken, undulate, textural surface defies
livery’s insistent flattening in aggressive looks constructed by the unseen,
­under surveillance. But even ­after some extended meditation on the anti-
foundational nature of our makeup, it’s hard not to believe that we are by-­
products of a theory of the beautiful. Who must be stupid ­because she is
black, who must be unfeeling b ­ ecause she does not blush, may, u ­ nder the
unbearable burden of this constraint, this difficulty in not believing, turn
to a life of imitative refutation. Becoming black might then be seen as this
extended performative argument held in the way we carry ourselves in fashion
shows, with the help of Fashion Fair, in the interest of a self-­fashioning that
was always only structured by the scandalous interplay of physical appearance
and philosophy. What Gates gives us is some sense of the tension between
normative cosmetic statements designed to reveal, once and for all, the truth
about us and an antiepistemological paintedness generally understood to be
the idiom of dark ladies in the modern world; between fugitive, decorative
sociality and po­liti­cal strug­gle’s state-­sanctioned, state-­imposed decorum;
between aspiration for a place in the world and exhaustion by and of the
very idea of home. All this tension, which Fanon insists we consider in its
irreducible muscularity, comes down, also, to m
­ atters of style, of style’s in-

164 / chapter 11
surgencies, whose incalculable generativity is also what is indexed by the
term diaspora.
This is all to say that the interplay of vindication and insurrection, which
Gilroy centers in the African American cultural and social milieu, is part
of a general history of common dispersion. It is to say, moreover, that this
interplay need not in its turn inexorably propel social theory t­ oward another
analytic oscillation between consumption and citizenship made pos­si­ble by
the ac­cep­tance not only of (a certain conception of ) markets but also the
state as natu­ral arrangements that work “according to the specifications of
orthodox economic [and po­liti­cal] theory.”12 We are left to consider precisely
what anarrangements might be intimated in per­for­mances of and through
consumption and citizenship, as well as vindication and insurrection, by the
noncitizens who bear the mark of being-­consumed, who bear the trace of an
ongoing insurrection that can never be vindicated within the “­legal” terms
and structures of the administered world. Neither (African) American he-
gemony nor its transatlantic, north Atlantic staging can exercise full control
over arrangement’s continual improvisation. This anti–­state of affairs is no
less insistently, disruptively emergent ­because intradiasporic relations are
now, as they have always been, mediated by the brutal forces that initiate the
violent policing of the general dispersal, the general antagonism. On the one
hand, ­because media exert the power to determine, we must consider, along
with Gilroy, “that African American culture now contributes directly” to “the
brand value and identity of the United States” as it sinks further and further
into the depths of the imperial viciousness and venality that seems to be the
telos encoded in its settler colonial origins.13 On the other hand, ­because the
domesticated structures of possessive mediation are constantly unmoored
by the imaginative habits of the shipped, we must exceed Gilroy’s grudging
concession that “­there may still be ­things to learn from the US ac­cep­tance of
‘race,’ providing that it is accompanied by an acknowl­edgment of the dam-
age done by racism and does not become a blank resignation to the effects
of racial hierarchy” in order to move ­toward a richer understanding of the
dense, richly internally differentiated theoretical inhabitation of blackness
in African American culture that is too easily misunderstood as “ac­cep­tance”
of or submission to “the foundational absurdities of U.S. race talk.”14 As Tavia
Nyong’o sharply asserts, by way of Denise Ferreira da Silva’s massive theoreti-
cal intervention, “in dispelling race from its improper place in the order of the
­human sciences, casting it into disrespectability along with sorcery, alchemy,

nowhere, everywhere / 165
and other bait for the credulous, we consolidate that much more firmly the
protocols of scientific rationality,” ­running the risk, thereby, of forgetting that
“the protocols of science gave us race as an invidious distinction in the first
place.”15 One need hardly add that the scientific discourse in question shares
with the United States a claim upon Eu­ro­pean origins that is supposed to
sanction, in turn, their status as official and definitive, particularly in the
context of Gates’s metacuratorial intervention which has, as its primary mo-
tives, the ongoing discovery of what is singularly terrible and beautiful in
the (African) American example and the displacement—at once temporary
and continual—of objects in order “to captivate and lure, seduce our audi-
ences into a zone of cultural engagement, allowing the British community to
reflect upon what t­ hese signs and symbols might mean in the context of Brit-
ish history.”16 ­Under circumstances designed “to leverage [Gates’s] greatest
readymade to simply pres­ent form and content, allowing ­people to dig into
­these histories and make connections where they make sense,” what ­will the
gallery now become? W ­ ill the White Cube readily be (re)made by the strangers
who engage in the black poetics of make-up, or recombinant imaging, each
in their own vexed, leveraged mediacy, each in their irreducible necessity to
the unfinished proj­ect in which extralegal vindication, convivial insurrection,
and alternative inhabitation still animate one another?17
Theaster Gates w ­ ill mess you up if you let him. Theaster Gates w­ ill make
you up if you let him. He facilitates your submission to your own critical
imagining, with ­others. On Black Foundations is an antifoundational asser-
tion of an antefoundational real­ity: that we mess and make each other up as
we go along. This si­mul­ta­neously deconstructive and reconstructive social
poetics is restaged again and again in Gates’s objects and engagements. The
discovery is in unlikely places by way of the kinds of ominous public/private
partnerships—­the corporate entanglements and mercantile impurities—­that
stripe and striate modernity and its erstwhile subjects/citizens. Is Gates’s
pres­ent work exemplary of what Gilroy calls the pursuit of “the expansion
of African American access to capitalism’s bounty”?18 Is the pres­ent writing
nothing more than a misunderstanding structured by a dream “of the sys-
tem’s overthrow”?19 Or is Gates’s work productive of precisely that rich, insis-
tent, antiracist, common, communist meditation on “the interpretive signifi-
cance of slaves having themselves once been commodities”?20 It strikes me
that Gates’s art not only both requires and begets further dark speculation
on the m
­ atter of dark speculation but also that it stages the planning, by
revealing the history, of the open institutions in which such theory thrives—­

166 / chapter 11
not in the reactive negation of reification, however justified and necessary
such a maneuver seems, but rather in the refusal to fall for the ruses of in-
corporation and exclusion that say all we can and should desire is citizen-
ship and subjectivity. Gates sounds an epitaph for that desire in alternative
longing that loudly keeps its own apostolic counsel. Look at the open, secret,
sociopoetic ceremony he keeps finding nowhere, everywhere!

nowhere, everywhere / 167
chapter 12

Nobody,
Every­body
What if we could detach repair not only from restoration but also from the
very idea of the original—­not so that repair comes first but that it comes
before. Then, making and repair are inseparable, devoted to one another,
suspended between and beside themselves. Harold Mendez makes changes,
out of nothing; flesh, out of absence. His work, which is more + less than
that, more + less than his, calls us to that suspense, to the contemplative
frenzy of detail, the general meadow of invention, the generative move-
ment of the pre. In this regard, like Francis Ponge, his dictaphonic caress
of ­things, colder than absolute zero, more + less than that, more + less than
his, is analyric lysis, the slides and cross-­sections, the burning life of a thou-
sand cuts, sounding the absolute look; like Terry Adkins, he recites when
he installs, and passing through is our audition and rehearsal, more + less
than that, more + less than ours. Off, in and out of your own words that are
not your own, right now, which is always before us, repeat ­after me repeat-
ing ­after him what you must have been saying all along since ­here you are:
the work is at prayer; we are at prayer in the work; in response, we call the
work to prayer. To pray for the repose of the general practice of repose is an
underconceptual veer from the history of art in order to take the way back
into that history’s ground, u
­ nder that ground, u
­ nder its skin, at play as the
surface burrs, feeling its immea­sur­able depth, skin under­neath itself, all up
­under that, which is deep, which is the ascendant bottom, where the propo-
sitional content of the preposition is nothing but noise, on, off, in, out, over,
­under, through, fray, merge, fringe, verge, pore, duct, surge, yeah. Surface
everywhere and nowhere, if this is who we are, to pray the anoriginal repair.
What if we could prepare, as seal and tarry, this waiting? Fleshwork’s gest
and bearing multiplies the veer, as geistic feel. If you look closely, through
the solid, one given and taken away as some’s partiality, close enough for the
arithmetic of the definite and the indefinite to explode into skin’s transfinite
diamonds, then it’s some work g
­ oing on. Then something unfixed is fixing to
happen and ­there’s an image of something getting ready to take place. Some-
thing getting ready to get made and unmade out of nothing up in h ­ ere. Some
fabrication up in ­here waiting. A vestigial picture of fabric’s event. Prepara-
tion shines in suspense, the degenerative and regenerative sight and sound
of ­things, de re, the real, unsettled rim. Trying to prepare the edgework, the
anaprepositional surfacework, the underconcept and anechology of earth-
work, so we can pray. Wrapped in this radiated weave of sackcloth as prayer-
cloth, trying to prepare the cold, the freeze inside and out that quickens
prayerful looking slow as dreamwork. So close to who we are. W ­ e’re so close to
where we are. Close edge, he says. How can we make amends? The sound of
the call to prayer is strand. Look closely through that solid border. To show the
composure of this coldness is cold fire. Had the price of looking been blind-
ness, I would have looked, he says. Every­body’s ­there. Nobody’s ­there, he says.
They occupy. We are preoccupied in an unavailable resort, he says. The civil
butchery of its knives and textured sequestration, where the walls leave marks
and the doors are just the memory of doors, ­because see how far outside we are
inside? In dreams, he says, I look closely through the block through which they
look through us. Surface is deep, he says. Plane is thick and rough. Certain
facts (blackness; its variously lived experiences; its undercommon dispersal;
the epidermal and its vestibular folds, jewels, veils; our haptic devotions; the
chapped chapels; the par­tic­u­lar church; the beautiful concert; the terrible
consort; the gold, brutal variations) bear this. Bear this out. Carry this out,
improperly, he says. We who c­ an’t wait keep waiting on this ongoing advent
of texture. We who are nothing, we who have no one, c­ an’t wait for you to
learn how to wait for it. We who have nothing hold it in reserve. W ­ e’re at your
ser­vice. We ­can’t wait for this impatience to repair. Our look is cold, so cold
it’s cool and bears no judgment. So cold it burns and ­won’t belong, no word is
bond, ­we’re all so close, w
­ e’re all right h
­ ere, outside your jurisdiction, crimi-
nal in the work and out of phase, at prayer, in preparation, of repair. This is
the airy ground that he keeps working, herald on the mend and off the edge.

nobody, every­b ody / 169

chapter 13

Remind
I rode up to the Forest Houses from Soho in a limousine called Precarity. The
night before I’d been stopped and frisked in the lap of luxury. The way they
say sir is worse than the way they say nigger. As property, I was properly pro-
tected and therefore more than tired. I ­didn’t think I needed the reminder,
but their questioning, that interplay of menace and popo theory, was a slave
ship. So by the time I got to the Gramsci Monument I’d already been ­there,
in the grave of all that’s nothing, for a while. I mean, I’d been reminded, even
before I got to the reminder, so I could rub and be rubbed in the remainder,
which surplus thieves and zombies ­can’t remember. Their shiftless shit is au-
tomatic. Their shit is our automatic transmission. So we have to slow down,
to remain, so we can get together and think about how to get together. What if
it turns out that the way we get together is the way to get together? I mean,
and this is an analytic proposition, not many of which are actually neces-
sary, that every­thing is every­thing, which is a Donny Hathaway formulation,
which is something more + less than the world is all that is the case. We came
to rest on the outside. T­ here prob­ably o
­ ught to be a Wittgenstein Monument
but you ­couldn’t get from ­there to the earthly and unearthly ­thing Gramsci’s
anarchic ark gets you to, as bridge to and away from itself, as its own kicked-­
away ladder, its own exhausted hegemony.
Monuments are meant to put us in mind of something. To be put in mind
is a strange construction. To be reminded, to have something brought to
one’s mind, to have something put in one’s mind, is articulated as one having
been put in (the) mind of the ­thing of which one is reminded. With regard to
the Gramsci Monument, I can speak, strangely, of having been put in (the)
mind of the ­house in which I was raised, of my old neighborhood, of my
lost friend, smiling, who came to find me t­ here (in Cubie, in Hialeah) and
my memory serially conceived as autonomous transportation to what is no
longer or to what was never e­ ither ­here or t­ here. Still, what remains, unde-
niably, is having been moved. I was writing before I arrived, as arrivant in
constancy, in the hold, held in the rub. Moved by what had drawn me t­ here,
which is also what had sent me ­there, still arriving ­there, where I had never
been, prodigal in this immediate and overwhelming sense of having been
­there, poor in the spirit in which I am sent.
Now that it’s gone, into a more + less than material part of the m
­ atter it
reminds, I won­der about the tense of Gramsci Monument, which is a Monu­
ment to the Minds of the ­Little Negro Steelworkers, which is a Thornton Dial
formulation. Is and was are blurred, not resolved, in its dismantling but also
in the fact that it was ­there before it was made. ­There’s a profanity, which we
just always mean to practice, given in this hard-­wrought poetics of rough-­
hewing, that misshapes our ends. It lies ahead of us, passage to what it puts in
mind. Remember that it hurts more than anything to say this. The ark(estra)
is an ark of bones, a ship of fools. Do you remember or are you that memory?
The revolutionary madness of the work, transmitted as aroma, in the relay
between smoke and provision, is nostalghia, a village mobilized in ruins.
Thomas Hirschhorn calls the Monument a paradise. If I had been t­ here
more, if I could have kept being t­ here, which is something I have kept wish-
ing for, I would have come to know it as paradise, too. Paradise is a place
where we exercise the hopes and dreams of paradise. The Monument was a
bridge to and away from itself. The utopia parkway of the South Bronx, with
its own articulate boxes, marked, as if plywood’s rain-­softened yellow fade
­were a clear win­dow, anaredactive covering of a dandelion insurgency, which
is a Gwendolyn Brooks formulation, which begins another way of seeing that
it lets you see, the sepulchral transparency that makes t­ hings clear. The job
of resurrectors is to say good morning. Give me some dap and roll it away.
We walked the boards of an open poetics, a mountain blacker than black,
brown and blue as New York out of school. If you need some, soul, come on,
get some, which is a James Brown formulation. We been ­here. Can you be
open to saying that? Claim your (­under)privilege. “Being pres­ent is crucial.”
Presence, having interrupted presentness to release it into the air, returns in
this walking, along this pathway, the bridge that ­isn’t crossed but inhabited,
whose preoccupations are shared in unshared authorship. Thomas, this ark
disrupting arc, your arkestral unsharing, makes me want to recover sharing
from you for you. Come get some more of t­hese differences we share. Are
differences our way of sharing? Let’s share so we can differ, in undercommon
misunderstanding. Our undercommonness is that we have no standing.
That’s all it is, that’s where it’s at, in the open we keep making.
The paradise of the unfinished community, beloved in the way it loves
its flesh, damned in the way that only flesh is damned, is the paradise of the

remind / 171
i­nformal. Paradise is form’s emergence in experimental exercise, in disrup-
tive practice, when we greet each other in exhaustion, our limited subshine
in prayerful agreement, in “the incredible agreement of Erik Farmer,” which
is more + less than hegemonic hum. It’s like the space of sharing is instanti-
ated in the space between sharers. It’s like that space is open secrecy. We
miss, we dodge each other’s understanding, a general feint we give and take
in the absolute ensemble of proximity, in the proj­ects, of the celebrants, orig-
inally of the mass.
The ­little abduction, in which I immediately become trivial, and the black
site’s off-­site comfort: this is a contradiction called loneliness, having been
secreted, held incommunicado, right in the ­middle of the world, ­until Danny
and Max and Bob and Rich and Greg and Diedra came to watch with me
for a while, and then it was more and less than black enough to arrive, to
remember ­things that let the sunshine in my memory, and ­here come my
lost and found friend, smiling, to remind me that loneliness been gone. The-
odor Adorno writes about the loneliness of the ambulatory city-­dweller and
Giorgio Agamben, more closely attuned to the physicality that contains and
transports solitary reverie, ties that loneliness to a loss of gesture. But all
this depends on where ­you’re walking. I knew the arrest of my downtown
wandering was a tangle of anomalies—­not supposed to be down ­there, not
supposed to be down ­there in the way I was down ­there—­but in the novelty
of my being down ­there what comes into relief is that where I was was not
where they usually arrest us. This kinda shit happens e­ very day, yeah, but not
downtown so much as way uptown where I had come, now, so I could feel
more ­free. Against the grain of the fact that I ­couldn’t choose it, ­there was an
enchantment I’d chosen. In the forest ­there was a kind of magic city.
Multiplicative identity was anchoritic up in ­there. Against the false gen-
erality and absent generativity of citizens talking to one another, ­there ­were
outside voices inside. The library w
­ asn’t rigged for s­ ilent reading. ­There was
a transliteration of combs and ­house shoes. An amplification of notebooks
and ­things ­were given in that it would never occur that they should be for
every­one ­because they w
­ ere for anyone. We begin contemplative life, which
is momentum in repose, refusal’s monument to itself in being moved against
moving, as a pattern of tremendous trees or Davy D’s unbudged needle. The
daily recording of practice has become our practice—of prophecy—­itself.
Let’s see how it would be to live the way we live. Let’s make a refuge, which
we refuse to ­settle, for which we refuse to ­settle, within which we can enjoy
the refuge to which ­we’ve long been given. In being visited, in our ongoing

172 / chapter 13
defiance of loneliness, maybe ­they’ll leave us alone. But I ­don’t even know
how long before I got ­there this was written. I just want to remember some-
thing to you, to put you in mind of something. This is just something to put
on your mind, which is a Curtis Mayfield formulation. ­There was a kind of
shimmer. I wish I could make you hear it as a kind of hush.

remind / 173
chapter 14

Amuse-­
Bouche
You came to see ­human bodies to­night, but she said this is “holy work and it’s
dangerous not to know that ’cause you could die like an animal down ­here.”1
She was talking about making dances—­pacing back and forth across bridges,
riding up and down the block, selling loosies on the corner, walking in the
­middle of the street. The hazard of movement, of moving and being moved, of
knowing that we are affected, that we are affective. ­There’s danger, too, in the
very fact of this reminder, even if it’s just a taste, of what you ­haven’t seen. The
maternal is a radical exteriority the eucharistic consumes. Time and again
and out of time w ­ e’re lost in the rematerialization of this loss, another invalu-
able impersonation done gone, sometimes of natu­ral ­causes, sometimes in
refusal of naturalization. That’s when he (I mean that man, you know, the
man, the one, the one who looks like every­one and no one, as you know) tries
to control the more-­than-­human by calling it less than h ­ uman. The quasi-­
autobiographical modalities of our story, of however many years a slave,
which try to render thingliness relatable, model this regulation precisely in
seeking ­after it. Relatability, which is subjection’s scene, the romantic sub-
ject’s haunt, is the naturalization of what c­ an’t help but be a docile body. It
comes to light as the production of corpses on or under­neath the thorough-
fare. The only way to come through this bildung in the ser­vice of destruc-
tion and rebuilding, that contract, that contact, that refusal of surrender, is
to extend the ante-­autobiographical modalities of our story. Our consent to
be inseparable, our constant escape from what our constant escape induces,
even from time even when ­we’re on it, requires us to live in danger.
So may I offer you something? Something rich and strange, an abun-
dance, but on a plate so small it’s not even a plate; a spoonful, ­really; just a
mouthful, just enough to taste, just for a moment, the alchemical magic, the
terrible and beautiful and immea­sur­able richness and impurity of a train
or a streetcar or a sidewalk held in the flavor of solfège, in si­mul­ta­neously
encrypted and decrypted composition, sung ­until it can be tasted, that
taste made m­ usic from embouchure to batterie, hand to mouth, in ongo-
ing haptic incident and percussive hors d’oeuvre. If y­ ou’ve never been of-
fered something like this before, I can only imagine your frustration at being
enjoined to imagine dance before you can attend to it; and by way of this
intangible offering from so far away; and by way of something which is, if
not quite nonsensical, moving by way of the wrong sense. The synaesthetic
reach is prob­ably too ­little and too much: a proprioceptive failure—­a sharp
disorientation—­appears to be immanent as well as imminent. Nevertheless,
beyond the bonds of taste, feel how much of dance—of the chorographic,
choreographic life y­ ou’ve been living and are living and are about to live right
­here, right now, in this bearing that we c­ an’t quite get—­there is to be tasted
in and by way of Samuel R. Delany and Cecil Taylor.

She opened her mouth, feeling her tongue’s weight on the floor of her
mouth, the spots of dryness spreading it, and tasting the air’s differ-
ences, which marked not the air’s but the tongue’s itself.2

When I was in the Conservatory, t­here was a Southern w ­ oman who

taught En­glish the first year that I was t­ here. . . . ​She was talking about
Tennessee Williams, and she was talking about Streetcar, and she said,
“The language in that play, ­there are sections of that play that are so
good,” she said, “that I could actually taste it.” . . . ​­Mother always had
me reading. M­ other spoke French and German and brought Schopen-
hauer to me when I was eleven years old, but that was something else—­
that was—­you ­didn’t have a choice ­there with M ­ other. Boom! That’s the
way that went. But ­here was this ­woman who just said this, and I heard
it. And her emotional dedication to a word—­I said, “Wow, that’s my
dedication to m
­ usic. You mean it’s pos­si­ble to have that kind of dedica-
tion to another art?” So, that.3

Moved movers amid the intensity of the pas de deux my offering asks you
to imagine, Delany and Taylor are bound in what Denise Ferreira da Silva
would call the affectability of “no-­bodies.”4 Bound for that embrace, they hold,
in their openness, to its general, generative pattern. Openness to the embrace
moves against the backdrop of exclusion and the history of exclusion, which is
a series of incorporative operations. This is how openness to being affected is
inseparable from the re­sis­tance to being affected. Dance writes this push and
pull into the air and onto the ground and all over the skin of the earth and

amuse-­b ouche / 175
flesh that form the city. The words of ­these moved movers have something
specific to do with dance, and I want to talk about that specificity as an in-
terplay between walking and talking, between crossing and tasting, between
quickness and flavor. Their words and work form part of the aesthetic and
philosophical atmosphere that attends the vari­ous flows and steps that have
taken place in and as New York City over the last fifty years, especially down-
town in the serially and si­mul­ta­neously emergent and submergent dance
space between two churches, Judson and St. Mark’s. I want to call upon this
history of devoted heresy, of transgressive congregation, b ­ ecause, as with
most of what we know of atmospheres and their conditions, the astral air
and gritty fluid Delany and Taylor have long been circulating, rich with the
mineral, venereal, funereal character of New York’s paved soil, its palpable,
haptic aroma, the way it gets rubbed into and out of yourself and ­others in
the jam and crush that tends to mess and mix up selves and o ­ thers in the
­grand, eccentric compound improvisation of the city—­because that kind of
knowledge, our knowledge of all that, our capacity to think in and with our
inhabitation of all that, is too often suppressed in crowded, solitary busyness.
It takes a lot to feel yourself walking around, mouth open in won­der and/or
desire, as ­eager to taste as an Arkansan, or an Oankali, out looking for where
the dragons might be.

Genitals, buttocks, nipples, tongue all seemed so insistently pres­ent

inside Sam’s mouth and twenty-­four-­hour-­worn suit. Once, well back
before dawn, when the train win­dows ­were still black and the other
passengers slept, he had stared at one white round glass, thinking of
the moon, when, at once, he’d stood, to bring his mouth closer and
closer, as if to kiss this night light at the aisle’s end, pulling back only
when the heat about burned his lips.5

Yoruba memoir other mesh in voices ­mother tongue at bridge scatter-

ing Black.6

We shared an apartment for a while, and I had the opportunity to

watch him practice, and his practicing revolves around solfège sing-
ing. ­He’ll sing a phrase and then h ­ e’ll harmonize it at the piano and
then ­he’ll sing it again, always striving to get the piano to sing, to try
and match this feeling of the ­human production, the voice, in terms of
pianistic production so that it gets the same effect. Cecil’s trying to get
the vocal sound out of the piano, and I think he’s achieved it on many

176 / chapter 14
 occasions. You can almost hear the piano scream or cry. It’s worked
for him.7

In their shared preoccupation with bridges and their variously creative

use of cantilevering; in their questions concerning the architectonics of the
graph, and of the graft, and even of the grift; in their investigation of the trick’s
subsocial emergency, the aesthetic and sexual imagination’s passage between
lawmaking and lawbreaking, the centrifugal range of holistic difficulties that
mark the relationship between the bridge and a kind of engineered, sculp-
tural, and machinic thingliness that fleshes forth history, that juts or walks
or gets walked out into history as a kind of manufactured outcropping or
as out speech, that speaking out into history that animates queer per­for­
mance, black per­for­mance, and their convergence, Delany and Taylor reveal
that dance is the city’s m­ other tongue. The bridge marks, b ­ ecause it also is,
where crossing over crosses over into smuggling, a transportation of lost and
found desire, lost and found ­matter, both of which move in constant escape.
The bridge’s errant merger of rant and merge is given in the audiovisual lo-
gisticality of the cry from Edvard Munch to James Brown; but concern for it
must be registered in close attention to the mouth—to the feelings of words
and sounds on the tongue, the taste of herbs and roots and cream and flesh
and glass, the bridge where the tongue rests—­and to the fin­gers, too (another
transfer within song t­ oward tactile, percussive lyricism) and to the variously
good and bad feet that carry them. The passages above allow for that fur-
ther investigation as does the use of solfège as a pedagogical tool by Taylor’s
teachers and, then, as a pedagogical-­compositional tool by Taylor himself.
Consider dance as a ­matter of mouthfeel as well as footstep (of a song, or
story, the physical-­chemical reaction that occurs when the idea is sounded,
a birth effect given in combinations of soufleé, saveur, and savoir-­faire). The
essay I’ll never write would have been an ode to la and mmm.
That’s the soundtouch of an aberrant cruise inside the straight line, which
uninstalls directness in interior paramouric curve or cave or cant, sticking
out from itself but slant as a kind of gesture, in a kind of dedication, where
the senses have become theoreticians, where aesthetic experience is a lit-
eral and literate transfer of substance. Between the oral and the aural ­there’s
some commerce at the level of taste: material tactility, material event, mate-
rial inscription. In Just above My Head, this is what James Baldwin is ­after
between Arthur and Crunch: cir­cuits of lyrical emulsion and theoretical
image. Knowledge of this dedication is given by way of parental—­but please,

amuse-­b ouche / 177
in the interest of another movement, of mmm and all it stands for, of the
general and pansexual maternity that animates materiality, indulge me if I
say marental—­lesson and lesion and loss. ­There’s a kind of vio­lence to black/
queer maternity that deals in the liberatory force of endangerment. Toni
Morrison speaks of a certain extremity of this force but its mundanities—­
not necessarily any less spectacular—­animate the tradition she extends. The
hazard is abandonment, which is inseparable from the grace of abandon.
Delany and Taylor speak (of and in) this movement.

My ­mother died when I was, like, thirteen or fourteen.8

­ fter my ­father died, I went into analy­sis. It was ­Sullivan analy­sis, a

A
kind of analy­sis that built on the theory of interpersonal relationships.
The analyst would help steer your course. T ­ here is a relationship be-
tween the analy­sis and my ­music, even though it’s hard to define. The
fact is that, being a musician, I had put a lot of ­things into ­music that
­music itself was not able to resolve. That is, ­music is the creation of a
language out of symbols, of sounds, sounds that cannot be spoken and
therefore create a kind of personal isolation. If t­ here are prob­lems that
­music cannot answer wholly, you ­either have to have friends whom you
can trust not to destroy you with what­ever you give them of yourself,
or you have to go to a neutral source, and that is what analy­sis was for
me.9

When I came out of school, the first ­thing that I did was to walk
down 125th Street and listen to what was happening. And it took me
maybe a month before I started digging. That was the beginning of,
like, the other education. I mean the participation in, and the d­ oing
of, the ­thing.
 . . . ​(I try to imitate on the piano the leaps in space a dancer
makes)10

The dance, I think, had its results on his [Taylor’s] playing ­because a
lot of his playing depends on body motion, especially the fast playing.
He does t­hings with a speed that most pianists, if they heard it on a
rec­ord, would say, ‘How does he do that?’ It has a lot to do with the
rhythmic flailing of his arms or his ability to move his body back and
forth like a pendulum from one end of the piano to the other so that he
can put his hands in the proper position, and I think his interest in the
dance has a lot to do with that.11

178 / chapter 14
“My ­father died of lung cancer in 1958 when I was seventeen.” This is
just not a sentence that, when an adult says it in a conversation seven
or a dozen or twenty years a­ fter the fact, p
­ eople are likely to challenge.
And when, to facilitate my Pennsylvania scholars, I put together a
chronology of my life, starting with my birth (April Fools’ Day, 1942),
that sentence, among many, is what I wrote.
I ­don’t remember the specific letter in which one of them pointed
out ­gently that, if I was born in 1942, I could not possibly have been
seventeen. In 1958 I was fifteen up u ­ ntil April 1 and sixteen for the
year’s remaining nine months. Vari­ous researches followed. . . . ​Fi­nally,
in an old Harlem Newspaper, a small article was unearthed that con-
firmed it; my ­father died in the early days of October 1960.
I was eigh­teen.12

In October, almost exactly a year ­after my ­father’s death, Marilyn

miscarried. She recuperated in my ­sister’s old room at my ­mother’s
apartment. Two or three weeks l­ater, she got a job as a salesgirl at B.
Altman’s department store. Let go even before New Year’s almost im-
mediately she got a job as an editorial assistant at Ace Books.
Prob­ably within a week (certainly no more than ten days), ­after a
set of obsessively vivid dreams, I began what, not quite a year l­ater,
would be my first published novel, The Jewels of Aptor.13

On a chill, immobile eve­ning, during a midnight November walk,

through a win­dow in an alley adjacent to the Village View construc-
tion Marilyn glimpsed two or four or six naked p
­ eople—­multiplied or
confused, in a moment of astonished attention, by some mirror on the
back wall, as the win­dow itself added a prismatic effect to the bod-
ies inside, gilded by candlelight or some mustard bulb—­before they
moved b ­ ehind a jamb, or she walked beyond the line of sight, the
image suggested proliferations of possibilities, of tales about ­those
possibilities, of images in harmony, antiphon, or wondrous comple-
mentarity. Once, when I was gone for the night, she went walking—­
and was stopped by two cops in a patrol car, curious what a w
­ oman
would be d
­ oing out in that largely homosexual haunt—on the Wil-
liamsburg Bridge. It was a time of strained discussions in our tene-
ment living room, in the midst of which a bit of plaster from the newly
painted ceiling would fall to shatter over the mahogany arm of the red
chair.14

amuse-­b ouche / 179
 My ­father died when I was sixteen, when I was eigh­teen; my ­mother died
when I was, like, thirteen or fourteen; when I was thirty-­seven, but I was
thirty-­eight, my ­mother and ­father died. Note the temporal confusion of a
loss that makes you move, that puts you in motion, bearing you out onto the
city streets. Delany writes of an abyss between columns waiting to be bridged,
itinerant flight through soffit and cistern, where one enters into another
scene, into contact, in which one becomes more and less than that. Taylor’s
autobiographical narrative pylons, the burred, felt precision of the recol-
lection of marental loss, move in their relation to Delany’s. Then the ­music
becomes self-­analysis, improvisation taking over the function of a certain
distance, where private language and personal gesture move from solipsism
to the social. ­There’s a thinking of the kinetic t­ hing that Taylor engages—­the
participation in, the ­doing of, it. ­There’s a theory of illicit exhaustion and
insistence that he gives, coming out of an experience of the ordinary in and
as movement like a feel Trio A or some undercommon Caminhando, Yvonne
Rainer and Lygia Clark channeled in asymmetrical, off-­stride walking and
cutting, hip flaneuses returned to get deep in the tradition of the everyday
­thing, a thin-­curved slice of life, a fugitive trench, an almost interminable
tranche. This is the general dance proj­ect we share to­night, supernaturally;
this is solfège by Duke Ellington, his suite for Alvin Ailey, a bridge over The
River’s repercussive cascade, the ­music of ­things worn, strummed but also
beaten, to airy thinness, in nothingness, as indiscretion.

Yet Cecil Taylor has no compunction about transferring to jazz any in-
novations that might be useful. He opened his section of a December,
1963 Jazz Composers’ Guild Concert at New York’s Judson Hall with
an improvisation for tuned piano. Strumming tuned piano strings
is a device rarely used in jazz, and it is obvious that all ­those blues
chords and chord changes, rhythms and melodies that have been the
definitive substance of jazz could not be played in any recognizable
way on the inside of a tuned piano. But the piece was well received
by the jazz-­oriented audience, and Cecil, who feels that he has only
one ­music, ­whether it is played inside or outside the piano, and who
regards himself as nothing but a jazz musician, did not feel that he had
compromised himself in the least. Buell Neidlinger described the per­
for­mance: “I d
­ on’t find any of the sounds Cecil makes on the inside of
the piano at all similar to John Cage or Christian Wolff or Stockhausen
or Kagel. I know he’s heard all that ­music, but the implements that he

180 / chapter 14
 uses to play the inside of the piano are nothing like the ones that they
use. For instance, he uses bed springs, steel mesh cloth, ­things that he
lives around. And like t­ hose cats are using rubber erasers, corks, felt
mallets. Cecil’s is a much more metallic sound, very brilliant, but the
Western cats soften the piano down.
“In the Judson per­for­mance I played the sustaining pedal and the
keyboard and Cecil played the inside of the piano. It was fabulously
successful, but it was entirely improvised on the spur of the moment—­
there was absolutely no rehearsal of that at all. On that tune t­ here was
just the drums and myself, and I was able to reach u ­ nder the piano
15
with my left foot and play the bass at the same time.”

In that other essay I would have been more delicately emphatic in ap-
proaching this exhaustive collection of approaches. When Taylor says you
­can’t just walk up to the piano any kind of way, when Delany details a
history of the broken world in calculated, but nevertheless incalculable,
drifting, a dance is being danced from which a range of composition is im-
provised. Opening the piano recalibrates swing; it’s another way, in and in
extension of the tradition, of organ­izing sonic energy. Something is given
in this penetration of the instrument that is allied to orchestral song and
dance. A ritual of approach is already given h ­ ere that culminates in per­
for­mance with Min Tanaka on the street that time, in refusal of the tonic,
outside of Tonic, in what they used to call Loisaida, and then this last
time in Kyoto, that long, slow, felt, sensed, anarepetitive inhabitation of
our fallenness and our flight. What’s the difference that Neidlinger hears
and senses in ­these encounters of penetrative, penetrated objects? Taylor’s
implements are everyday objects, “­Things that he lives around.” Canted,
this is the bridge Delany lives around, where m
­ atter and desire are lost and
found in mist and mystery.

Usually when the moon lingered ­toward the day torches ­were not set
out, and he’d be able to see all the way across the bridge, into the mar-
ket square, to the glimmer on the ­water that plashed in the fountain
at the square’s center—as long as the stalls and vending stands ­were
not yet up.
But to­night, to fight the fog that now and again closed out the
moon completely, the torches had, indeed, been lit. As the cart rolled
onto the bridge, waist-­high walls at e­ ither side and clotted shallows
beneath, the weak fire showed the crockery shapes ­under the lashed

amuse-­b ouche / 181
 canvas; then firelight slid away, leaving them black. And the bridge
thrust three meters into dim pearl—­and vanished.
He cuffed the ox’s shoulder to hurry her, confident that the old
structure was the same stone, bank to bank, as it had been by day or
by other nights. Still, images of breaks and unexplained fallings drifted
about him.16

On —th Street, just beyond Ninth Ave­nue, the bridge runs across
sunken tracks. R ­ eally, it’s just an extension of the street. (In a car, you
might not notice you’d crossed an overpass.) The stone walls are a
­little higher than my waist. Slouching comfortably, you can lean back
against them, an elbow ­either side, or you can hoist yourself up to sit.
­There’s no real walkways.
The paving is potholed.
The walls are cracked ­here, broken ­there. At least three places the
concrete has crumbled from iron supports: rust has washed down over
the pebbled exterior. Except for this twentieth-­century detail, it has
the air of a prehistoric structure.
At vari­ous times over the last half-­dozen years, I’ve walked across
it, now in the day, now at night. Somehow I never remember passing
another person on it.
It’s the proper width.
You’d have to double its length, though.
Give it the pedestrians you get a few blocks over on Eighth Ave­nue,
just above what a musician friend of mine used to call ‘Forty-­Douche’
Street: kids selling their black beauties, their Valiums, their loose
joints, the prostitutes and hustlers, the working men and ­women. Then
put the market I saw on the Italian trip Ted and I took to L’Aquila at
one end, and any East Side business district on the other, and you have
a con­temporary Bridge of Lost Desire.
It’s the bridge Joey told me he was u
­ nder that sweltering night in
July when, beside the towering garbage pile beneath it, he smelled the
first of the corpses.17

Transfer is hard life. The history of approach is terrible in its ongoing re-
movals and violent translations. Unnatural c­ auses burden e­ very step you
take. In the city, u
­ nder the bridge, to­night, murder animates the history of
dance, so you have to turn enjoyment to refusal and be open to the t­ hings

182 / chapter 14
you live around. How are you getting home to­night? Pretty soon it’ll be time
to go out into the pearl.
She said, if ­you’re ready to be less and more than ­human, to be nobody, to
have no body, to claim the nothingness that surpasses understanding, then
recognize and move against the killing even if you think it’s not you that’s
killing or being killed. We study noncompliance with civil butchery. X and
’nem w ­ ere walking in the m ­ iddle of the street. What can we do to match
that danger? Abandon flown in and out of abandonment, dance is the risk
of movement. Dance is movement at risk. Noncompliance is contact im-
provisation. He’s trying to kill this ongoing walking down the street to-
gether. He’s gone, unburied angel, and we are anti-­gone, against the times.
We study the sacrament of self-­defense, which is fulfilled in the per­sis­tent
practice of what we defend. Always already less than ­human, ­we’re more
than h ­ uman in public. Evidently, ­there can only be one ­human at a time.
Humanity is antisocial, evidently. Calm the tumultuous derangement and
mow your lawn, he said. You can be ­human by yourself but black ­don’t go it
alone. It’s a social dance, unruliness counterpoised between riot and choir,
and our melismatic looting is with child, sold all the time, but never bought.
Our numbers are queer, they w ­ on’t come out right, ’cause we keep moving
like ­simple giving in the remainder. The h ­ uman is never more or less than
one. More and less than one, ­we’re walking down the ­middle of the street. We
study staying unburied in the common underground. ­Don’t let him human-
ize us. D ­ on’t forget about X and ’nem. We an’ dem are more and less than
that. We an’ dem and X and ’nem a-go work this out. We’ve made some other
plans. Your mama’s baby’s flesh w ­ ill raze the city. In that crossing, in the rub
it bears, ­we’ll raise the city. We are the engine that ­will raze this city. What
neither begins nor ends is that we are the engine that ­will raise this city. On
Earth, where we read the worlds he makes in force against song and dance,
we are instruments at work and play, in touch and taste, of tongue and roof,
for mouth and bridge. Just a taste, and our amusement, and it’s gone. This is
our invitation to dance—­out of nothing, till ­there’s nothing at all.

amuse-­b ouche / 183
chapter 15

Collective
Head
0.
In the hope of renewing the antiprofessional profession and professoriate of
deviance, where certain sly growls and sweetly devoted cuts of pedagogical
irascibility-­in-­love sound the deepest commitment to insurgent study, let’s
move in the prolific distinction between the city and the commune that ani-
mates ­these passages from the Grundrisse.

With its coming together in the city, the commune possesses an eco-
nomic existence as such; the city’s mere presence, as such, distinguishes
it from a mere multiplicity of in­de­pen­dent ­houses. The ­whole, h ­ ere,
consists not merely of its parts. It is a kind of in­de­pen­dent organism.
Among the Germanic tribes, where the individual f­ amily chiefs settled
in the forests, long distances apart, the commune exists, already from
outward observation, only in the periodic gathering-­together [Ver­
einigung] of the commune members, although their unity-­in-­itself
is posited in their ancestry, language, common past and history, e­ tc.
The commune thus appears as a coming-­together [Vereinigung], not
as a being-­together [Verein]; as a unification made up of in­de­pen­dent
subjects, landed proprietors, and not as a unity. The commune there-
fore does not in fact exist as a state or po­liti­cal body, as in classical
antiquity, ­because it does not exist as a city. . . . ​The commune is nei-
ther the substance of which the individual appears as a mere accident;
nor is it a generality with a being and unity as such [seiende Einheit]
­either in the mind and in the existence of the city and of its civic needs
as distinct from t­ hose of the individual, or in its civic land and soil
as its par­tic­u­lar presence as distinct from the par­tic­u­lar economic
presence of the commune member; rather, the commune, on the one
side, is presupposed in-­itself prior to the individual proprietors as a
communality of language, blood, e­ tc., but it exists as a presence, on the
other hand, only in its real assembly for communal purposes; and to
the extent that it has a par­tic­u­lar economic existence in the hunting
and grazing lands for communal use, it is so used by each individual
proprietor as such, not as representative of the state (as in Rome); it
is ­really the common property of the individual proprietors, not of the
­union of t­hese proprietors endowed with an existence separate from
themselves, the city itself.
 . . . ​Now, wealth is on one side a ­thing, realized in ­things, material
products, which a ­human being confronts as subject; on the other side,
as value, wealth is merely command over alien l­abour not with the
aim of ruling, but with the aim of private consumption, e­ tc. It appears
in all forms in the shape of a t­ hing, be it an object or be it a relation
mediated through the object, which is external and accidental to the
individual. Thus the old view, in which the h ­ uman being appears as
the aim of production, regardless of his limited national, religious,
po­liti­cal character, seems to be very lofty when contrasted to the
modern world, where production appears as the aim of mankind and
wealth as the aim of production. In fact, however, when the limited
bourgeois form is stripped away, what is wealth other than the uni-
versality of individual needs, capacities, pleasures, productive forces,
­etc., created through universal exchange? The full development of
­human mastery over the forces of nature, t­hose of so-­called nature
as well as of humanity’s own nature? The absolute working-­out of his
creative potentialities, with no presupposition other than the previ-
ous historic development, which makes this totality of development,
i.e., the development of all ­human powers as such the end in itself,
not as mea­sured on a predetermined yardstick? Where he does not
reproduce himself in one specificity, but produces his totality? Strives
not to remain something he has become, but is in the absolute move-
ment of becoming? In bourgeois economics—­and in the epoch of pro-
duction to which it corresponds—­this complete working-­out of the
­ uman content appears as a complete emptying-­out, this universal
h
objectification as total alienation, and the tearing-­down of all limited,
one-­sided aims as sacrifice of the h ­ uman end-­in-­itself to an external
end. This is why the childish world of antiquity appears on one side as
loftier. On the other side, it ­really is loftier in all ­matters where closed
shapes, forms and given limits are sought for. It is satisfaction from a

collective head / 185
 limited standpoint; while the modern gives no satisfaction; or, where
it appears satisfied with itself, it is vulgar.1

That distinction allows Karl Marx both to define property (with the serial, lo-
comotivic intensity of a runaway tenor man) and to distinguish it from wealth.
Moreover, that distinction’s offspring—­the difference between personhood
and citizenship that grounds Marx’s critique of the abstract equivalence of
bourgeois subjects (in the delusional isolation of settlement, enclosure, pro-
priety, home), which is nurtured in the appositional rub of personhood and
thingliness afforded by a kind of deviance from and in Marx’s elucidation of
the commodity (its fetish character, its secret, its relation to the very idea of
a general equivalent)—is poised to grow into the rough beauty of the “real as-
sembly.” We ­ought not be able to keep from imagining the real assembly—­the
gathering of ­things in the flesh, of fantasy in the hold—as the fecund caress
of earth/commune/school/lab/jam/(collective) head, where the performed
devotion of calling and responding in anarrangement refuses ­every enclo-
sure of its resources.
To speak of the ­thing that is before the city—as the previousness of a rig-
orously ­imagined con­temporary projection of an insistent, departive turning
over of soil and blood and language—is to engage in something that wants to
be called sentimentalism while asking you to remember that sentimentalism
is the aesthetics (which is interinanimate with the extrapo­liti­cal sociality)
of the unfinished proj­ect of abolition and reconstruction that is our most
enduring legacy of successful, however attenuated, strug­gle; and that senti-
mentalism is too often and too easily dismissed by students and devotees of
power, especially in its connection to what they dismiss as identity politics
(where such dismissals are always hypercritical of [nonmale, nonstraight,
nonwhite] identity while courteously leaving politics to its own uncriticized
devices. To be interested in the rematerialization of wealth as something out-
stripping, even as it is constitutive of, limited bourgeois-­imperialist forms
and modes is to think such rematerialization as an anticolonial complaint
for the anarchic, undercommon) permeation borne by what would have
been outside, where we work and work out the poetics of our beautifully
ugly feelings, as Thelonious Monk + Sianne Ngai might say. To be interested
in this subtensive irruption is to be concerned with what a genuine antico-
lonialism might be.
My teacher, Masao Miyoshi, studies and extends this subtensive irrup-
tion by way of architecture’s vexed instantiations, its mixture of tragedy and

186 / chapter 15
utopia, its interinanimation and repression of work/thing/play/image. Op-
erating at the intersection of per­for­mance and architecture, at per­for­mance’s
disruption of architecture, its bringing to bear on architecture an outside/r,
Professor Miyoshi is concerned with the rupture of restricted economies,
t­ hose privatized sites of public exclusions in which the naturalized limit, like
some retroactively indeterminate wall or door of ­houses that are ­imagined
to have built themselves, bespeaks a mode of rationality that would posit the
externality as something other than e­ ither the effect or object or victim of
surreptitiously intentional nonintention. Exterior ­things pierce naturalized
economic exclusion, envelopment, and exploitation, thereby initiating the
work of abolition and reconstruction: on the one hand, they body forth an-
tagonisms; on the other hand, and deeper still, in discovering them, invent-
ing them, making three-­or four-­part inventions and interventions in or on
them with the outside h ­ uman voice of city nature, they intimate the general
antagonism, the general economy.
Reflecting on the (anti-)aesthetic experience of the immediate periph-
eries of Taipei, Tokyo/Yokohama, and Seoul, Professor Miyoshi considers
the outskirts of ­these intensely localized communes in capitalism’s newly
reglobalized space as monuments to an accumulative drive that marks the
derivation of the proper from the commune. He also notes that while they
are erected with the ironic capitulation of a certain mode of architectural
genius, ­these communities are often characterized by residents and tour-
ists alike as drab, sprawling, unattractive working-­and middle-­class slums.
However (or, perhaps more precisely, therefore), Professor Miyoshi’s re-
flections turn ­toward the life that is both embedded in and escapes ­these
city edges (as the outside that allows the very constitution of their centers),
which is symbolized by the merry playing of ­children and the everyday
work of their elders, something Marx gestures t­ oward in the presupposi-
tion of their activity, which is represented as individual property by way
of the power that is vested in, and invested by, enclosed commonality and
which is, before that, in the double sense of before, the ­thing that underlies
and surrounds enclosure. Professor Miyoshi’s complaint, a recording with
differences of the beautiful m
­ usic that emerges from and as assembly’s ser-
ration, helps illuminate the city’s underconceptual, undercommunal under-
ground and outskirts that Marx (re)produces without discovering, in and as
the very essence and emanation of his phrasing. Professor Miyoshi is finely
attuned to the collective dissonance and logic of irreducibly economic exis-
tence, “the universality of individual needs, capacities, pleasures, productive

collective head / 187
forces, ­etc., created through universal exchange” that is per­sis­tently lived
as wealth in the commune, as the proj­ect of the proj­ect(s). Which we wrap
around ourselves as a kind of shawl, since we are poor (in spirit).
Professor Miyoshi’s attunement takes the form of a question: How do
­ eople live in the absence of that infinitely expandable list of “amenities” fig-
p
ured as “necessary”? But one might also put it this way: How do ­people live in
the absence of the attractive? Or one could even ask: How do ­people live in the
absence of any point of attraction? Life, in the very fugitivity of the working
and playing that escape what­ever might have been experienced or theorized
as its own bare self, turns in this turning, divisive, recollective run of ques-
tions, demanding the pivot Professor Miyoshi enacts. Moreover, his veered
inquiry is aesthetic however much it might seem that that aesthetic has been
liquidated or overcome or avoided in its constant throwing of itself beyond
its categories, as Duke Ellington + Sianne Ngai might say. Implicit in this
step/run/fall/dance is something essential to the general structure of com-
plaint. It is a need that ­will have been inseparable from capacity, plea­sure,
productive force given in exchange’s irreducible sociality, the contrapun-
tal anarrangement of its collective head. That pivot, where life’s exhausted
beauty initializes the questions concerning its absence that appear to be its
antecedents, is this: Is ­there something on the order of a life of attractions,
which might be thought in relation to an architecture of attractions, a life
and an architecture of attractions in the absence of any point of attraction?
This question assumes the necessity of the aesthetic dimension of
anticoloniality.
Moreover, its occasion, Professor Miyoshi’s occasion, demands that we
consider the sentimental pedagogical aesthetics of the curmudgeon, whose
enduring message to his students is “Always complain!” and whose critico-­
celebratory feelings make pos­si­ble an investigation of the relationship be-
tween what some combination of José Gil and Kevin Lynch might call the
theoretical image of the city and something Samuel R. Delany intimates as
a submerged and negative inscription of its prefigurative gathering on the
underside of a mediating surface or lens, (in)sight made (un)available by the
­ ater.2 What is this image of the t­ hing that happens when
motion of light in w
a limited form (the city of attractions and its attendant, etiolated notion of
wealth and necessity) is stripped away? Maybe you have to be a curmudgeon
to ask questions that bring the world and the city—­their geo­graph­i­cal de-
lineations and historical divisions—­into play by way of the question of the
­thing, this indexing of the commune and the earth that anticipate and sur-

188 / chapter 15
vive the end of the city and the end of the world by placing them ­under the
disarranging pressure of performative study. The t­ hing itself is also brought
into play in such questioning. The thing-­in-­play, in turn, turns t­oward the
question of (the) work, the work in play, the work-­in-­progress, which, for
Professor Miyoshi, leads to the problematic clash, if you w ­ ill, of two utopias
or, more precisely, the eclipse of (a modernist) one by its (postmodern) other.
As he writes:

Architectural discourse, like that of city planning, is inescapably uto-

pian. Possibly b ­ ecause a completed building no longer belongs to its
architect but rather to its buyers and users, architecture is only fully
itself while it is a blueprint ­under construction and thus still address-
ing a f­ uture condition. This f­ uture most preoccupies us during phases
of violent cultural change. How can an urban building relate to the
changing demands of a city? How can a city respond to its “global-
ized” economic needs? Such questions occupy a major portion of the
architect’s and city planner’s thoughts. Yet the f­ uture of a building and/
or a city is necessarily negotiated with the dominant powers, ­those
who manage and administer as well as own and dictate. The dreams
of ­those who or­ga­nize and direct are increasingly transnational and
corporate.3

The rejection of modernist utopianism around 1970 was prob­ably un-

avoidable. In the past two de­cades in par­tic­u­lar, the social contradic-
tions built into bourgeois capitalism w ­ ere too brutal to contemplate in
a single, seamless context. For culture industry employees, the choice
was ­either to convert ­these contradictions into disjunctive fragments or
to dissolve the materiality of the contradictions into linguistic games.
The best example of the former strategy is the sharp division of all
knowledge into disciplines and professions so that no one can gain an
inkling of totality. Each sector is mandated to develop exclusive terms
and methodologies as if it could successfully seal its autonomy. (To­
talization is perhaps now the dirtiest word in the academia of indus-
trialized countries.) An example of the latter strategy is a reassertion
of linguistic and discursive priority where material obstructions such
as poverty, suppression, and re­sis­tance are decomposed and erased in
abstract blurs and blobs. (Hence, the popularity of terms like hybrid­
ity and discourse.) Both are gestures of surrender and homage to the
dominant in the hope that culture employees might be granted a share

collective head / 189
 of the corporate profits. So-­called global capitalism is a supremely
exclusive version of utopia, to which “intellectuals” ache to belong.
Actually, global economy is merely a maximum use of world resources
via maximum exclusion.4

For Professor Miyoshi, the eclipse of modernist architectural utopia-

nism is signed by the demise of mass public housing proj­ects that, no lon-
ger an object of planning, have become objects of de­mo­li­tion. The utopian
nature of architecture is tied to the utopian nature of city planning; how-
ever, the utopian is the in-­progress, the in-­playness of the ­thing, the (art)
work, the planning away of the city into, and which is also enacted by, the
real assembly or assemblage that is pres­ent outside and under­neath the city’s
absence. To ask the question concerning that ­thing is to bring the outside so
deep inside that it cuts that opposition u ­ ntil it c­ an’t be seen then cuts where
it was. Such questioning engages in a thinking that is something other than
the detached contemplation that occurs in detached ­houses or isolated huts.
It is, rather, the anaprojective poetics of the proj­ects and it effects a kind
of inhabitation—­directed, in this case, ­toward the problematic of inhabita-
tion, where building, dwelling, and thinking go together in ways that reveal
how Martin Heidegger’s most characteristic sound is often, fi­nally and sur-
prisingly, a recording of a specifically Marxian ­music. This inhabitation is a
movement that Miyoshi characterizes as outside architecture. More specifi-
cally, he speaks of a rematerialization of architecture that would constitute
its genuine eradication, rather than a d ­ oing away with its utopian displace-
ments. Part of what’s at stake is that t­ hese utopian displacements might very
well be the way into a re­sis­tance to state power and its conception of private
wealth.

I think of a more literal and less ce­re­bral eradication of architecture: to

bring architecture around to the material context, to the outside space
where ordinary workers live and work with ­little participation in the
language, texts, and discourse of architecture.
Modernism—­with all of its ills—­was at least mindful of t­hose left
outside architecture. Urban workers had their housing proj­ects, though
ugly, unlivable, and fi­nally useless. ­Today’s industrial cities eliminate
t­ hose rational monstrosities and, with them, homes for vast numbers
of p­ eople. Las Vegas has a steadily increasing population of home-
less ­people, but no one remembers to mention them. In the streets
of Kawasaki and Keelung, on the other hand, t­here are still homes

190 / chapter 15
 and apartments, however hideous. ­Whether they are inhabitable or
not should not be hastily deci­ded—­especially by ­those who do not live
t­ here.
We cannot return to modernism. We do, however, need to think
about shelter and workplaces for anyone, anywhere, and indeed,
“anywise.” How we live is fi­nally not that impor­tant; that we live is . . . ​
Perhaps, instead of building guilty conscience into aesthetically, theo-
retically, intellectually admirable but useless shapes and forms, we
might stroll in the streets of Kawasaki, Keelung, and Puchon (west
of Seoul) and learn how p ­ eople live in t­ hese “filthy” and “uninviting”
places. T­ here may be more life ­there than in architecture’s patronage
­houses, where the patrons are not always more satisfied or more com-
fortable than the residents of t­ hese streets.5

This outside and insovereign place can be thought more literally by way of
the theoretical image with which Professor Miyoshi begins: that of ­children
playing on the streets, outside the proj­ect, outside the dismal h ­ ouse and its
antisocial science. They play outside architectural discourse, too, with ex-
treme subcommunal enjoyment. The ones who live and work and play out-
side the modernist architectural structure are Professor Miyoshi’s object
­here, but ­there is, deeper still, a rigorous mode of study that animates his
words—­a proj­ect mode that is thoroughly theoretical, intellectual, and, above
all, aesthetic, and which is enabled precisely by the curmudgeonly “rejection”
of ­these. Professor Miyoshi recognizes that the city is where life escapes but
that recognition is already embedded in a thinking of the undercommons, the
(­under)commune, against and outside and before the city. He thinks outside
the city in the interest of what w ­ ill have surrounded it just as surely as he
wants to think and inhabit an architecture whose rematerialization makes
it an architecture outside architecture. Outside as in before, of the attrac-
tion against attractions and amenities, of attraction in the supposedly unat-
tractive, whose ­music is discomposed by the curmudgeon, the outsider, the
metoikos, the fugitive, the exile, the hermit, the complainer. The attraction
of the unattractive moves in another ecol­ogy. Where e­ lse can that thinking
occur now but at the edge of the (image of the) city? How might we persist
as a scar at the underedge of the university, which wants to be the economic
engine of the urban apparition, which wants to police the apparitional polis,
which would enclose the essential gift that animates and undermines it?
How do we renew the presence that turns the absence of the city and the

collective head / 191
university inside out? How can we access the breath and (en)lightning that
remains of Professor Miyoshi’s destruktive and devoted inhabitation? ­These
are questions for my friend, José Muñoz.

1.
At bottom, above all, in the heart of it all, on the outskirts of it all, for José
queerness is its own deliciously filthy and uninviting utopian proj­ect, one
whose temporal dimensionality is manifest not only as projection into the
­future but also as projection of a certain futurity into and onto the pres­
ent and the past, piercing their previous arrangement and administration.
Queerness has a spatial dimension for José but only insofar as it is located in
displacement, at sites that are both temporary and shifting, in underground,
virtual neighborhoods, ephemeral, disappearing clubs, and ordinary, everyday
venues broken and reconstructed by extraordinary everynight presences whose
traces animate his writing with the sound and feel—as well as the princi­ple—
of hope. Like Heidegger, but wholly against Heidegger’s grain, José inhabits
the convergence of “ecstasy” as spatiotemporal derangement with “existence”
as stepping in and out of time. He studies study’s performative appearance in
and as the social life of the alternative. He knows that sometimes the alterna-
tive is lost. That sometimes it has to get lost. That sometimes the alternative is
loss. To be or to get lost might be neither to hide nor to dis­appear. Similarly:
to lose, to relinquish, or to veer away from—­even if within—­a given economy
of accumulation: J­ osé thinks this in relation to, or as a certain disruption of,
property, of propriety, of possession and self-­possession, of the modes of sub-
jectivity ­these engender, especially in fucked-up, Locke/d down, Amer­i­ca. In-
appropriateness such as José’s—­which is his, and his alone, b ­ ecause it is not
his, b
­ ecause he gave it to us from wherever he was and gives it to us from
wherever he is—­remains undefined by the interplay of regulation and accu-
mulation that it induces.
Consider (which is to say feel, which is to say dig) Kevin Aviance (deviance
and essence, the trace of another scent and gest and groove) as José ap-
proaches (which is to say dances with, which is to say grounds with) him—­
accursed share and shard, cracked vessel of essence-­in-­motion, counterfetish
instantiating the critique of possession that only the dispossessed can make.
Such consideration i­sn’t easy. In their mutual approach, José and Aviance
become something ­else; something ­else becomes them and we have to try
to get beautiful like that. That beauty is hard, brown, black, black brown

192 / chapter 15
and beige, tinged with the sadness that attends our, and that keeps us, mov-
ing through the ongoing history of brutal enjoyment to get to what survival
demands that we enjoy. José says that on the way to that—in the slow, in-
escapably lowdown path of our escape—we critically rush the impasse of
our fetishization, the sociosynaptic (log)jam that keeps us from becoming
instruments for one another, which is our destiny. What José knows about
Aviance is what we also know about José. If the force of the counterfetish is
lost in the Roxy, lost in all the vari­ous pragmatisms whose asses José kicked,
lost in Marx though he, at least, as Louis Althusser might say, produces the
concept that José came to discover; if the “fetish, in its Marxian dimensions,
is about occlusion, displacement, concealment and illusion,” then it can also
be said to be about loss or to be the lost.6 The fetish is repre­sen­ta­tion of loss
or of the lost. The condition of possibility of this necessary repre­sen­ta­tional
function is loss. Heidegger might say that the fetish, or the counterfetishistic
property of the fetish, tends t­ oward unconcealment, aletheia, truth. He would
say that unconcealment has concealment at its heart, which we recognize in the
anarepre­sen­ta­tional content that is borne, the ephemeral and performative
energy that is transmuted and transmitted, when Aviance and José dance their
queer, spooky pas de deux at a distance. What Marx figures as subjunctive we
now know to be ­actual. This is to say that José neither reads nor interprets the
rematerialization of dance; he extends it, becomes part of the ongoing remate-
rialization that is (its) per­for­mance. This is a mi­grant curve evading straight-
ness and its time. This is the counterfetishistic, redistributive, performative,
gesturally perfumative content of José’s writing, which theorizes loss as the in-
stantiation of another condition of possibility: the prefigurative supplement of
loss that deconstructs and reconstructs identity, that reproduces a personhood
at odds with, or radically lost within, the accumulative-­possessional drive;
the f­ uture lost in the pres­ent, fugitive of and in the pres­ent; our subterranean
movement; the shard of light we share.
José—­ whose irreplaceability is given in that he was movement in
collaboration—­sheds that light on and with Aviance. They remain as “queer
ephemera, transmutation of the per­for­mance energy, that also function as
a beacon for queer possibility and survival” so we can see ourselves, both
descriptively and prescriptively, as the history of abnormative in(ter)ven-
tion.7 We have to see our everynight selves like that everyday, u
­ ntil the party
becomes The Party; and though ­we’re not party to this exchange, ­because
­we’re not, we feel it, b
­ ecause it moves through us when we feel (for) one
another. The ones who d
­ on’t see the gravity of this have never been on, let

collective head / 193
alone ­under, the ground. Such grounding, such approach, is José, flying. The
velocity of his escape remains in (f )light, as what we fight with and for. See,
if Aviance and José hip us to the notion that ephemera mark the ongoing
production of (a) per­for­mance whose origin is always before us, then ­every
vanishing point signals the inevitability of a return, even if it’s just in the way
we get up tomorrow, even if our loss makes us not want to get up, b ­ ecause
tomorrow ­we’ll see that the one we lost has left us something to help us find
him. Deeper still, way before the end, the ephemeral counterfetish w ­ ill ­either
make the bosses beautiful—­multiply perspectival, contrapuntally out, in re-
covery of what’s lost in the stiffness of their stride and minds—or destroy
them. Now that Professor Miyoshi and José are, along with Marx, lost and
found, improperly dispersed in us, it’s our job, our animated and animative
­labor, to bear that, to be borne by that, to keep being reborn in that—so we
have to keep on playing.

2.
One of Professor Miyoshi’s most impor­tant and celebrated works, “A Border-
less World? From Colonialism to Transnationalism over the Decline of the
Nation-­State,” is reprinted in Politics-Poetics: Documenta X—­the Book.8 In this
reprint his words are juxtaposed with photo­graphs of Lygia Clark’s work or
nonwork or work-­in-­progress or per­for­mance or ­thing or play Cabeça Coletiva
(Collective Head). T ­ here is, in par­tic­u­lar, what the editors identify as a picture
of Cabeça Coletiva moving or being moved down a street in Rio de Janeiro in
1976, out of or in withdrawal from Clark’s authorship and control. It’s like a
float into which ­people have entered or, somehow, returned as if in exile from
exile; a float like a hat that a group of ­people wears; a hat like a garden that a
bunch of ­people cultivate; a garden like a living that a congregation serves; a
living like an artwork that a curacy disperses. It is work at play in the city on
the order of a theoretical image (à la Gil and Delany, on the one hand, Lynch
and Fredric Jameson, on the other) of the city that is outside and before the
city, the city of displacement now given as the axiomatic primitive of a new
ecol­ogy, a general economy. It marks attraction in the absence of the attrac-
tive, friendship in the absence of the amenity, moving in what André Lepecki
might call an extension of Clark’s own (non)performative “withdrawal of her
body’s presence,” where withdrawal might also be understood—as in Gil and
Eleonora Fabião—as complication: body turned through absence into pres­
ent paradox, secret divulged in secretion.9 What forty years earlier in Kansas

194 / chapter 15
City they might have called a (collective) head arrangement moves down the
street in Rio as and on the way to what Clark would call an empty fullness,
the “vazio-­pleno,” that anti-­or antesubjective no-­thing-­ness of the plenum
that displaced carioca Denise Ferreira da Silva illuminates in her special and
general theories of the no-­body.10 In the dispersive, differential gathering of
the proj­ect, the projective work, the resonant instrument and collective head
walking hand in hand in a field of feel, an approach ­toward a social physics
of psychical flesh is practically i­ magined as an undercommon pre­ce­dence of
the city, before (and up ahead of ) the nation-­state, its local antecedents and
its global residue. Such rematerialized, transportive, anarchitecturally an-
arranged utopianism constitutes a nonexclusionary urban plan, structured
by communicability rather than relation, in acknowl­edgment of an already
given and incalculable wealth.
It turns out that the end of “Outside Architecture” echoes the end of
“A Borderless World?”: “Los Angeles and New York, Tokyo and Hong Kong,
Berlin and London are all teeming with ‘strange-­looking’ ­people. And U. S.
academics quite properly study them as a plurality of presences. But before
we look distantly at them and give them over to their specialists, we need to
know why they are where they are. What are the forces driving them? How
do they relate to our everyday life? Who is ­behind all this drifting?”11
Now what’s the relation between t­ hese strange-­looking ­people, ­these out-
siders, ­these metoikoi and the ones who are outside architecture in their own
homes, the ones dancing in their collective head, like Lygia Clark or Ornette
Coleman or Kevin Aviance? What is the nature of this before of the distant
look, a thinking antecedent to detached contemplation? Direct examination
is distinguished from distant look, from the distancing of po­liti­cal actuality
and the detached contemplation of p ­ eople in/at/as work-­in-­play. The before
of the distant look is an inhabitation, an assembly, a public t­hing, that is
nothing, fi­nally, if not aesthetic, that is driven by nothing if not the intensity
of a ­whole other payment of attention. Inhabitation, ­here, is immediately a
question of drift. To think ­those who are outside architecture alongside the
“strange-­looking” ­people is to consider the universal exchange of extraor-
dinary lives. The question of the architecture, economy, and ecol­ogy of our
down-­and-­out commonality is the song-­like question of the earth that is also,
and immediately, the question of art to the extent that it is bound not only
to the ability to inhabit the differential but irreducible totality but also to
deal with the mobile jurisgenerativity of dwelling. The collective head always
complains, always sings together; the collective head is coming-­together,

collective head / 195
way on the outskirts of town. To complain is to sing with that communist
sound to which Professor Miyoshi and José are attuned and which they am-
plify and extend insofar as their work is an open installation, the t­ hing you
live in and play in and play and wear and are.
When Professor Miyoshi and José encounter one another in the call for
the art/work/play/thing of a queer, utopian, futurial anarchitecture—­not
( just) as something sculptural but in/as irreducible presences of improper,
impersonative flesh in all its thingliness and earthly inhabitation—­they are
calling for and also joining a rematerialization of wealth, of what we ­ought
to trea­sure in what is always ­here, the f­ uture in our pres­ent that is beauti-
ful however unheard or unappreciated. He calls for the actuality of what is
often feared in artistic presencing; for an architecture of what ­people out-
side architecture, outside the h ­ ouse and the city, outside citizenship and
subjectivity, outside settlement and sovereignty, do to all of ­these by living;
for an architecture set up to receive aninstrumental, anarchitectural d ­ oing,
thinging, thinking; for a communal, anarchic, textural environment that is
ecological, social, and personal. This is also to call for a necessary reconfigu-
ration of economics—­beyond the rapaciously incorporative incorporealities
of what Randy Martin calls the “financialization of daily life”—so as no lon-
ger imperiously and imperially to exclude, by way of the most violent calcula-
tions of forced and rationalized inclusions and in/corporations, externalities
(not just unaccounted for costs but also irreducibly originary material ben-
efits), in their undercommon and erotic indebtedness.12 It is in the interest
of unsettling, of the unsettled who are without interest, that Marx, Miyoshi,
and Muñoz walk the resonant bridge between the city and the commune. I
once heard Professor Miyoshi speak, with a mixture of understanding and
impatience, of Edward Said’s need for art, which he understood as a tendency
to veer away from the urgent necessity to concentrate on the economic. But
José lets us know that attunement to the economic, where the economic is
an irreducibly edgy anoriginarity that Marx would call the commune, leads
immediately to the aesthetic so that the need for art w ­ ill manifest itself ma-
terially, as the rematerialization of wealth that Marx also calls for by way of
his production, if not discovery, of the commune, his undercommon making
and joining of the real assembly. What emerges is an aesthetic of material
wealth and beauty that also allows discussion of the ugliness by which it is
permeated. The aesthetic’s improper home is the curmudgeon’s inappropri-
ate office, the bitch’s loving fierceness, which is what we should have been
trea­suring all along. We move, along with Marx, Miyoshi, and Muñoz, in

196 / chapter 15
anticipation of rearrangement, in step with anarrangement, as if remotely
performing Clark’s collective head arrangement, her anoperatic offering of
the subrepublican public t­ hing, and Aviance’s ongoing proj­ect of the broken
vessel, his projection of its immanence and emanation, the outside we live
(in), our making and joining and renewal of the real assembly.

collective head / 197
chapter 16

Cornered,
Taken, Made to Leave
3.
Some ideas I’ve been working around: (1) I can no longer see discrete forms

in art as ­viable reflections or expressions of what seems to be ­going on in this

society. They refer back to conditions of separateness, order, exclusivity, and

the stability of easily accepted functional identities which no longer exist.

For what a posteriori seems to be this reason, I’m interested in the elimi-

nation of the discrete form as art object (including communications media

objects), with its isolate internal relationships and self-­determining esthetic

standards. I’ve been ­doing pieces the significance and experience of which

is defined as completely as pos­si­ble by the viewer’s reaction and interpreta-

tion. Ideally the work has no meaning or in­de­pen­dent existence outside of its

function as a medium of change.—­A DRIAN ­P IPER

­ hese remarks w
T ­ ill make sense only within the general assumption that the
Atlantic slave trade and settler colonialism (in themselves, which is also to
say in the traces of the insistently previous but anoriginal displacements and
emplacements they bear) are irreducible conditions of global modernity—­
that is, of the very idea of the global and the very idea of modernity. T
­ hese
ideas include and proj­ect modernism, which is also to say postmodernism.
They include and proj­ect this institution (i.e., the museum, this museum),
which includes, in turn, the enactment of our interinanimate inhabitation
of and escape from it, which is eventually to say, more generally, the entire
structure of the proper—­appropriation and expropriation, proprioception
and aproprioception, propriety and impropriety. When being-­in-­the-­world
is who you are, and who you are is what you own, and what you own is where
and when you are, then what it is to have been taken and to have been made
to leave, which marks again and again the already inexhaustible vestibule of
what is known and lived as the exhausted, is the beginning and the end of the
world. We study passage in overcrowding. Dismembered, dissed nonmem-
bers, having dissed membership, we attend (to) the plenary, as indiscretion.

4.
Cornered, on the corner, cut, cur(at)ed, a coat hook for some headphones, to
listen to a language you d ­ on’t have. Is listening to a language you d ­ on’t have
like looking at a face you ­don’t have? I ­don’t have Arabic, so I ­can’t even know
for sure if it is Arabic, but t­here’s a fuchsia circle around her face and this
crowdedness fades. Inshallah comes as beautiful recognition without sub-
ject, then fade, my life is in front of me. What’s in front of me when she says
my life is in front of me, then fades? Sandi Hilal, is ­every plaza roofless? Is this
an outdoor corner? Can this be an outlaw corner? This is about the difference
between being in the corner and being on the corner. Image remains—­but on
the crushed stool, in the glossblack ground, in the low mirror of Samuel Bar-
ry’s “Imagination, Dead Imagine,” in Judith Beckett’s Quad, its ratic, phenic
echo—to live the open corner like Miles Davis, in passage, in refusing to pass,
or let shit pass. This chor(e)ographed view, held in crowded, crowding black-
ness, objection’s glaze and ­favor, the accidental ensemble, digital fade’s loss of
already lost color to that wind in the image, a breath upon her face unsettling
it, moving it in stillness, in dark and shimmer, enjambed va­ri­e­ties of efface-
ment in composure, abjection’s gaze and flavor.

5.
Of passage: how to think in preparation, never to have been prepared. A way
of organ­izing ­until the general reor­ga­ni­za­tion, which is what’s g
­ oing on. I’m
waiting for my supercession even when it comes in the form of disregard
or, merely, extravagantly, of attention, of caressive attentiveness. I came in
search of a work and found a general aphanisis not in but through the ru-
ined forms of appropriation and institutional critique. Separate but equal,

cornered, taken, made to leave / 199

held in and given by a black op, its open secrecy, Johanna Burton and Darby
En­glish inform, are formed, are in formation as articulate tell in and out of
their intentions.

For quite some time, it seems, artistic dialogues regarding criticality—

by now a go-to, if also often doubted, rhetorical marker for unflinch-
ing engagements with and examinations of culture—­have revolved
largely around its precariousness or, more aptly, its likely demise. In-
deed, two of the most prominent strains of critical practice in postwar
art, appropriation and institutional critique, are by many accounts
exhausted ­today. The former is typically posited as an operation, a
kind of technique for displacement, first understood to radically lift
the veil of images and idioms—­extracting sign from syntax to dispel
cultural myths—­and allow viewers to recognize their own place in a
constructed repre­sen­ta­tional field. Yet with this operation considered
­today most often in a formal vein, images so “liberated” from their
original settings are commonly regarded as utilized in the ser­vice of
cultural amnesia, in the name of the perpetually circulating sign. As
for institutional critique, which is by contrast largely considered a kind
of articulation—an instance in which cite and work meet, with the lat-
ter making evident the ideologies and infrastructures of the former—­
even its protagonists and champions have lately posited the genre as a
­thing of the past. . . . ​The artist Andrea Fraser would in a 2005 essay
underline the degree to which institutional critique and its techniques
necessarily had to be understood as “institutionalized” themselves—­
belonging to a celebrated passage in art history regarded by many
as bolstering figures of authority more than dismantling or problema-
tizing them in any substantive way.
Regarding such assessments, however, it is useful to consider how
criticality is in fact consistently ­under duress. The term is a moving
target, historically attended by questions regarding what it is, ­whether
it can be sustained, and, moreover, ­whether it inadvertently fuels the
very entities it aims to combat.1

To demand that an image or t­hing convey p

­ eople prob­lems—­that’s a
lot to ask of an image or ­thing.
We could tell the stories of ­these practices in another way—­say, by
proposing a genealogy of appropriation and institutional critique that
also writes the history of a shift in the valences of form construction.

200 / chapter 16
 But such a history would need to leave a lot of room for aspects, even
criteria, of art that the critique of institutions often seems quite e­ ager
to set aside. Another, utterly defining ele­ment of what Wilson, Stein-
bach, and Williams had to do to create ­these works was the notably
unfussy, differently intentional act of putting stuff together. You take
something and set it next to something e­ lse in order to pose, but not
necessarily to answer, a question about their relationship. You do this
not ­because on its own it’s a particularly in­ter­est­ing ­thing to do but
b
­ ecause, as a context, art gives things-­in-­relation a capacity to inform
that no other framework can. What becomes of analy­sis and interpre-
tation when description, without which neither can proceed very far,
foregrounds the relationship—­the condition of besideness—­that is the
sine qua non of critique made manifest as art.2

On the one hand, the corner where site and work converge in and as displace-
ment; on the other hand, good fences make good neighbors, so let the work re-
claim itself in our descriptions, which must be recognized as an uptight, updiked,
held back, holding form of love. That systemic, necropercussive regularity is a
dead giveaway; one hand knows what the other hand is ­doing, then tells, le pas
de deux de l’informateurs. But setting metacritical curation and its metaphysics
of individuation aside, what if curacy is overcrowding and scarring, not know-
ing and more than knowing, in total darkness, so that the work, which is, in any
case, mad in and mad about not being one, remains u ­ nseen? Blurred portrait,
mugged mugshots (Galton + Lombroso + ­Eakins  + Muybridge + Smith + Fanon),
amputation and the range of echo it induces: spooky resonance, phantom
hapticality, haptical sociality, communicability’s constant contact in missed
communication. Network failure.

6.
Verge: the distinction between separate and fuse is maintained in collapse.

7.
The demand that a conveyed t­ hing convey (­because an image is a t­ hing; a
thought, a word, is a t­ hing: this is a m
­ atter, the m
­ atter, of poetics—­contra
weak theories and surface readings), ­because all ­things do is bear, carry,
convey one another into no-­thingness, is oppression to the one who would

cornered, taken, made to leave / 201

be ­free of ­every burden, the one who wants his artworks that way, too. On
the corner, ­there might be another ethics of social support. The works care
for, cure (cut + heal + season + preserve), curate one another in shared un-
selfconcern. Contact improvisation is their paraontological massage.

8.
Rub my ears. Why headphones but not blinders? Why protect phonic integ-
rity in accord with all this transverse, anareflective haze? En­glish speaks of
putting stuff together. Perhaps this lets us speak, more precisely, of how stuff
goes together. ­Things go together in support of one another so thoroughly
that the memory of the ­thing fades to black, nothing, in dry, exhausted
wind. This is the strong theoretical deconstruction of the very idea of one
and the very idea of an/other. Overcrowding, overflowing, my cup, my plate,
too much of not enough, abundant rupture, enformality and enarticulation
overflown away.

9.
Blackness ­isn’t a ­people prob­lem; it’s the problematization of the ­people.
Black study—­which is to say blackness: the preoccupied breath of the ones
who have been taken, who have been made to leave—is the medi(t)ation of
­things as, breaking and remaking ­every law, ­every bond, they shimmer in the
absolute disappearance, the absolute nothingness, of their sociality. En­glish
says, “As a context art gives things-­in-­relation a capacity to inform that no
other framework can.” Perhaps that which remains obscure in his phrasing
can be other­wise performed. It’s not about t­ hings being beside one another;
it’s about the very idea of the t­ hing being beside itself, touched in an absolute
and enformational nothingness. Insofar as blackness is not just one name
among o ­ thers for this condition, and precisely to that extent, blackness is
the subject of ­every artwork. The question of ­whether or not the experience
of art is a private experience comes into relief against this backdrop, and as
the limit, of En­glish’s critical endeavor and perception. When he valorizes
description, it seems as if he’s saying that the answer to the question is no.
Deeper still, normative art history, which En­glish exemplifies and seeks to
renew, is predicated not only on the essentiality of description but also on
what Paul Guyer—­interpreting Kant, who Clement Greenberg, En­glish’s
most elemental precursor, calls the first modernist—­says is “the intersub-

202 / chapter 16
jective validity of taste.”3 This supposedly intersubjective validity, which de-
scription confirms and enacts, is, I think, what Michael Fried calls “convic-
tion”: the art historian’s categorical imperative to assert that the work he
judges to be ­great must be ­great for anybody. Of course, a vast range of brutal
qualification determines who is understood to be “anybody” (as opposed to
nobody), but the issue on which I want to focus now concerns this problem-
atic of intersubjectivity. I am concerned with how it is that intersubjectivity
can, and indeed must, be aligned with (the privileges and privations of ) pri-
vate, transdescriptive experience; with how it is that En­glish’s invocation of
Robert Frost’s oft-­cited adage—­“good fences make good neighbors”—­helps
us understand the intensity of the interplay between solipsism and the ordi-
nary negation of sociality, the antisociality, that undergirds an experience of
art that is si­mul­ta­neously normative and impossible.

10.
The question of the privacy of the experience is all bound up with the ques-
tion of the privacy of the work. Besideness implies discreteness, the sepa-
ration whence spring the vari­ous beauties and uglinesses of articulation. I
want to consider, for a moment, that besideness is antisociality masquerad-
ing as what it negates; that intersubjectivity is solipsism held and enacted
within the immea­sur­able, ­because non­ex­is­tent, free-­space of the public-­
private field. Just as antisociality masquerades as sociality, so description,
within normative art history, is meant to stand in for and to instantiate the
transdescriptive loneliness that ensues when anybody, in his abstract and
exclusionary equivalence with anybody e­ lse, takes it upon himself to tell you
what he sees, insofar as what­ever it is that he sees is always only “gross effigy
and simulacrum” apprehensively attempting to apprehend itself in the mir-
roring artwork. Meanwhile, it remains for us to consider the dis/appearance
of things-­in-­relation into nothingness. Implied, ­here, is that we must or can
use the language of ­things to get to nothingness-­in/as-­sociality.

11.
When En­glish places t­ hing and image in a quite par­tic­u­lar association with one
another he does so against the grain of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s emphatic insis-
tence (as reported by Rush Rhees) on the difference between them, and on the
difference between the vari­ous grammars with which we would attend to them:

cornered, taken, made to leave / 203

 We are tempted to use the grammar which we use for a word designat-
ing a physical object—we are tempted to use this grammar for words
that designate impressions. In our primitive language most substantives
relate to some physical object or another. When then we begin to talk of
impressions, we have a temptation to use the same kind of grammar. . . . ​
Our craving is to make the grammar of the sense datum similar to the
grammar of the physical body. That was why the term “sense datum”
was introduced—it being the “private object” corresponding to the “pub-
lic object.”4

When Wittgenstein says, also, that “it seems to p ­ eople unavoidable to hy-
postatize a feeling,” it tempts one to consider that the interplay between the
artwork’s form and the art historian’s conviction that description mediates
between that form and its viewers is not only best characterized as hypos-
tatization but is also best understood as the necessarily failed structure of
public-­private rapprochement.5 The essentially impossible relation between
­things, in failed correspondence with the essentially impossible relation
between anybodies, turns out to do its most impor­tant work in guarding
the border, necessarily fictive, between anybodies (supposedly bound to one
another by the intersubjective validity of their taste) and nobodies (held to-
gether in the fantastic and terrible hapticality of their flavor).

12.
Just as Wittgenstein recognizes the futility of wishing for some absolute
separation of (the grammars of ) sense datum and object (impression/image
and t­hing), it’s prob­ably futile for us to wish for some absolute separation
of relational ­things and nothingness-­in/as-­sociality. Perhaps Piet Mondrian
was also teaching us this, more or less si­mul­ta­neously: that it’s ok to use the
grammar of repre­sen­ta­tion as long as you recognize the vari­ous problematics
that attend that use and, above all, as long as you recognize not only that the
operative relation is neither that between image and ­thing, nor that between
­thing and ­thing, but that between ­things and nothing—­that what’s at stake
is not held in the nexus of repre­sen­ta­tionality in/as relationality but in a cer-
tain haptical sociality which, in some incredibly cool ways, the experience
of this show helps us to produce. The overwhelming, Althusserian question
concerns how and by what mechanisms we can move from production to dis-
covery. How do we conceptualize this haptical sociality when we remain be-

204 / chapter 16
holden to or held by the grammar of relation-­in/as-­representation? Another
way to put it is that the Althusserian question allows us to move through
an Althusserian problematic or, at least Althusser’s oft-­referenced way of
thinking and valorizing articulation, “articulated combination,” his transla-
tion of Marx’s par­tic­u­lar inflection of and upon Gliederung. I’m listening for
an enarticulate murmur—­the informal noise that attends enformation’s and
deformation’s constant undoing of information.

13.
The relation between image and t­ hing, given in the relation between image
and viewer, is taken away, as it w ­ ere, by what the viewer must recognize as
the material thingliness of the image. Strangely, this rematerialization of the
image, even in artworks that purport to be interested in and to instantiate
the dematerialization of the object, is shut down when the viewer fails to rec-
ognize his thingly materiality in all the fragility of its figuration. This is to say
that the prob­lem, again, i­sn’t so much the interplay of reflection and repre­
sen­ta­tion; it is, rather the displacement and suppression of an imaginary
and temporary relation between t­hings (viewer and artwork) by an imagi-
nary and endless nonrelation, masquerading as relation, between images.
This is what arises when the viewer thinks of himself as form rather than
as substance. Alas, En­glish is unconcerned with relations between ­things
­either within the artwork or between the artwork and the viewer. He is con-
cerned, rather, with the impossible relations that obtain between forms, that
general field of antisociality that is best described, again, in the adage “good
fences make good neighbors.” The best neighbor is the one who remains
unseen insofar as to see him is to see yourself. Meanwhile, the concept of
relations between t­hings, even as it is inevitably and hopelessly lost in de-
scription’s transdescriptive signal, might prepare us, in its fictiveness, for the
burly, airily affectable pres­ent—­the catalytic indiscretion that ruptures (even
against P­ iper’s grain) the very idea of (inter-­and intra-)subjective aesthetic
experience—­that being-­cornered keeps on giving.

cornered, taken, made to leave / 205

chapter 17

Enjoy All
Monsters
14.
I was never quite stopped short by an individual work in Mike Kelley’s mas-
sive retrospective, but I was continually stunned, disturbed, and overjoyed to
be walking around in the midst and mist and remains of a mystical/monastic
practice, his intense and palpable devotion, which had to have been an ev-
eryday ­thing. The closest I came to the kind of “objectifying encounter with
otherness” that some folks think is the hallmark of genuine aesthetic experi-
ence was early on, when I was momentarily held by a few works that, among
other ­things, place Kelley, or show Kelley emphatically placing himself,
within the canonical trajectory of Western art history. Paused before Kelley’s
Odalisque—­a late Kandorsian epiphenomenon, exiled from the neon’d city,
laid out as muted ground control, a burnt-­out remnant that vertical, monu-
mental super man left b ­ ehind—­one becomes aware of the operation in which
blackness and the reclining nude brush up against one another in mutually
asymmetrical ser­vice remixed by fire. In the midst and mix of all this color it’s
the black(ness) in Kelley’s art that I’m drawn to, as if the spectrum’s citizenry
­were mere prosthesis, accessory, or trim, like some punkish, mohawk purple
topping off the traditional hardcore black on black in black. The richness and
diversity of Kelley working, his trial, his pilgrimage, comes to a head in black,
which pierces the diversity of his world like shards of be­hav­ior behaved many
times. I want to see if I can figure this out. Obviously, all this stuff is about the
way we live. On the other hand, paused before Horizontal Tracking Shots,
one is given brutality backstage at the color field. Hans Hoffman turns out to
have been your ­daddy and your ­daddy turns out to have been Mr. Gradgrind.
Black. White. (and in). Color. ­Later, color comes back way too terribly beau-
tifully in the rest of Kandors (Kal-­El’s hometown, some undetroited ­under
and overdetroit that lies hidden in Los Angeles as Los Angeles’s alternative,
like far east Melrose’s Guatemalan storefronts or far south Central’s far east
Mississippi thump) as Hoffman’s revenge or retreat. Retreated Hoffman is
dif­fer­ent than retweeted Hoffman, evidently, and Kelley gives us an extra
unhealthy helping. This is a recalibration and re­distribution of what’s bad
for you ­because it seems as if Hoffman is kitschy now, and not just b
­ ecause
Kelley says “Beauty can only be Kitsch.” This is something all bound up with
the thwarted black queerness, or queer blackness, of a ­little kid in Horizon­
tal Tracking Shots dancing, having induced terror by dancing, having suc-
cumbed to that terror, the white ­family as this tight, fucked-up ­little ball of
Oedipal blowback. ­There’s a rainbow on the other side of this that’s dif­f er­ent,
now, having been tained. I mean that the rainbow can mean this other t­ hing
now that it’s backstage, in resonance with the patchwork of Half a Man and
that Rainbow Co­ali­tion of AfroWigs. I want to see if I can figure this out, too,
­because what­ever ­else it is Rainbow Co­ali­tion is also a disavowal—­a residual,
and carceral, and merely twice-­behaved flight. Maybe we can think a ­little bit
about Mike Kelley and/in the history of art even as we also talk about Mike
Kelley’s commitment to the idea of the work. While what I love and value in
Kelley is what strikes me as his serial failure to keep that commitment, I still
have to acknowledge that he might have been pissed not only at my joyful
inability to be, or my militant re­sis­tance to being, absorbed by his individual
works but also by my attribution of that inability and/or re­sis­tance to him
and to what I think is ­great in his practice, in the general idea of practice and
in the par­tic­u­lar confluence of practice and per­for­mance evident in our in-
habitation of the atmosphere within which his works appear and dis­appear.

15.
It feels like every­thing, or if not ­every ­thing ­every idea, was preserved. But
even if it’s only a feeling, I want to make an argument for what’s absolutely
invaluable in it. ­There’s no trash in monastic practice. ­There’s a massive
critique of the very idea of trash, of disposability, that is given to the ones
relegated to the heap. This is how ­there’s an empathy still waiting to be con-
firmed between Thornton Dial and Mike Kelley, artists who work on the
backs of ­things. They would have had something to talk about. In the absence
of that conversation, Mike Kelley remains one of the greatest artists ever of
how fucked-up shit is, one of the most capable of the mutual infusion of this
terrible serrated monolith, and the message it induces, with beauty (which
is kitsch, Kelley says; which is bad for you, evidently). But in the absence of
that conversation, this is mad boy art. I know he hated that bad boy shit so

enjoy all monsters / 207

let me say, more precisely, that this is mad white boy art, this is privilege art,
which it pains me to say, b
­ ecause I hate the word privilege more than I hate
all the presidents of the United States, except the ones in that band, whom
I merely loathe. That this conversation between Dial and Kelley must have
taken place is only partially, only peripherally, an Iggy Pop question. Refuse
to believe in the non-­meeting of two monastic, anArkic practices, one sup-
posedly schooled, the other supposedly unschooled. On the one hand, Mike
Kelley and Sun Ra shacked up in Unde(r)troit, or Kandors or what­ever city
in Saturn; on the other hand, why move to Los Angeles when you can move
to The Magic City? Look: Pay for Your Pleasures is presented in the colors of
post-­hippie reaction. Post hippie-­reaction is, actually, a Kantian formation;
he hates the swarmy, shmeary, kitschy, geechie gooiness of the Anabaptists;
and black folks are so ugly that every­thing they say must be stupid. And
the critical Kant, the genius Kant, d ­ oesn’t refute but follows from this. So I
­really do mean to say that Kant formed the post-­hippie reaction, in his own
port city, as a regulation of Romanticism, in ways that Goethe echoes and
Kelley posterizes. Kant says, “The imagination, in its lawless freedom, pro-
duces nothing but nonsense and must have its wings severely clipped by the
understanding.” Goethe says, the imagination is criminal, is our ­enemy; in its
piracy it is the ­enemy of all; its monks should be vis­i­ble only in mugshots, as
mughosts haunting a rogues gallery, and only ­after a donation is made to the
victim’s families or to the f­ amily, which is, in general, the victim. It’s an incor-
porative reaction; it’s a restrospective, guilt-­ridden disavowal of the stuff you
­can’t do without. Having taken advantage of what the imagination affords,
it’s only right to feel bad about it. Again, I’m trying to approach Kelley within
the history of art, from which Dial is excluded, in order also to consider what
happens when Dial and Kelley sit down and talk with one another.

16.
Insofar as Kant is the indispensable, seminal theorist of subjectivity, which is
the residual and programmatic phantasm of post-­hippie reaction, he is also
the indispensable, seminal theorist of white flight. When folks talk about
white flight, especially with regard to Detroit, which is the kind of hypercapi-
talist, decapitalized and decapitated anticapital of white flight, ­people often,
even usually, talk about it as an abandonment whose effects ­were primarily
visited upon the ones, and the place, that was left b­ ehind. White patriarchy
leaves impossible-­to-­live-with black maternity b
­ ehind to fend for herself and

208 / chapter 17
her kids while He upgrades His quality of life. When I say that Mike Kelley
is one of the greatest artists ever of how fucked-up shit is I mean to say that
he refuses the usual paradigm. He shows us constantly how fucked-up white
flight was for the ­children of the redomesticated, the renaturalized. (Just so
you know: in my understanding, white flight is something that you ­don’t have
to be a person who is called white in order to do. At the same time, being a
person who is called white, and deeper still, being a person who answers to
that call and accepts the vari­ous coupons that go with so answering, appar-
ently makes white flight a harder ­thing to flee.) I feel that when I’m walking
through this exhibition, I am walking through a clinical installation of the
imagination in white—­which is to say brutally regulated, segregated—­flight.
What’s deep is that what remains overwhelmingly and undeniably palpable
in this installation is the beautiful and generative impurity w ­ e’re all sup-
posed to be ­running from. I think that’s what I was trying to get at when I
was saying that ­every idea, if not ­every ­thing, is in ­there. (That) mass does
the work of undermining the individual works, of rendering them absent or,
deeper still, pres­ent in a “differentiated indiscreteness” (to borrow a phrase
from my friend Laura Harris), inducing its own empathic madness. At the
same time, what undermines and underwrites how fucked-up it is—­even in
its self-­aggrandizing, self-­consumptive privilege—to be forced to be white is
this other ­thing that actually constitutes, in my view, Kelley’s most funda-
mental material, even if it’s never very explic­itly conceptualized. It must have
been a tremendous burden so faithfully both to bear and to resist. I won­der
if he ever had a chance to talk to anybody about it.

17.
­ here’s a racial and sexual economy of kitsch. What if we consider, to the point
T
of love, what it is not so much to be mugged, or to have one’s conviction ex-
torted, but rather to be hugged and to have one’s affection caressed, by t­hese
blurred, substitutive demonstrations, ­these sculptural commodities who speak,
thereby animating the general installation, like my old student Dan, who never
bothers p
­ eople at the museum, but who just had to say something to me, for
which I’m so grateful, even though it was in precisely that violation of pro-
tocol which demonstrating objects are made to induce and enact. Kitsch is a
slur. You ­can’t take the valuation it imposes to heart. Kitschen is a verb that
means “to smear.” Kitsch is a slur conferred upon the slurred. It’s not just
in-­between, not just the locus of theatricality or per­for­mance that violates

enjoy all monsters / 209

the subject’s discretionary self-­possession; rather, it undermines the very
idea of the in-­between, the buffer, turning the border into the proj­ects. Art
predicated on the critical mobilization of kitsch kinda hates itself, is always
trying to distance itself from itself, to flee itself, its own materiality, its own
impurity, which is its beauty. In order to deploy its own devaluation it has to
accept it, which is to say it has to accept the theory of value upon which that
devaluation is founded. And this is a genuinely fucked-up situation, particu-
larly when folks start giving you lots of money for it. Nevertheless, the con-
ceptual apparatus that carries this devaluation also carries that other t­ hing,
the unslurred slur that “kitsch” c­ an’t bear, the no-­thingness that blackness
has come to name, and from which whiteness flees. To move through Kelley’s
long and general installation and pilgrimage, to inhabit and enact his ongo-
ing per­for­mance, is to demonstrate something that is, in the end, in excess
of objection or of being an object. He talks about what it means to be in the
per­for­mance, to get the feel of an ephemeral logic, the feeling of a structure,
the haptic goings-on that animate a practice that crumples the prescriptive
and/or restrospective opposition between sense and nonsense. ­We’re musi-
cal sculptures walking around in his composition, which gives us a chance to
make something happen even against the obsessive way he’s always showing
us, maybe against his own ­will, that he has a reason for every­thing he does
in his art. Dominated by the concept he seeks to dominate, Kelley makes a
space for us to perform unscripted re­sis­tance. With all due re­spect to the
curators of this show, Kelley’s practice is and remains a devotional curacy,
which is why the following question is so terrible, and beautiful, and insis-
tent. What if the idea of complexity, which Kelley reveres, and the idea of the
work, to which Kelley adheres, are incompatible? Well, he gives us a way,
which is kinda like a place, to live with that. Having exposed the brutali-
ties of racial capitalism, Saidiya Hartman and Cedric Robinson also let us
know that ­there is an error, a miscalculation, in the terror of enjoyment’s
vicious economy. It’s like we have to enjoy all monsters in order to destroy
all monsters. Mobile Homestead, Kelley’s first foray into what is called, but
what is rarely, public art maybe even gives us a way to Detroit all monsters,
as if turning around on Michigan Ave­nue in search of magic hidden in a
long-­ass manmade drought, in fugitive reversal of white flight’s chainganged
mobilization, might be the way we learn to enjoy ourselves, our monstrosity,
our criminality, our imagination, when the ridicu­lous schools they throw us
into before throwing away the key d­ on’t just stage but actually domesticate
and naturalize white flight as the sovereign imperative of the subject citizen.

210 / chapter 17
How do we unlearn that shit in the interest of learning how both to destroy
and to enjoy? I ­don’t know that Kelley ever figured that one out completely. I
­don’t know that anyone has. It’s certainly way deeper than just checking your
privilege, which is truly fucked up since privilege is ubiquitous and since
eventually your privilege kills every­thing, including what you thought was
you. But it does feel like he’s on the way, or that he’s more + less than one of
the more + less than ones who pave the way, to figuring something out. Dis-
covering this has been a plea­sure and I’m not gonna pay for it.

enjoy all monsters / 211

chapter 18

Some
Extrasubtitles for
Wildness
It is Christmas Eve in the year of Huitzilopochtli, 1969. Three hundred Chi-

canos have gathered in front of St. Basil’s Roman Catholic Church. Three

hundred brown-­eyed ­children of the sun have come to drive the money-­

changers out of the richest t­ emple in Los Angeles. It is a dark moonless night

and ice-­cold wind meets us at the doorstep. We carry ­little white candles as

weapons. In pairs on the sidewalk, we trickle and bump and sing with the

candles in our hands, like a bunch of cockroaches gone crazy. I am walking

around giving ­orders like a drill sergeant.

Somebody still has to answer for all the smothered lives of all the fighters

who have been forced to carry on, chained to a war for Freedom just like a

slave is chained to his master. Somebody still has to pay for the fact that I’ve

got to leave friends to stay ­whole and ­human, to survive intact, to carry on

the species and my own Buffalo run as long as I can.—­O SCAR ZETA ACOSTA ,

The Revolt of the Cockroach ­People

18.
The Revolt of the Cockroach P
­ eople begins with the repression of paratheo-
logical swarm and ends with the release of paraontological rub. The Brown
Buffalo has to let himself be let go by trickle, bump, and sing but you can
already see an Or­ga­niz­er’s detachment from the general anabaptism he pre-
sumes to call to order. What is the price of reveille when that mustering,
in being against the church and the state, is also against the slur? What if
organ­izing wears out welcome, ­because welcome is always slur and swarm?
­ here’s an air of the broken world—­and revolutionary geology predicts this
T
waft in time, this disruptive plume, insurgency’s panache—­that just keeps on
tearing shit up and swirling it around. And it seems like t­ here’s always some-
one who ­can’t help but ask how to survive intact in and as that solidity of
waste and shame that comes at the expense of spirit. Wu and Acosta get us to
the threshold where that question is called to disorder. It turns out you can
walk from St. Basil’s to the Silver Platter. That nearness makes them seem
so far away (from one another and from us) but ­there’s just yesterday from
­here, which is no distance at all, let alone what it is we think distance usu-
ally implies. Just out of place and time in gathering, in Los Angeles, where if
you can walk you might as well fly. You might as well warp time, not seize it
but give it seizures, animate it, let it quicken, loose its tongues. That’s what
happens below the history of churches—in fallenness, a club arises. Disorder
is our ser­vice, our antidote and anteroom, our vestibule without a story. We
­can’t survive intact. We can only survive if w­ e’re not intact. Our danger and
saving power is an always open door. Our venue is mutual infusion, the holy
of holies in the wall, glory in a kind of open chastity, where the explicit body
reveals itself demure in disappearance. Unenforced, slid, venereally unnatu-
ral and convivial, we claim slur against drill and document. Confirmation
of the flesh is queer and evangelical. Our host is the para-­site St. Basil’s re-
jected, a sustenance of brown commonality in anecclesiastical reformation.
Wildness serves Revolt with grace and style; it reveals the urge to revel that
is devotion’s drive. To fuse the relation of devotion, revelry, and revolt is to
be welcomed into the ­temple. The alternative chapel is dispersed as soul.
Are you experienced? Have you ever been experienced? Have you ever been
welcomed? Well,

19.
the general antagonism of eve­ning is our advent. Blür twilight, anacrepuscu-
lar fade to violet, almost royal. Everynight life on a bed of fire. The oracular
brightness is a bouquet of storefronts—­mortar, care, savioral hue. Did they
­really bring the wildness to you or did you bring it to and in and out of one
another? You say, I keep them safe but I’m not safe. ­We’re all at play ­here,

some extrasubtitles for wildness / 213

­we’re all part of it, we all complement. Love bade me welcome: yet my soul
drew back, / Guiltie of dust and sinne. / But quick-­ey’d love, observing me
grow slack / From my first entrance in, / Drew nearer to me, sweetly ques­
tioning, / If I lack’d anything. // A guest, I answer’d, worthy to be ­here: / Love
said, You ­shall be he. You ­shall be she. What s­ hall we be? They taste my meat
when I am slow and empty. They want to feel. I won them over. They want to
fill. Feel her retreat, his recess, hystera, her borrowed time, his time turned
inside out, her night routine. We are preoccupied and so we throw a party.
Shade raises shade, nor ­will our sun renew. ­These ruins that you see ­were
once a monument. Stitched together, to be seen as many ways, and shards
of night inside me. Night shades inside me. A f­amily comes inside me. It’s
not all f­ amily inside me. Welcome, musical quartz! Welcome, Tejano Tenor!
Welcome, Bustamental! Welcome, remixed missish Missy! Welcome, Brown
Buffalo! We witness anecdotes at the door. Our strange habits of assembly are
unestranged. Irregular assemblage is our regular market day. Transformers
play our geisha syndicate. Our low-­class conspiracy is nonperformed per­for­
mance. ­There’s another university of earth and we sound better in chiffon.
We just look better when Tuesday and Friday be Sunday e­ very night. All we
have to do is please the time. We stir in accord with the undergroove, dis-
sonant and animancipated. This is escape from the war for freedom and it
­ain’t nothing nice. It ­ain’t nothing nice. It ­ain’t nothing nice. In love, in luxu-
riant necessity, base community is a practice of continually relinquishing a
­whole buncha shit that’s s’posed to be basic. Sometimes, the refusal of self-­
determination is a drag. Luckily, the refusal of self-­determination is in drag.

214 / chapter 18
chapter 19

To Feel,
to Feel More, to Feel
More Than
20.
Ben Hall has a kind of evangelical obsession. Some joker gave him some-
thing and now he wants to give you some. See if you can see and hear and feel
certain passages in and of a collective head arrangement, as if Lygia Clark
­were touring with a territory band.

21.
Now I have one radio-­phonograph; I plan to have five. ­There is a certain
acoustical deadness in my hole, and when I have ­music I want to feel
its vibration, not only with my ear but with my ­whole body. I’d like to
hear five recordings of Louis Armstrong playing and singing “What Did
I Do to Be so Black and Blue”—­all at the same time. Sometimes now I
listen to Louis while I have my favorite dessert of vanilla ice cream and
sloe gin. I pour the red liquid over the white mound, watching it glis-
ten and the vapor rising as Louis bends that military instrument into
a beam of lyrical sound. Perhaps I like Louis Armstrong ­because he’s
made poetry out of being invisible. I think it must be ­because he’s un-
aware that he is invisible. And my own grasp of invisibility aids me to
understand his ­music. Once when I asked for a cigarette, some jokers
gave me a reefer, which I lighted when I got home and sat listening to
my phonograph. It was a strange eve­ning. Invisibility, let me explain,
gives one a slightly dif­fer­ent sense of time, y­ ou’re never quite on the
beat. Sometimes ­you’re ahead and sometimes ­behind. Instead of the
swift and imperceptible flowing of time, you are aware of its nodes,
­those points where time stands still or from which it leaps ahead. And
 you slip into the breaks and look around. That’s what you hear vaguely
in Louis’ ­music.

I went ­toward the microphone where ­Brother Jack himself waited, enter­
ing the spot of light that surrounded me like a seamless cage of stain­
less steel. I halted. The light was so strong that I could no longer see the
audience, the bowl of h ­ uman ­faces. It was as though a semi-­transparent
curtain had dropped between us, but through which they could see me—­
for they ­were applauding—­without themselves being seen.
“May I confess?” I shouted. “You are my friends. We share a common
disinheritance, and it’s said that confession is good for the soul. Have
I your permission?”
“You batting .500, ­Brother,” the voice called.
­There was a stir ­behind me. I waited ­until it was quiet and hurried on.
“Silence is consent,” I said, “so I’ll have it out, I’ll confess it!” My
shoulders ­were squared, my chin thrust forward and my eyes focused
straight into the light. “Something strange and miraculous and trans­
forming is taking place in me right now . . . ​as I stand ­here before you!”
I could feel the words forming themselves, slowly falling into place.
The light seemed to boil opalescently, like liquid soap shaken ­gently in
ab­ ottle.
“Let me describe it. It is something odd. It’s something that I’m sure
I’d never experience anywhere ­else in the world. I feel your eyes upon
me. I hear the pulse of your breathing. And now, at this moment, with
your black and white eyes upon me, I feel . . . ​I feel . . .”
I stumbled in a stillness so complete that I could hear the gears of
the huge clock mounted somewhere on the balcony gnawing upon time.
“What is it, son, what do you feel?” a shrill voice cried.
My voice fell to a husky whisper, “I feel, I feel suddenly that I have
become more ­human. Do you understand? More ­human. Not that I
have become a man, for I was born a man. But that I am more h ­ uman.
I feel strong, I feel able to get t­hings done! I feel that I can see sharp
and clear and far down the dim corridor of history and in it I can hear
the footsteps of militant fraternity! No, wait, let me confess . . . ​I feel
the urge to affirm my feelings . . . ​I feel that ­here, a
­ fter a long and des­
perate and uncommonly blind journey, I have come home . . . ​Home!
With your eyes upon me I feel that I’ve found my true f­ amily! My true
­people! My true country! I am a new citizen of the country of your

216 / chapter 19
 vision, a native of your fraternal land. I feel that ­here to­night, in this
old arena, the new is being born and the vital old revived. In each of
you, in me, in us all.” 1

22.
If one is h ­ uman, as a m­ atter of sheer biological determination, then to feel
more ­human, which is given only in the experience of having been made to
feel less h­ uman, is, in fact to feel more than h
­ uman, which is given, in turn,
only in the experience of having been made to feel less than ­human. What
if the ­human is nothing other than this constancy of being both more and
less than itself? What if all that remains of the h ­ uman, now, is this realiza-
tion? What if the only ­thing that matches the absolute necessity of remaining
­human is the absolute brutality of remaining ­human? Is ­there any escape
from the interplay of brutality and necessity? Serially excessive of itself in fall-
ing short of itself, brutally imposing the necessity of its retention as the only
justification and modality of its retention, the ­human is only ever vis­i­ble as
the more than complete incompleteness from which it cannot quite be seen.
Invisible Man marks and is the blindness and insight of this impossible point
of view. Invisible Man ­can’t quite see when he tells us how he feels; and when
he tells us how he feels he does so by way of a paradox that is contained by
the very feeling it cannot quite approach. All we know about what it is to feel,
to feel suddenly that one has become more h ­ uman, is that it is to feel immea-
surably more than that. The immea­sur­able, ­here, denotes ­every earthliness
that remains un­regu­la­ted by ­human distinction and distinctiveness. At stake
is the sheer, slurred, smeared, swarmed seriality of mechanical buzz, horti-
cultural blur, geometrical blend, an induced feeling’s indeterminate seeing
Ben Hall musically instantiates in his art. Let the gallery’s held logisticality
explode into the Brotherhood’s improper displacement. Give a sign. Shake
a hand. Dance.

23.
Charismata—­the gift of spirit of which Cedric Robinson and Erica Edwards
teach—is conferred upon the one who cannot see by the ones who see
him, in their hearing of him, in their bearing of him, in the touch of their
eyes, in the brush of their ears, in the sight and sound of their open, lifted
hands. It’s as if he fades into their senses, them, the ones who in being so

to feel, to feel more, to feel more than / 217

much more and less than one can only be figured by science as the mob. To
be held in the mob’s embrace, in the wound and blessing of their shared, ac-
cursed sensorium, is to be made unaware of one’s own invisibility—to feel,
to feel more, to feel more than, to feel more than I feel, I feel. Can you hold
one another to­night in the blur, so that one and another are no more? A ­table
is prepared for your common unawareness, for the disinheritance you might
not know you long to know you share, the share ­you’re blessed to share right
now that only unawareness of yourself w ­ ill let be known. Invisible Man had
withdrawn, if only for a moment, into the external world, which responsible
subjectivity rightly understands to be no world at all in the brutality of its
wrongful attempts to eradicate it. Adrian P ­ iper, pied, in motley, blind, s­ ilent in
her consent not to be single while, at the same time, loud, and felt, in the inten-
sity of her confession, has been led to lead us out of the art world and into this
exteriority with that same pentaphonic song Armstrong was always playing
no m­ atter what song he was playing. No m ­ atter what song he is playing, they
are the ones who are not one who are playing it. That’s what this entangle-
ment of Ben Hall are playing. You have to excuse their grammar. DJ Crawl-
space’s repercussive counterweight is stairwell, in golden light well, in sound
booth, in reverberate hold. That Armstrong plex, given elsewhere in Hall’s
Some Jokers (For 5 Turntables, basement, ice cream and sloe gin), regifted as
Paolo Freire, vocoded, digitized into uncountability by an unaccountable so-
nority Freire now would recognize, is the undercommon instrument whose
instrument we’d like to be. In the glow and blur of the collective head’s col-
lective embrace, more precisely and properly valued in its fuzzy disruption
of valuation, in its radical unbankability, in its inappropriable impropriety,
light and sound are the materiality of our living, the basis of our revolution-
ary pedagogy, the ground of our insurgent, autoexcessive feel.

218 / chapter 19
chapter 20

Irruptions
and Incoherences for
Jimmie Durham
24.
The propensity to dance in Amer­i­ca is both corrosive and preservative, both
uncountable and accumulable. T ­ here’s a genocidal braid of sets of qualities
and instances that c­ an’t be seen as one another’s originals that might just
be an object you can change. Certainly, it’s an object that’s always changing.
The alternative is everywhere as air, and w ­ e’re careless with what we breathe
and how we breathe, hence this massive problematic of use, which is a kind
of worship, if you can change without improving. If we embrace obscenity
and contradiction, just in the way we move with them, it’s not only ­because
sometimes the terror of resisting earthly terror feels good, it’s also ­because
the terror of feeling good is not optional. ­There’s a cloned, drone-­like two-­
faced officer, a doubly-­unconscious coin made out of any impossible body,
money made out of untroubled per­for­mance and unalloyed critique, who
says “privilege” and then, when you turn him over, “precarity,” while acting
like the realities ­these words are meant to index can be separated ­because,
evidently, you ­can’t see two sides of your art-­historical self in the mirror. The
piety of not thinking that is given in acting out this one-­sided two-­sidedness
is surreptitiously piped into the general reservoir of normatively thought-
ful bullshit, making it ever more noxious. Minted, self-­assertion sways like
a bunch of empty uniforms, shows like Calvinist branding on disavowed
flesh, sounds like screeches, tweets, and chidings si­mul­ta­neously pseudo-­
politically and hyper-­politically marketing the suffering that exceeds being
bought and sold, that ­can’t be calculated ­because it ­can’t be individuated or
packaged in a tranche of torture-­backed, countercaressive securities. Such
critique is an interminable citizenship test in the world its performers say
they want to dis­appear. They dance, too, harder and faster, precisely b
­ ecause
they are the ones who are supposed to know. They negate every­thing, with
neither joy nor pain, and we are left with them, ­because we are them, watch-
ing them arresting what we are, ­because that’s what we are, suspended be-
tween the careless negation of what we are and the careful affirmation of
what we are. Is that what we are, is that what we are, this propensity to dance
given in the terrible imperative not to celebrate?

25.
Is Jimmie Durham an artist? The legitimacy of his claim to the category is
undeniable if he just wanted to be somebody, to the extent that any such
claim can be legitimate for anybody, if t­here is some body, if t­here is any
body. And it’s just as undeniable that in his enactment of the category he
si­mul­ta­neously refuses its imperative to preserve itself in separation. To be
an artist, in Durham, for Durham, is not to be one, as well. To suggest that
he works, or that he is in movement, or that he is movement against the
separate single being of the artist is to suggest a more general re­sis­tance
to severalty, to what one might call, in echo of what the Dawes Act cruelly
echoes, the allotment of identity, which Durham is constantly, which is to
say endlessly unsuccessfully, escaping. Maybe Jimmie Durham is an activ-
ity. Maybe Jimmie Durham is a practice. Showing that we are not what we
are, that we are not, that we are; saying that to say that is to affirm we as the
per­sis­tent, militantly preservative practice of no-­thingness, of the inveter-
ate changing of e­ very object and ­every nation, of an open-­ended sculptur-
ing of ­every exhaustively open end, Durham re-­presents we as a ­matter of
thought the prison church of privilege and precarity tries but fails to inter-
dict. That we as cuts we are just enough so we ­don’t have to worry about
being-­consistent or being-­coherent is what we study, is all of how we come
to nothing in study, finding more than every­thing in the findings we make.
The practice persists, is preserved, only insofar as it is open, radically non-­
exclusionary, insistently improper in an overturning that laughs at itself to
keep from crying. The vast range of vio­lence the ante-­national international
perpetrates on the verb to be in the unholy name of the nominative case of
the first-­person plural pronoun is a clue that is, at once, both immanent and
transcendent.

220 / chapter 20
 26.
What we be trying to talk about all the time, amongst and against ourselves
and all up in the air and ­under the ground and ­water, is antegrammatical—­a
general beyond of the analogy, whose very invocation remains a kind of
sterile double entry. The hold, the trail, the trailer, the proj­ect, the general
antagonism—­all that’s just the mobile locus of an intensification of e­ very
feeling, which is why the way the alternative survives the ongoing genocide—­
even though the ongoing genocide kills ­every last body it makes—is so un-
fadeably chorographic and choreatic, manifest in a dance of vicious colonial
mapping and ner­vous anticolonial muscularity. And all that’s special about
this or that exclusion, this or that death, is the general refusal of this or that
exclusion, this or that death. If the notion that this or that modality of suffer-
ing is special requires disavowing the intensity of the entanglement of privi-
lege and precarity (when that entanglement is so crucial to our necessary
comportment t­ oward the open end of world and time) then special needs to
get let go in a continual enactment of that ceremony we keep finding, where
being singular plural is dispossessed in a plain of sēms.

27.
Cele­bration lets being-­special go, but ­under an absolute duress. Escape from
the strug­gle for freedom is required. Cele­bration in art ­can’t be redemptive
­because what we have to celebrate is so immeasurably small and large. Art
asks how to hand on or hand out the feel and the sense of that against the
grain of aesthetic theory’s tendency to call the authorities in itself on itself.
If I could only get myself to police myself, aesthetic theory wistfully sighs.
In lieu of that, the ascription of radical irregularity is the ground not only of
art’s exclusion but also of the exclusion of ­every practice of the alternative,
which is what we are. We have to celebrate the offness that’s been writing on
us, which we accentuate in nonper­for­mances of nonportraiture, in we as, as
in how we be pretending to be Rosa Levy. We on in putting on, in nothing,
which turns out to be all red and black in the absence of the artist, her pencil
stache and juicy lips, Duchamp’s interminably descending rock bottom. In
overloading an already overcrowded rogue’s gallery of self-­portraiture, Dur-
ham makes it seem like art might actually be able to rewrite itself out of mak-
ing pictures of its selves in severalty all day long. Maybe we write ourselves
out. Maybe that’s what we are, he says, when we as like that

irruptions and incoherences for jimmie durham / 221

 28.
To ask the question of how we get past the imposition of severalty and the
self-­portraiture that is its imperative and residue is already to bear some-
thing more and less than the artist’s way of being. For the artist is given in sev-
eralty, beholden to what Durham calls the state’s violent “immortality,” which
comes into relief as a spectral projection against the backdrop of patterns of
exile and return, of pre­ce­dent postresidential re­sis­tance to the brutally peren-
nial settler state, which proliferates in a bunch of ­little states of settlement,
found(ed) by artists in flurries of anti-­loisaida self-­picturing on the death
march from urban village to east village.1 “ ‘We are parasites of the rich,’ an
artist friend of Durham’s once said.”2 In recounting that passively aggressive
self-­assertion, Durham teaches us that severalty is where racialization and
aesthetic theory converge. The individuation of the artist is a kind of massa-
cre. And so we seek out the landed blessings of the landless, neither as a rep-
ertoire of countermea­sures nor a collection of countersubjective standards
but just b­ ecause to want to dig the transverse earth is what we are. We as this
changing object called object changers.

29.
This is all about land and use, but it’s also all about language and/as mate-
rial. Does the artist own the materials he uses and, in so using, improves
upon? Does the poet own his language and, in so owning, purify the lan-
guage of the tribe (as T. S. Eliot once said in a beautifully fucked-up western
called Four Quartets)? On the other hand, is ­there a work of dispossession
in Durham, of re­sis­tance to severalty, and even of a re­sis­tance to sover-
eignty given past the claim upon it and moving on in and as a violent un-
settling that is at once earthly and divine? If ­there is it’s only insofar as the
work of dispossession cannot be contained. It places the artist, having come
into his own in and through allotment, in grave danger of having to suffer the
immea­sur­able grace of his disappearance, of her dispersal. See, I’m interested
in the work and feel and material presence of dispossession, disappearance,
dispersal, and disbursal in Durham’s art, which is not his, and I’m thinking
that this is something as palpably, audibly, flavorfully vis­i­ble—as spirit, as
breath, as irreducible and ineradicable aroma—in the objects he changes, in
the changing of himself as object, and in the objections his changes raise and
play not only on the very idea of objecthood itself but also on subjectivity, the

222 / chapter 20
object’s evil twin, its ‘evilly compounded, vital I.”3 That’s why it’s so cool and
crucial to check out the itinerary of his thinking on use, on development, and
how it turns not only in his writing on artist-­driven gentrification but also on
the problematic of the very idea of the artist and his world. Durham moves,
is on the move, his indigent indigineity in voluntary exile from voluntarism’s
slough and epicenter. But what’s at stake is not in the way he carries himself
or keeps carry­ing himself away; what’s impor­tant is the way he carries his
selflessness, the way he keeps changing that object, like a mobile sculpture
in the act of its own making and unmaking, wrapped in the mantle of its own
dismantling, continually asserting this refusal of self-­assertion, constantly
refusing repre­sen­ta­tion and self-­representation with a par­tic­u­lar wave, an
emphatic and insistently gentle kind of greeting and goodbye. The presence
of the one who says ­here I am in not being ­here is dispersed and more and
less than full, given in the air and dirt and ­water and flesh of a ­whole other,
pre-­and postcolonial mathe­matics. In this old-­new math, it’s not about fig-
uring out ways to count the uncountable. It’s about standing together, in
refusal of standing, in praise of all. And let’s say that for right now, for just
this moment, that the name of all is Jimmie Durham. Now, I’m not saying
that we are Jimmie Durham. That’s a beautifully terrible ­thing to say. I’m
just saying that in saying that the name of all is Jimmie Durham I’m saying
that all d
­ on’t quite add up. Jimmie Durham practices (the theory of ) non-­
numerical material.4

30.
Dense and airy earth, let’s rearrange the neighborhood again, in curacy. The
earth has a ­future at the end of the world right now. Right over ­here ­there’s a
museum for durational art formed in walking by panthers of care on a wing-
tip cruise. ­There’s a vast unincorporated evangelical mission of blur. We try-
ing to get ­people to practice and ­people already been practicing. They already
knew but maybe just d ­ idn’t feel it or d
­ idn’t let it be a bright feeling, a way of
strolling glow mutuality. When shift happens we notice the duration of the
living. “The ­music is happening, I ­don’t need to play,” Monk says. Duration in
Durham is like Mary Lou’s Mass, monks say, while walking down the street
as art taking displacement. Charged with the uncollectible, the museum ­will
have taken aim, like a society for community safety, a defense mechanism of
absolute openness for aesthetical Cherokees. Durham’s durationally extra-­
rational art wants to be beautiful, a certain lack of coherence in creativity

irruptions and incoherences for jimmie durham / 223

and the social pro­cess, that ongoing interruption of naturalization that we
keep waiting for, the museum as a bunch of lumpen parties, a serially inter-
galactic swarm of midnight jams. The beautiful that’s inseparable from the
terrible, that’s too nasty to be sublime, to flavorful to be tasteful, to syncopic
to be fixed, too red, blur and black for ­things to persist in residence. The state
is a mechanism for the monopolization of vio­lence, its placement in or ­under
reserve, in and as the strict regulation of generativity. And western thought
and culture has been the place where this monopolization is theorized and
defended, in the name and by way of sovereignty, self-­possession, and self-­
determination. Freaked out over the generativity that destroys order, trou-
bled by savory metastasis, underconceptual cancer, pre-­and postconceptual
sensing, not grasping but letting go in ripped up anapprehension, embodied
viscera sense inevitable fade while the earth laughs sunlight.

31.
Bricolage is too charming, Durham says, too comfortable to keep close, too
closed for the necessary discomfort.5 So how do you go from pleasingly put-
ting lots of ­things together to having nothing quite add up, to letting nothing
be so thoroughly in the work that a certain unworking of the work gets done?
The work of letting be the nothing in the work that undoes the work till it
and the artist are eased with being nothing. The museum of that is walking
around in exile and humility, endlessly having to have something to say for
itself so it can help you make you strange to yourself. Estrangement, h ­ ere, is
all up in the rub or glance, not in the work, ­because to be strange to yourself,
to be able to have been disabled in the museum, to walk in but not walk out
(as you), and then to walk on, aesthetically, is to be unable to have found the
work. An eccentric l­ittle piece of nothing gestures to the work’s not being
­there. It’s like if you c­ an’t see it then you ­can’t see yourself in it. Indians love his
work, Durham says, b ­ ecause they ­don’t look at it. He says they have no use for
it and perhaps it is in this that the work is useful.6 Out of this nettle, danger, we
pluck this flower, safety, which is way too terribly like picking all the goddamn
cotton in the world. ­There’s this problematic of how to refuse and to refuse, as
well, their refusal, which often takes the form of fusion, of being collected in
exclusion, of being brutally, violently wanted—in a libidinal economy of ab-
solutely have to have—­when absolutely no one wants you. ­Because the One
­can’t want ­these explosive, “eccentric ­little pieces of nothing,” ­these tchotchkes
made for money by the ones who refuse to be money, t­ hese ­little bits of steal-

224 / chapter 20
ing in stolenness.7 Viciously, this has all but all been admitted. To let in is
to confess where to incorporate is to deny. The w ­ hole ­thing is radically un-
tenable and then ­there’s the fact that we have to take responsibility for it.
Eu­rope is our proj­ect. Amer­i­ca is our ­thing. You have to say that a million
times before blowing them up becomes a necessary option. Jimmie Durham
laughs, repeat ­after me.

irruptions and incoherences for jimmie durham / 225

chapter 21

Black and
Blue on White. In
and And in Space.
32.
Steve Cannon is a light, primordially black. Wallace Stevens is a wall, pri-
mordially white. Primordial black is blue. How blue can you get? Black. So
your mind needs to go all wintry to see the nothing that is ­there through the
nothing that is not. Understand this as a play of presences, not absences—
or of presences held within a general absence that is, in fact, not t­ here. It’s
winter but it’s Sunday and the fire’s already been lit. The nothing that is not
­there appears, but only from its own perspective, to surround the nothing
that is. Attempts at a general imposition of this confusion occasion fusion
and refusal. But h
­ ere, now, the vacuity that is all but not ­there, the emptiness
that so brutally and so generally makes its absence felt, is not our concern.
We are ­after the absolute presence of blur. Blueblackblur is our concern. In
anticipation, David Hammons concertizes our curacy and curation, at our
entry offering us blue flashlights in a brilliant bowl. In (re)viewing Ham-
mons’s Concerto in Black and Blue, Cannon tells us the lights keep ­going off.1
In this blindness, which is r­ eally an intermittence of shade, we dip our hand
into the well for the luminescence of holy ­water. To come and see if we can
see is a blessing, a t­ able art prepares for us and prepares us for, more through
less. If the world is a hustler’s automobile, white on white in white; or a jar
making wilderness slovenly and, then, unmaking wilderness; then the agile
galleries of Earth are other­wise, even in light romance, as clusters of dark-
ened church and open cell. ­There are holes and ­there are ­wholes. Ours is the
deep midnight of category’s beyond.
As Cannon says, the question that eventually, inevitably, Hammons brings
to mind is what did we do? Nothing. Walk the streets. Knock on a door. Disrupt
the supply chain of cigarettes. You have to do nothing to be so blueblack, which
is why t­ here’s a practice of ­silent destruction and itinerant grift in Hammons’s
work. It is as if, at once, in his radical invisibilities, he ­were as Ras as Monk,
as Rinehart as Iceberg Slim. The blur he invokes, which is also his material,
requires us to think hard about the difference and the relation between in and
and in space, in the break that lies t­ here between blue and black, as if it w
­ ere
something between blue and black, as if nothing ­were something between,
as if the lie of something between could lie itself into being some blank sur-
round. And implies out, as in outside, as in some ­thing, across some ­silent
but emphatic line or border, that can then be linked, in the absoluteness of
its singularity, to some other t­ hing. In implies immersion, or even entangle-
ment, and that’s a w ­ hole other t­hing than the m ­ atter of t­hings and their
­others. Blackness in Hammons’s work is a m ­ atter of blue, surely; the m
­ atter
is, as Leonardo says, “without lines or borders, in the manner of smoke or be-
yond the focus plane.” Hammons’s performed, participatory sfumato—­black
so deeply in, rather than and, blue, that blueblack is neither its word nor its
concept but the old-­new expression of its diffuse gathering of differences—­
announces a profligate tradition of steps to the side of compositional line, so
that what Édouard Glissant calls l’improvisible is continually improvised.
And the trick, of course, is this refusal of border ­under the constraint of bor-
der’s constant imposition. In ­can’t simply act as if and’s segregation, however
unreal, d­ oesn’t produce absolutely real effects. In can only proceed surreally
in and’s insistent, overbearing absence. This false ubiquity of absence, man-
ifest as the proliferation of borders, must be radically and improperly mis-
understood. What if we start acting like whiteness is not the surround but
an inventory of snowballs suitable for ­wholesale distribution? Immeasurably
aggressive, isolate flecks are harvested, pro­cessed, and submitted to their own
restricted economy. The bliz-­aard in which black’s entanglement with blue is
held in obscurity marks an atmospheric condition in and from which Hammons
is constantly escaping; one aspect of his technique is to facilitate blueblack’s
fade into one another with such recalcitrant blur that it’s hard to see up in
(t)­here. At stake in this concerto is not only counterpoint but also chromatic
saturation. Sfumato bends t­ oward deep song and, in the fashion of Ornette
Coleman, we stop playing the backdrop and start playing the m ­ usic. As Can-
non says, blueblack haze or blue in green, Miles’s microphonic whispers, come
to mind; consider the trumpeter’s absolute proximity to quiet, where how you
sound is transmitted in how you look. T ­ here’s a problematic of smoke and
fume, an imperative of toning down in tuning up, intensification given in prac-
tice, as preparation, for solicitude in mutational silence.

black and blue on white. in and and in space. / 227

 ­There’s a certain irony and vio­lence in muted speech, at ser­vice in the pe-
culiar refusal of servility that flourishes in wine and urine-­soaked hallways,
­people pissing in the stairs b­ ecause they just ­don’t care ­because they care
too much. This is also blueblack, which is to say anaconceptual, art’s, aus-
tere and lonely office. James Baldwin, Melle Mel, Robert Hayden—­they all
sound this as a way of making space against the edge of color. The prob­lem
of blackness and its relation to the concept is something t­ oward which Can-
non gestures in the attention he shares with Hammons, approaching the
amazing and im­mense relation between beauty and nothingness, between
the material and the meditative. It is as if Cannon sees that Hammons has
been postcinematically producing all t­ hose experimental films Baldwin mor-
bidly dreams of making in the preface to Notes of a Native Son. Hammons’s
findings work the devil in a way Baldwin speaks to, a way that requires hav-
ing pop-­eyes, frog eyes, mama’s eyes, Bette Davis eyes—­not so that you can
see in the dark but, rather, so that you can look through all the blinding light
of the storm we been in so long. You have to be, which is to say deal in, what
the enlightened called ugly. Being black from head to foot ­will have been dis-
tinct proof that what Hammons says is stupid fresh. What he sees and shows
is all but all blueblack and beautiful in the shaping and packaging of snow
or in the immersive blackening of the gallery wall, that nonrepre­sen­ta­tional
capacity that is supposed to allow all repre­sen­ta­tion to take place.
Perhaps the operations of conceptualization and critique in the art/
po­liti­cal world and in (the aesthetic sociality of ) black life are mirror im-
ages of one another. At which point Concerto in Black and Blue is the in-
finity room in which our fallenness takes flight? It is a retreat into sensory
overload, not deprivation. T ­ here’s too much light and soon t­ here ­will be too
much sound. Black stains lack with boom in blur; white is strewn with reflec-
tion, continually soiled with some of this funky soul we got ­here. One can
only hear ­these ­things in underillumination, Cannon reminds us, his vision
augmented and properly amplified in impairment. What he encounters and
describes in Hammons’s work is the illumination, ­grand in being spare, of
his own inhabitation, a revelation in opacity that undermines the tendency
of the orator to tell it like it is. It a­ in’t is the point, so how do we live with
that, he asks, reminding us that Hammons reminds us “that art, at its best, is
about beauty, and contemplation, which often means that it is about nothing
at all.” What it is to be about nothing at all is not to be. Side by side beside
themselves, black and blue in white is an ignorant man again, knowing noth-
ing, not knowing anything and every­thing, the snow(ball) man, a junk man I

228 / chapter 21
know, a man of vision, who supplies us with wire and sockets. Hammons has
a mind of winter and, as always, as Ralph Ellison knows, as Gil Scott-­Heron
sings, it’s winter in Amer­i­ca. Amer­i­ca has always got the blues, he sings, and in
his eyes, which are her eyes and ours, our story is the story of Amer­i­ca in that
general absence of a story that someday might allow us to be eased with being
more + less than one. It’s strange in this snow-­white village, which one comes
to know having been interred in violent welcoming, where listening to Bessie
or Billie in the relative emptiness—in the furnished and oppressive enlighten-
ment—of a hole, one comes upon the open destination of the color we choose.
Same ol’ same ol’ up ­here down ­there. Same in blues, he says, with a certain
amount of nothing. The Soul of John Black says, I went down in the hole to see
what I could see. When I got down in the hole, w ­ asn’t nobody but me. I c­ an’t
see, he said, unseen. Somebody turn the light on, he said, nobody but him down
­there. Luckily, t­ here’s a junk man, lowdown in his own supply, 1369 snowballs
sold, like lightbulbs, for the illusion of light they give off. The black light, the
fugitive information, the radiation in winter, is detected only by way of another
mathe­matics, a ­future metaphysics for which Hammons’s work is epilogue, in
absolute refusal of the princi­ple. Ellison’s whiteout his proliferate lightbulbed
snowballs, optic and monopolated, are the poems of our climate, as a graffiti’d,
blueblack Sharpied, Christina Sharpened Wallace Stevens might say. Our cli-
mate ­doesn’t change. Nothing is nothing neither h ­ ere nor ­there. What do we do
with all this newly fallen snow? The jar, the bowl, its cold arrangement of flow-
ers, that ­whole art ­thing, art’s response to the weather, but if winter ­doesn’t end
for us h
­ ere how do we respond when “the evilly compounded, vital I” is neither
our birthright nor our inheritance, on this relay from uptown to downtown, the
train of the kicked around, blue train, blue mood, black ­whole sun? That un-
limited finitude that Richard Iton calls the black fantastic is Hammons’s palette
and subterranean pied-­à-­terre, reverberate with echoes of that phantasmagori-
cal riot and irruption and implosion and retreat at the end of Invisible Man,
that near drowning in carnival and bullet precipitation. Neither the ending nor
the beginning is happy. Born in burial; a detached and empty hood; an empty,
hanging noose and lonely mourner; a chalk outline with a piece of chalk in
hand. What did the artist do to be so alone? Nothing but feed back to us a con-
certo. Let’s see if we can see how to roll the stone away. David Hammons is a
soloist, primordially blue, primordially none.

black and blue on white. in and and in space. / 229

chapter 22

Blue
Vespers
33.
­ ecause we are in a state of constant mo’nin’, the upper room is our concern. If
B
David Hammons’s Concerto in Black and Blue is our vestibule, Chris Ofili’s Blue
Rider is our serial vehicle, bearing us as it bends t­ oward itself, devotional space
in midnight blueblack daylight again and again. When critics speak of the vi-
brancy of Ofili’s colors, his unashamed decoration, it is as if, secretly, pigment
­were some dangerous shit since to be reminded of the material by its pres-
ence in the work—­and, therefore, to be reminded of the work’s irreducible
materiality—is in blatant violation of a Kantian reminder to forget about shit
like that. Color ­doesn’t take place, but it does ­matter. ­There is neither settle-
ment nor event in blurred mattering. Its dawning twilight gathering is space-
timeless. Blueblack ­matters no ­matter where or when. Its topological gravity
has a sociopoetic logic. And if t­ here’s a writing (not) (in) between—­suspension
moving through inverse prose in cele­bration of a critical mass, in preserva-
tion of a celebratory space—­then Ofili’s work is such writing’s exacerbation.1
I just want to devote myself to that, to be touched by that disturbance, to feel
its quickening power. I c­ an’t ­handle it, ­can’t grasp it, c­ an’t quite reach it but it’s
precisely that aeffect, that getting to in being gotten to, that I’m a­ fter. I mean
to say that I am ­after that but also that “I” is always and only ever a­ fter that, as
emanation, as emissary, as evangelist. Maybe to be within reach is the imprecise
way we have for reaching out, in our speech, to what it is to have been reached.
I still be reaching—­thinking about, as well as experiencing—­a tensing, sensing
the aspect of a muscularity not u
­ nder control, searching for an all-­encompassing
outside I’m caught up in. This ­whole problematic of the (not) (in) between is an
old obsession to and by which one is given as a kind of legacy. It’s this givenness
of (the) one, which is best understood as this given awayness of (the) one, that
the prob­lem of n/ibetween, of not being in the between, brings into relief. But
I’m digressing from a digression I h
­ aven’t made yet.
 I won­der what Frantz Fanon would think of Ofili’s colors, their intensity,
their unapologetic flavor. From tension, from an occupied kinesis only to be
relieved or placed in release in an overturning of the settler’s po­liti­cal order,
that I’d rather think of as a kind of anticolonial muscularity moving against
the grain of e­ very po­liti­cal order—­based as they are in fiction of the regulative/
regulated body—is it pos­si­ble to move with or in the grain of the fugitive play
of flesh in constraint? What’s between such more than voluntary movement
and Ofili’s insurgent chromaticism, his antinomian shade and ruffneck hue,
especially when all that color is distilled in/as his blue(s)? First of all, when
I say distilled I mean to say blurred. I mean to say bluesed—­moved: slurred:
shifted: shined: differed: suffered: grafted: (choreo)graphed: grifted: thrown:
enthralled: if not by some three-­person’d God then certainly by Trinidad’s
nightshade bacchanal. I mean to say blacked—­not out, but lit, as if being illu-
mined in this way came only in answer to a call that was, itself, a response; or
maybe lit and out, lit out as if for some territory or as if part of some territory
band, maybe the Blue Dev­ils Walter page conceived in his secret visitations
to Paramin. What I’m ­after in all this is what happens when you go to that
holodecked church up on the third floor. You go up ­there to join a movement,
to see what movement feels like when you inhabit the changes.
This absolute and incalculable precision and pre­ce­dent of blue in blur is
all you could ever want to talk about to­night and ­every night, which ­will have
only been to keep on asking ­after the richness and complexity of black(ness) in
Ofili’s work. In asking ­after Glenn Ligon’s asking I ­can’t keep myself from say-
ing that Ofili’s work is so black it’s blue. It’s hard not to tarry with the ensemble
that’s forming (in) my mind: Ofili, Fanon, Ralph Ellison, Louis Armstrong
constitute a quartet within a larger plain. Ben Hall sits in, as anarranger. That
multistereophonic shmear, its caressive crash, is Hall’s Black and Blur, his
staging of Invisible Man’s underground mas or masque: “I’d like to hear five
recordings of Louis Armstrong playing and singing ‘(What Did I Do to Be
so) Black and Blue’—­all at the same time.”2 My perversion of this fantasy is
Ligon lovingly tormenting Fanon with five video screens replaying this. I­ sn’t
it hard not to think that Armstrong’s per­for­mance of “Black and Blue” in
Kwame Nkrumah’s presence and in his honor at the cele­bration for Ghana’s
foundation as an in­de­pen­dent state is that to which Fanon obliquely indexes,
in “On National Culture,” as the prototypical “jazz lament hiccupped by a
poor, miserable ‘Negro’ [which] ­will be defended by only ­those whites be-
lieving in a frozen image of a certain type of relationship and a certain form
of negritude”?3 Sometimes I think placement of Fanon u
­ nder such duress is

blue vespers / 231
necessary prologue to a new kind of contrapuntal, pan-­African groove, some
blue rhapsodic pa­norama given in and as ensemble’s beautiful division and
collection, whose venue is the sunset chapel where The Blue Riders hang, all
for you, as Extra Terrestrial Mensah said. Go see if you can hear them in the
space they make, as that space makes them, our Crepuscule with Ofili. This
is what Brent Edwards calls diasporic practice. We could also call it diasporic
prayer.

34.
This turns out to be a series of letters I’d better not send. I’m procrastinating
my way into writing what I’d promised to deliver. I’ve had to move by that
indirection ­because I want to take the promise back, should never have made
a promise to write an essay that Ligon has already written way better than
I could have ever hoped to do. I’m trying to write my way out of it by dig-
ging into its epigraphs, looking for something in which I am immersed. I’m
caught up in the m ­ iddle of something, like Bobby Womack. I wish you d ­ idn’t
trust me so much. I’ve been (not) (in) between for a while.
Remember that Piet Mondrian show at MoMA in 1995? That w ­ asn’t the
first time I got utterly messed up at an art museum. I think the first time was
at the Fogg, was actually a series of first times with Pierre-­August Renoir,
Gabrielle in a Red Dress, ­every other day for at least a year; but even a­ fter it
messed me up I d ­ idn’t know it was pos­si­ble to get messed up like that; the
Mondrian was the first time I understood a l­ittle bit about what was hap-
pening to what­ever it was I thought was me, but way before that t­here had
already long been that buzz, that blur, that swoon in red shade, red shift, sent
moving ­toward a moving away all held in blue entanglement. Then, at the
Mondrian show, t­ here was this amazing nonarrival at unfinished, condensed,
explosively multi-­matrilinear seriality, the amazingly, beautifully jooked joint
called Victory Boogie Woogie, Mondrian’s transblackatlantic ­thing, the ­thing
that lets you hear that supplemental, elemental “a” he dropped from his
name, Mondriaan, like a held or hidden note, letter pressed, paint over tape,
painted over, taped, taped over, scratched, dubbed, overdubbed. To continu-
ally approach a work whose absolute madness constitutes a radically em-
bracive sending messed me up; I’d been sent, turned, turned out, made out
of turn, never to return. Deeper still, Victory Boogie Woogie still sends what’s
left of me—­dispersed, disbursed, all through its folds and creases, on the way

232 / chapter 22
to The Blue Riders. Now, I’m trying to get at getting to, something seeing
t­ hose paintings softly and insistently imposed. They r­ eally got a hold on me,
got to me, held me, threw me, got through to me and through me, in that
space, that chapel, that new upper room they (re-)made. It’s like a culminat-
ing propulsion into I d­ on’t know what. To have arrived at nonarrival. It’s this
seriality, our common seriality, I would sing (about) if I could live the love
that I sing about. I keep getting sent to church is what I want to say; sent to
being sent again, sent by color in search of color, sent serially prospecting
for the color. Not series the way they want to make you think about it; this
t­ hing is a beautiful violation of privacy, a mashed-up, improper cultivation,
an underhistory of art Ligon initiates in his channeling of Goethe: “The co-
lours which approach the dark side, and consequently, blue in par­tic­u­lar, can
be made to approximate to black; in fact, very perfect Prus­sian blue, or an
indigo acted on by vitriolic acid appears almost as a black.”4 To sit with this
a while is to consider that the history of art is a history of vio­lence. How can
you not be happy to live that violation, but how e­ lse can you describe what
induces us to inflict upon our minds the shift from shade to shade? ­There’s
a personal trajectory, worked by a ­whole problematic of edge, that trauma
describes more accurately than dream: Renoir, Mondrian, Adrian P ­ iper,
Tshibumba, and on, in just t­ hese last months, to the disruptive accompani-
ment of blur’s—or blurred—­facticity when Judith Barry’s video relinquishes
integrity in a dark corner of the Hammer or when Mike Kelley’s work (whose
chromatic intensity prepares you for Ofili’s) bleeds all over and into itself,
or selves, or residue, in a temporary con­temporary cavern in which the shift
from shade to shade, in lieu of the objects or spaces that are supposed to have
borne them, is all I see. Out of the blue, out from blue, on blue’s darkside,
Ofili calls us to prayer.
This is a series of letters that asks, can we speak of an arrival at seri-
ality itself? This would be to speak of an arrival at seriality’s irreducible
indiscretions, the riotous generativity that worries the line, as Cheryl Wall
might say, into its unnameable existence. Seriality’s monkish, spherical
dimensionality—­volume turned up on an already golden, broken, distended,
unended circularity. An insistent seriality, its (re)turn, all the concomitant
blue blurring that goes with that. A seriality of the not-­in-­between, the un-
enclosed. Ofili’s work shows this entanglement—­seriality’s curved indiscre-
tion. I better deviate from the original plan. I would feel bad about it if I
­didn’t feel so good about it.

blue vespers / 233
 35.
What if we begin with the black and blue premise that it is a terrible t­ hing to
have been given a face? I want to say that the face is a function of enclosure.
So black it’s blue is usually a ­thing one says about someone’s face, but very
rarely to it. What if every­thing, ­every fall, ­every torture Fanon collects ­under
the rubric of epidermalization, belongs more fundamentally and properly to
another pro­cess we might awkwardly call envisaging? I mean, in this term, to
indicate a very par­tic­ul­ ar modality of imagining and contemplating, one given
primarily as a mechanics of (facial) recognition, an ethico-­phenomenological
event best understood as the continual imposition of a murderous gift. Imagi-
nation is regulated in and by such recognition; our existence is unrecognizable
if we could only imagine it. So if I consider Ofili’s Blue Riders as extensions of
his Afromuses, a virtualization of portraiture arisen in and out of the depths
of an underground upper room that has, now, become Chris of Manchester’s
Showings, his Moored, unmoored, unanchored, ananchoritic visions, is this
too far-­fetched? Is it too much to hear in Mahalia Jackson’s eternal recur-
rence an impossibility of black portraiture we might want to get at? It bears
something of the divine, materializing an iconography. Perhaps t­ here’s a por-
traiture that disrupts the face, and the face to face, while calling us to prayer?
Ofili shows us an imagining that is happily less and gloriously more than en-
visaging. He does this by way of entangled seriality; the upper room cannot
possibly be abandoned. Crepuscular Trinidad, that anasatanic, Trinitarian
blue, night and day, twilight, ’tween, that ‘twe’ensong Ligon beautifully ap-
proaches, the scandal of the material given in an application of paint to flesh,
nothing in between.
When Ligon reports Wittgenstein as having said t­ here is no intermediary
between color and space, it is tempting to say t­ here’s none between color and
material, ­either.5 Perhaps the paint, the pigment itself, is what, and all, ­there
is. Blue is in that it ­matters ­toward an animaterial impasse—­a certain fac-
ticity, even tactility, and also motility of light, its spontaneous movement, its
quantum, par­tic­u­lar velocity, its short, anivolitional wave, an impassioned,
reflective greeting we receive so we can ask: Where is it? Does it ­matter?
And ­these are the questions Ligon wants to make us want to ask, as if blue’s
mattering w­ ere a ­matter of location. ­Doesn’t the materiality of the pigment
itself mediate between color and space, light and location? D ­ oesn’t it medi-
ate them, and the distance between them, away in its own r­ unning away?
­Isn’t blue a fugitive pigment? D
­ oesn’t it fade (to black)? Ligon says blue is

234 / chapter 22
a bitch; it ­won’t stay; moreover, blue ­don’t care when you pack your own
bags; blue ­ain’t even thinking about sunrise. See what blue has done? Pig-
ment calibrates a material’s reflectivity and capacity to absorb. Air scatters
radiophonic spray. And then it turns out t­ here are all t­ hese layers—­colorant,
­ inder—­till nothing but ­middle’s registered, bottomless medium’s boom, ve-
b
hicle in the tension it induces, riding, giving pigment a r­ ide, taking reflection
for a ­ride, but bound and in suspense, but somehow fugitive when suspen-
sion fails, hits bottom, so blue is already in green, on the way to what it’s
in, that modality of herbaceous mood, depressive mangrove, metamorphic
plant in early mourning, post-­blue’s lumpen swerve. They knew you ­were
gonna start saying that shit so they started signing lazulic roughness at g ­ reat
expense to the theory of color.
This is Maggie Nelson:

54. Long before e­ither wave or particle, some (Pythagoras, Euclid,

Hipparchus) thought that our eyes emitted some kind of substance
that illuminated, or “felt,” what we saw. (Aristotle pointed out that this
hypothesis runs into trou­ble at night, as objects become invisible de-
spite the eyes’ purported power.) O ­ thers, like Epicurus, proposed the
inverse—­that objects themselves proj­ect a kind of ray that reaches out
­toward the eye, as if they w ­ ere looking at us (and surely some of them
are). Plato split the difference, and postulated that a “visual fire” burns be-
tween our eyes and that which they behold. This still seems fair enough.6

Wow! To see a work of art in twilight, that ongoing disruption and de-
ferral of the total. Monk plays, monks play, and I consider how my light is
bent. Prolepsis is conceptual motility, a thought provoked by senseless sense,
enacted in senseless ritual’s inveterate sensuality, disorder’s tendency to blue,
this blackness, which is not prophecy but description. How blue can you
get? Prochronic blue. The bluer the berry, the sweeter the juice. We been
gone, was gone when we got h ­ ere, that inveterate forward flash of nachel
blue, that senseless sense of what been ­there ’cause it been gone, subjection’s
prey in prayer, entangled, exsensed blue, brushed grammar, blue grammar’s
swarmed, schwärmereitic anasyntactic mood.

36.
What if they changed the name of Paramin to Paraman? Check out Earl
Lovelace in The Dragon ­Can’t Dance:

blue vespers / 235
 In truth, it was in the spirit of priesthood that Aldrick addressed his
work; for the making of his dragon costume was to him always a new
miracle, a new test not only of his skill but his faith: for though he
knew exactly what he had to do, it was only by faith that he could
bring from ­these scraps of cloth and tin that dragon, its mouth
breathing fire, its tail threshing the ground, its nine chains rattling,
that would contain the beauty and threat and terror that was the
message he took each year to Port of Spain. It was in this message
that he asserted before the world his self. It was through it that he
demanded that ­others see him, recognize his personhood, be warned
of his dangerousness.7

We could pretend to self-­assert, but what if carnival is this other ­thing?

­There, gone, blue philosophy just gon’ be proleptic, projective, anticipa-
tory, improvisational. This is Judith Butler working an encounter between
Mladen Dolar and Louis Althusser that puts us right at carnival’s edge:

Dolar underscores the inability of Althusser’s theory of ritual practice

to account for the motivation to pray: “What made him follow the rit-
ual? Why did he/she consent to repeat a series of senseless gestures?”
Dolar’s questions are impossible to satisfy in Althusser’s terms, but
the very presuppositions of Dolar’s questions can be countered with
an Althusserian explanation. That Dolar presumes a consenting sub-
ject prior to the per­for­mance of a ritual suggests that he presumes
a volitional subject must already be in place to give an account of
motivation. But how does this consenting subject come to be? This
supposing and consenting subject appears to precede and condition
the “entrance” into the symbolic and, hence, the becoming of a sub-
ject. The circularity is clear, but how is it to be understood? Is it a
failing of Althusser not to provide the subject prior to the formation
of the subject, or does his “failure” indicate only that the grammati-
cal requirements of the narrative work against the account of subject
formation that the narrative attempts to provide? To literalize or to
ascribe an ontological status to the grammatical requirement of “the
subject” is to presume a mimetic relation between grammar and on-
tology which misses the point, both Althusserian and Lacanian, that
the anticipations of grammar are always and only retroactively in-
stalled. The grammar that governs the narration of subject formation

236 / chapter 22
 presumes that the grammatical place for the subject has already been
established. In an impor­tant sense, then, the grammar that the narra-
tive requires results from the narrative itself. The account of subject
formation is thus a double fiction at cross-­purposes with itself, repeat-
edly symptomatizing what resists narration.8

Let’s make a narrative about re­sis­tance to narration. Let’s make a narrative

of passage—­a story too blue to be true, or believed; a passage too terrible to pass
up. All rituals are not the same. Why is prayer dif­f er­ent than speech? Maybe it’s
­because prayer, if it’s real, implies neither addresser or addressee. Maybe
prayer is (not) (in) between. Maybe prayer is that t­ here’s nothing between
us. Maybe ­there’s nothing between black and blue, no relation of existence
between blue and gone, just that blur black leaves when it comes and goes
before the subject. Blue comes and goes before the subject. Blur comes and
goes comes before the subject. T ­ here’s another kind of prayer, another mo-
dality of devotion, another devotional mood, given in the black indigeneity
of ceremonial indigo. We are (in) the general prayer just like we are (in) the
margins, the wilderness, the social. We are (in) the insistent previousness of
the we. We precede. Blue abides. Where? Gone. This problematic of blue’s
place, that it has none, in a movement of infusion and surrounding. Where’s
the sky start? We are in it, this border. We blue.

In lovely blue the steeple blossoms

With its metal roof. Around which
Drift swallow cries, around which
Lies most loving blue.9

This is Friedrich Hölderlin’s variation on a theme by Ligon. It lets us con-

sider more fully, more literally in relation to Wittgenstein’s suggestion,
which is to say beyond the location of the paintings, of the spaces they are
meant to represent, just what it is to say that t­ here is no relation of existence
between color and space. Is to say that ­there is no relation of existence be-
tween them the same ­thing as it is to say t­ here is nothing between them?
Lovely blue’s braided infusement embraces ­things, and the embrace is a
kind of annihilation, but not the kind w ­ e’re usually enjoined to fear, just
the kind that generalizes the indiscretion in and by which we live. Blue is
something (not) (in) between ­things—­a medium, the material within which
the pigment is suspended, through which it’s transferred, in both reflection
and absorption.

blue vespers / 237
 37.
It makes you won­der how painting’s conceptual work survives its material-
ity? But this is not merely to repeat the Marxian distinction between the
rational and the mystical, which would correspond to that between the con-
ceptual and the material: rather, let’s think about the radical entanglement
of all of t­ hese, “long before e­ ither wave or particle,” which brings what w
­ ill
have been isolated u ­ nder the rubric of the mystical material back into play,
precisely as medium, or as the refusal of the relation/distinction (not) (in)
between not only color and space but also (not) (in) between medium and
what­ever is mediated.10 Devotional practice is also given in the way The Blue
Rider paintings are hung, in the arrangement of light, in echo of The Upper
Room. Mahalia’s ongoing ascension, her having anticipated Jesus in com-
ing, and in reaching, ­after Him, is given in and against Thomas’s doubting
materialism. What is needful in Thomas’s doubt, his appeal to the sensual
against the grain of the supersensual’s strict hegemony, which hallowed, hol-
low sovereignty is always already trying to establish e­ very time it walks into
a museum demanding, “Go some of you and fetch a looking glass.” That’s the
other hand. On the more and less than one hand, some of us want to see not
for ourselves. Perhaps it is this insistence upon the sensual that sustains us
in the flesh. The blessing must be taken for a wound so that the wound can
be taken for a blessing. That’s the artistic gesture that cannot be reduced
or denied, that it’s all got to be seen or felt, that massive concert of seeing,
feeling, tasting, breathing, hearing that Christian iconography ­can’t get past
which is revealed in its need/tendency to represent the wound, to ingest at
the wound’s convergence of body and blood, that vermillion shock a registra-
tion on vari­ous altars just to let you know, again, that alteration is the truth
in painting, that the truth is given in painting’s untruth, not in between,
animediate, gone. Materiality, pigmentation, and (un)truth, mess with the
supposed interplay of truth, whiteness, and transparency like a birthmark.
­There’s a ­little heretical contemporaneity, moved, off-­stride, in time in being
off or out of it, just to let you know that first and last are a brand-­new sign.
­There’s a gathering of the entire spectrum in the intensity of this relay (not)
(in) between black and blue. ­There’s a runaway ra(y)ve hiding ­every rising
color. All this lets you know that anticolonial chromaticism’s anticipatory
force ­ought not be mistaken for blind return. Fanon’s ambivalence bears the
trace of that ­mistake. Why ­can’t he share the “poor, misfortunate negro’s”

238 / chapter 22
open secret—­which is, precisely, given in and as re­sis­tance to the irreducible
interplay of arrest and relationship?
How to keep this vesperish t­ hing, this echoic atmosphere, this condition
of surrounding and infusing, this nonsensical, exsensual ritual, an open se-
cret? How to let the sun inside a refuge? Bob Marley would get back to the
­ otel room a­ fter a show, turn on his portable reel to reel and search the sky
h
for songs like Bukka White. Ofili’s pigment, his scattered skylight reflectiv-
ity, is the ground for how we imagine the ongoing conversation within which
Hölderlin and White become, surround, and refuse one another. Unfallen,
Kant remains uncharmed, unable to rise. Fallenness is grace. Suspension is in
the material. That’s the medium. T ­ here’s nothing but medium. It’s all border.
Blue is all black in this newness. Let relation fall out. The term misleads, is
grammatically incompatible with the irreducible facticity of entanglement,
which ­these paintings iconize in serial rub. To think blue, to see and feel it,
the fact of painting, the fact, the truth of painting, of paint, of pigmentation,
is this. This animediacy of blue and black is deep. Another method of truth
is given in this fleshliness. Blue is black in this nonexclusion. When color is
so reviled, look for color everywhere. Ofili is a person of color. P
­ eople of color
­don’t quite correspond. Their encountering is objectional, in re­sis­tance to ob-
jectification. Oblique, appositional, sidelong. If the world is a world of ­faces,
they refuse. Such refusal is devotion. Ofili is the chapel.

38.
What if the body is church’s situated disavowal? When Butler says, “The
body is not a site on which a construction takes place; it is a destruction
on the occasion of which a subject is formed,” she takes us into carnival’s
edge.11 Does, can, an individual life ­matter? Can we speak of the materiality of
“an individual life”? If portraiture assumes an answer in the affirmative, then
showing other­wise responds. To say that this or that life ­matters, that it has
value, is to speak, fi­nally, of a radical animateriality as the source of that value
and as if it w
­ ere that value when to attend to value, or to what is said to have
value (in its distinctness), is to forget its source. And so we act as if distinct-
ness forgets where it’s coming from even as its troubled, troubling experi-
ence can only ever occasion the question, what is that animateriality? What
if the animateriality that makes a so-­called individual life ­matter is, precisely,
that ­there is no individual life? That blur, given in a failure to interpellate

blue vespers / 239
that too much attention to the failure to indict, erases, is understood by But-
ler even to “undermine the capacity of the subject to ‘be’ in a self-­identical
sense.”12 She hopes that “it may also mark the path t­ oward a more open, even
more ethical, kind of being, one of or for the ­future,” but what if the ­future
is given more emphatically in what is usually avoided as mere consignment
to (a relative) “nothingness”?13 This difficult passage requires immersion in
a tradition of massive, studious fête. What is mistaken for the absence of a
tradition, of that tradition, is brought into relief by T. J. Clark operating in a
modality of research that ­doesn’t just move in but also seeks to justify forget-
ting where distinctness comes from and to posit it, rather, as self-­grounded,
background(ed) incapacity.

The look of someone looking at himself looking at the look he has

when it is a m­ atter of looking not just at anything, at something ­else,
but back to the place from which one is looking . . . ​would that do bet-
ter? Is that what self-­portraiture is about? S ­ imple questions in this
area seem to open onto infinite dialectical regress. And i­sn’t one of
the ­things we admire in the best of the genre precisely the effort to
represent this dialectical vertigo? ­Isn’t that what Rembrandt is ­doing?
Somewhere in the back of my consciousness I clung to the idea that
self and other, exterior and interior, immediacy and reflection w ­ ere
distinctions that ­shaped the look I was trying to come to terms with. I
wanted to resist the distinctions, or at least question them, but I knew
that the look short-­circuited my intellectual defences. It addressed me
directly. It put me in the place of self. Rembrandt and I—­the look was
our term of agreement—­were face to face.14

Note that in the second passage, Clark offers commentary on the first
one, given in a previous essay on self-­portraiture some twenty years earlier.
Clark wants to resist the distinctions, to resist their naturalness, the sense
that ­they’re not coming from somewhere, but the brutality of having been
brought face to face, this misprision of ethical encountering in which the face
is imposed as both emblem and instrument of serial blur’s (of black + blue’s)
strict regulation, in which what passes for difference is difference’s seizure,
is not the same as the vulnerability that marks/instantiates entanglement.
We do not undo one another; we are this constancy of undoing/redoing, this
generality of antagonism and protagonism that blue seriality induces when
portraiture gives way to mystical and material showing. Clark, emphatically
redoubling what was to be diagnosed, must remain concerned with a no-

240 / chapter 22
tion of space in its relation to the time of the infinite dialectical regress of
self-­regard. The space-­time of the self as spectacle, as spectator, is given as
the auto-­originary origin that c­ an’t be cut, or cut off, or cut away from. Un-
like Michael Fried, who understands that place as a site of exaltation, Clark
knows it to be a relegation. Rembrandt puts him in his place, which is a
terminal condition, even and especially if one desires it, which one must in-
sofar as one is only in this desire. This desire delimits a world, which is not
an earth, of f­aces. Addressability is an epiphenomenal vulnerability, more
than terrible ­because it is devoid of saving power. Clark is in despair. He c­ an’t
be saved from himself. This despair, generalized, in which Rembrandt’s pic-
tures of f­ aces are always “exposing the brain to the world”; in which “the face
is the form of the brain in the world”; in which “a face . . . ​is a machine for
exteriorizing—­exchanging, universalizing—­subjectivity”; in which a face is a
machine for universalizing the “I”; in which “a face that encounters itself as
an object, be it exhausted or immaculate, is always an ego luxuriating—­fully
and wonderfully entrenched—in its being-­in-­the-­world” is the despair that
accompanies and undergirds recognition. Subjectivity’s abject exaltation is a
certain shade of the blues.15
Clark tries to get at something in “World of ­Faces” that Butler, in Precari­
ous Life, also touches on, in and as an assumption of the additive relationality
and isolate bereavement given in “we’s” self-­fashioning and self-­annihilation
at address. “One speaks, and one speaks for another, to another, and yet t­ here
is no way to collapse the distinction between the Other and oneself. When
we say “we” we do nothing other than designate this very problematic. We do
not solve it. And perhaps it is, and o­ ught to be, insoluble. This disposition of
ourselves, outside ourselves seems to follow from bodily life, from its vulner-
ability and its exposure.”16
But ­there is an anoriginal or anoriginary vulnerability, a vulnerability
before vulnerability’s coalescence, entanglement’s anaecstatic before, that
­ought not be forgotten, that remains not to be drawn forth but as a recess to
accompany fugitive, welcoming twilight. At stake is the infinitesimally small,
immeasurably large difference between the arrest and embrace of elusion, an
uncapturable allure that precedes itself, that precedes the self, that precedes
the body, or bodily life. This irreducible and jurisgenerative precedent—­
blackness misunderstood if it is merely understood as void; nothingness
misunderstood if it is understood as relative, wildness misunderstood if it
is understood as wilderness—is pied, pre­ce­dent, precise indistinction, an
imaginative, improvisatory, previsionary refusal to be envisaged. What the

blue vespers / 241
face, in its irreducible instability, gives us, is that which is between us inso-
far as we are always and only in between. The blue-­black birthmark that
undergirds and undermines ­every act of portrayal; portraiture’s anafounda-
tional betrayal, self-­murder, I suppose, b
­ ecause, as Amiri Baraka says, the
new black art is this—­find the self, then kill it. That’s the Iscariot Blues. Ofili
serially gives us what painting gives in spite of our serial attempts to give
that gift away. We are (not) (in) between, beside ourselves in this constant
and constantly forgotten setting of ourselves aside. That’s all. And h
­ ere what
comes into play for Butler is this problematic of the address, this question of
vulnerability, this generativity of imperfection.

The structure of address is impor­tant for understanding how moral

authority is introduced and sustained if we accept not just that we ad-
dress ­others when we speak, but that in some way we come to exist, as
it ­were, in the moment of being addressed, and something about our
existence proves precarious when that address fails. More emphati-
cally, how. So if we think moral authority is about ever, what binds us
morally has to do with how we are addressed by o ­ thers in ways that we
cannot avert or avoid; this impingement by the other’s address con-
stitutes us first and foremost against our w ­ ill, or, perhaps put more
appropriately, prior to the formation of our w ­ ill. So if we think moral
authority is about finding one’s ­will and standing by it, stamping one’s
name upon one’s w ­ ill, it may be that we miss the very mode by which
moral demands are relayed. That is, we miss the situation of being ad-
dressed, the demand that comes from elsewhere, sometimes a name-
less elsewhere, by which our obligations are articulated and pressed
upon us.17

It’s impor­tant to figure out what’s off and asymmetrical and noncorrespon-
dent between “we” and address.” We has no address, no location. We’s general
dislocation makes addressability a kind of pretense, a kind of per­for­mance, as
the relay between enactment, embodiment, and indictment. What if (not) (in)
between, its dislocation, its ill(ocal) vocality, is flesh’s reconstructive decon-
struction of address? The address is not what lies between us, like a power line
that activates the ends it connects; nothing lies between us; we are (not) (in)
between. Vis-­à-­vis is a story we tell whose dominance places us at risk. Butler
says that we come to exist in the moment of being addressed; the address,
which is to say our addressability, comes first. But whose addressability? We
appear to come first; we appear to bear addressability as a kind of capacity

242 / chapter 22
before we are addressed or, as it w
­ ere, brought into existence by the address.
This is Butler’s Paradox, which she outlines in The Psychic Life of Power. Has
she forgotten? How do we preserve? In articulating the paradox Butler re-
minds us. Maybe we can feel it, enact its ritual, assert that carnival, as a kind
of recess, a kind of hollow, a kind of holla we inhabit, that reverberate, nonlo-
cal hello which emits call-­and-­response as only one terrible and beautiful
possibility. The prob­lem we designate, the prob­lem “we” designates, is the
indistinctness whence distinctness springs as the all-­but-­unchecked disaster
of generativity’s arrest.

39.
In Claudia Rankine’s finely wrought encounter with Butler, what remains
most deeply for us deeply to consider is not the address or the common and
vulnerable collectivity the address calls into existence but rather the trace of
a we that comes before that, its recess, nowhere, a lyric pool Rankine sounds
with atonal precision, held within what Erica Hunt identifies as a ruse of
address:18

Listen, you, I was creating a life study of a

monumental first person, a Brahmin first
person.

If you need to feel that way—­still you are in ­here

and ­here is nowhere.

Join me down ­here in nowhere.

­Don’t lean against the wall­paper; sit down and

pull together

Yours is a strange dream, a strange reverie.

No, it’s a strange beach; each body is a strange

beach, and if you let in the excess emotion you
­ ill recall the Atlantic Ocean breaking on our
w
heads.19

Nowhere, down ­here, in dislocation, in Rankine’s song and Zong! exten-

sion, lies what Butler indexes as a chance for interpellative failure, for mis-
recognition, given at the intersection of decision and complicity, ­either of

blue vespers / 243
which bespeaks a kind of priority, an existence before the call that is sup-
posed to bring one into existence. She speaks of it as a self before the self,
a self that then turns on itself, turns against itself in turning to the law that
hails it. But why assume that this priority takes the form of a self, or deeper
still, that it takes form at all? ­Here’s where we might begin to think the radi-
cal informality of we, the nothing, the blackness that is before, and deep, in
the break, not in between. The world and the face are failed proj­ect, harsh
projection.
At twilight, in the eve­ning, when sense is gone as sense’s blur, the sociality
generally valued as relatively nothing is given in the full richness of its re­
sis­tance to valuation. Why impose upon shadow not only the neat dismissal
“total darkness,” but also, and more terribly and fundamentally, the colonial
dishonor of accommodating the work of art and its individual beholder in
their locked-­down, joint vacation? I hope I’m not just valorizing absorption
over theatricality, a­ fter all. Clark says it’s not about the look, it’s about the
face. But absorption still implies a separation. Let’s not be so conscious of
our self-­regarding otherness, says Michael Fried.20 But it’s the w ­ hole meta-
physics of relation and address that is disturbed. It’s not that Fried and Clark
cancel each other out; rather, it’s that they blur. For Fried, absorption is a
special, illusory condition that relation makes pos­si­ble. The art critical con-
dition of conviction manifests what repre­sen­ta­tions of absorption are, them-
selves, supposed to represent. Nor is the point some Kaprovian blurring of
art and life. The point is the blur itself, the cele­bration of mass, the playing
of mas, as a phenomenon of indistinctness, of indiscretion, the blood, the
blues, the bruise, come out to show them, come out to show them, come out
to show them. In the midst of terror, fighting ­every achievement of loneliness
we are constrained to desire, this is the force in per­for­mance of the paramen
of Paramin, carnival’s absolute interval, whose prayer and practice Ofili visu-
ally recalls and calls us to to­night and ­every night.

244 / chapter 22
Chapter 23

The Blur
and Breathe Books
40.
I have been studying how I may compare

This prison where I live unto the world:

And for ­because the world is populous

And ­here is not a creature but myself,

I cannot do it; yet I’ll hammer it out.

My brain I’ll prove the female to my soul,

My soul the ­father; and ­these two beget

A generation of still-­breeding thoughts,

And ­these same thoughts ­people this ­little world,

In humours like the ­people of this world,

For no thought is contented. . . . ​

Thus play I in one person many ­people,

And none contented: sometimes am I king;

Then treasons make me wish myself a beggar,

And so I am: then crushing penury

Persuades me I was better when a king;

Then am I king’d again: and by and by

Think that I am unking’d by Bolingbroke,

And straight am nothing: but whate’er I be,

Nor I nor any man that but man is

With nothing ­shall be pleased, till he be eased

With being nothing.—­S HAKESPEARE , Richard II

Philosophy, as we use the word, is a fight against the fascination which forms

of expression exert on us.—­L UDWIG WITTGENSTEIN , The Blue Book

“The Blur and Breathe Books.” This is a play on Wittgenstein’s The Blue and
Brown Books, notes composed in Cambridge in the early 1930s that are con-
sidered preliminary to his Philosophical Investigations, a text left unfinished
and, therefore, eternally preliminary, at his death and even ­after its publica-
tion. Nathaniel Mackey would call it “premature and postexpectant.” The text
remains incomplete as a function of a ceaseless worrying, an endless rub, a
troubling pregnancy, an obsessive overpolishing that eventually blurs always
and everywhere with undoing. Over the past few years, I’ve been thinking
and writing about con­temporary art and the phenomenon of blur that some-
times happens both in and between artworks. You could think about it as a
kind partition in refusal of partition; a general assertion of inseparability,
which nevertheless still moves in and as a ubiquitous and continual differ-
entiation; a breaking or cutting or scoring, if you ­will. ­Here, now, in this/
that blur, I’m especially interested in the visual artist/composer/pedagogue
Charles Gaines. In the last few years, in Los Angeles, the city where he lives
and works, as well as in other cities throughout the country and the world,
Gaines’s art and m
­ usic have been displayed and performed in an expanding
duo of exhibitions: In the Shadow of Numbers featured a se­lection of works
created by Gaines since 1975, focusing in par­tic­u­lar on the audiovisualization
of number in his work; Gridworks re-­presents work deploying grids, math-
ematical operations and multiple layering that had been completed between
1975 and 1989; that show, in turn, spread out in two directions—­Manifestos
2, in which a nine-­piece ensemble played a musical score by Gaines based on
a translation of four po­liti­cal manifestos (which scrolled one-­by-­one ­behind
the ensemble) in which musical notes and silences w­ ere assigned to the let-
ters making up t­hose texts; and Librettos, which I want to discuss h­ ere, a
work involving the superimposition of excerpts from the score of Manuel de
Falla’s opera La Vida Breve over the text of another famous po­liti­cal mani-

246 / chapter 23
festo, a speech delivered on April 19, 1967, at Garfield High School in Seattle,
Washington, by pan-­Africanist po­liti­cal activist and theorist Stokely Carmi-
chael. I w
­ ill try to focus on a certain re­sis­tance to focus in Librettos and to
move from t­here to some suggestions regarding aesthetic indiscretion and
the critique of sovereignty, questions with which Gaines has long been en-
gaged as a theorist, critic, curator, and even a dramaturg of sorts. All of t­ hese
roles and their implications are operative in Gaines’s The Theater of Refusal:
Black Art and Mainstream Criticism, a now practically mythic exhibition he
arranged at the University of California, Irvine, in 1993, and in the extraor-
dinary essay he wrote for the exhibition cata­log. In order to try to talk about
Librettos I’ll have to try to talk about ­these as well.

41.
At the time of his speech, Carmichael is in the full flowering of his emer-
gence both in and from the leadership of the Student Nonviolent Coordinat-
ing Committee (sncc), a group of young activists crucial to the vast range
of dispersed, differentiated insurgencies somewhat misleadingly known as
the Civil Rights movement. In his speech, Carmichael brilliantly elaborates
a theory of black power that held its own rich and complex critique, rather
than denunciation or disavowal, of vio­lence. Meanwhile, Falla, whose opera,
first performed in 1913, tells the sad tale of a poor young Roma ­woman, Salud,
whose passion for the well-­to-do Paco is unackowledgeable and, therefore,
cannot properly be requited. Just as Paco is about to marry another ­woman
of his own social class, Salud interrupts the wedding in order to die at the feet
of, and thereby express her other­wise inexpressible ardor and contempt for,
the one who can neither deny nor accept her. What connects Carmichael and
Falla? And what connects Gaines’s staging of their interplay to the history of
his concern with letter, note, number, grid, layer? I want to suggest that at
issue are some fundamental questions of po­liti­cal ontotheology. In ­these sup-
posedly separate shows and in the purportedly individual works that make
them up, ­there is a space between the layers, a palimpsestic interval one is al-
ways trying to inhabit, a lateral fascination through which attention passes,
as the appositional sending of (an) air, an exploratory envoy of breathing.
You send air, or you are sent as air through the individual “panel” or blurred
unit while being sent through the three-­dimensional blurred air of the space
itself, the gallery operating normally as a devotional gathering of pilgrims
circling inside a square, held periodically by stations that in this case take the

the blur and breathe books / 247

form of hung rectangles, roughly h
­ uman in scale, relatively flat but standing
forth, nevertheless, as an airy thickness. In a series of twelve panels, Car-
michael’s words, proximate to the wall, are covered by envelopes of plexi-
glass approximately eight inches thick, upon which is printed Falla’s score.
This blurring of score and speech and the breathing that takes place in the
space between the objects’ layers instantiates new musical composition in
choreographic per­for­mance, a kind of improvisation manifest in movement-­
activated visual and aural attention that occurs u ­ nder what might be called
temporal distress. I think of the visual-­choreographic-­musical blur induced
by and given in Librettos as an entanglement of books in which what it is to
quit (pay; clear up) and what it is requit (repay; s­ ettle a debt) are all bound
up with a politics and an erotics of the incomplete and the unrequited. I’m
interested in what c­ an’t be finished or cleared up, the unpayable debt, the
unaccountable, which is scored in our per­for­mance of Gaines’s work.
As Carmichael intimates all throughout his speech, along but also over
Fanonian lines with which Gaines is certainly familiar, nonviolent coordina-
tion is a form of vio­lence, often known by another name, the name to end
all names, the name above all but ­every other name, art. Gridblur, to put it
another way, is the before-­and-­after of a radical detonation that places deno-
tation in insurmountable trou­ble. I have to take some strange detours—­not
aimless shifts but, rather, strained tracings of a calculated and incalculable
drifting—in order to try to show this. For instance, t­here’s something that
­people call a ­children’s book titled The Listening Walk, with text by Paul
Showers and images by Aliki. It tells the story of—by inviting us, particularly
through its images, to join—­a l­ittle girl and her f­ather taking a s­ ilent walk
through their neighborhood, in order to listen, by way of a certain interplay
of chance and improvisation that famously worries Stanley Cavell, to the
sonic happenings that come into relief as movement blurs into musical (dis)
composition. The walk is meant to take at least 4'33," but I’ve been caught up
in a shared obsession with The Listening Walk for a lot longer than that, hav-
ing been constrained serially to reread it, to go through it as if g
­ oing through
a gallery accompanied by my own recitation, by two l­ittle boys, recognizing
all along that ­you’re not supposed to read it while listening and walking. To
be serially unable not to look at it while reading it is to understand that the
book substitutes for what it represents; that the substitute defers what it
commends. The only way to defend the alternate pro­cess is to proceed. Blur
is the alternate pro­cess, and in Librettos Charles Gaines invites and allows
us to proceed as we make our listening walk through the gallery, performing

248 / chapter 23
discomposition. Neither Falla nor Carmichael can get you t­ here. Both Falla
and Carmichael ­can’t get you t­ here, ­either. Doubling opens out, rather, onto
certain questions, perhaps even past Gaines’s own intentions, which are to
reveal and also to insist upon a certain proliferation of relations—as if the
viewer is activated in relation to the relation that he sees, or makes. This
is to align Gaines with what Édouard Glissant calls the poetics of relation,
which uncomfortably is prefigured by Martin Heidegger as a problematic
of techné, ­whether understood as blooming forth in itself or bringing forth
from another. And the questions that emerge from this alignment have to do
precisely with the politics and aesthetics of the self-­in-­relation.
In the Garfield High speech, Carmichael says,

We want to talk about self-­condemnation. Self-­condemnation is impos-

sible. Nobody can condemn themselves or no p ­ eople can condemn them-
selves. If they do they have to punish themselves. See, if I did something
wrong, and I admitted that I did it wrong, then I have to punish myself,
see. But if I can keep telling lies or if I can rationalize away my guilt,
then I’ll never feel guilty. Hmm, let me give you some examples. . . . ​For
us in this country, a clear example of that would be in Neshoba County,
in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a honky by the name of Rainey, decides
with eigh­teen other honkies to kill three p
­ eople. Now the entire county
of Neshoba cannot indict Rainey ­because they elected him to do just
what he was ­doing, to kill anybody who troubled with the status quo.
If they indicted him, then all of them ­will be guilty, and they ­can’t do
that. See, they cannot admit that ­they’re guilty. And in sncc we say that
white Amer­i­ca, the total community, cannot condemn herself for the
acts of brutality and bestiality that she’s heaped upon us as a race—­
black ­people. It’s impossible for her to do it. She must rationalize away
her guilt. She must blame us or blame every­body ­else but herself cause
if she ­were to blame herself she would have to commit suicide. My
­brother LeRoi Jones reminds me that ­wouldn’t be a bad idea.1

Our commitment to the commitment that is expressed and renewed in

t­ hese words requires a reading of their analytic clarity unto and past the point
of synthetic blur. Carmichael’s anticolonial righ­teousness requires vigilance
against postcolonial, which is to say neo­co­lo­nial self-­righteousness, which
turns out to be not just a bad, but a problematically metaphysical attitude. Con-
sider self-­condemnation, as Carmichael describes it, as a kind of impossible or,
perhaps more accurately, intolerable withering that comes into relief against

the blur and breathe books / 249

the backdrop of a kind of flowering that must be called self-­determination—­
that coming into its own, as its own, of a ­people that constitutes the desid-
eratum of sovereignty, ­whether it is manifest in colonial domination or to be
achieved in anticolonial strug­gle. But what if self-­condemnation ­isn’t impos-
sible but is, rather, constantly given in the impossibility of its relation to self-­
determination?2 What if self-­determination and self-­condemnation are not
simply the king’s but—­more problematically, ­because more precisely—­the
settler’s and the freedom fighter’s twin imperatives? Can the endless oscil-
lation between self-­determination and self-­condemnation, which might be
said to constitute the conceptual analogs to what Ernst Kantorowicz called
“the king’s two bodies,” be broken? This might be a kind of preface to what
Huey P. Newton called “revolutionary suicide,” even though Carmichael
leads us to this question by way of the fantasmatic self-­condemnation of the
kind of contrite white Mississippian that, in the first instance, Newton prob­
ably would not have identified as an ideal revolutionary subject.
It’s just that we all know that the contrite Mississippian, I mean the one
who’s getting ready to go kill somebody e­ lse to­night, is no fantasy. When Car-
michael ­here associates self-­condemnation not only with the admission of
guilt but also with a concomitant submission of oneself to punishment, he
might be said to have overlooked the unseemly presence of self-­condemnation
that lies at the heart of the rhe­toric of American fallenness, of an original and
originary American sinfulness that turns out not only to be fundamental to
the specific ethic, which one would sincerely love not to call Protestant, that
helps to structure the American ideology but also to a more generally West-
ern cultural alignment of exception and self-­conception. In this formation
it is the West’s, and in this case Amer­i­ca’s, capacity for guilt, its predisposi-
tion ­toward a guilty conscience, that sets it apart. As one of the good guys of
Western philosophy, Emmanuel Levinas, puts it, “­There is a kind of envel-
opment of all thinking by the Eu­ro­pean subject. Eu­rope has many ­things to
be reproached for, its history has been a history of blood and war, but it is
also the place where this blood and war have been regretted and constitute
a bad conscience of Eu­rope which is also the return of Eu­rope, not ­toward
Greece, but ­toward the Bible.”3 Bad conscience is the self ’s familiar spirit,
accompanying it, as its necessary and irreducible supplement, not merely
as a reaction to the self ’s enveloping use of force but as, itself, the very force,
the very power that animates relation in and as unbridled use. If this is so,
then what’s at stake is not the absence of self-­condemnation but its ubiquity
which, when it is understood as essential to the mechanics of continued bru-

250 / chapter 23
tality, is best understood, as in Jean-­Paul Sartre’s late work, as bad faith. Let’s
say, moreover, that technically, bad faith is an ongoing commitment to the
continuance of brutality that continually bodies forth—in juridical force, in
ethical power, in the hard operations that are bound to and by the limits of
self, other, and world—­a more general and more fundamental disavowal of
waiting which is, seemingly paradoxically, in the interest of constant and ob-
sessively absorptive and expansive self-­reflection. Often, the relay between
the production and the reception of art has been understood and arranged as
a theater of such self-­reflection, a zone in which what is called consciousness
and what supposedly is felt as bad conscience alchemically produce the tran-
scendence and exaltation that the West imagines as exclusionary common-
wealth. In this regard, the necessarily partial democ­ratization of sovereignty
is, as it ­were, extracted from art up ­until the point at which art, no longer
concerned with what it feels like to be me, in relation, in the world, unsettles
and affirms its space in the in the abolition of self-­awareness and the radical
disruption of self-­reflection.
Gaines folds t­ hese questions and the imperative they announce into a kind
of showing. In the listening walk, Carmichael’s words in your head are halted by
the musical notation that hides them from your eyes: you have to read, and so
you have to look, so that you can listen, so that you can walk (away), bound to
perform in an extra cagey, extraCagean sense of the term. Duration is given
in the per­for­mance. The time’s not set. The relation between depth and sur-
face is reset. T­ here’s an unworked thickness, a palimpsestic airing that oc-
curs intermittently, as an ensemble of directives. The space between paper
and acrylic is all but traversable. We are barred from it but ­because of it we
are freed from the bar lines or, more precisely, from what bar lines ordinarily
signify. This designification is part of Gaines’s design. Sign has become mark,
in gridblur, which we sight read and perform in a listening walk.

42.
In his speech, Carmichael could be said to spin out a story of love—­not
quite unrequited but certainly betrayed. The desire to be American marks
a failed romance. Does Paco arrive at self-­condemnation? Salud achieves
self-­determination in death which ­will have turned out to be the only way
to achieve it at the moment when someone re-­traverses that event horizon.
But h ­ ere, on this side of that bourn, self-­determination’s terminal condi-
tion is saturation in brutally and violently bad faith. Eric Garner, or Michael

the blur and breathe books / 251

Brown, or Laquan McDonald fall into standing. Standing is a kind of fall-
enness. All the case is, is a fall. That’s all the world is. Carmichael can only
represent the breaking of that romance, thereby renewing it. In blur, on the
other hand, Gaines refuses renewal. In a review of the Los Angeles Philhar-
monic’s 2012 production of La Vida Breve, Los Angeles Times opera critic
Mark Swed writes: “Every­thing that has to do with Salud and Paco is com-
monplace overwrought nonsense. Every­thing around (my emphasis) t­ hese
characters is fascinating.”4 This is in­ter­est­ing. T
­ here’s a certain advocacy of
blur, ­here, and it’s given in a set of excuses for Falla, seen by Swed as a young
composer overly influenced by Puccini. Swed is interested in the Spanish
fringe around the opera’s faux-­Italian core. T ­ here’s a Georges Bizet/Edvard
Grieg connection, too. That Afro-­Andalusian, under-­Norwegian backbeat,
an Arabic swerve, a Flamenco stomp, that sweeps Eu­rope as a kind of echo
of Orleans made new, its phonic remaking, its Louisiana grunge and Cuban
edge and Spanish tinge.
Is musical notation expressed/performed in Librettos and, if so, how?
Does “serial work pro­gress from one iteration to the next”? Is iteration the
name of an action, not a t­hing? What if looking is an accident you pass
through in order to get to reading in order to arrive at looking, which is on
the other side of reading? In The Blue and Brown Books, Wittgenstein is
exploring the notion that meaning is use. Use blurs. I love what appears as
the yellowing of the paper in Librettos. What if conceptual art is what allows
you to love without looking (­after, of course, y­ ou’ve been turned, blurred
in this regressive mutual eclipse of looking and reading)? When, as Gaines
says, “image making becomes separate from an expressive core”/corps, per-
haps it becomes eccentrically expressive. Perhaps it becomes expressive of
no ­thing, expressive of entanglement, indiscretion, recess. Gaines’s work is
recessive analy­sis, a tantric Afro-­Buddhist diagrammatics. It’s not that I’m
not ready not to speak of Gaines’s imagination; it’s that recessive imagination
works, makes its impression felt, through Gaines. All throughout Gaines’s
work ­there’s a blur materiality of shade, of colored number, in number’s inex-
actitude, the way it’s always off the beat, as beat’s incessant overlap and un-
dertow and undertone and overwork, no m ­ atter what. The one is not the one,
remember? That Godfathersome, Furtwänglerish slur and slide, grid on live
ground, grind, glissed, when “numbers are the subject rather than the for-
mal device that maps the subject,” as in Gaines’s mathematical disruptions of
portraiture. The face is always already in motion. Does portraiture still that?
No, the portrait, the landscape, the still life are the picture, rather, animated

252 / chapter 23
precisely by what they cannot still. Then movement is shadow, iteration and
seriality in entanglement. Gridwork is indiscrete. Color + Number = Blend.
Blur. Breathe. In flight from core expression, ­things get impressionistic
and fugal. The way math and blackness, or aesthetic topology, works in
Gaines is this: Shadowed number is a bridge from discretion to slur. Slur
rhymes with blur so Libretto, whose indiscretions we perform in walking, is
something I’ve come to think of as Wittgenstein’s seriality blues, his working
out of that haunting that occurs when fascination accompanies expression
and you ­can’t do anything about it. What if philosophy ­doesn’t fight against
that blur but, rather, in and with it?

43.
Haunting, which we can also think of as a kind of doubling, as a complex
bearing that might turn out to be disruptive of personhood in general, as a
kind of blur, is taken up in a 2008 collaboration between Gaines and Korean
artist Hoyun Son called Black Ghost Blues Redux, which is part of the first
exhibition I mentioned, In the Shadow of Numbers. ­There, in and as and
through the work, Son listens, moving and singing in response to bluesman
Lightning Hopkins’s call and, in and ­after the fact of her singing, under­neath
and off screen, Gaines’s response to her response.5 Solvent and solute are
indeterminate in this serialized, surrealized doubling, a fade to black-­and-­
blue blur in a complex of breathing, of cinematic narration’s fundament as a
kind of layering in aeration, a revelation of charged, changed dimensionality
in the dissolve of a t­ hing neither into another nor itself but into what sur-
rounds. ­There’s a social impurity on the move in the relay between internal
spatiotemporal differentiation and interracial, audiovisual mix. Acoustic
mirroring, ­here, is an internal as well as external operation, where surge and
surgery are interinanimate as a kind of pulse and texture on the screen, an
enlivening of it enacted in what feels like a leaving of it. And that’s the point:
the feeling, not the leaving, so that the leaving is in the feeling—­that what’s
onscreen leaves the screen ­because it feels like something, blur become rub
in an epidermal effect akin to what critic Laura Marks discusses in her The
Skin of the Film as “haptic visuality.”6 Such visuality is especially prominent,
Marks argues, in intercultural cinema’s attention to and embeddedness in
the ongoing disaster of coloniality; certainly the pairing of Son and Light-
ning Hopkins redoubled in the pairing of Son and Gaines, occurs against
the backdrop of a history of Black/Korean tension in the overlapped field of

the blur and breathe books / 253

social merge where Koreatown and South Central Los Angeles blur into one
another, in and as the city’s constantly expanding ­middle, as an effect that
both calls and responds to international and domestic neo­co­lo­nial pressure.
The dissolve resolves nothing; ­there is no easy solution, no phantasmatic
melding; but, at the same time, dissolution is not desolation, ­either. We feel
the blur of a general entanglement and the question is, simply, what are we
to make of it?
The film’s temporality—­its manipulation and marking of time in the
dissolve, which is not a cut so much as a slide, a glissando, in which the
ensemble of nonsingle being is differentially revealed—­indexes a feel, or a
field, of remote audiovisual hapticalities that emerges from/in/as the disrup-
tion of sovereignty’s proud joy and its fallenness into anxious metronomia.
Blurred, unkempt, unkept time is when and where m ­ usic accompanies, and
discomposes, an already strained commitment to visual synchrony. Some
of them who serve sovereignty in the very moment of its dissolution, have
already been told to go and get a mirror whose capacity to establish the be-
holder’s identity is its own disruption. ­Others are determined to be the king’s
friend and so they kill the king. What’s at stake h ­ ere is neither a bringing
forth in itself nor a bringing forth out of an Other but a bringing forth out
of or against self and Other, a bringing forth in defiance of the metaphysical
foundations of relation. To bring forth in the blur, out of the blue, in and out
of entanglement, through nonlocality’s absolutely nothing—­that breath, that
anima, that φψσισ—is neither pretechnologically nor antitechnologically but
anatechnologically essential: a general, generative, differential repeatability
that you could call m­ usic, if you deci­ded that you d
­ idn’t want to call it poetry,
depending on which side you took in the wake of their unconscionable, un-
enforceable divorce. In this regard, it seems to me that Gaines is concerned
with a very par­tic­u­lar graphic dilemma: how do we score their irreducibly
prior inseparability ­after the fact of their separation? The solution, which
turns out continually to be given in his artistic practice, is dissolution.
In trying to think about Gaines’s solicitation of the artwork’s two bodies,
we are allowed to consider what is it for the king to be confronted with the
fact of his two bodies, his person and his state (his picture and his shadow,
as Lightnin’ says and Gaines variously echoes), which together constitute the
radical unlivability of a doctrine. The body’s general and irreducible double-
ness, which accrues to e­ very instance of sovereignty’s merely interminable
approximation of itself, bears a terminal seriality. Over and over again one
is made aware of one’s relative nothingness, even when it takes the form of

254 / chapter 23
exaltation’s periodic vestibular negation of field and feel. The solution is the
self ’s dissolution, its lapsed, lax, dispersed concentration which reveals, if we
can figure out how to pay attention, the anatechnological priority of the dis-
solve, where the solute ­won’t dis­appear and solvent ­can’t put itself on solid,
self-­possessed footing. At stake is the generality of fundamental, anoriginal
dispossession. Can we be eased with having, or as Richard of Bordeaux says
more urgently and drastically, with being nothing? Can we relinquish the
task of recovering the sovereignty we never had, of repaying the debt we
never promised? Can we refuse to restate that romance? In seeking to affirm
the richly affirmative possibilities that are held in t­ hese negations, I’ll con-
tinue to turn to Gaines, hopefully not too much against Gaines’s grain, for
what is held in the rich insolvency of his poetics of negative space.
I have in mind a videoepigraph that would betray the fact that I’ve been
trying to get at a certain doubling that occurs between Carmichael and Rich-
ard. The dissolve, as it is manifest in Black Ghost Blues Redux, as it is pro-
duced cinematically in David Giles’s bbc tele­vi­sion version of Richard II, as
it is given anacinematically in Libretto, gets me to this ­matter of absolution
as and in consent to be touched, to be given in hauntedness, which is insepa-
rable from handedness, the maternal flow(n) or fluid or flood, a radical and
general amniosis held, as it ­were, in the airy thickness of Gaines’s objects.
What if what we call relation is another (both erotic and libidinal as opposed
to self-­determinative and self-­condemnatory) kind of saturation, so that the
term negative space actually slanders the pailmpsestic reservoir between the
layers of Gaines’s three-­dimensional sheet m­ usic? What if we call it affirma­
tive space, a holding in and against the hold, a for(e)given(n)ess: absolution
in amniosis? What if what is given in this renaming, this affirmative unnam-
ing, is to see or hear or read or perform the score in or through absolution? A
blurred, blue immersion of rubbing, of rubbed string, what Lightning plays.
A transoceanic feeling of/in passage, our impassivity, our passing through.
This turbulence, this antagonism, absolution’s absolute dissonance, is given
in and as a critique of relation. That’s what dissonance is: the note that must
be followed by another in itself in and to and as a kind of radical insolvency.
Can insolvency, ­here, mean both that which is in debt and that which also
resists the solvent, resists that interplay of solvency and sovereignty? (This
is not just what it is not to be indebted but also what it is to resist the power
that dissolves, that imposes assimilation, which is, therefore, that which
solves, that which determines, that which renders and organizes relational-
ity in accord with a normativity that it legislates, that which sets the terms of

the blur and breathe books / 255

mixture, that ­thing which wins the game of honor, that which composes, the
settled and settling score that serially instantiates [the continual establish-
ment of the impossibility of ] composition and composure.) What if it’s just
that sovereignty is the general condition within which relation operates, pre-
cisely in and through the par­tic­u­lar relation, to which Carmichael alerts us,
between self-­condemnation and self-­determination? Can art be, and show
us how to be, something other than a society “structured in dominance”?
What if the po­liti­cal is simply the structuring of socie­ties in dominance? If
so, can we imagine an ante-­and antipo­liti­cal art in the interest of the most
absolute social and aesthetic insurgency? Against the grain of the very idea of
the work of art, how can we imagine the art’s insovereign social work? What
if it turns out that the general theory of relativity, in a radical entanglement
with quantum mechanics for which ­there is as of yet no math, obliterates the
theory of relation? What if physics and sociology are just ways of saying one
another when and where art gets to work? Is it pos­si­ble to r­ ide the waves of
Gaines’s affirmative space? In leading us to ­these questions it appears that
he knows the score and has a plan. In a vio­lence that is both absolute and
gentle, he apposes the theater of self-­reflection with the theater of refusal,
a theater of differences, given in ser­vice to a general and nonsubjective ex-
pressiveness, in which, as Gaines once said, “remarkably meaningful ­things
could be produced.” ­We’re taken on a walk in looking and listening, in layer,
in the elegiac and Lygiac cut of endless caminhando, its suspension, in ser­
vice, in recess, as waiting, as tarrying, in praise, in practice.

44.
Can marginality be depoliticized? This question not only follows from the
ones above but also proceeds from the assumption that politics, insofar as
it is predicated upon the exclusion and regulation of difference, ­will have
always been the scene of our degradation and never the scene of our redemp-
tion, redress, or repair. To ask the question concerning the depoliticization of
marginality is to consider that marginality’s radically improper place is the
social. How can we see marginality as and for the social? This is a question
concerning the limit. The one who sets the limit—­whose self-­image is that
of the limit, the standard, the bound figured as the capacity to bind—is said
to be the one who exercises the power to marginalize; and while sharp and
plentiful focus on the usually deadly modes in which that capacity is exer-
cised remains crucial and inescapable, perhaps it is even more impor­tant

256 / chapter 23
to pay attention to how and why it is that the marginal marginalizes itself.
What follows from such double vision is a double task—­the proposal of an
alternative to marginalization and an alternative mode of marginalization.
Both the vision and the task are undertaken with rigorous and prescient bril-
liance in Gaines’s “The Theater of Refusal” and in Gaines’s The Theater of
Refusal.
What if the theater of refusal w
­ ere ours, for us, whoever and what­ever we
are? How might this manifest itself as a profound and illimitable communi-
cability, as opposed to immunity or prophylaxis? And would it move by way
of a transgression or eradication of limit or as a kind of proliferation of the
limit in and through and in the interest of the surround. Certainly it would
go against the flow of what is called the mainstream and its violent relation-
ality. It would be an antiflow or overflow, an undertow or River Antes, that
trou­bles ­every commitment to the self-­as-­subject and to the belief that the
“the presence of the subject is essential for the implementation of po­liti­cal
power” since we might have to open ourselves to the possibility that po­liti­cal
power is not at all what we need.7 ­These questions are explicit but—­deeper
still and better yet—­implicit in Gaines’s essay and in his curacy, in his gather-
ing activity of scholarly and artistic care. In our inhabitation and recitation
of ­those questions we are constrained to imagine, having already enacted,
a theater of refusal2, a theater of refuse, a theater of refuse, a theater of the
refused, a theater of the refusal of what has been refused, a theater of the left
over, a theater of the left b
­ ehind, a theater of the left, a theater of the (out
and) gone.
Gaines violently calls for “a new framework that does not condemn mar-
ginality to complicity with power” as ­gently as if he ­were calling for nothing at
all.8 He demands and allows us to see the futurial ghost of a marginality in the
absence of a mainstream—an antebinary ubiquity of the margin/al which, in
being everywhere is nowhere reconceived as general, nonlocal, nonsubjective
presence—an immanent aesthetic. When Derrida dreams, in his own gesture
at a/voiding the dialectic, of a structure, or a practice of structuring, without
a center, perhaps what he sees are certain magical trees, grid worked in and
out of itself in a range of anumerical shade, a shading of centric expressivity
that does not reverse the dialectic but evacuates it. At stake is a refusal of
being given in a generalization of refuge. At the same time, givenness, in its
essential difference from itself, in a generative strike against what Wallace
Stevens called “the central mind,” is where disbursal and dispersal converge
on and as a proliferation of verge, edge, tra(ns)versal. T
­ here is an affirmation

the blur and breathe books / 257

to be sounded in what is thought of as negative space; it emerges in and as
an activity of crossing such that “a less limited construction of marginality”
is given in the center’s perforation by a population of margins.

Marginality is not a s­ imple theory, but a complex construction of over-

lapping social, philosophical, biological and historical ideas. Much
writing on the subject is reductionist and essentialist b­ ecause the poli-
tics of the subject almost requires simplification. It almost begs a sim-
pler form, a diagram, perhaps, that ­will give shape to an impossibly
complex machine, a coding that ­will make the difficult choices for us,
to relieve us of the annoying spectacle of its insurmountability.
As I have tried to show, a theory of marginality is part of the lexicon
of ideas that frame our world view. It is an old theory, reaching as far
into the past and across as many cultures as its parent, dualism. But it
is a complex theory, a theory whose purpose is to idealize its subjects.9

We must also remember dualism’s parent, who is at once both real and
­imagined: (in/divi)dualism. In What Kinship Is—­and Is Not, Marshall Sah-
lins, echoing Roger Bastide’s echo of Maurice Leenhardt, speaks of the “di-
vidual person,” who is divisble and indistinct, who in refusing the imposition
of the body and its limits refuses the city (polis) and its limits as well.

In his capacity as a missionary, Maurice Leenhardt once suggested to

a New Caledonian elder that Chris­tian­ity had introduced the notion
of spirit (esprit) into Canaque thought. “Spirit? Bah!” the old man
objected: “You ­didn’t bring us the spirit. We already knew the spirit
existed. We have always acted in accord with the spirit. What ­you’ve
brought us is the body . . . . ” Commenting on the interchange, Roger
Bastide wrote, “The Melanesian did not conceive of himself other­wise
than a node of participations; he was outside more than he was inside
himself . . . . ” That is, Bastide explained, the man was in his lineage and
his totem, in nature and in the socius. By contrast, the missionaries
would teach him to sunder himself from ­these alterities in order to
discover his true identity, an identity marked by the limits of his body.
­Later in the same essay, Bastide transposed his Melanesian sense of
personhood to the African subjects he was principally concerned with,
and in so d
­ oing produced a clear description of the “dividual person . . . .”
Bastide wrote of the person “who is divisible” and also “not distinct in
the sense that aspects of the self are variously distributed among ­others,

258 / chapter 23
 as are ­others in oneself.” Emphasizing ­these transcendent dimensions of
the individual, he noted that “the plurality of the constituent ele­ments of
the person” moved him to “participate in other realities.”10

Perhaps what it is to refuse the limits of the body is to refuse the limit as
regulation in and for possessive individuation and to embrace the prolifera-
tion of limits’ irregular devotion to difference and blur. But this formulation
must bear the fact that even in Bastide the dividual person is given as person,
as an axiomatic subjectivity whose presence animates what­ever intersubjec-
tivity or relationality one wants to proffer. What if t­here are realities other
than that? Facilitation of alterities’ flights from binarism’s origin in the one
requires that an antebinary marginality disrupt any and e­ very (meta)physics
of separation. And how we might separate from separation is not a prob­lem
for the subject. Indeed, Bastide obscures the insight that Leenhardt elicits.
The blur of spirit admits of no personhood, just as art is a constant viola-
tion of the artist, the viewer and the work that is the mobile location of their
entangled differentiation. At stake is an obliteration of the very idea of the
product, the ergon, as Kant imagines it, which then disturbs any sense of its
relation ­either to the under­lying idea or an external material real­ity. ­Don’t
play the background, Ornette Coleman says, play the m ­ usic. The nonrepre­sen­
ta­tional capacities that, John Searle argues, allow repre­sen­ta­tion to take place
turn out not to allow repre­sen­ta­tion to take place ­after all. Repre­sen­ta­tion
does not take place; t­here is no place for repre­sen­ta­tion or, repre­sen­ta­tion’s
only pos­si­ble place is in the general dispersal and openness that we call the
nonrepre­sen­ta­tional. In this affirmative space, in the break, in the blur, in the
not-­in-­between that surrounds the surfaces that surround it, ­there is an inter-
minable piercing, an unending passing through whose uncountable pleasures
are inseparable from eternal m ­ iddle passage, eternal ­middle passion.
It’s like that time when art + practice appeared and converged on the
verge of a set of open books Gaines borrowed, giving eccentric structure to
a ­whole other library.11 Nobody had to enter the space between the back and
the front surfaces of plexiglass b ­ ecause movement in the communicable
recess t­hese antebodies made was general, taking the form of a listening
walk. And we just w ­ eren’t even thinking about what the so-­called critics
­were saying. The theater of refusal had become our refuge; the margin without
a mainstream is like a river with an active memory. See, part of the trou­ble
is that when we think the margin we think it in opposition to the main-
stream, to the river, as it ­were, when ­really they are both in opposition to the

the blur and breathe books / 259

border, the boundary, the levee, the dam, the limit in its dual singularity. The
margin/al is the ­water, remembering. The stream, held within its banks, is
already a brutal, carceral denial. Toni Morrison gets at this in “The Site of
Memory” and Gaines repeats her citation in Librettos, whose plexiglass sur-
faces mark a limit that had already been obliterated by the affirmative space
they ­couldn’t contain.12 Meanwhile, the sociopaths who call themselves the
mainstream have produced an image of themselves as a t­hing in and for
itself manifest as trained and regulated plenitude when what they are, in
fact, is nothing other than an always already transgressed boundary, or limit,
both instantiated, fi­nally, but also figured as (white) skin. So we gotta get it
straight. The stream and its constantly changing and changed, transgres-
sive and transgressed, proliferating and perforated margin, which is the es-
sence of the stream itself, are opposed to the limit, the bank, the frame as
it is held in the old one-­two, that carceral, binary dance. Actually, no: the
margin is in this constant, entangled apposition with the stream in its vio-
lent disregard of, or sometimes reticent withdrawal from, the very idea of
the main. This is a problematic, Derrida might say, of the parergon, of the
hors d’oeuvre. And what’s so beautiful about Librettos is this constant over-
flowing of the b(r)ook, just as what remains so immeasurably deep about
The Theater of Refusal is its abundantly resistant extratheatrical fusion. As
Gaines teaches, “Works of art are complex events; their true complexity is
revealed in criticism and its attempt to circumscribe the bound­aries of art.
Criticism idealizes repre­sen­ta­tion and consequently distances the viewer
from actuality.”13 This lesson prepares his students to ask, What if the true
complexity of the work of art that is revealed in criticism is that art always
exceeds the work, not as its absence but, rather, as its irreducibly pres­ent
madness? What if it’s not so much that criticism breaks the work down or
undoes it but rather that criticism can sometimes make the work get to work,
encourage it to do the work of its own undoing, as in a certain audiovisual
walk or wade, an ambulatory tarrying in (ab)solution, an inveterate bus ­ride
conducted by some black and, therefore, marvelously pied p ­ iper, say, or an
urban pastoral excursion into an endlessly renewed, renéo’d green. To deal
with the works themselves is a ­whole other ­thing, and a radical new under-
standing of a certain interplay of marginality and limit, not marginality and
mainstream, is already given by Gaines, in The Theater of Refusal’s second
page: “The title suggests that the critical environment surrounding the
works of ­these artists intentionally and unintentionally limits ­those works,
creating a theater of refusal that punishes the work of black artists by mak-

260 / chapter 23
ing it immune to history and by immunizing history against it.”14 In having
given us a place to start thinking, Gaines also gives us a place where we can
shift and refresh that thinking and its orbit. He shows us that the marginal is
misunderstood to be in opposition to the mainstream rather than to the (in/
divi)dualized limit; that it is in opposition to a degraded practice rather than
to an identity; that it is our task to make an alternative practice, not form an
alternative identity. In this regard, marginality is the activity of marginaliza-
tion which is the river’s remembering, its transgressive flood, its jurisgenera-
tive princi­ple. The theater of refusal2 is where we refuse the limit by way of
its inseparable differentiation. This is what Gaines is getting at in his critique
of the dialectic. Moreover, the work to which he submits himself as artist,
in the interest of an unworking, of a general and generative strike, gets at
that critique more emphatically and viciously even than certain Derridean
or Deleuzo-­Guattarian appeals that reify the dialectic of (indivi)duation and
relation. Marginalization is radical nonlocality, a double blade rather than
a double-­edged double bind, that incisively renders provisional even black
personhood and the black work of art, insofar as if they are at all, they work
a general undoing not only of themselves and their o ­ thers but also the very
idea of ­others and selves.

45.
I’m sorry if this is all a blur. I’m so used to my own astigmatism that maybe I
­can’t even talk to anybody anymore. To make m ­ atters worse, I’ve never been
able to keep my glasses clean. For the last forty-­five years it’s all been a blur
and the dirty lenses Gaines provides in Librettos redouble the wounded,
blessed assurance of my unsure, double vision. I think I’m seeing what I
think I’m seeing, which makes me won­der if I’m seeing what I think. Hope-
fully, it’ll all be all good, in a minute, when I can stop talking to you and
start talking with you. Maybe we can go on a w ­ hole other listening walk. But
let me see if I can finish this one, by way of one last detour to which we might
eternally return. I spoke, earlier, in echo yet again of Samuel R. Delany,
of “libidinal saturation,” which now we might be able to think of as what
happens on the bridge of lost and found desire that stretches between see-
ing ­things and seeing absolute nothingness, where relation fades in fog and
granite, or paper and plexiglass. Between seeing ­things and seeing nothing,
sometimes, when I close my eyes, I think that when I open them I’ll see José.
The first time I saw him was in the old, unremodeled sixth floor of the Tisch

the blur and breathe books / 261

School of the Arts, when I was giving a talk that was centered on this passage
from Delany’s The Motion of Light and W ­ ater, with which, as you’ll see, I’m
also still obsessed.

It was lit only in blue, the distant bulbs appearing to have red centers.
In the gym-­sized room ­were sixteen rows of beds, four to a rank, or
sixty-­four altogether. I ­couldn’t see any of the beds themselves, though,
­ ecause ­there ­were three times that many ­people (maybe a hundred
b
twenty-­five) in the room. Perhaps a dozen of them ­were standing. The
rest ­were an undulating mass of naked male bodies, spread wall to wall.
My first response was a kind of heart-­thudding astonishment, very
close to fear.
I have written of a space at a certain libidinal saturation before.
That was not what frightened me. It was rather that the saturation
was not only kinesthetic but vis­i­ble. You could see what was ­going on
throughout the dorm.
The only time I’d come close to feeling the fear before was once, one
night, when I had been approaching the trucks, and a sudden group
of policemen, up half a block, had marched across the street blowing
their whistles.
It had been some kind of raid. What frightened was, oddly, not the
raid itself, but rather the sheer number of men who suddenly began to
appear, most of them ­running, ­here and ­there from between the vans.
That night at the docks policeman arrested maybe eight or nine men.
The number, however, who fled across the street to be absorbed into the
city was ninety, a hundred and fifty, perhaps as many as two hundred.
Let me see if I can explain.15

Let me see if I can explain—by deviating, in a way that Delany allows and
makes pos­si­ble, from Delany’s explanation. It seems that fear is approached
in or as a kind of blur, when the grid, or more generally, the countable is
absorbed en masse, into mass, as kinesthetic visibility is felt in movement
­toward the synaesthetic. In Delany’s explanation, h­ e’ll activate a psychoso-
cial lens so that he can show and tell us what and how he sees on that night
of calculated drifting, when he left his then-­wife Marilyn Hacker and their
friend Sue alone to read Henry James aloud to one another while he went
out to see what he could see. The first time I read, and then tried to write
about, this passage it was by way of an early, much-­condensed edition of
Delany’s autobiography.16 Now that we have access to a more complete ver-

262 / chapter 23
sion I know that what he sees, and lets us see, can only be seen through
Hacker’s poem “Prism and Lens,” and what it seeks to see and rec­ord of an-
other night of blurred vision, of focus shifted and then failed. The relevant
passages from around one hundred fifty pages earlier in The Motion of Light
in ­Water are separated by section IV and an excerpt from section V of Hack-
er’s extraordinary poem:

7.98 In November I got involved in my first major infidelity. You re-

member the stock clerk whom I’d been bringing home to dinner every
night? One eve­ning as I was walking him back home, he paused on
the chill corner of Ave­nue B. He had something to confess to me that
he knew would wreck our friendship; but he could hold it no longer.
He was homosexual. He wanted to go to bed with me . . . . ​
In the course of the w ­ hole ­thing, on the night of Marilyn’s birthday,
he burst into our apartment, and actually declared to us both, “We
­can’t go on like this!”
The unhappiness all around us for the ten days or so of it fi­nally
established, however, what became a kind of ­house rule regarding out-
side sex: I d
­ on’t care what you do when y­ ou’re not ­here,” Marilyn fi­nally
told me. “It’s just how it makes you act when you are ­here I object to!”
It seemed reasonable to me. But over the years it was easier for me
to adhere to the par­ameters of be­hav­ior that suggested than it was for
Marilyn.

7.981 My affair brought my own writing to a halt (for a week) and pro-
duced a sudden creative spurt in Marilyn’s: most of the fragments be-
came her poem “Prism and Lens.”17

I ­will not lie and say I spent the night

Calmly, ate a light meal, washed my hair,
Read novels with hot coffee by my chair,
then brushed my teeth, undressed, switched off the light.
I came back twice to see if you ­were ­there,
and, when you ­weren’t, left, hoping I might
walk off your absence, or walk off the tight
fist closing in my gut and cease to care;
but first I left a note that said I’d gone
walking, and I turned all the lights on.
the glancing lamps reflected my wet face

the blur and breathe books / 263

 uncomprehending in a tight grimace.
I walked across the city in the rain,
river to river, then walked back again.
The sun drops quickly. Night rips the green sky.
Pale flares of incandescent mercury
drop limpid pools along the bright expanse
where shadows scatter in a jagged dance
on broken pavingstones and frozen tar,
and scarlet flashes break the light of cars.
Dull gold in dim rooms, figures pause and pass
naked between a prism and a glass.
The lamps along the river, one by one,
spear the dark wings that hover on the sun.

Darkness and moisture ­settle on my cheeks.

The rain dissolves to close mist in the air.
(You sat back rigid in the easy chair,
your fin­gers gripped the arms. You would not speak.)
The fog thins out in front of me, revealing
Careening grillwork on a tenement.
(You told me then. I wondered what you meant.
A flake of plaster crashed down from the ceiling.)
The shape of movement comes before the act,
contorts the face into a score of ­faces,
converts each possibility to fact.
A host of orgiastic angels come
trod me with spurious equilibrium.18

. . . ​Two cops in a patrolcar came

and stopped me by the riverside.
They asked me my address, my name,
and had I thought of suicide.

“I came to watch the morning rise.”

They stared in a peculiar way,
and one, appearing very wise,
said ­there would be no sun that day

and girls should not stay out all night

and roam at random in the park

264 / chapter 23
where deeds too warped for ­human sight
­were perpetrated in the dark,

and midnight cold and morning chill

are detrimental to the liver,
and I had not convinced them still
I would not jump into the river,

And did not seem to be of age

for wandering at break of day
and would incur parental rage,
or ­else might be a runaway,

or ­else had fled a husband’s ­house

to finish a nocturnal fight,
confounding the bewildered spouse
in station­houses all the night.

“I may go drifting anyplace,

lawful and with impunity.”
The headlights’ glare upon my face
Suggested my majority.

And when the streetlights flickered, I

leaned on the rail and spoke no more
and watched the morning open high
bright wings across the Brooklyn shore.19

8. On a chill, immobile eve­ning, during a midnight November walk,

through a win­dow in an alley adjacent to the Village View construction
Marilyn glimpsed two or four or six naked ­people—­multiplied or con-
fused, in a moment of astonished attention, by some mirror on the back
wall, as the win­dow itself added a prismatic effect to the bodies inside,
gilded by candlelight or some mustard bulb—­before they moved ­behind
a jamb, or she walked beyond the line of sight, the images suggesting
proliferations of possibilities, of tales about ­those possibilities, of images
in harmony, antiphon, or wondrous complementarity. Once, when I
was gone for the night, she went walking—­and was stopped by two
cops in a patrol car, curious what a ­woman would be ­doing out in that
largely homosexual haunt—on the Williamsburg Bridge. It was a time
of strained discussions in our tenement living room, in the midst of

the blur and breathe books / 265

 which a bit of plaster from the newly painted ceiling would fall to shat-
ter over the mahogany arm of the red chair.

The glance we might have taken at Richard II might make you think my
lingering with Delany’s and Hacker’s difficult, wander-­struck relationship,
is meant, in part, to amplify the separation of king and queen that Shake-
speare suggests to be a function of Richard’s fascination with, to use Hacker’s
phrase, “boys who are not boys” and to blame that fascination and the failure
of his sovereignty on one another. Most productions play Richard’s homoso-
cial waywardness—­which Richard himself describes as a kind of unkept time,
time out of joint or step or off the track—­for all they think it’s worth. But in
the case of Delany and Hacker it’s not all about male spatiotemporal errancy,
since Hacker also (a)voids domestic fixity in order to see what she can see.
This, too, is a m
­ atter of refusal and its inveterate theatricality, the generality
and generativity and xenogenerosity of the not-­in-­between. In The American
Shore, with regard to Thomas Disch’s “Angouleme,” somewhere in the unex-
cludable ­middle of a long journey through what is, for and with its remains, as
its remainder, in search and practice of the alternative, Delany attends to the
necessary and all but essentially urban haze of text’s refusal and diffusion,
which is manifest as re-­reading, which turns out to be reading’s condition
of possibility: re-­reading as refusal, as the text’s generative and anticipatory
discomposition, as the degenerative recomposition of readerly anticipation,
as the speculative, disruptive irruption of what is, as is is anoriginally dis-
placed by as, always as if for the first time in blurred glance, in the erotic,
palimpsestic volume of reflection in the hold, in turning on and away in
turning to, endlessly and without return, adrift.20 This deconstruction and
reconstruction, this dismantling and refashioning, this rereading that in-
sofar as it is as if for the first time staves off the inevitable reproduction
of the first time, of a priority that remains sovereign and irreducible when
refusal remains unrefused is dispersed, like desire in and for the city. Like
Richard of Bordeaux but even more orchestral, Charles of Charleston has
come to tell us that Carmichael’s and Falla’s, Delany’s and Hacker’s, books
are blurred, refused, before we even get ­there. The question is what can we
make of this wondrous, ruptural, mutually interruptive complementarity,
the miraculous divergence and nonrelation of shared attention in the gal-
lery of New York, or the galleries of Los Angeles, policed but unenclosed?
How do we taste and sound the affirmative space, the air, the breathing of
our blurred books?

266 / chapter 23
 46.
This is another question for José Esteban Muñoz. I’ll ask him when I see him.
For now, I can only consult a short unpublished talk he delivered in 2006 enti-
tled “Phenomenological Flights: From Latino Over T ­ here and Cubania’s H ­ ere
and Now.” A ­ fter briefly establishing Miami itself, and more particularly its
complex and unencompassable Cuban lifeworld, as a text just made for eidetic
reduction, where such reduction is, ­really, and most faithfully, a voluntary sub-
mission of the phenomenologist to Miami’s rhythms—­those uncountable syn-
copations that proper, normative, self-­delusionally sovereign, metronomically
and scientistically pseudo-­philosophical subjectivity overhears as untimely—­
Jose begins to describe the intervallic estrangement that structures the native’s
return to his non-­native land.

I feel home but not home as I prepare to meet my l­ittle ­brother, who
is much physically bigger than I. He is already late to pick me up. I
prepare to enter the temporality of the Cuban, a belatedness that my
friends in New York and elsewhere associate with me, but I nonethe-
less resent in my kin. I stand in the Cuban diaspora concrete median
and commence my wait. I try him on the cell phone, to no effect. I look
around me and I notice some of my fellow travelers, lost members of
the tribe who have traveled North or West, or just somewhere that is
not ­here, not the ­here and now of Miami, the world of Miami. Some
are students, some artists, some wayward queers who w ­ ill divide their
time between South Beach and their parents’ home in suburbs like
Kendall. We recognize each other as we recognize the fact that t­ hose
of us from not ­here are now ­here but never ­here—­never in the natural-
ized time and place of a certain cubanía, an everydayness of cubanía.21

I feel home but not home as I wait for my (big) ­brother, who is much physi-
cally smaller than I. He’s late and so I prepare to enter the temporality of
the Cuban. In this passage, moving in that line of post-­Husserlian phenom-
enological deviance that stretches from Heidegger to Levinas and Sartre, to
Fanon, Derrida and Tran Duc Thao, to Ahmed and Salomon, José teaches us
how to solicit the everyday and, therefore, to prepare.

Facts claim a certain knowledge of the world, a knowledge that fixes

t­ hings, frames the world in a naturalistic sense. To make such empiri-
cal, positivist, or “objective” claims about the world is to presuppose

the blur and breathe books / 267

 some sort of epistemological field that “enfolds” the world. To take
one’s time, or use time itself, outside of some naturalistic teleology,
and describe our affective field of perception, that is to “unfold” the
world. Phenomenology encourages one to take one’s time to observe
and describe ­because to do so is to interrupt a seamless flow of de-
scription, and isolate in that seamless flow, as a certain claim about
the world but not the world itself, a naturalistic semblance of world.
Thus we need to interrupt certain modes of description that do not
offer us phenomenology’s “unfolding” and merely claim world, which
is to enfold it, limit it, foreclose on a horizon of possibility and instead
or­ga­nize ­things in relation to discourses like science or disciplinarity.
It is a prob­lem to simply make claims about the world without ­really
describing it.22

Some of us once heard José’s ­mother say that he had some place to get to.
But that transport, he tells us h ­ ere, is aleatory. Having some place to get to
means that the arrivant never r­ eally arrives. It is, rather, a queer kind of loi-
tering, a kind of cruising, a kind of calculated drifting in and lingering with
perception, the way you get to know a city by its rivers, Hacker says, from
river to river, echoing Langston Hughes’s deferred, montagic dreaming—­a
looking walk; a listening walk. That’s what José’s ­after and he knows, already,
that even normative phenomenology c­ an’t quite give up its own desire for
punctuality. At stake ­here is a queer phenomenology of perception, a late phe-
nomenology of the feel, one slow enough to be able clearly to see the misty air,
the mystery, to sense the blur, and not some normative individuation, as the
field from which differences spring.
We consult the blur and breathe books in order more accurately, more rig-
orously to imagine the surreal and differential inseparability of motion, light,
and ­water. To engage in such study is to effect perception’s perpetual deferral
of apperception, ordering, assimilation, which often takes the form of cata­
log or partition. Such study, José says, is “how we engage the world during
our lateness.” That’s what it is to be already late, belatedly early, premature
and postexpectant as Nathaniel Mackey is always just about to say again.
Never quite ­either ­here nor now, ­either I nor thou, disruptive of relation and
its po­liti­cal, metaphysical ground that shifts—in spite of itself, as if a func-
tion of a mechanics which it can hate but ­can’t control—­between condemna-
tion and determination, our imperative is to keep on describing, and thereby
to engage in, the continual unmaking of the world as the earth comes con-

268 / chapter 23
tinually into view. The sovereign turns his cell into the world though the very
condition that is supposed to allow that, solitude, is the undoing of what
that condition is supposed to provide. He c­ an’t wait, wants time ordered and
absolutely regular, sovereignty trapped in a deictic prison of its own devising.
In describing, in praise, we wait, and serve, knowing also that to describe, as
José says, is also, somehow, even to disrupt the seamless flow of description.
Is that what phenomenology does or is that what per­for­mance is? Is that
poetry, or sociology, or physics? The continual fold of unfolding’s refusal to
enfold. José says,

To look for essence is not to enfold ­things in a disciplinary holding

pattern. . . . ​Paying attention to essence and all the ways it disrupts our
everyday narratives of ­things and ­people is an interruption that needs
to happen. Cubanía can be an interruption for Latino studies and lati­
nidad, as I experience it, should interrupt Cuban-­Americaness, on the
basis of both the ways ­these two essences are like and not alike.23

Perhaps latinidad and Cuban-­Americanness blur and breathe one another

so insistently that one and another are no more in the per­sis­tence of their dif-
ferences. I think this is how t­ hose passages from Delany and Hacker work; that
this is how passage and passion work in Hacker and Delany. I think this is how
what we call, for lack of a better word, the interplay not in between Hacker’s
and Delany’s old schoolmate Carmichael and Falla, not in between them and
Gaines, not in between Gaines and Son, not in between them and Lightning
Hopkins, not in between Hopkins and Shakespeare, not in between all of them
and all of you and me, not in between all of us and José, works. I hope it is, just
as I keep hoping that if I open my eyes I can see what he would say. If I’m being
sentimental h ­ ere it’s only in the interest of trying to think, which for a long
time for me has been to think with José, our fleshly and familiar spirit ­here in
the affirmative space of the collective head. ­Here I am, dispersed and shared
in this preoccupation of and with the general belatedness, rocking on the dia-
sporic concrete, waiting on the immea­sur­able and unpre­ce­dented differences
of my l­ ittle ­brother, who always was and always ­will be bigger than me.

the blur and breathe books / 269

chapter 24

Entanglement
and Virtuosity
In October, a c­ ouple of weeks before Washington would fly to Tokyo on his first

world tour, his f­ather or­ga­nized a dinner with a group of distinguished older

jazz musicians. “When you are chosen,” Rickey explained to me, “you need the

blessings of your elders.” (Reggie Andrews had a more down-­to-­earth explana-

tion: “Kamasi’s about to step into the fast lane, so Rickey wanted him to receive

some advice from ­people who’ve been ­there.”) This “change of the guard” cer-

emony took place at the Ladera Heights home of Curtis Jenkins, who runs a

business that provides care for disabled ­children in South Central. In a flight of

enthusiasm, Rickey had invited me to attend the dinner. The next day, Kamasi’s

man­ag­er, Banch Abegaze, disinvited me; she said it was for only close friends

and ­family. But she suggested that I stop by ­later in the eve­ning. . . . ​

The speeches went on for more than an hour. They w

­ ere stories of the jazz

life, pitched somewhere between sermon and self-­admonishment. ­These

elder statesmen ­were welcoming their friend’s son into a very exclusive fra-

ternity, but also warning of the dangers in store. “This ­really felt like being

down South,” Newton said. “Yeah, South L.A.,” another guest corrected him.

Kamasi listened attentively, speaking only when spoken to: If the young

jazz warrior was carry­ing a weapon, he kept it well hidden. “It takes some of

the pressure off to hear from ­these men who have been down this road be-
fore,” he told me l­ ater, “since I’m on this journey and I d
­ on’t know where I’m

­going.” But as I watched him that eve­ning, I was struck by how small he sud-

denly looked, surrounded by the guardians of Los Angeles jazz. At the end

of the ceremony, Rickey Washington faced his son and said: “You have now

received the wisdom of your elders. What you do with it is on you.”—­A DAM

SHATZ , “Kamasi Washington’s ­Giant Step”

47.
I’m 54 years old. This means that while the ­music of my childhood is funk
and R & B, the m ­ usic of my adulthood is hip-­hop. I’ve barely written about
hip-­hop but my work is infused with it. Actually, deeper than that, my work
is grounded in it; hip-­hop is a foundation of the work I imprecisely call
mine. I ­don’t engage with hip-­hop so much as I emerge from it, in the same
way that t­ here are certain writers and scholars from whose work “my work”
emerges so that beyond this or that occasion in which I am thinking or writ-
ing about them or their work, t­ here is the general condition and fact of “my
work” or “my thinking” moving by way of theirs, as an emanation and maybe
sometimes a faithful if deviant reiteration—or, more precisely, resonance—
of, rather than a response to, their call. And this is the way it is for me with
hip-­hop. I mean to say, hopefully more clearly, that if I consider my adult-
hood to be the time when I r­ eally began to try to think about stuff, and when
I ­really began to think about how to think about stuff, then hip-­hop is the
­music that was on when I embarked upon that thinking. It was the back-
ground that structured that thinking. So, now, even when I’m thinking or
writing about something other, some m ­ usic other than hip-­hop, I’m thinking
by way of hip-­hop. And maybe all this preparation—in which hip-­hop allows
and structures my thinking, say, about jazz or chamber m­ usic or Afrobeat or
samba—is so we can think about hip-­hop, now, together.
Once, when I was teaching a class on experimental poetry, I made a
casual formulation that I have often made, before and since, and which
I still sincerely believe, that Rakim is the greatest rapper of all time. On
this occasion, my students looked at me like I was crazy. And this w­ asn’t
­because at that moment it was most definitely the age of Tupac; it w
­ asn’t
just ­because some of them ­didn’t even know who Rakim was, a condition

entanglement and virtuosity / 271

that filled me with the same kind of horror that is visited upon a classics
professor when he sees that his students d ­ on’t know ­there was such a one
as Virgil. I think the reason they looked at me like I was crazy was that they
knew, in a way that could only emerge from hip-­hop having been the ­music
of their childhood, that such a formulation, beyond being ­either wrong or
right, was irrelevant. This irrelevance stems, it seems to me, from the so-
ciality of dance, from what it is to have been dancing to the m ­ usic, and to
have one’s thinking of and in and with the ­music emerge from that kines-
thetic real­ity. I have to say that my thinking about hip-­hop is pretty much
detached from the black sociality of dancing. The m ­ usic I dance to is Sly, say,
much more even than (Eric B & and) Rakim, to whom, in a more sedentary
and cellular way, I have been “merely” listening. And I want to make sure
you know that I’m not saying that dancing is antithetical e­ ither to listen-
ing or to thinking or to thinking about thinking. What I’m saying, rather, is
that dancing, that immersion in the black sociality of dancing, that living in
and as what my ­running buddy Laura Harris calls “the aesthetic sociality of
blackness,” is a ­whole other (collective) head, one that is, in fact, antithetical
to the detachment of listening from thinking and from thinking2 and to the
alienation that detachment enforces.
Now, when I index the fact of Rakim’s supreme greatness, I usually do so
by way of (the opening of ) “I Know You Got Soul,” a song on his and Eric B.’s
masterpiece of a first ­album, Paid in Full.

It’s been a long time. I ­shouldn’t’a left you

Without a strong rhyme to step to
Think of how many weak shows you slept through
Times up; I’m sorry I kept you
Thinking of this you keep repeating you miss
the rhymes of the microphone soloist.1

Think of the brilliant way Rakim announces himself, as if in respect-

ful but firm graduation from James Brown’s tutelage, which is musically
sampled, and even imbibed, but by way of a mode of distillation the God-
father did not, in the first instance, authorize: it’s as if Rakim, a visitor from
some anakantian black-­lit continent, had kept us waiting too long in our
minority, as if we’d been waiting for him and the enlightenment he brings
even when or if we d­ idn’t know when or if he was coming. In 1987, when this
rec­ord was released, b
­ ecause by then I’d already started gradu­ate school, and

272 / chapter 24
was already trying to think of myself as a scholar, as a certain kind of intel-
lectual, maybe I was thinking—in ways not unlike a w ­ hole bunch of critics
at that time who ­were especially open to Rakim, especially enamored of his
own deep scholarship, of what Arthur Jafa might call the self-­consciously
abnormative way he claimed a kind of normatively scholarly way of being—­
man, fi­nally hip-­hop has produced, out of its intense, shared, undercommon
intellectuality, an intellectual. And he announces it himself. He is the mi-
crophone soloist whose thought patterns, as he ­later puts it, are displayed
on Persian rugs. It is as if, at that moment, he proclaims his own structural
relation to his ­music that is analogous to that which Louis Armstrong’s play-
ing so emphatically seemed to have announced with regard to his. This is the
emergence of the soloist, the virtuoso, the scholar who might be said to arise
from an organic ground of common intellectuality, as a simultaneous repre-
sentative and negation given in the figure of the one. And what I should say,
­here, more precisely, is not so much that Rakim is making that announce-
ment but that what he says—or what can have been made to have been said
in the isolation of his saying—is what I think I wanted, and still sometimes
think I want, to hear as that announcement, just as what­ever it was that Pops
was playing, t­ here’s still that gap between what that was and what some of
us—in the wake, say, of Ralph Ellison—­may have wanted from it. But see, in
thinking all this, what I want to say, now, is that all along, hip-­hop in par­tic­u­
lar, and black ­music in general, is trying all the time to get us not just to want
something ­else but to want differently. In this regard, hip-­hop is educational
in a sense of the word that Gayatri Spivak once uttered. “Education,” she
said, “is the non-­coercive rearrangement of desire.”2 That’s what hip-­hop is,
that’s what the ­music practices: a noncoercive rearrangement of desire that
moves—in a way that somehow obliterates the distinctions between being
made to move and wanting to move and wanting to be made to move—in
that gap, that break, which is a field of feel in dance, in which the representa-
tive itself is negated by way of an overwhelming affirmation. Maybe coming
more rigorously, thoughtfully, and phonically attentively to feel this is borne
in the difference between being overwhelmed by and always having been
held in the communicability of ­music’s kinesthetic force. At which point,
what it is, then, is to remember that we always almost all up in something
already anyway, a condition for which we constantly appeal to the imprecise
language of possession, as when Rakim says, “I know you got soul.” We all
but all up in something and yet the language of possession and individuated

entanglement and virtuosity / 273

exaltation holds a ­little bit of us back from us. The imprecision of the lan-
guage places an amazing responsibility on us to be more precise in our use
of it. And this precision that we seek in the face of and by way of imprecision
turns out itself to be a ­matter, or maybe a function, of dance. The way our
mobile, open flesh acts this ­whole ­thing out in common bears the sharpness
we want the words to follow.
What the soloist says when he appears to have come to announce himself
is that it’s not about me, it’s about us, the social field from which I and you
emerge, and to which they recede, like vapor, as the illusory relation that
stands for relationality’s illusory nature, as such. When Rakim first came out,
and folks like me, or folks who at that time I wanted to be like, ­were busy
comparing him to Miles Davis (in part ­because of his tone, his wickedness
in the ­middle register, his volatility in mid-­tempo, his ice-­grilled, emphatic
refusal to smile), part of what I think we w ­ ere, and have been saying, was
that he brought hip-­hop online with ways we had been building to think
about jazz, especially, and to a lesser extent, the blues, as a m
­ usic of nonstan-
dard but nevertheless identifiably intellectual individuation. That’s how
we had begun to look at and think about Pops, and Bessie, and Billie, and
Bird, and so on ­until what we individuate, in pious recognition, is all but
made to fade away. Rakim was The One in hip-­hop whom we could place
on that trajectory, in that pantheon. But hip-­hop, like ­every other collec-
tive instance of differentiation in the history of g ­ reat black ­music, ancient
to the f­uture, came to remind us, in renewing our habits of assembly, of
assembly’s indelibly unnatural nature, which might be characterized as a
general relativity, an anauniversal and postparticulate gravity to which the
relation between relation and singularity is inadequate. The soloist, in this
regard, does not announce himself but rather our collective evacuation of
the field in which the self is incessantly advertised and, therefore, incessantly
degraded. That announcement is what I, for lack of a better word, am try-
ing to hear right now. Even Ellison, in fugitive movement on undercommon
ground as opposed to aeronautic solitary confinement, is just about all up
in this, against the grain of the very idea of one and many, that singularly
multiple imprecision, not in the interest of prophecy but of more + less than
phenomenological description.
It’s not an accident that one of the greatest (dis)composers in the black
radical ­music tradition’s name is (Thelonious, also known—in the Cockney,
with reference to his jurisgenerative force—as Felonious) Monk. That name

274 / chapter 24
reminds us of the deep and fundamental monasticism that animates black
­ usic, which in turn animates black social life. It’s a social practice that is
m
always also a spiritual practice. But it is also fundamentally sensuous, funda-
mentally material, as Karl Marx, who’s all up in almost all of this, too, feels
early on: The sensual, the material, is theoretical as well—­a practice of see-
ing, a practice of (anti- and antemasterful) planning, given in a practice of
dancing. “Roll back the rug, every­body. Move all the t­ ables and chairs. W ­ e’re
gonna have us a good time to­night.” The planning and seeing of the alterna-
tive that is manifest in this ­music is always also given immediately as a so-
cially kinesthetic practice of the alternative. And the alternative is practice
in this rich and deep way precisely insofar as it constitutes a mode of defense,
the undercommon defense that we provide for us: self-­defense as a radically
transformative self-­endangering, self-­ungendering, degeneration of self in re-
generative selflessness. When we describe the commune ­we’ve been building
in defense of our continuing to build it we say: This is our m ­ usic. Then we
give it all away in giving ourselves over to it. We keep dancing so we can keep
dancing—­that kind of dancing where we be trying to throw our own hands
off of what­ever it is that ­people imprecisely call our bodies. It’s all a m
­ atter of
departure and continuity, of entanglement and virtuosity—­the soloist’s de-
parture from the metaphysics of individuation, the continuation of that fun-
damental social physics of the ­music that is the animation of our tradition,
the way we keep making the m ­ usic when we play it, when we cut it, when
we mix it, when we move it, when we mark it, when we say it, when we see
it, when we hear it, when we feel it, in our practical, sensuous, and spiritual
consideration of how we ongoingly theorize the very idea of virtuosity, the
very idea of goodness, of the ­great goodness of life or, more precisely, of the
making of a living that is “the aesthetic sociality of blackness.” That’s the way
we pre-­and post-­anchoritically stay on the scene, like a coenobitically anti-­
acquisitive chorale, like an “endlessly sudden” next machine.3 That’s how we
carry ourselves in our collective breaking and making of rules against the
very idea of rule, of dominion, of mea­sure. That’s how we make and break
the law to bend t­ oward justice. No count, they say, b
­ ecause we are uncount-
able, ­because we are the miracle that cannot be accounted for in any science
of owner­ship’s brutal double entry. No one, two; no a one and a two; just
keep on moving, dispossessively, in the general gift. We know we got soul, we
know this is our ­music, ­because we got to give it up. Feel we? Long as ­we’re
groovin’ ­there’s always a chance.

entanglement and virtuosity / 275

 48.
At the point when Washington got the call [to work in Snoop Dogg’s
horn section], he had been spending most of his time trying to master
harmonically demanding songs like Coltrane’s “­Giant Steps.” Now his
job was to play apparently ­simple riffs to “line up with the groove.”
Playing ­those riffs, however, was tougher than it looked: Hip-­hop was
a miniaturist art of deceptive simplicity. “When you play jazz in school,
you talk about articulation, but it’s a very light conversation,” he said.
“The question was about what you w ­ ere playing, not how you w ­ ere
playing it. But when I was playing with Snoop, what I was playing was
pretty obvious—­anyone with ears could figure it out. The question was
how to play it, with the right articulation and timing and tone. . . .”
Snoop was particularly demanding when it came to the placement
of notes in relation to the beat, and Washington strug­gled at first to
hear the beat the way Snoop did. ­After a while, though, he began to
discern what he calls “the l­ittle subtleties,” the way, for example, “the
drummer D-­Loc would lock into the bass line.” He continued: “It
­wasn’t like the compositional ele­ments in Stravinsky. It w ­ asn’t about
counterpoint or thick harmonies. It was more about the relationships
and the timing, the one ­little cool ­thing you could play in that ­little
space. It might just be one l­ ittle ­thing in a four-­minute song, but it was
the perfect ­thing you could play in it. I started to hear ­music in a dif­
fer­ent way, and it changed the way I played jazz. Just playing the notes
­didn’t do it for me anymore.”4

­ usic was my ­mother’s ­mother tongue. She handed that to me. I’m a mama’s
M
boy, while Shatz makes it appear that Washington is clearly his ­father’s son.
Maybe it’s not about which ­music is the ­music of your childhood. Maybe
it’s about who was putting the rec­ords on the turntable. And yet, I feel the
black maternal care Washington’s ­father(s) lavished upon him even as I must
also acknowledge the hard limits of that lavishing in the (relative) absence of
black ­women. Given the strictness of t­ hose limits, ­will Washington be able
consistently to access black maternity’s exhausted, exhaustive care in his
own ­music? To ask this question is to feel, rather than to forget, such atten-
tion’s miraculous presence in Snoop Dogg’s horn section. Meanwhile, having
long considered the poverty of my ­father’s absence as a kind of wealth, maybe
now it’s time to honor the maternal care he lavished upon me, which never

276 / chapter 24
took the form of dispensing wisdom but, rather, manifest itself in what I now
know w­ ere impossibly tender applications of lotion. I ­don’t know. But what
I do know, or think I know, is that the distinction between entanglement
and virtuosity is improvised in virtuous, communal, maternal attention to
detail—in listening to and for and in detail as Alexandra Vazquez teaches
us.5 This is what Kamasi Washington knows but ­doesn’t activate, discovers
but d­ oesn’t produce, in The Epic. In his admirable insistence upon recogniz-
ing the relation between hip-­hop and Stravinsky, or hip-­hop and Trane, he
turns out, precisely by way of the logic of relation, to reify in his own playing
and composing—in what he refers to as his return to his own ­music—­a sep-
arateness between what now shows up as the m ­ usics. That separateness de-
bilitates entanglement’s manifestation in and as detail. Our anheroic heroes
never failed to pay attention to the note’s articulation, often unto and over
the edge—­its over-­or underblown blur, its bend in the gravity of our moral
arc. They never accepted the distinction between what to play and how to
play it. It’s strange that what Washington learned in playing with Snoop, to
pay attention to the details of articulation and placement, is or seems lost
in The Epic’s sempiternal return to the unchanging same of an advanced,
paternal, messianic guard. The intensity with which Washington claims a
kind of patrimonial heritage is deep. ­There’s a powerfully antimatrical aura
that pervades the m ­ usic—­a charismatic force that seems, on the surface, to
go against the grain of the movement/network to which it is often associated
and which association Washington emphatically claims.
Perhaps ­here Samuel R. Delany’s distinction between network and con-
tact is crucial as we consider how it is that maybe this is our f­ather’s—as
opposed to our ­mother’s—­civil rights movement a­ fter all. Our ­mother’s
movement, in its radical dispersal, in its ongoing and decentralized largesse
of charismata (as Erica Edwards and Cedric Robinson and Danielle Goldman
teach us), was a movement of contact (improvisation)’s small differences, its
hand-­to-­hand rituals of study, its constant practice of the haptical poetics
of entanglement that turn out to have been si­mul­ta­neously the object and
the method of—or deeper still the party for—­self-­defense. See, in the insis-
tence with which the found­ers of the Movement for Black Lives claim their
status as found­ers, even in the sincerity of their refusal of the historical era-
sure of the contributions of (queer and/or trans) black ­women to movement,
perhaps they lose what movement means just as Washington’s m ­ usic some-
times seems inattentive to the radical force of what Amiri Baraka once called
“place/meant.” ­There’s a miraculous enactment of appositionality and touch

entanglement and virtuosity / 277

that is movement’s animation and that which movement renews, namely
black life, which is anti-­and ante-­foundational, which is neither the sub-
ject of nor subject to individuation and (ac)count. In referring to it more
simply as dance one arrives at the question of w­ hether or not it’s pos­si­ble
to dance to The Epic. Adam Shatz says yes—­and yet one won­ders how and
one won­ders who. Perhaps ­there is a choreography of the network that bears
its own spontaneities and authenticities confirming the real­ity of a new col-
lective assertion of personality. It’s just that movement’s uncollected force—­
and, for that m ­ atter, the constant, genocidal regulation of that force and the
injury such regulation still incessantly produces—­ain’t personal. In seeking
to represent what ­can’t be represented, The Epic is an exercise in Bildung
where such self-­picturing, such attendance upon the face and, even, upon
the name, is inattention to detail. This commitment to personality, which
is a recrudescence of the brutal forces of individuation that refused to black
matrical ecol­ogy the capacity for ­those terrible incapacities of personality
that black matrical ecol­ogy refused, remains the crisis of the negro intellec-
tual a l­ ittle more than twenty years ­after Hortense Spiller’s twenty-­five year
post-­date to Harold Cruse.6 The insistence on being called the found­ers of
a movement, a claim that undermines the supposed movement’s claim on
the very term movement (which the found­ers rightly relinquish in saying,
now, that it is a network), is an insistence upon personality (already coded,
in fact, in the assertion of the mattering of that most viciously carceral of
idealizations, the individual life) that doubles down on the patriarchy it is
supposed to combat, a patriarchy that its putative soundtrack, The Epic,
ironically, but also emphatically, claims.
Only two ­women ­were pres­ent at the meeting that seemed to signal and
bless the changing of the guard. What w ­ e’re left with, then, is the effect, in
the m
­ usic, of a conflict between the murkily sublime and macroaggressive
overview of the ­father and the small, close, beautifully microsensual prac-
tices of care that Washington discovered in Snoop’s ­music, though it was also
always ­there in Trane’s. T
­ hose practices are both extended and undermined
in the gathering of old men that Shatz describes in ways that make one si­
mul­ta­neously hope and despair for their reproduction. I want to say t­ here’s
not enough haptic, differential nothingness in Washington’s m ­ usic—­just a
particulate fog, maybe given in what it is to be misled by pictures of unpic-
turable galaxies. In the ordinary blur, ma and mu c­ an’t be faded. At recess in
the ordinary blue, the shining star belongs to no one. Of course, patriarchal,
virtuosic heroism is no more absent in Snoop or Trane or (on a much lower

278 / chapter 24
if more highfalutin frequency) me than it is in Washington. Down ­here on,
and sometimes ­under, the ground, wishing one could claim that absence is
work-­in-­progress and work-­in-­presence through the one. All this is just to
say that what we love in the ­music, and what the ­music loves and cares for
in us, is an entanglement in matrical detail that so thoroughly ruptures the
logic of individuation/relation/the same and so thoroughly anarchizes the
princi­ples of mathe­matics that it enacts an incalculable falsification, given
in the explosion of each of its terms, even of the formulation 1 + 1 = 2. On the
one hand, ­there is no solace for the loneliest number; on the other hand,
number never applied to us anydamnway. T ­ here’s nothing epic about this
virtualization of virtuosity; the ordinary blur is in the details. Blackness is
our everyday romance.

entanglement and virtuosity / 279

chapter 25

Bobby
Lee’s Hands
49.
­don’t lay back on cuts, man

Held in the very idea of white ­people—in the illusion of their strength, in
the fantasy of their allyship, in the poverty of their rescue, in the silliness of
their melancholy, in the power of their networks, in the besotted rejection
of their impossible purity, in the repeated critique of their pitiful cartoon—is
that ­thing about waiting for vacancy to shake your hand while the drone’s
drone gives air a boundary.1 ­Don’t be a ghost, be a spirit, Baraka said, in
a movie about white p ­ eople, the socially dead. Can the socially dead or­ga­
nize their own? What are the socially dead, anyway? This is an ontological
inquiry only insofar as it’s concerned with what it is, or what it would be, to
have an ontological status. What it would be to have an ontological status,
and know it, is what it would be to be a white person. In that condition, that
particulate dream, which is the eternally prefatory’s tired aftermath, one is
what it is to persist in having begun interminably to wait on being one. Such
a one, that one who is not one but wants to be, is a ghost. How do you stop
being a ghost? How do you stop being po­liti­cal in Lincoln Park? One must
imaginatively practice oneself away into a w ­ hole other mode of ser­vice, Up-
town’s collective head, speak ’em up and say ’em now.
For a minute, the mountains in Chicago—­having come from nowhere but
the gap, from undermelungeonal elsewhere in nowhere in the gap, already
more and less than by themselves or as themselves, having brought the mod-
ern to the city in Junebug’s homily and Preacherman’s homeless vespers—­
had enough of waiting on being white. Sent to this in order to be sent by
it, along with all that gathering he carries that always be carry­ing him, was
Robert E. Lee, III. The resurrector, having risen again to serve insurrection,
­didn’t have a slave name, he had a ghost name, so they would recognize him.
It’s like in this buried clearing of the afterlife the ministers of espionage are
Saul Alinsky and Jackie Mabley, but just for a minute, but you ­couldn’t even
time it, and it ­really had no place, just an irregular displacement of Sabbath
in a clearing dug out of a chapel. T ­ here’s another movie, which is not about
white ­people, of this open secret movement but by the time the watching
started, ­there ­were more watching, hunting, droning, than destroying and
rebuilding. Even the movie c­ ouldn’t frame it, but for a minute, more than
having had enough of being dispossessed, the mountains give away what
they would have been, which was held out to them and away from them as
what they awaited, ghosts of the brutally unborn in settlement. Giving up the
ghost was given in Bobby Lee’s exhaustion—in showing, in showing up, his
already having given himself away in having come. S ­ ister Ruby c­ ouldn’t even
look at him, at them, at what he and she w
­ ere d
­ oing simply in their presence,

the panthers are ­here

are ­here
the panthers are ­here

for uptown
for anyone who lives in uptown.

­ e’re ­here for you, w

W ­ e’re ­here to be used by you, he says, deep in the history
of the slave revolt. What the mountains w ­ ere trying to relinquish was not a
privilege but a death sentence, continually executed in their own pronounce-
ment of it and in their waiting, when the poor interdict an unowned theater
of their own. You ­can’t love nobody but the poor, says Bobby Lee. For it is
given to the poor not only to be the object of that sentence but also to object
to it, in preferment of their own miraculous showing. The generality of that
precarity is our privilege, if we let it claim us. What whiteness seeks to sepa-
rate, blackness blurs by cutting, in touch. The movie about the movement
keeps the secret it reveals. The ruptural caress is on the cutting room floor or,
deeper still, underground. His hand waves in exasperation at ­people laying
back on cuts. His hand presses someone’s shoulder. Uptown c­ an’t improvise
without contact, we not movin’, man, let’s move, we ­can’t move. In the cut,
laying back on cuts is given to dance in the laying on of hands, we ­can’t move
without you, and ­we’re on the other side, in sufferance of an already given
rupture, in lightly hugging someone’s neck just like a shawl. This practice
of serrated handing, animation given in the disruption of the dead body’s

bobby lee ’ s hands / 281

protection, strug­gle shared in tousle and massage, message come in touch,
having claimed them, having come to be claimed by them, having come out
to show them, having come to see them to believe, is how the mountains
became Bobby Lee’s own to or­ga­nize, how they became what belongs to
what’s over the edge of belonging. They had to bear some ­whole other way of
bearing and being borne so they could leave their own (ghostliness) ­behind,
becoming something other than what they ­were not, something other than
what they ­were waiting on. The panthers are h­ ere, are h
­ ere, the panthers are
­here and, for a minute, the mountains move.

50.
well, he know how to cut yards

For a minute. This interlude in curacy, between a juke joint in Jasper and
the Fifth Ward’s gardens, is special now ­because of the richly alternative way
some differences are felt. When interlude becomes impasse, then a way out
is held in knowing how to cut by touching. And do you know a lot of ­people
­don’t know how to cut yards? They ­don’t know how to cut yards. But when he
fix it it’s so pretty. I love for him to do my yard. But what I ­don’t like about
him, he d ­ on’t wanna take no money. He cuts yards by touching, by a kind of
tenderness sown on e­ very weed, as if he serves at the weeds’ plea­sure, as if
passage is booked in love with the idea of taking her out to dinner. You ­can’t
build no block club by not ­doing something for folks. How ­else can you know
who are your own, the owned, the held, the held away, in shoes so they can
walk to heaven, which is on the street where they live? Turning left and right
­toward itselflessness, ­gently refusing laying back on cuts, knowing how to
cut yards, you go and start chattin’. ­There’s an endless, insistently previous
preview of our work in pro­gress that is held, handed, in touch, in feel(ing)
and ­there’s no need to won­der about the ghostly individual and his view.
Seeing himself everywhere and calling it politics, he would—in the power
of his gaze—be complete and indivisible, out of touch in self-­possessed, self-­
picturing monocularity. Meanwhile, Bobby Lee is this other ­thing in tactile
dispersion, practicing that haptic, active, organic Phantasie where one sees,
­ ecause one is, nothing at all. It’s nothing. It ­ain’t no ­thing. Selflessness ­ain’t
b
about nobility or even generosity. The substance of its ethics is of no account,
no count off, no one two, just a cut and then ­people be grooving. It’s not about
friendship with o
­ thers, ­either. Society is not friendly association with ­others;

282 / chapter 25
it’s friendly association without ­others, in the absence of the other, in the
exhaustion of relational individuality, in consent not to be a single being,
which is given in the sharpness of a differentiating touch, in the movement
of hands, in caminhando. Bobby Lee is another name we give to the xeno-
generosity of entanglement: the jam, that stone gas, a block club in a block
experiment, an underpo­liti­cal block party, a maternal ecol­ogy of undercom-
mon stock in poverty, in ser­vice, genius in black and blur.

bobby lee ’ s hands / 283

This page intentionally left blank
 NOTE S

Preface
1 Nathaniel Mackey, “Destination Out,” Callaloo 23, no. 2 (2000): 814.
2 Fred Moten, In the Break: The Aesthetics of the Black Radical Tradition (Minne-
apolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003).
3 Nathaniel Mackey, Atet A.D. (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2001), 118;
Saidiya V. Hartman, Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-­Making in
Nineteenth-­Century Amer­i­ca (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 117.
4 Hortense J. Spillers, “Mama’s Baby, Papa’s Maybe: An American Grammar Book,”
in Black and White and in Color: Essays on American Lit­er­at­ ure and Culture
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 206.
5 Hartman, Scenes of Subjection, 4.
6 See Denise Ferreira da Silva, “No-­Bodies: Law, Raciality and Vio­lence,” Griffith
Law Review 18 (2009): 214; and Laura Harris, “What­ever Happened to the Motley
Crew? C. L. R. James, Helio Oiticica and the Aesthetic Sociality of Blackness,”
Social Text 112, 30, no. 3 (fall 2012): 49–75.
7 Hartman, Scenes of Subjection, 77.
8 Hartman, Scenes of Subjection, 5.

Chapter 1. Not In Between

1 Johannes Fabian (with narratives and paintings by Tshibumba Kanda Matulu),
Remembering the Pres­ent: Painting and Popu­lar History in Zaire (Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1996).
2 C. L. R. James, The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo
Revolution, 2nd ed., revised (New York: Vintage Books, 1989), x.
3 See D. H. Melhem, “Revolution: The Constancy of Change,” in Conversations with
Amiri Baraka, ed. Charlie Reilly, 214 (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi,
1994).
4 James, Black Jacobins, 288.
5 James, Black Jacobins, 290–91.
6 James, Black Jacobins, 291–92.
7 James, Black Jacobins, 314–15.
8 Cedric J. Robinson, Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2000). This text and its author are
 brilliant and indispensable. If I say anything of value in divergence from, though
never in disagreement with, Robinson it is only as a function of his enabling texts
and conversations. This essay is an attempt to linger in the interrogative space he
opens around the issues of the lyricism and the origins of black radicalism.
9 Robinson, Black Marxism, 382.
10 James, Black Jacobins, 391–418.
11 Robinson, Black Marxism, 395.
12 Robinson, Black Marxism, 394.
13 Robinson, Black Marxism, 97.
14 Robinson, Black Marxism, 386.
15 Arif Dirlik, “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global
Capitalism,” Critical Inquiry 20, no. 2 (1994): 328–56.
16 James, Black Jacobins, xi. My emphasis.
17 It’s significant that Walter Rodney is able to think an equally unlikely emergence
of the proletariat: “Less than three years ­after being emancipated from slavery, the
new wage-­earning class was acting in certain re­spects like a modern proletariat;
and the first recorded strike in the history of the Guyanese working class was a
success. Leading to the withdrawal of the planters’ ­labor code and the continua-
tion of the moderately increased wage rate.” James makes explicit what Rodney
implies—­the insistently previous presence of the proletariat that strangely inhabits
not only the bourgeoisie but the slave masses. Another social ontology, another
theory of history, another dialectic is embedded ­here. See Rodney, A History of the
Guyanese Working ­People, 1881–1905 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1981), 33.
18 I am in ­great debt, h­ ere and everywhere in this essay, to Nathaniel Mackey’s notion
of the sexual cut. See Mackey, Bedouin Hornbook (From a Broken Bottle/Traces of
Perfume Still Emanate), Callaloo Fiction Series, Volume 2 (Lexington: University
Press of Kentucky, 1986), 30, 34–35.
19 Fabian, Moments of Freedom: Anthropology and Popu­lar Culture (Charlottesville:
University of ­Virginia Press, 1998), 76.
20 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 6.
21 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 9.
22 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 17.
23 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 21.
24 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 267.
25 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 267.
26 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 122.
27 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 122.
28 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, x–­xi.
29 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 189.
30 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 14.
31 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 3.
32 Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, trans. Brian Massumi
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), 348.
33 Fabian, Moments of Freedom, 127–29.

286  /  notes to chapter 1

 34 Sergei Eisenstein, The Film Sense (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1942), 25.
35 Eisenstein, The Film Sense, 86.
36 Eisenstein, The Film Sense, 86–87.
37 Eisenstein, The Film Sense, 69.
38 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 257.
39 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 257n17.
40 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 258.
41 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 258.
42 Fabian, Remembering the Pres­ent, 258.
43 At one stage in its ­career, this essay was part of a collaborative effort in which I
was engaged with Abdul-­Karim Mustapha. I want to acknowledge the positive
influence he had on the development of this work while absolving him from any
responsibility for its faults.

Chapter 2. Interpolation and Interpellation

1 Theodor Adorno, “On the Fetish-­Character in ­Music and the Regression of Listen-
ing,” trans. Maurice Goldbloom, in The Essential Frankfurt School Reader, ed.
Andrew Arato and Eike Gebhardt (New York: Continuum, 1982), 273.
2 Louis Althusser, “Cremonini, Painter of the Abstract,” in Lenin and Philosophy,
trans. Ben Brewster (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971), 229.
3 Judith Butler, The Psychic Life of Power: Theories of Subjection (Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 1997), 17–18.
4 Prakazrel “Pras” Michel, with kris ex, Ghetto Supastar (New York: Pocket Books,
1997), 149–51.
5 See Butler, Psychic Life of Power, 6–10.
6 I must indicate, however briefly, that I am indebted to but deviate from Jacques
Derrida’s notion of “the becoming-­objective of the object.” See Jacques Derrida,
Re­sis­tances of Psychoanalysis, trans. Peggy Kamuf, Pascale-­Anne Brault, and
Michael Naas (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997), 31.

Chapter 3. Magic of Objects

1 Randy Martin, Critical Moves: Dance Studies in Theory and Politics (Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 1998), 206.

Chapter 4. Sonata Quasi Una Fantasia

1 Theodor Adorno, Beethoven: The Philosophy of ­Music, ed. Rolf Tiedemann, trans.
Edmund Jephcott (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998), 44–45.
2 Eric Blom defines the sonata in this way: “The sonata form in its fully matured
but not sophisticated manifestations shows the following main outlines: a single
movement in two princi­ple sections, the first called the exposition, ending in an-
other key than that of the tonic. Two main thematic groups make up its material,
with room for subsidiary themes and connecting bridge passages. T ­ hese groups

notes to chapter 2  /  287

 are traditionally described as first and second subjects. The first is in the tonic
key, the second in a related key (e.g., the dominant in a movement in a major key
and the relative major in one in a minor key). The second section begins with a
development which, as its name suggests, develops some of the foregoing material
in new ways, but may also partly or even exclusively introduce new m ­ atter (e.g.,
as in Mozart). This development leads to the recapitulation, where the opening
of the movement, i.e., the first subject, returns as before, though possibly with
varied treatment; the second subject also appears in the tonic key, major or minor,
and in the latter case it is often in minor even if in the first section it appeared in
major. All this necessitates a new modulatory transition between first and second
subjects. The movement may end in the tonic exactly as the first section ended
in another key; but ­there may be a coda added, ­either a very brief tail-­piece of a
merely ceremonial nature or a more developed section which may further work
upon the foregoing material, as often in the case of Beethoven.” See Blom, The New
Everyman Dictionary of ­Music, 6th ed., revised and edited by David Cummings
(New York: Grove Weidenfeld [1958] 1988), 712.
3 The run of adjectives I use to describe Gould compose, in my mind, an ensemble
whose improper name is blackness. Gould’s blackness ­will have been a kind
of ecstasy, the hyperanalytic romanticism of the interior outside, the interior
paramour, the metablackamoor carry­ing in the change, the lawless freedom, of a
rough, humming ornament. Gould’s blackness might also be thought as a desire
operative in the encounter between unfreedom and a freedom drive that manifests
itself in escape where improvisation and re­sis­tance constitute the tense suspension
between harmony and counterpoint. One could also say that Gould’s got rhythm,
that he’s operating in the other’s time at that moment when differential tempi
marks multiple lines, voices. Fi­nally, Gould’s blackness might inhere simply in a
certain inability not to betray his origin. We could say, h­ ere, that Gould’s blackness
corresponds to Freud’s “phyloge­ne­tic fantasy,” about which more ­later.
4 Otto Friedrich, Glenn Gould: A Life and Variations (New York: Random House,
1969), 80.
5 Friedrich, Glenn Gould, 80–81.
6 François Girard and Don McKellar, Thirty Two Short Films about Glenn Gould:
The Screenplay (Toronto: Coach House Press, 1995), 40–42.
7 Gould was forty-­nine at the time. ­There is a section in the film, ­toward its end,
called forty-­nine. It is another scene of forced female audition, this time with
Gould’s favored interlocutor, his cousin Jessie Grieg. Gould, who often claimed
during this period that he was giving up the piano for conducting at the age of
fifty, was at this time obsessed with thoughts of his mortality. Schoenberg, one
of Gould’s favorite composers, who, according to Gould and Adorno, instanti-
ates the eruption of counterpoint into new ­music, was obsessed with numerol-
ogy, particularly with the unluckiness of the number thirteen. It turns out that
when Schoenberg was sixty-­five he feared for his life since sixty-­five is divisible by
thirteen. A numerologist allayed his fears, assuring him he had nothing to fear this
time around. Eleven years ­later, when he was seventy-­six, Schoenberg was warned
by his numerologist to watch out for years in which the integers marking his age

288  /  notes to chapter 4

 added up to thirteen. Alas, that year Schoenberg died. Gould, at forty-­nine, had
the same fear and, at forty-­nine, recorded Beethoven’s Piano Sonata no. 13. Gould’s
morbid numerological preoccupations are treated in Girard and McKellar, Thirty
Two Short Films, 161–62.
8 It should be noted ­here, and it is in part the function of this essay to imply, that
Gould may well have been sympathetic to Girard’s resort to such a ruse. In the
liner notes he composed to accompany his recording of piano ­music by Grieg and
Bizet, Gould observes: “The calendar, ­after all, is a tyrant; submission to its relent-
less linearity, a compromise with creativity; the artist’s prime responsibility, a quest
for that spirit of detachment and anonymity which neutralizes and transcends the
competitive intimidation of chronology.”
What it means to resist such tyranny, to break the laws of serial temporality,
might turn out to emerge at that intersection of fantasy and document (where the
document could be said to imply both detachment and anonymity), cinema and
­music, the overtonal and the contrapuntal, that Girard’s film occupies. See Glenn
Gould, “Piano ­Music by Grieg and Bizet, with a Confidential Caution to Critics,” in
The Glenn Gould Reader, ed. Tim Page (New York: Vintage, 1990), 78.
9 Glenn Gould, “Glenn Gould Interviews Glenn Gould about Glenn Gould” in The
Glenn Gould Reader, ed. Tim Page (New York: Vintage, 1984), 318.
10 See Peter Ostwald, Glenn Gould: The Ecstasy and Tragedy of Genius (New York:
W. W. Norton, 1997), 232–33.
11 See Friedrich, Glenn Gould, 184.
12 Glenn Gould, “Radio as ­Music: Glenn Gould in Conversation with John Jessup,”
in The Glenn Gould Reader, 379. Quoted in Ostwald, Glenn Gould, 234.
13 Adorno, Beethoven, 26.
14 Adorno, Beethoven, 44. My emphasis.
15 Adorno, Beethoven, 46.
16 Adorno, Beethoven, 47.
17 J. Laplanche and J.-­B. Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-­Analysis, trans. Donald
Nicholson-­Smith (New York: W. W. Norton, 1973), 314.
18 Laplanche and Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-­Analysis, 315.
19 Laplanche and Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-­Analysis, 315.
20 Laplanche and Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-­Analysis, 316.
21 Sigmund Freud, “The Unconscious,” in The Standard Edition of the Complete
Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 14 (London: Hogarth Press,
1953–73), 191. Quoted in Laplanche and Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-­
Analysis, 317.
22 See note 3 and bear in mind the history of the question of Beethoven’s blackness,
which we could name, by way of an echo of Jelly Roll Morton (and Nathaniel
Mackey [and Federico Garcia Lorca] [and Robert Reid-­Pharr])—­who is also
located at the improvisational convergence of composition and per­for­mance,
Einbildungskraft and Phantasie, where freedom resides in continued unfreedom,
where stolen life seeks to steal away—as the dark sounds of Beethoven’s Spanish
tinge (or dinge). More ­later.
23 Laplanche and Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-­Analysis, 318.

notes to chapter 4  /  289

 24 This question is prompted not only by the “passing” analogy in “The Unconscious”
but also by this famous paragraph from “A Child Is Being Beaten”: “Though in the
higher forms at school the ­children ­were no longer beaten, the influence of such
occasions was replaced and more than replaced by the effects of reading, of which
the importance was soon to be felt. In my patients’ milieu it was almost always the
same books whose contents gave a new stimulus to the beating-­phantasies: ­those
accessible to young ­people, such as what was known as the ‘Bibliothèque r­ ose,’
­Uncle Tom’s Cabin, ­etc. The child began to compete with t­ hese works of fiction by
producing his own phantasies and by constructing a wealth of situations and insti-
tutions, in which ­children ­were beaten, or ­were punished and disciplined in some
other way, ­because of their naughtiness and bad behaviour.”
25 Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, trans. Brian Massumi
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), 270.
26 Theodor Adorno, “The Function of Counterpoint in New ­Music,” in Sound Fig­
ures, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999),
127–28.
27 Edward W. Said, “The ­Music Itself: Glenn Gould’s Contrapuntal Vision,” in Glenn
Gould Variations: By Himself and His Friends, ed. John McGreevy (Toronto:
Doubleday Canada, 1983), 48.
28 Leonard Bern­stein, “The Truth about a Legend,” in McGreevy, Glenn Gould Varia­
tions, 17.
29 Theodor Adorno, “Bach Defended against His Devotees,” in Prisms, trans. Samuel
and Shierry Weber (Cambridge, MA: mit Press, 1981), 138–39.
30 Glenn Gould and Curtis Davis, “The Well-­Tempered Listener,” in McGreevy, Glenn
Gould Variations, 291–93.
31 Joseph Roddy, “Apollonian,” in McGreevy, Glenn Gould Variations, 96.
32 Ostwald, Glenn Gould, 76–77. Ostwald quotes Gould’s “Advice to a Graduation” in
Page, The Glenn Gould Reader, 6–7.
33 Jonathan Cott, Conversations with Glenn Gould (Boston: ­Little, Brown, 1984), 40–41.
34 Sergei Eisenstein, “A Dialectic Approach to Film Form,” in Film Form: Essays in
Film Theory, ed. and trans. Jay Leyda (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1969), 52.
35 Eisenstein, “A Dialectic Approach,” 53.

Chapter 5. Taste Dissonance Flavor Escape

1 See Hortense Spillers, “The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual: A Post-­date,” in Black
and In Color: Essays on American Lit­er­at­ ure and Culture (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2003), 433; and Chuck Morse, “Capitalism, Marxism, and the Black
Radical Tradition: An Interview with Cedric Robinson,” in Perspectives on Anar­
chist Theory 3, no. 1. flag​.­blackened​.­net​/i­ as​/­5robinsoninterview​.­htm, paragraph 35.
2 Harriet Jacobs, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl (New York: W. W. Norton,
2001), 5.
3 See Nathaniel Mackey, “Cante Moro,” in Sound States: Innovative Poetics and
Acoustical Technologies, ed. Adalaide Morris (Chapel Hill: University of North

290  /  notes to chapter 4

 Carolina Press, 1997), 199–200; Saidiya Hartman, Scenes of Subjection: Terror,
Slavery, and Self-­Making in Nineteenth-­Century Amer­i­ca (New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1997), 102–12; Harryette Mullen, “Runaway Tongue: Resistant Orality
in ­Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Our Nig, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, and Beloved,” in
The Culture of Sentiment: Race, Gender, and Sentimentality in Nineteenth-­Century
Amer­ic­ a, ed. Shirley Samuels (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 244–64;
and Daphne A. Brooks, Bodies in Dissent: Spectacular Per­for­mances of Race and
Freedom, 1850–1910 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006).
4 Jacobs, Incidents, 87.
5 Maurice Wallace, Constructing the Black Masculine: Identity and Ideality in
African American Men’s Lit­er­a­ture and Culture, 1775–1995 (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2002), 86.
6 Jacobs, Incidents, 91.
7 Michael Fried, “Art and Objecthood,” in Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 148–72.
8 I want to thank Rebecca Schneider for insisting that the notion of trajectory is
worried and must be worried. The broken line/broken circle I am trying to follow
­here is illuminated by and must go through her work. It is also a privilege to try
to work ground that has been broken by Lorraine O’Grady, by Deborah Willis and
Carla Williams, by Cheryl Wall and by Jennifer Doyle, whose questions w ­ ere the
initial provocation for this essay. See Schneider, The Explicit Body in Per­for­mance
(New York: Routledge, 1997); O’Grady, “Olympia’s Maid: Reclaiming Black Fe-
male Subjectivity,” in Art, Activism and Oppositionality: Essays from Afterimage,
ed. Grant H. Kester (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998), 268–86; Willis
and Williams, The Black Female Body: A Photographic History (Philadelphia:
­Temple University Press, 2002); Wall, Worrying the Line: Black ­Women Writers,
Lineage, and Literary Tradition (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
2005); and Doyle, Sex Objects: Art and the Dialectics of Desire (Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 2006).
9 See Tera W. Hunter, To ’Joy My Freedom: Southern Black ­Women’s Lives and
­Labors ­after the Civil War (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), and
Hartman, Scenes of Subjection, 17–48.
10 Jacobs, Incidents, 54.
11 W. E. B. Du Bois, The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study, rev. ed. (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press [1899] 1996), 411.
12 T. J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Era of Manet and His Follow­
ers (Prince­ton, NJ: Prince­ton University Press, 1984), 79.
13 Willis and Williams, The Black Female Body, 36, 44.
14 Willis and Williams, The Black Female Body, 45–46. I am also very much indebted,
­here, to Akira Mizuta Lippit’s brilliant excavation, his deep illumination, of the
secret, the archive, the anarchive. See his Atomic Light (Shadow Optics) (Minne-
apolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006).
15 Thomas Eakins to Benjamin Eakins, May 9, 1868; quoted in H. Barbara Wein-
berg, “Studies in Paris and Spain,” in Thomas Eakins: American Realist, ed. Darrel
Sewell (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2001), 18.

notes to chapter 5  /  291

 16 Willis and Williams, The Black Female Body, 188.
17 Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction, trans. Rob-
ert Hurley (New York: Vintage Books, 1978), 140.
18 Theodor Adorno, “On Some Relationships between ­Music and Painting,” trans.
Susan Gillespie, Musical Quarterly 79, no. 1 (1995): 66.
19 Adorno, “On Some Relationships,” 66; Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, trans. Robert
Hullot-­Kentor (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 168–69.
20 Adorno, “On Some Relationships,” 66.
21 Adorno, “On Some Relationships,” 66.
22 Adorno, “On Some Relationships,” 66.
23 See Harryette Mullen, “African Signs and Spirit Writing,” Callaloo 19, no. 3 (1996):
670–89.
24 Adorno, “On Some Relationships,” 78. See also Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari,
Anti-­Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizo­phre­nia, trans. Robert Hurley (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1983).
25 See Akira Lippit, Electronic Animal: ­Toward a Rhe­toric of Wildlife (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 2000).
26 Adorno, “On Some Relationships,” 72.
27 Adorno, “On Some Relationships,” 73.
28 Adorno, “On Some Relationships,” 67.
29 Adorno, “On Some Relationships,” 67.
30 Adorno, “On Some Relationships,” 69.
31 See Adorno, “­Little Heresy,” trans. Susan H. Gillespie, in Essays on ­Music, with
introduction, commentary, and notes by Richard Leppert (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2002), 318–24.
32 Adorno, “The Radio Symphony,” in Leppert, Essays on ­Music, 262.
33 Adorno, “­Little Heresy,” 319.
34 Adorno, “­Little Heresy,” 321.
35 Adorno, “­Little Heresy,” 322.
36 Adorno, “On Some Relationships,” 70.
37 Adorno, “On Some Relationships,” 71.
38 Adorno, “On the Fetish-­Character in ­Music and the Regression of Listening,” ed.
Richard Leppert, in Essays on ­Music, 290.
39 Adorno, “On the Fetish-­Character,” 291.
40 Marvin Gaye, “Since I Had You,” I Want You, Motown cd 3746352922, 1976. For
more on Gaye’s per­for­mance, see my In the Break: The Aesthetics of the Black Radi­
cal Tradition (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), 211–31.
41 Adorno, “On the Fetish-­Character,” 310.
42 Adorno, “On the Fetish-­Character,” 315.
43 Miles Davis, “The Buzzard Song,” Porgy and Bess, orchestra dir. Gil Evans, Colum-
bia Cl 1274, lp, 1958.
44 Adorno, Beethoven: The Philosophy of ­Music, ed. Rolf Tiedemann, trans. Edmund
Jephcott (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998), 44.
45 Thanks to Ruth Wilson Gilmore for introducing me to Lorna Goodison’s poetry
and for the rhythm of my title; to Kathryne Lindbergh, Brent Edwards, Bran-

292  /  notes to chapter 5

 islav Jakovljevic, Marianne Tettlebaum, and Rebecca Schneider for giving me the
chance to pres­ent and refine this work; to Ed Cadava and Barbara Browning for
their comments and encouragement; and especially to Danielle Goldman for her
careful editing, caring stewardship, and, especially, for her own brilliant work. This
essay is dedicated to Qelsi Qualls.

Chapter 6. The New International of Rhythmic Feel/ings

1 Lord Invader, Calypso in New York, Smithsonian Folkways Recordings cd 40454,
liner notes by John Cowley, 2000.
2 Charles Mingus, Mingus Ah Um, Columbia/Legacy cd ck 65512, 1998.
3 See Paul Gilroy, The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 1–40. One way to think of this essay
is as a kind of response to a more recent intervention by Gilroy, “Multiculture,
Double Consciousness and the ‘War on Terror,’ ” Patterns of Prejudice 39, no. 4
(2005): 431–43. But how does one respond to the notion that the African Ameri-
can cultural field constitutes a particularly, indeed vulgarly, provincialist threat
to a new Afro-­diasporic cosmopolitanism and to more general forms of postracial
national identity whose ­imagined conviviality—­manifest in the universal desire
among a multiracial, multiethnic set of ­people from Britain illegally detained at
Guantanamo Bay for Scottish Highland shortbread—­depends upon an avoid-
ance of an American model of multiculturalism that is bodied forth in the African
American example? To whom is Gilroy speaking? (Or, in another register, by way
of another structure of address, directly to him though I am certain ­he’ll never read
this, Who the fuck you talking to?) The question is crucial insofar as much of what
Gilroy has written in the last de­cade seems directed t­ oward the G ­ reat Tribunal of
Rational Men, The National-­Cosmopolitan Star Chamber. I won­der if they listen
to him. Gilroy begins by touching on a theoretical prob­lem embedded in the dis-
course of loss-­in-­politics that is currently dominated by the mourning/melancholia
dichotomy. However, one can discern no sense what­ever of any obligation Gilroy
feels to theorize loss for himself; no sense of any direction t­ oward an address
of the question of how a nation would mourn the loss of its imperial power and
thereby work through a postcolonial melancholia that threatens to thrust it into
the modes of vicious segregation and exclusion that pass, now, for multiculturalism
in the United States. One won­ders if it can, in fact, be established that a nation in
its entirety, if, indeed, such a totality can itself adequately be established, needs to
mourn lost empire. Is the mourning/melancholia dichotomy, which seems to tire
­under the massive weight of the analytic desire it is now forced to bear, even neces-
sary for an understanding of con­temporary British racism and xenophobia? This
is an in­ter­est­ing question that Gilroy’s text requires its readers to ask but that task
is, fi­nally, eclipsed by other, more urgent issues Gilroy forces us—or at least me—to
address due to the specificities of his critique of American-­style multiculturalism.
The point is not that I disagree with that critique; if anything, Gilroy is gentle in his
treatment of a model in which old-­fashioned interracial exploitation and postmod-
ern commercialized assimilation are made to pass for social integration. Moreover,

notes to chapter 6  /  293

 it is not simply that I fail to recognize the African American culture that I have
known and lived and studied in Gilroy’s description, which ranges from brief and
illegitimately totalizing mention of the supposedly world-­enveloping mindless-
ness of hip-­hop to extrapolations of the entirety of the black po­liti­cal field in the
United States from the mindfully vicious examples of Colin Powell and Condo-
leezza Rice. The point, rather, is that ­there is a fundamental difference in the
way Gilroy and I think of ourselves in relation to national identity. That t­ here
has always seemed something nostalgically, even melancholically, inaccurate
about the term African American is one part of it; but what also differentiates
us is that while Gilroy seems to believe in the personal and analytic value of a
phrase like “We Britons,” I could never bring myself—­for reasons both affective
and intellectual—to speak of “We Americans.” And I experience this neither as
loss nor as implicit acknowl­edgment of the narrowness or failure of the specific,
anticorporate U.S. multiculturalism to which I would dissentingly subscribe or,
more particularly, of the mode of blackness that I would claim precisely as a re-
sult of a radical, principled rejection of national identity as such. It is heartening
to note that Gilroy sees in black culture, broadly conceived, the seeds of a certain
critique, if not rejection, of national identity even as it is disheartening that the
African American is seen as a regressive countertendency in which the national
is reified. Again, such a formulation depends upon a problematically narrow
understanding of the history of the forms of black life taken up in (anticipa-
tory apposition to) the United States. Gilroy’s unfortunate assertions are, to my
mind, a function of his massive underestimation, a practically burlesque inability
genuinely to think the irreducible dehiscence, which is exacerbated by the inac-
curacy and incommensurability of its terms, at the heart of African American, a
nonword or nonphrase or nonconcept that ­ought always to be placed in erasure.
This is how that which is unfairly and inaccurately called African American pro-
vincialism comes to stand in for what is barely acknowledged, beyond the kind of
facile phrase making that now so often stands in for analy­sis, as the desperately
grasping imperial and assimilative reach of American exceptionalism. This is
how Rice and Powell are offered up as representative African Americans while
Du Bois is presented as a kind of quaint, outdated, etiolated substitute for a
more genuine and effective mode of re­sis­tance to the representative. Suffice it to
say that ­matters are quite a bit more complicated than this. In the end, perhaps
it would be better to have written—­for ­those who think this r­ eally m­ atters, for
­those who believe in the fantasy of a cosmopolitanism that would be carried
out by spooky actions at a distance in the everyday space-­time of ­human bodies
whose limits remain in spite of the cybernetic powers of the virtual—­a record-­
straightening informational communiqué titled “On the Transnationality of U.S.
Blackness.” On the other hand, the best response might have been a brief ethnog-
raphy focusing on the vast number of multiracial, multiethnic p ­ eople or­ga­nized
around the desire for Big Macs in United States prisons. But all I can do is
amplify the admittedly nonconvivial question I addressed to Gilroy above: Who
are you to lecture blacks in the United States, whom you conceive in the most
egregiously undifferentiated way, about their international dissident responsibili-

294  /  notes to chapter 6

 ties while speaking of “We Britons,” and romanticizing the fantasmatic national
identity of baked goods?
4 I want to emphasize, h ­ ere, that the ­musics in question—­jazz, calypso, ­free jazz—­are
burdened by their names. Constrained to repeat and revise given musical forms,
to redouble and to refrain from the assertion of given po­liti­cal and sexual content,
Afro-­diasporic m ­ usics could be said constantly to perform a kind of antinomian
antinominalism. This makes Mingus’s nominative gestures, about which more
shortly, all the more problematic.
5 Jean Clouzet and Guy Kopelowicz, “Interview de Charles Mingus: Un Inconfort­
able Après-­midi,” Jazz, June 1964, 27. I thank Brent Edwards for help with the
translation.
6 Sue Graham Mingus, To­night at Noon: A Love Story (New York: Da Capo, 2002),
13, 18–19.
7 Henry Dumas, “­Will the Circle be Unbroken?” Eugene B. Redmond, ed. Echo Tree:
The Collected Short Fiction of Henry Dumas (Minneapolis: Coffee House Press,
2003), 105.
8 See Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American
Slave, Written by Himself, in Frederick Douglass: The Narrative and Selected Writ­
ings, ed. Michael Meyer (New York: Modern Library, 1984), 28–29.
9 See Michel Foucault, “Maurice Blanchot: The Thought from Outside,” in Foucault/
Blanchot, trans. Jeffrey Mehlman and Brian Massumi (New York: Zone Books,
1987); and Nathaniel Mackey, “Destination Out,” Callaloo 23, no. 2 (2000): 814.
1 0 Foucault, “Maurice Blanchot,” 18.
11 See Jelly Roll Morton, The Complete Library of Congress Recordings, disc six,
Rounder Rec­ords b000gfle35, 2005; Robert Reid-­Pharr, Black Gay Man (New
York: New York University Press, 2002), 85–98; Nathaniel Mackey, “Cante Moro,”
in Sound States: Innovative Poetics and Acoustical Technologies, ed. Adalaide Mor-
ris (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 194–212; and Federico
García Lorca, In Search of Duende, trans. Norman Di Giovanni (New York: New
Directions, 1998).
12 It’s in­ter­est­ing to note ­here that Mingus’s fellow transplanted Angeleno, critic and
erstwhile drummer and novelist Stanley Crouch, has offered similar criticisms of
Rollins recently, to which Rollins has had the opportunity to reply. In an interview
with Ashante Infantry, Rollins responds to Crouch’s assertion that when he is faced
with a young audience “he often resorts to banal calypso tunes.” “I completely re-
ject that criticism and I think it was based on the fact that he denigrates that type
of rhythm and I ­don’t,” said the Harlem-­born Rollins, whose parents emigrated
from the Virgin Islands. “It’s something that I enjoy playing and is a challenge
to play, just as much as a lot of the ­music we play. It’s not something I phone in.”
While Mingus aligns calypso with a lack of musical knowledge, Crouch compounds
that formulation by asserting that calypso is also bound up with a lack of musical
effort. Ignorance that ends in self-­parodic per­for­mance and laziness that manifests
itself in a performative ease that indexes preternatural cheerfulness are, of course,
familiar ste­reo­types assigned to African-­descended ­peoples, ones that both Crouch
and Mingus could be said misguidedly to combat via a kind of intradiasporic

notes to chapter 6  /  295

 displacement whose cir­cuits of further transfer and return turn out to have been,
up to now, inexhaustible. See Stanley Crouch, “The Colossus,” New Yorker, May 9,
2005; and Ashante Infantry, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Colossus,” Toronto Star,
June 19, 2005.
13 Brian Priestly, Mingus: A Critical Biography (New York: Da Capo, 1982), 84.
14 Priestly, Mingus, 84–85.
15 Priestly, Mingus, 85.
16 For more on Mingus in Tijuana and for a more general overview of African Ameri-
can/Mexican musical interaction, see Josh Kun, Audiotopia: ­Music, Race, and
Amer­i­ca (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 143–83.
17 See Priestly, Mingus, 124; and Mingus, “What I Feel about Jazz . . .” Jazz News,
July 19, 1961, 10–11.
18 Priestly, Mingus, 124–25, with interpolations from Mingus, “What I Feel about
Jazz . . . ,” 10.
19 Mingus, Beneath the Underdog, ed. Nel King (New York: Penguin, 1971), 251–52.
20 Shannon Dudley, “Judging ‘By the Beat’: Calypso versus Soca,” Ethnomusicology
40, no. 2 (1996): 270.
21 Herman Rapaport, “Of Musical Headings: Toscanini’s and Furtwängler’s Fifth
Symphonies, 1939–54,” in Thresholds of Western Culture: Identity, Postcoloniality,
Transnationalism, ed. John Burt Foster Jr. and Wayne Jeffrey Froman (New York:
Continuum, 2002), 67.
2
2 Rapaport, “Of Musical Headings,” 67.
23 Rapaport, “Of Musical Headings,” 67–68.
24 Rapaport, “Of Musical Headings,” 68.
25 Rapaport, “Of Musical Headings,” 68.
26 Sarah Cervenak, Wandering: Philosophical Per­for­mances of Racial and Sexual
Freedom (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014).
27 Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said, Parallels and Paradoxes: Explorations in
­Music and Society (New York: Pantheon, 2002), 74.
28 Karl Dietrich Gräwe, “Fixing the Moment: The Conductor William Furtwängler,”
liner notes for William Furtwängler, Recordings: 1942–1944, Vol. 1, Deutsche
Grammaphon cd Mono 471 289–2, 2002, 7.
9
2 Gräwe, “Fixing the Moment,” 9.
30 Consider the gestural nonconvergence of song and dance. It demands an investiga-
tion, which is to say a remixing, of prior tracks and the laying down of some new
ones; some movement, down and across ruptured, restricted ave­nues, nowhere, no
place, but not ­there; some eccentric ave­nue given and made in being broken in and
into and down, uptown, Los Angeles, Arkansas. Movement like this i­ sn’t parallel
but off and out; tangent as much as crossing; asymptotic, appositional encounter.
As soon as we call this line ­we’re on derailment ­we’ll begin to study how all this out
root goes. Train circle, then bridge, then fall.
Butch Morris calls it conduction. (1) “It was at this time [June 1984] that I
started thinking more about the combustion, or heat, that the system creates. The
communication between eye, mind, and ear, between ­people—­the psy­chol­ogy
and imagination. I started to read physics books, primarily to create a rationaliza-

296  /  notes to chapter 6

 tion for what I was ­doing and thinking. H ­ ere I found ‘conduction.’ It served dual
purposes. One, it served the music-­conducted improvisation. Two, it served the
physical aspect of communication and heat” (Lawrence D. “Butch” Morris, “First
Curiosity,” liner notes, Testament: A Conduction Collection, New World Rec­ords,
cd, 1995, 5). (2) “Collective improvisation must have a prime focus, and the use of
notation alone was not enough for the con­temporary improviser. F ­ ree jazz and col-
lective improvisation ­were ­grand moves in the history of the ­music, you c­ an’t write
this out. I think more than anything, they created more questions and answers
to and for the direction of composition for improvisers. The idea that a m ­ usic’s
outcome be predetermined (notation) is long a dead issue with me. It is enough for
me to know that the musicians who participate in Conduction are t­ here to serve
the ­music we make at the time that we make it, and that they w ­ ill be served by its
outcome. I’ve seen sabotage in the multitude—­and ­people who want anarchy be-
fore they know the law. ­There is no place for that in this m­ usic, as t­ here is no place
for that in any other m
­ usic, art, or culture. Therefore, for this ­music I look and listen
for ensemble players. Ensemble players who can make a decision for the good of
the ­music and its direction” (Morris, “First Curiosity,” 5–6). (3) “ ‘Conduction’ not
only relates the act of ‘conducted improvisation,’ it is also the electric charge and
response from body to body—­the immediate transmission of information and
result. This is an ancient form of communication that can be used again to further
this ­music (although we see it ­every day in some form, and if not e­ very day—­every
spring).” (Morris, “Theory and Contradiction: Notes on Conduction,” liner notes,
Testament, 8).
Heat and memory reforge ­music as aeffect of ser­vice, beyond the absence
of “a focus,” by way of and through the strictures of objection. On the one hand,
a choreographer (Ralph Lemon) speaks of mourning the loss of dances incurred
while waiting for dancers; on the other hand, the reproductivity of conduction and
its decision, its memory, ancient rite, rewritten book, depends upon the instru-
ment, the musician, the fecundity of insistent ­things (musicians, instruments).
Conduction #25, Istanbul, Turkey; October 16, 1992. The rhythms insist more
intensely with the stringed but flutelike oud: what Dolphy would have sounded
like over this much strife, and in it! Now Ragin playing thru it. Rhythm of so much
string, strings’ translucency is a turbulent field. Content too rich for taxonomy.
Irregularities anticipated in the in­ven­ted but familiar phrase. This is of motherless
­children. They accent the second syllable ­because they are disciples.
31 See Samuel R. Delany, The Motion of Light in ­Water: Sex and Science Fiction
Writing in the East Village (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004),
291–92; and Hazel R. Carby, Race Men (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2000), 135–68.
2
3 Barenboim and Said, Parallels and Paradoxes, 17.
33 Barenboim and Said, Parallels and Paradoxes, 35.
34 Scott Saul, Freedom Is, Freedom ­Ain’t (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2003).
5
3 Dudley, “Judging ‘By the Beat,’ ” 274.
36 Dudley, “Judging ‘By the Beat,’ ” 270.

notes to chapter 6  /  297

 7 Dudley, “Judging ‘By the Beat,’ ” 272.
3
38 Check Gould’s conversation with Tim Page on the second recording on disc 3 of
Glenn Gould, A State of Won­der: The Complete Goldberg Variations, 1955 and
1981, Columbia s3k 87703, compact discs, 2002.
39 Dudley, “Judging ‘By the Beat,’ ” 272–73.
40 Dudley, “Judging ‘By the Beat,’ ” 274.
41 Olly Wilson, “The Significance of the Relationship between Afro-­American ­Music
and West African ­Music,” Black Perspectives in ­Music 2, no. 1 (1974): 3–22; quoted
in Dudley, “Judging ‘By the Beat,’ ” 274.
42 I’m thinking of two late elaborations by Adorno of what he calls the Bewegungsge­
setz. In the first, he writes, “The object of theory is not something immediate, of
which theory might carry home a replica. Knowledge has not, like the state police,
a rogues’ gallery of its objects. Rather, it conceives them as it conveys them; e­ lse it
would be content to describe the façade. As Brecht did admit, a­ fter all, the criterion
of sense perception—­overstretched and problematic even in its proper place—is not
applicable to radically indirect society. What immigrated into the object as the law
of its motion [Bewegungsgesetz], inevitably concealed by the ideological form of the
phenomenon, eludes that criterion.” See his Negative Dialectics, trans. E. B. Ashton
(New York: Continuum, 1972), 206. In the second formulation, Adorno states,
“The semblance character of artworks, the illusion of their being-­in-­itself, refers
back to the fact that in the totality of their subjective mediatedness they take part
in the universal delusional context of reification, and, that, in Marxist terms, they
need to reflect a relation of living ­labor as if it ­were a ­thing. The inner consistency
through which artworks participate in truth always involves their untruth; in its
most unguarded manifestations art has always revolted against this, and t­ oday this
revolt has become art’s own law of movement [Bewegungsgesetz]. The antinomy of
the truth and untruth of art may have moved Hegel to foretell its end. Traditional
aesthetics possessed the insight that the primacy of the w ­ hole over the parts has
constitutive need of the diverse and that this primacy misfires when it is simply
imposed from above.” See Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, trans. Robert Hullot-­Kentor
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 176–77.
43 Or, as I prefer to call her, Mlle. B:
Mlle. B. was nineteen years old when she entered the hospital in March. Her
admission sheet reads:
The undersigned, Dr. P., formerly on the staff of the Hospitals of Paris, certifies
that he has examined Mlle. B, who is afflicted with a ner­vous disease consisting
of periods of agitation, motor instability, tics and spasms which are conscious but
which she cannot control. ­These symptoms have been increasing and prevent her
from leading a normal social life . . . ​
Twenty-­four hours ­later the chief physician found ­these facts:
Afflicted with Neurotic tics that began at the age of ten and became aggravated
at the onset of puberty, and further when she began g ­ oing to work away from
home. Intermittent depressions with anxiety, accompanied by a recrudescence of
­these symptoms. Obsesity. Requests treatment. Feels reassured in com­pany. As-
signed to an open ward. Should remain institutionalized.

298  /  notes to chapter 6

 In his attunement to the interplay of racial archetypography and (rural)
metropolitan psychopathology, Frantz Fanon gives access to remainders, both
perceived and imperceptible, poised in new musical ­angles, of the jazz lament
and the tom-­tom. What if the ner­vous tic, the involuntary muscular contraction
that is exacerbated by the metropole’s own migratory exigencies, the trou­ble of
having to leave in order to work and live, ­were one among other interpretations
of a given choreography of racial difference? I have spoken, elsewhere, of how
the circle, in Douglass’s autobiographical writing, constitutes a border separating
interpretive incapacities, of how that constitution is the enactment of an impro-
visational suspension of interpretation in general and an anticipatory critique of
psychoanalytic (or, to be more precise in the case of Fanon, psychotherapeutic)
interpretation. ­Music and movement determine the scene that is, in spite and by
way of all protest, a scene, a spectacle. Improvisation emerges at the intersection
of the racialized, sexualized beatdown and the phonochoreographic downbeat.
The question of which comes first is in perpetual suspense. What it means to enter
into a circle or a dance is at stake ­here. This is to say that the issue is a clinical one.
François Tosquelles or, deeper still, Félix Guattari might have i­ magined the open
ward differently, as a band or orchestra. Reassurance is given in the transverse en-
semble. Anything is ­music if it is or­ga­nized according to certain princi­ples. Latent
normativities are troubled by the thought of blackness as a permeable circle of
permeable, percussive ­things in their errant muscularity. T ­ here is an annoying in-
termittence and recrudescence of this liberatory fantasy that liberation is all bound
up with fantasy, intermittence, and recrudescence; that blackness is the field or
plain of this feel and play, this psychosomatic scene. This young girl’s d ­ addy is not
rich. The sexual richness of ­daddy escapes her and Fanon avoids it. But h ­ ere she
is at the Sound Barrier, at the Five Spot, trying to join the circle of the excluded,
the sphere of refusal, the gathering underground, on the edge, in the cistern. “ ‘It’s
especially when I’m working that the tics come.’ (The patient was working at a job
that entailed her living away from home.)” Certain unguarded expressions arise, as
if in response to some ­music she both hears and plays. “She begins by tapping her
feet, and then goes on to raise her feet, her legs, her arms, her shoulders symmetri-
cally” as if caught in the throes of an involuntary conduction, that she enacts, of
herself, of the band she is, in ­these moments of work and stillness, having moved
or having been moved. She uttered sounds. It was never pos­si­ble to understand
what she was saying. “This manifestation ended in quite loud, inarticulate cries.
As soon as she was spoken to, ­these stopped.”
The psychiatrist in charge deci­ded to employ waking-­dream therapy. A prelimi-
nary interview had brought out the existence of hallucinations in the form of ter-
rifying circles, and the patient had been asked to describe them. H ­ ere is an excerpt
from the notes on the first session.
Deep and concentric, the circles expanded and contracted to the rhythm of a
Negro tom-­tom. This tom-­tom made the patient think of the danger of losing her
parents, especially her ­mother.
I then asked her to make the sign of the cross over ­these circles, but they did
not dis­appear. I told her to take a cloth and rub them out, and they vanished.

notes to chapter 6  /  299

 She turned in the direction of the tom-­tom. She was surrounded by half-­naked
men and ­women dancing in a frightening way. I told her not to be afraid to join
the dance. She did so. Immediately the appearance of the dancers changed. It was
a splendid party. The men and ­women w ­ ere well dressed and they ­were dancing a
waltz, The Snow Star.
­Ain’t it funny how the iron system and slipping away from the iron system
are both articulated in relation to a blackness that is never fully articulated? The
transformation of the negro tom-­tom into a waltz not only leaves open the ques-
tion concerning the location of regulation, of regulatory musical time; it also leaves
indeterminate the racial make-up of the dancers and the players. This is not to
say that the ­music of the tom-­tom is not to be indexed to blackness; it is, rather, to
assert that what­ever it is to which the waltz is indexed is appositional, rather than
oppositional, to blackness, which is, in the end, a massive enactment of apposition.
The waking dream technique required her to join the dance she feared; to disrupt
the circle by way of her own irruption into it.
Her treatment demands that she keeps bringing back and entering into her
recurrent symptoms of fearful, racialized musical recurrence. She keeps bringing
them back so she can enter and break. They come back broken. “She entered them.
They broke, ­rose again, then ­gently, one ­after another, fell away into the void. I told
her to listen to the tom-­tom. She did not hear it. She called to it. She heard it on
the left.” She is told that an angel ­will go with her to the tom-­tom, repeating with
a difference the deployment, in the first session, of the cross. Now, when the angel
takes her closer to the tom-­tom, a more secure racialization is in place. “­There w ­ ere
only black men ­there, and they ­were dancing round a large fire and looked evil.
The angel asked her what they ­were ­going to do; she said they ­were g ­ oing to burn
a white man. She looked for him everywhere. She could not see him.” David Macey
points out, in his reading of Fanon’s recounting and analy­sis of this scene, that a
mode of therapy is ­here enacted in which “The material thrown up during the day-
dream allows the therapist to provoke new situations so as to observe the subject’s
affective reactions and gradually to reduce the level of anxiety by releasing tension
at both the psychological and physiological level.” He adds, “­There is no attempt
to establish a transference or the relationship that allows the patient to actualize
unconscious wishes by projecting them on to the figure of the analyst.” However,
the absence of any attempt to establish a transference does not mean that one does
not emerge only to recede into precisely that indeterminate mode that intimates
a transversality beyond transference. Note that the angel who leads her back into
the circle as if he ­were her doctor asks the young ­woman what “[the black men]
­were ­going to do.” Note that she fi­nally sees a white man of about fifty years, “half
undressed.” Note that the black chief says they ­will burn him ­because he was from
another country. Note that she ­will ­later desire the angel to lead her “somewhere
where she would ­really be at home, with her m ­ other, her b
­ rothers and her s­ isters.”
One can imagine a flurry of interpretive activity in relation to this version. In that
flurry, attention would be paid to the specter of anticolonial re­sis­tance; to colonial
displacement and the disruption of metropolitan domestic space and familial
relations; to the actualization of unconscious wishes deferred by techniques that

300  /  notes to chapter 6

are ­shaped by other concerns. Perhaps Fanon’s text is best understood as another
anticipatory, improvisational disruption of psychoanalytic interpretation. Or
perhaps it ­will emerge, more sharply, as a text that strenuously seeks to avoid its
own antinormative implications by locking itself into an interpretive structure
that, nevertheless, it cannot help but escape. On the one hand, the avoidance of
blackness-­as-­escape breaks down in Fanon; on the other hand, Fanon insists upon
the necessity of disavowing blackness-­as-­escape.
When the treatment—­which consists of voluntarily entering into the symptoms
of which she desires a cure—­ceases, the symptoms return and so occasion another
voluntary entrance into the broken circle that she has to break. While before she
had no desire to know the chief, but rather only wanted to be taken home, now
she makes an approach, desires to know, lets a negro who had stopped dancing
only to resume but in a new rhythm, as if her entrance into the circle required its
recalibration, take her hands. L ­ ater, in another session, she thinks of the circles
again. Some are broken but the smaller ones remain intact: “She wanted to break
them. She took them in her hands and bent them, and then they broke. One,
however, was still left. She went through it. On the other side she found she was
in darkness. But she was not afraid. She called someone and her guardian angel
came down, friendly and smiling. He led her to the right, back into the daylight.”
What is the nature of this enlightenment which is, a­ fter all, temporary and
recedes when the patient is alone, withdrawn from her voluntary entrance into
that turning, returning circle of blackness? It seems to me that Fanon’s entire body
of work, from the earliest instances of its revolutionary professional unsuitabil-
ity, is best understood as a slow, tortured approach to this question, prematurely
suspended but for the ongoing proj­ect of an extended, transverse, improvisation
(through, among other ­things, the opposition of interpretation and reading).
Fanon could not suspend this circular approach—­that in this case the beat beat
beat of the tom-­tom instantiates—to the appositional encounter of darkness and
light, night and day. Even in his rushed refusal “to elaborate on the infrastructure
of this psycho-­neurosis,” in order to establish that the patient suffered from “a fear
of imaginary negroes,” Fanon cannot seize the forces set in motion by the interin-
animation of blackness and imagination. According to Fanon, the “circles are easily
recognizable as a kind of defence mechanism against her hallucinosis,” which is
to say against her placement within the general hallucinosis that structures the
general and unbounded field of colonial relations that would include e­ very deter-
mination of what turns out to be radically indetermined metropolitan domesticity.
Fanon asserts that the “defence mechanism had taken over without reference to
what had brought it on.” He adds, “By now it was the circles alone that produced
the motor reactions: outcries, facial tics, random gesticulation.”
My interest in another international, in a politics and publicity that is s­ haped
by the choreophonographic attunements that the vio­lence of diaspora makes pos­si­
ble but does not determine, requires that I try to pay attention to that which Fanon
avoids and, paradoxically, begins to illuminate: that the psychic and physical bru-
tality of racialization is scandalously interinanimate with the chance to say, H ­ ere’s
your chance—in this wayward, out-­of-­round bassline that you still can claim by

notes to chapter 6  /  301

 imagining—to dance your way out of your constrictions and into some dizzy trans-
versal mood or sphere. Similarly, madness always threatens to offend the reason it
constitutes, disrupts, and augments; and obesity, an auto-­excessive or invaginative
roundness that moves and inspires movement out of all compass, per­sis­tently en-
dangers normative health, which is to say ­wholeness, and the illusion that one’s life
is one’s own. Mingus and the French Lady are one another’s instruments. T ­ here is
a constant duet of interactive thingliness that leaves its disruptive trace on certain
clinical decisions, ­whether in Bellevue (where Mingus checked himself in to try to
get at, to prepare to compose, his own internal trio) or in the Saint Ylié hospital
in a small town north of Lyon. Is “rotary perception” Mingus’s defense against the
hallucinatory myth of the negro? Or is it a choreography whose liberatory effect
demands precisely his entrance into the hallucinatory field he fears and by which
he is constrained? Is this why Mingus ends his book by coming round again to the
eccentric cosmological concentricities of a broken trumpeter named Fats Navarro,
the one they called Fat Girl? Fred Hopkins speaks of big, fat, round Ray Brown
notes. The sound barrier is a floating game. William Parker speaks of the tone
world which is a surround held in faith by ­those for whom the prospects of what
Fanon calls “a normal life in society” are doubtful.
To connect with the texts with which I have taken such liberties, see Frantz
Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, trans. Charles Lem Markmann (London: Pala-
din, 1970), 145–48; David Macey, Frantz Fanon (New York: Picador USA, 2001),
135–39; and Mingus, Beneath the Underdog, 261–63.
44 Thanks to Alice Echols for calling to my attention Bob Dylan’s remarks on Joni
Mitchell. See Echols, “ ‘The Soul of a Martian’: A Conversation with Joni Mitchell,”
in Shaky Ground: The Sixties and Its Aftershocks (New York: Columbia University
Press, 2002). Also see John Cohen, “Liner Notes,” in Roscoe Holcomb, An Un­
tamed Sense of Control, Smithsonian Folkways Recordings, cd 40144, 2003. For
more on the sexual politics and aesthetics of the falsetto, see my In the Break: The
Aesthetics of the Black Radical Tradition (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 2003), 211–31.
5 Three interventions are in the front of my mind ­here. Barbara Johnson speaks
4
of “letting the other takes our time” in her “Response” to Henry Louis Gates Jr.,
“Canon-­Formation, Literary History, and the Afro-­American Literary Tradition:
From the Seen to the Told,” in Afro-­American Literary Study in the 1990s, ed.
Houston A. Baker Jr. and Patricia Redmond (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1989), 44. Rosalind Krauss speaks of a certain order of the invisible/
fantasmatic that Lyotard calls “the matrix,” and which is aligned with “a beat,
or pulse, or throb . . . ​that works not only against the formal premises of mod-
ernist opticality—­the premises that connect the dematerialization of the visual
field to the dilated instantaneity or peculiar timelessness of the moment of its
perception—­but it works as well against . . . ​the notion that low art, or mass-­
cultural practice, can be made to serve the ambitions of high art as a kind of de-
natured accessory, the allegory of a playfulness that high-­art practice ­will have no
trou­ble recuperating and reformulating in its own terms.” See her “The Im/pulse
to See,” in Vision and Visuality, ed. Hal Foster (Seattle: Bay Press, 1988), 53–54.

302  /  notes to chapter 6

 Laura Doyle speaks of another matrix, “the racial matrix of modern fiction and
culture” that is manifest in a “universal, race transcending m
­ other complex” that
marks and explains the commons, the circle, that modernism disruptively inhabits.
See her Bordering on the Body: The Racial Matrix of Modern Fiction and Culture
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 3.
6 I’m thinking of, in order to think with and against, William Carlos William’s beau-
4
tiful, virulent misprision of New Orleans trumpeter Bunk Johnson’s band:

Ol’ Bunk’s Band

­ hese are men! The gaunt, unfore—­sold, the vocal,
T
blatant, Stand up, stand up! the
slap of a bass-­string.
Pick, ping! The horn, the
hollow horn
long drawn out, a hound deep
tone—­
Choking, choking! while the
treble reed
races—­alone, ­ripples, screams
slow to fast—­
to second to first! ­These are men!

Drum, drum, drum, drum, drum

drum, drum! The
ancient cry, escaping crapulence
eats through
transcendent—­torn, tears, term
town, tense,
turns and backs off ­whole, leaps
up, stomps down,
rips through! ­These are men
beneath
whose force the melody limps—­
to
proclaim, proclaims—­Run and
lie down,
in slow mea­sures, to rest and
not never
need no more! ­These are men!
Men!

Williams’s romance with sound misheard as erect, unforesold command of

time is cut by an attunement to the cut, cutting force of proclamations of recline
and declining speed. The melodic slowdown is enacted by way of the stomp down,
torn terms and turns derived from an old, fugitive cry that speaks against what
Williams means it to signify: a national manhood, manifest in a black masculin-
ist musicianship it excludes by fetishizing. Williams offers a prefigurative mirror

notes to chapter 6  /  303

 image of Mingus’s articulations of his own ambivalent technical desire; Williams
perceives but cannot admit the maternity Mingus claims and disavows. See The
Collected Poems of William Carlos Williams: Volume II, 1939–1962 (New York:
New Directions, 1988), 149–50.
47 The formulation “swing is sound” is that of percussionist Billy Higgins. It is re-
corded in Ingrid Monson, Saying Something: Jazz Improvisation and Interaction
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 64. I have mixed it with the phrase
high lonesome sound, one used by a host of musicians and critics to characterize
a sonority essential to ­music such as Holcomb’s. At the risk of explaining away
what­ever allusive clarity that may have emerged from certain activities of wander-
ing, digging, leaping, leaving, giving up, turning, turning loose, and returning,
let me say that I hope the range of reference within which I am trying to operate
intimates the complex ensemble to which it is necessary to listen in order r­ eally to
listen to Mingus and Lord Invader.
48 For more on the motherhood of the rhythm section, see Monson, Saying Some­
thing, 64–66.
9
4 Dudley, “Judging ‘By the Beat,’ ” 278.
50 Dudley, “Judging ‘By the Beat,’ ” 279; see Gordon Rohlehr, Calypso and Society in
Pre-­Independence Trinidad (St. Augustine, Trinidad: Gordon Rohlehr, 1990).
51 Consider the American occupation of Trinidad during World War II; or the Ca­rib­
bean incursion into the New York musical scene ­after that war; or Lord Invader’s
own irruption out of Trinidad’s second city, San Fernando, into the Carnival tents
of Port-­of-­Spain; or the complicated itinerary of Ornette Coleman—­from the
impossible origin that Mingus assigns him in the Antilles to his “­actual” birthplace
in Texas, through Los Angeles, to New York; or Mingus’s own migration from
(his birthplace, Nogales, Arizona, to) Los Angeles to New York. Lord Invader
speaks of “the American social invasion” in dialogue with Alan Lomax at a 1946
concert at New York City’s Town Hall recorded as Calypso at Midnight, Rounder
11661–1840–2, cd, 1999. David Rudder criticizes rapper Jay-­Z for his unauthorized
use of scenes from Trinidadian carnival in his ­music videos and for the increased
presence of his ­music in the Trinidadian cultural milieu, particularly during the
carnival season, in “Bigger Pimpin’,”; see The Autobiography of the Now, Lypsoland
cd 45692, 2001. For commentary on Rudder’s response to Jay-­Z, see Harvey Nep-
tune, “Manly Rivalries and Mopsies: Gender, Nationality, and Sexuality in United
States-­Occupied Trinidad,” Radical History Review 87 (2003): 90–92.
2
5 Dudley, “Judging ‘By the Beat,’ ” 284.
53 Charles Keil, “The Theory of Participatory Discrepancies: A Pro­gress Report,” Eth­
nomusicology 39, no. 1 (1995): 8, quoted in Dudley, “Judging ‘By the Beat,’ ” 284.
54 See Nahum Dimitri Chandler, “Originary Displacement,” boundary 2 27 no. 3
(2000): 249–86.
55 See Mary Pat Brady, Extinct Lands, Temporal Geographies (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2002).
56 See Edward Spicer, Cycles of Conquest: The Impact of Spain, Mexico and the
United States on the Indians of the Southwest, 1533–1960 (Tucson: University of
Arizona Press, 1981).

304  /  notes to chapter 6

 57 See Herman L. Bennett, Africans in Colonial Mexico: Absolutism, Chris­tian­ity,
and Afro-­Creole Consciousness, 1570–1640 (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 2003); Martha Menchaca, Recovering History, Constructing Race: The
Indian, Black, and White Roots of Mexican Americans (Austin: University of Texas
Press, 2001); and Maria Josefina Saldaña-­Portillo, The Revolutionary Imagination
in the Amer­i­cas and the Age of Development (Durham, NC: Duke University Press,
2003).
58 See Cedric Robinson, Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000).
59 See Kevin Mulroy, Freedom on the Border: The Seminole Maroons in Florida, the
Indian Territory, Coahuila, and Texas (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press),
1993.
60 Robinson, Black Marxism, 171.
61 See Brent Hayes Edwards, The Practice of Diaspora (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2003); Rafael Pérez-­Torres, “Refiguring Aztlán,” Aztlán 22, no. 2
(1997): 15–41; and Genaro Padillo, “Myth and Comparative Cultural Nationalism:
The Ideological Uses of Aztlán,” in Aztlán: Essays on the Chicano Homeland, ed.
Rudolfo Anaya and Francisco Lomelí (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press, 1989).
62 Neptune, “Manly Rivalries,” 78.
63 Lord Invader sings about the putatively emasculating force of U.S. weaponry and
U.S. currency in his most famous song “Rum and Coca-­Cola,” stolen by U.S. comic
Morey Amsterdam while in Trinidad entertaining North American troops on a
uso tour and turned into a huge hit by the Andrews ­Sisters in another modality of
imperial invasion and occupation. For more on the genealogy of “Rum and Coca-­
Cola,” see Donald R. Hill, Calypso Calaloo: Early Carnival ­Music in Trinidad
(Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1993), 234–40.
64 See Sally Marks, “Black Watch on the Rhine: A Study in Propaganda, Prejudice
and Prurience,” Eu­ro­pean Studies Review 13, no. 3 (1983): 297–333; and LeRoi
Jones (Amiri Baraka), The System of Dante’s Hell (New York: Grove Press, 1965).
65 See John Cowley, “Liner Notes,” in Lord Invader, Calypso in New York, 24.
66 Mingus, Charles Mingus Pres­ents Charles Mingus, Candid lp 9005, 1960.
67 Samuel R. Delany, “Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-­Precious Stones,” Drift­
glass (New York: Signet, 1971) 223–59; and LeRoi Jones (Amiri Baraka), Black
­Music (New York: William Morrow, 1967).
68 Lyr­ics published in Mingus, More Than a Fake Book (New York: Jazz Workshop,
1991), 47.
69 Lippit’s phrase inalienable wrong was uttered during a May 2003 discussion on
the work of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak at the University of California, Irvine’s
Critical Theory Institute. Recent left critiques of a certain tendency on the left
­toward attachment to injury and to identities forged in injury take their lead from
Wendy Brown, States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity (Prince­ton,
NJ: Prince­ton University Press, 1995).
70 Lippit might say it is an archive of shadows. Edwards might say it is an a­ rchive of
the shadow of shadows. See Lippit, Atomic Light (Shadow Optics) (Minneapolis:

notes to chapter 6  /  305

 University of Minnesota Press, 2006); and Brent Hayes Edwards, “The Shadow of
Shadows,” positions: East Asia Cultures Critique 11, no. 1 (2003): 11–49.

Chapter 7. The Phonographic Mise-­En-­Scène

1 Monodrama is an in­ter­est­ing word. The trajectory of its definition moves from
words to which ­music was meant to correspond and to accentuate t­ oward visual
spectacle (which doubles and is meant to be doubled by the m ­ usic). Erwartung
recoils from that trajectory and Adorno admires such critical “regression.” See
Arnold Schoenberg, Erwartung/Brettl-­Lieder, performed by Jessye Norman, Met-
ropolitan Opera Orchestra, James Levine, Philips 426 621–2 cd, 1993.
2 The definitive account of Adorno’s adherence to the ideal of “structural listening” is
that of Rose Rosengard Subotnik. See her “­Toward a Deconstruction of Structural
Listening: A Critique of Schoenberg, Adorno, and Stravinsky,” in Deconstructive
Variations: ­Music and Reason in Western Society (Minneapolis: University of Min-
nesota Press, 1996).
3 Theodor Adorno, “Transparencies on Film,” trans. Thomas Y. Levin, New German
Critique 24/25 (fall/winter 1981–82): 204.
4 See Michael Fried, “Art and Objecthood,” in Art and Objecthood: Essays and Re­
views, 148–72 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).
5 Miriam B. Hansen, “Introduction to Adorno, ‘Transparencies on Film’ (1966),” New
German Critique 24/25 (fall/winter 1981–82): 188n5.
6 I am working, ­here, ­under the influence of Avery Gordon’s formulation of the
animaterial and Akira Mizuta Lippit’s notion of the animeta­phor. See Avery F.
Gordon, Ghostly ­Matters: Haunting and the So­cio­log­i­cal Imagination (Minneapo-
lis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997); and Akira Mizuta Lippit, Electric Animal:
­Toward a Rhe­toric of Wildlife (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000).
7 Theodor Adorno, “The Form of the Phonograph Rec­ord,” trans. Thomas Y. Levin,
October 55 (winter 1990): 59. See also Adorno, “The Natu­ral History of the The-
atre,” in Quasi una Fantasia: Essays on Modern ­Music, trans. Rodney Livingstone,
65–78 (New York: Verso, 1992).
8 Subotnik, “­Toward a Deconstruction of Structural Listening,” 161.
9 Arnold Schoenberg, Style and Idea, ed. Leonard Stein, trans. Leo Black (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1975), 105.
10 Theodor Adorno, Philosophy of Modern ­Music, trans. Anne G. Mitchell and Wes-
ley V. Blomster (New York: Continuum, 1973).
11 Subotnik, “­Toward a Deconstruction of Structural Listening,” 150.
12 Susan McClary, Feminine Endings: ­Music, Gender, and Sexuality (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1991), 12.
13 Theodor Adorno, “The Curves of the Needle,” trans. Thomas Y. Levin, October 55
(winter 1990): 49–50.
14 Adorno, “The Form of the Phonograph Rec­ord,” 58. See also Adorno, “The Curves
of the Needle,” 51.
15 Adorno, “The Curves of the Needle,” 50.
16 Adorno, “The Curves of the Needle,” 54.

306  /  notes to chapter 6

 17 Adorno, “The Curves of the Needle,” 54.
18 Adorno, “Opera and the Long-­Playing Rec­ord,” trans. Thomas Y. Levin, October 55
(winter 1990): 63.
19 Adorno, “Opera and the Long-­Playing Rec­ord,” 64.
20 Adorno, “Opera and the Long-­Playing Rec­ord,” 64–65. For an excellent overview
of and introduction to the three articles by Adorno I have just discussed, see
Thomas Y. Levin, “For the Rec­ord: Adorno on ­Music in the Age of Its Technologi-
cal Reproducibility,” October 55 (winter 1990): 23–47.
21 Adorno, Philosophy of Modern ­Music, 43.
22 Adorno, Philosophy of Modern ­Music, 47.
23 See Schoenberg, Style and Idea, 84, 91, 216–17.
24 Charles Rosen, Arnold Schoenberg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996),
24–25.
25 See Saidiya V. Hartman, Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-­Making in
Nineteenth-­Century Amer­i­ca (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).
26 Theodor Adorno, Beethoven: The Philosophy of ­Music, ed. Rolf Tiedemann, trans.
Edmund Jephcott (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998), 44.
27 Sandra L. Richards, “Writing the Absent Potential: Drama, Per­for­mance, and the
Canon of African-­American Lit­er­a­ture,” in Per­for­mance and Performativity, ed.
Andrew Parker and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (New York: Routledge, 1995), 83.
28 Richards, “Writing the Absent Potential,” 83.
29 Cedric Robinson, Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 171.
30 For more on the “black sound” in operatic and concert per­for­mance, see Rosa-
lyn M. Story, And So I Sing: African-­American Divas of Opera and Concert (New
York: Amistad Press, 1990), 184–86.
31 Theodor Adorno, “On Jazz,” trans. Jaime Owen Daniel, Discourse 12, no. 1 (1989–
90): 53–54.
32 Adorno, “The Natu­ral History of the Theatre,” 66.

Chapter 8. Liner Notes for Lick Piece

Epigraph: Benjamin Patterson, Methods and Pro­cesses, 2nd ed. (Tokyo: Gallery
360°, 2004).

1 Rebecca Schneider, The Explicit Body in Per­for­mance (New York: Routledge,

1997), 31.
2 Letty Lou Eisenhauer, “A Version of Trace in 2008; An Interpretation of Scores,” in
Fluxus Scores and Instructions: The Transformative Years, ed. Jon Hendricks, with
Marianne Bech and Media Farzin (Roskilde, Denmark: Museet for Samtidskunst,
2008), 33–34.
3 Philip Auslander, “Fluxus Art-­Amusement: The ­Music of the F ­ uture?” in Contours
of the Theatrical Avant-­Garde: Per­for­mance and Textuality, ed. James M. Hard-
ing, 110–29 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000).
4 Certain iconic moments in nineteenth-­century French art seem intent on playing
this out in a range of inadequate modular calculations—­Olympia is one instance,

notes to chapter 8  /  307

 Carmen’s Afro-­Cuban/Afro-­Romani t­ hing is another. This is something Jennifer
DeVere Brody illuminates with ­great precision. See “Black Cat Fever: Manifesta-
tions of Manet’s Olympia,” Theatre Journal 53, no. 1 (2001): 95–118.
5 See Schneider, The Explicit Body, 189n24.
6 Benjamin Patterson, “What Makes George Laugh?” in Mr. Fluxus: A Collective
Portrait of George Maciunas, 1931–1978, ed. Emmett Williams and Ann Noël,
260–63 (London: Thames and Hudson, 1997).
7 Giorgio Agamben, Means without End: Notes on Politics, trans. Vincenzo Binetti
and Cesare Casarino (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), 56.
8 Bertolt Brecht, “The Modern Theatre Is the Epic Theatre (Notes to the Opera
Aufstieg und Fall der Stadt Mahagonny),” in Brecht on Theatre: The Development of
an Aesthetic, ed. and trans. John Willett, 39–40 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1964).
9 Tristan and Isolde and Carmen ­were performed at the Asolo Film Festival XXVI
on November 22 and 23, 2007, respectively. Excerpts from Carmen last accessed
August 18, 2010, at www​.y­ outube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­4XStjkF2hC0&feature​=­related.
Tristan and Isolde last accessed August 18, 2010, at www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​
=­tKJhWR96MIc&feature​=r­ elated.
10 Adrian ­Piper, “Critical Hegemony and Aesthetic Acculturation,” Nous 19, no. 1
(1985): 29–40.

Chapter 9. Rough Americana

1 DJ Mutamassik & Morgan Craft, Rough Americana, Circle of Light col 002 cd,
2003.

Chapter 10. Nothing, Every­thing

1 See Dianne Swann-­Wright, A Way Out of No Way: Claiming F ­ amily and Freedom in
the New South (Charlottesville: University of V
­ irginia Press, 2002); and Deborah E.
McDowell, Leaving Pipe Shop: Memories of Kin (New York: W. W. Norton, 1998).

Chapter 11. Nowhere, Everywhere

1 Theaster Gates, Glass Lantern Slide Archive Relocation, August 7, 2012, theaster-
gates​.c­ om.
2 M. NourbeSe Philip, Zong (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 2008), 203.
3 Reading by M. NourbeSe Philip at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina,
April 19, 2012.
4 Lorna Goodison, Guinea ­Woman: New and Selected Poems (Manchester, UK: Car-
canet Press, 2000), 24; David Kazanjian, The Colonizing Trick: National Culture
and Imperial Citizenship in Early Amer­i­ca (Minneapolis: University of Minne-
sota Press, 2003), 33–88; ­Little Walter, The Complete Chess Masters (1950–1967)
(b001rld6am), Hip-­O Rec­ords, 5 compact discs, 2009.
5 Burning Spear, Marcus Garvey (ilps 9377), Island Rec­ords, cd, 1975.

308  /  notes to chapter 8

 6 Reading by Philip at Duke University.
7 Steven Feld, “From Ethnomusicology to Echo-­Muse-­Ecology: Reading R. Mur-
ray Schafer in Papua New Guinea,” The Soundscape Newsletter/World Forum for
Acoustic Ecol­ogy 8 (June 1994): 4–6; Steven Feld, Jazz Cosmopolitanism in Accra:
Five Musical Years in Ghana (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012).
8 Thanks to Lynne Feeley for this insight.
9 Maurice Wallace, Constructing the Black Masculine: Identity and Ideality in
African American Men’s Lit­er­a­ture and Culture, 1775–1995 (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2002).
10 Bertolt Brecht, quoted in Martin Jay, Permanent Exiles: Essays on the Intellectual
Migration from Germany to Amer­i­ca (New York: Columbia University Press,
1986), 28.
11 Permit me to mention two outstanding examples: Deborah A. Thomas, Modern
Blackness: Nationalism, Globalization, and the Politics of Culture in Jamaica
(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004); Michelle M. Wright, Becoming
Black: Creating Identity in the African Diaspora (Durham, NC: Duke University
Press, 2004).
12 Paul Gilroy, Darker Than Blue: On the Moral Economies of Black Atlantic Culture
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 5.
13 Gilroy, Darker Than Blue, 171.
14 Gilroy, Darker Than Blue, 176, 175.
15 Tavia Nyong’o, “So Say We All,” Social Text Online, January 4, 2012, socialtextjour-
nal​.o
­ rg​/­periscope​_­article​/­so​_­say​_­we​_­all​/­.
16 Theaster Gates, “Thinking about Language and ­Things That ­Matter,” pers. comm.,
June 27, 2012.
17 Gates, “Thinking about Language.”
18 Gilroy, Darker Than Blue, 5.
19 Gilroy, Darker Than Blue, 5.
20 Gilroy, Darker Than Blue, 5.

Chapter 14. Amuse-­Bouche
1 This passage is from notes taken during a pre­sen­ta­tion by Abbey Lincoln at the
Ford Foundation Jazz Study Group, Columbia University, November 1999.
2 Samuel R. Delany, “The Tale of Old Venn,” in Tales of Nevèrÿon (Middletown, CT:
Wesleyan University Press, 1993), 121.
3 Chris Funk­houser, “Being ­Matter Ignited: An Interview with Cecil Taylor,” Ham­
bone 12 (1999): 18–19.
4 Denise Ferreira da Silva, “No-­Bodies: Law, Raciality and Vio­lence,” Griffith Law
Review 18, no. 2 (2009): 212–36.
5 Samuel R. Delany, “Atlantis: Model 1924,” in Atlantis: Three Tales (Middletown,
CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1995), 8.
6 Cecil Taylor, “Sound Structure of Subculture Becoming Major Breath/Naked Fire
Gesture,” liner notes, Unit Structures, lp 84237. Blue Note, 1966.

notes to chapter 14  /  309

 7 Buell Neidlinger, quoted in A. B. Spellman, Four Lives in the Bebop Business (New
York: Limelight Editions, 1985), 45.
8 Cecil Taylor, quoted in Spellman, Four Lives, 53.
9 Taylor, quoted in Spellman, Four Lives, 44–45.
10 Spellman, Four Lives, 42.
11 Neidlinger, quoted in Spellman, Four Lives, 46.
12 Delany, The Motion of Light in ­Water, 6.
13 Delany, The Motion of Light in ­Water, 13.
14 Delany, The Motion of Light in ­Water, 149.
15 Neidlinger, quoted in Spellman, Four Lives, 36–37.
16 Samuel R. Delany, “The Tale of Fog and Granite,” in Flight from Nevèrÿon (Middle-
town, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1994), 30–31.
17 Samuel R. Delany, “The Tale of Plagues and Carnivals, or: Some Informal Remarks
­towards the Modular Calculus, Part Five,” in Flight from Nevèrÿon, 183.

Chapter 15. Collective Head

1 Karl Marx, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Po­liti­cal Economy, trans.
Martin Nicolaus (New York: Vintage, 1973), 483, 487.
2 See José Gil, Metamorphoses of the Body, trans. Stephen Muecke (Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1998); Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City (Cambridge:
mit Press, 1960); and Samuel R. Delany, Neveryóna (New York: Bantam, 1983); and
The Motion of Light in W­ ater: Sex and Science Fiction Writing in the East Village
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004).
3 Masao Miyoshi, “Outside Architecture,” in Anywise, ed. Cynthia C. Davidson
(Cambridge, MA: mit Press, 1996), 44.
4 Miyoshi, “Outside Architecture,” 45.
5 Miyoshi, “Outside Architecture,” 47.
6 José Esteban Muñoz, “Gesture, Ephemera and Queer Feeling: Approaching Kevin
Aviance,” in Cruising Utopia: The Then and ­There of Queer Futurity (New York:
New York University Press, 2009), 78.
7 Muñoz, “Gesture, Ephemera and Queer Feeling,” 74.
8 Masao Miyoshi, “A Borderless World? From Colonialism to Transnationalism over
the Decline of the Nation-­State,” in Politics-­Poetics: Documenta X—­the Book, ed.
Jean-­François Chevrier (Kassel, DE: Cantz, 1997), 182–202. Originally published
in Critical Inquiry 19, no. 4 (1993): 726–51.
9 André Lepecki, “Affective Geometry, Immanent Acts: Lygia Clark and Per­for­
mance,” in Lygia Clark: The Abandonment of Art, 1948–1988, ed. Cornelia Butler
and Luis Pérez-­Oramas, 279 (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2014). See also
Eleonora Fabião, “The Making of a Body: Lygia Clark’s Anthropophagic Slobber,”
and Antonio Sergio Bessa, “Word-­Drool: The Constructive Secretions of Lygia
Clark,” in Lygia Clark: The Abandonment of Art, 294–99 and 301–5.
10 Lepecki, “Affective Geometry, Immanent Acts,” 282. See also Denise Ferreira da Silva,
“No-­Bodies: Law, Raciality and Vio­lence,” Griffith Law Review 18 (2009): 212–36.
11 Miyoshi, “A Borderless World?,” 202.

310  /  notes to chapter 14

 12 Randy Martin, Financialization of Daily Life (Philadelphia: ­Temple University
Press, 2002).

Chapter 16. Cornered, Taken, Made to Leave

1 Johanna Burton, “Cultural Interference,” in Johanna Burton and Anne Ellegood,
Take It or Leave It: Institution, Image, Ideology (New York: Prestel, 2014), 15.
2 Darby En­glish, “Good Fences,” in Burton and Ellegood, Take It or Leave It, 240.
3 Paul Guyer, Kant and the Claims of Taste, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1997), 7.
4 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Occasions, 1912–1951, ed. James Klagge and
Alfred Nordmann (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993), 356. Quoted in Klagge, Wittgen­
stein in Exile (Cambridge, MA: mit Press, 2014), 32.
5 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Wittgenstein’s Lectures on Philosophical Psy­chol­ogy, 1946–1947,
ed. P. T. Geach, with notes by P. T. Geach, K. J. Shah, and A. C. Jackson (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1988), 17. Quoted in Klagge, Wittgenstein in Exile, 32.

Chapter 19. To Feel, to Feel More, to Feel More Than

1 Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man, 2nd ed. (New York: Vintage International, 1995),
7–8, 341, 344–45.

Chapter 20. Irruptions and Incoherences for Jimmie Durham

1 Jimmie Durham, “The Immortal State,” in A Certain Lack of Coherence: Writ­
ings on Art and Cultural Politics (New York: Kala Press, 1993), 191–92. See also
Durham, “A Friend of Mine Said That Art Is a Eu­ro­pean Invention,” in Jimmie
Durham, ed. Dirk Snauwaert, Laura Mulvey, Mark Alice Durant, and Jimmie
Durham (New York: Phaidon Press, 1995), 140–47.
2 Jimmie Durham, “Artists Must Begin Helping Themselves,” in A Certain Lack of
Coherence, 62.
3 Wallace Stevens, “The Poems of Our Climate,” in The Collected Poems: The Cor­
rected Edition (New York: Vintage, 2015), 206.
4 Jimmie Durham, “Material,” in Waiting to Be Interrupted: Selected Writings,
1993–2012 (Milan: Mousse Publishing, 2014), 351–55.
5 Jimmie Durham, “Interview: Dirk Snauwaert in Conversation with Jimmie Dur-
ham,” in Waiting to Be Interrupted, 25.
6 Durham, “Interview,” 9.
7 Durham, “Interview,” 10.

Chapter 21. Black and Blue on White. In and And in Space.

1 Steve Cannon, “David Hammons: Concerto in Black and Blue,” A Gathering of the
Tribes, July 2, 2001, www​.­tribes​.­org​/­web​/­2001​/­07​/­02​/­david​-­hammons​-­concerto​
-­in​-­black​-­and​-­blue.

notes to chapter 21  /  311

 Chapter 22. Blue Vespers
1 This essay began as a series of letters to Alicia Ritson, written in preparation for
a lecture delivered at the New Museum of Con­temporary Art, January 29, 2015.
It’s dedicated to her as it w ­ ouldn’t have come about without her arrangement
and without the occasion of what I have to call, but hopefully just for a minute, in
the spirit of complementarity, and with my complements to Alicia, her “address.”
­There are three other friends/mentors who are h ­ ere but not ­really or who ­aren’t
­here but r­ eally are and whom I want to invoke from the start. Nahum Dimitri
Chandler’s work is one of the foundations upon which I’m trying to stand and
move. The key term he has given us is paraontology, something that comes out of
his deep reading of Du Bois and Fanon. If you recall, in Black Skin, White Masks,
when Fanon says, “The black man has no ontological re­sis­tance in the eyes of the
white man,” then where Chandler comes in is in making it pos­si­ble for one to say,
with indirect precision (more + less than vis-­à-­vis Fanon, always in Du Bois’s gen-
eral buzz), that, in fact, blackness offers paraontological re­sis­tance to whiteness
which it brings into existence by way of that re­sis­tance. Fanon is anxious about
the capacity of the black man to be which is, for him, always to be in relation. But
Chandler makes it pos­si­ble to relinquish that anxiety in a perilous operation that
allows and requires us to disavow the desire to be (in relation). It seems impos-
sible not to ask—­paradoxically, and with ­great technical imprecision—­well, what
­else is ­there? “Is” is ­under a general erasure whose gestural analog is not the “scare
quote” fin­ger curl but rather the aggressively self-­inflicted throat-­slash. One of the
implications of Chandler’s work is that such a gesture is all we o ­ ught to give to is.
And if, moreover, being is only insofar as it is in relation then we have to put that
term u­ nder the sign of the cut as well. Now the way that plays itself out is in an
ongoing concern with (what is [not in]) between.” This is from the third page of
X: The Prob­lem of the Negro as a Prob­lem for Thought:

The very first word of this first paragraph of [The] Souls [of Black Folk],
the word between, inaugurates itself as and according to a kind of logic. The
word between could pres­ent itself, recalling certain semantic sedimenta-
tions, as both defining and defined by an opposition, as producing and pro-
duced by an oppositional logic. Such a logic would presuppose or intend the
possibility that a distinction could be made radical: either/or, all or nothing:
without remainder (Aristotle’s law of contradiction or noncontradiction).
The word “between” could, in the case of an oppositional coherence, on the
one hand, appear (as explicit theme or proposition and implicit meta­
phor) as that very ­thing which separates the one and the other, “me and the
other”; appearing to offer them its own coherence as their possibility. As
presented, “Between me and the other world ­there is . . . ,” this oppositional
determination of the word “between” is precisely the propositional theme of
this sentence. And, I would suggest, this thematized oppositional position-
ing communicates with a formal aspect. By one entire aspect of its gram-
mar, according to its function as a preposition, this word appears as that
quite solid structure which gives the referent for this prepositional phrase,

312  /  notes to chapter 22

 “me and the other,” its specific and determining sense. It would, on the other
hand, by the (unavoidable) structure of its enunciation, assume its own
predication: “­there,” “­there is,” “is ever.” The verb seems to explic­itly thematize
its capacity to predicate sense (redoubled, if you w ­ ill, since this is just the word
“being” folded into the precomprehension of being): it is the third person
singular of the pres­ent indicative of the verb “to be.” This stable solid structure
that is presented as the word between would authorize the movement of an
oppositional logic and a reading of it as radical.
In Chandler’s wake and hum, recognizing that de-­authorization is nei-
ther the point nor the path, I am concerned with what is not in between
us, or with the nothing that lies between us. The words that have come
to stand in for that, in the wake of Chris Ofili’s work, the appositional
­(r)enunciations that displace being in relation and that dislocate being
in “the word ‘between,’ ” are blue, black, blur. The word my friend Denise
Ferreira da Silva ­here, not ­here, would use, by way of her immersive for-
mation of a discourse at the intersection of liberation theology, quantum
mechanics, tarot and black radicalism, is entanglement, which she further
elaborates as difference without separation: again, blue, black, blur. My
third friend is more severely differentiated from us, within us, while
remaining inseparable from us. His name is Randy Martin and he passed
away on January 28, 2015. He’s ­here, though; I would like to say that he
visited me that next morning when I revisited the museum’s third floor to
lose myself in the contact improvisation that is, and that are—­neither verb
being adequate insofar as they are verbs of being in/as adequation—­The
Blue Rider. Anyway, in the general imbalance, ­we’re not alone, ­we’re not all
one, which is a condition that induces prayer.

2 Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man, 2nd ed. (New York: Vintage International, 1995), 8.
3 Frantz Fanon, Wretched of the Earth, trans. Richard Philcox (New York: Grove
Press, 2005), 176.
4 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Theory of Colours, trans. Charles L. Eastlake (Mine-
ola, NY: Dover, 2006), 126. Quoted in Glenn Ligon, “Blue Black,” in Chris Ofili:
Night and Day, ed. Massimiliano Gioni (New York: Rizzoli, 2014), 87.
5 Ligon, “Blue Black,” 82.
6 Maggie Nelson, Bluets (Seattle: Wave Books, 2009), 54.
7 Earl Lovelace, The Dragon ­Can’t Dance (New York: Persea Books, [1979] 1998),
35–36.
8 Judith Butler, The Psychic Life of Power: Theories of Subjection (Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 1997), 123–24.
9 Friedrich Hölderlin, Hymns and Fragments, trans. Richard Sieburth (Prince­ton,
NJ: Prince­ton University Press, 1984), 249.
10 Attendance to (not) (in) between is as devotional as it is historical: blue is (not)
(in) between Ofili and Tshibumba.
11 Butler, The Psychic Life of Power, 92.
12 Butler, The Psychic Life of Power, 131.
13 Butler, The Psychic Life of Power, 131.

notes to chapter 22  /  313

 14 T. J. Clark, “World of ­Faces,” London Review of Books, December 4, 2014, 16.
15 Clark, “World of ­Faces,” 17.
16 Judith Butler, Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Vio­lence (New York:
Verso, 2006), 25.
17 Butler, Precarious Life, 130.
18 Erica Hunt, “All About You,” Los Angeles Review of Books, December 8, 2014,
lareviewofbooks​.o­ rg​/­article​/­all​-­about​-­you​/­.
19 Claudia Rankine, Citizen: An American Lyric (Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf Press,
2014), 73.
20 See Michael Fried, Absorption and Theatricality: Painting and Beholder in the Age
of Diderot (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980).

Chapter 23. The Blur and Breathe Books

1 Stokely Carmichael, “Speech given at Garfield High School, Seattle, Washington,
April 19, 1967,” African-­American Involvement in the Vietnam War: Speeches and
Sounds, www​.­aavw​.­org​/­special​_­features​/­speeches​_­speech​_­carmichael01​.­html.
2 Consider, for instance, that one of the primary effects for black p ­ eople in the
United States of the election of Barack Obama to the presidency, which was
widely, if temporarily, hailed as the moment of our fuller emergence into
self-­determination, has been the periodic reprise, from the bulliest of pulpits,
of a certain self-­condemnatory rhe­toric regarding inadequate black father-
hood, or intractable black-­on-­black vio­lence that marks inclusion into the
relay of shame and exaltation that is the citizen subject’s proper enactment and
inhabitation.
3 Emmanuel Levinas, “Interview with Francis Poiré,” in Is It Righ­teous to Be? Inter­
views with Emmanuel Levinas, ed. Jill Robbins (Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, 2001), 64–65.
4 Mark Swed, “­Music Review: L. A. Philharmonic Shines with ‘La Vida Breve,”
Los Angeles Times, November 9, 2012, articles​.l­ atimes​.c­ om​/2 ­ 012​/­nov​/­09​
/­entertainment​/­la​-­et​-­cm​-­la​-­phil​-­review​-­20121110.
5 Of course, I’m thinking, ­here, (by way) of Avery Gordon’s indispensable Ghostly
­Matters (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997).
6 Laura U. Marks, The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the
Senses (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000).
7 Charles Gaines, “The Theater of Refusal: Black Art and Mainstream Criticism,” in
The Theater of Refusal: Black Art and Mainstream Criticism, ed. Catherine Lord,
13 (Irvine: Fine Arts Gallery, University of California, Irvine, 1993).
8 Gaines, “The Theater of Refusal,” 14.
9 Gaines, “The Theater of Refusal,” 20.
10 Marshall Sahlins, What Kinship Is—­and Is Not (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2013), 19. I thank Edgar Garcia for generously bringing this text to my
attention.
11 I am thinking of Charles Gaines, Librettos: Manuel de Falla/Stokeley Carmichael,
an installation shown at the gallery Art + Practice in Leimert Park, Los Angeles.

314  /  notes to chapter 22

 See hammer​.­ucla​.­edu​/­exhibitions​/­2015​/­off​-­site​-­exhibition​-­charles​-­gaines​-­librettos​
-­manuel​-­de​-­falla​-­stokely​-­carmichael​/­.
12 See Toni Morrison, “The Site of Memory,” in Morrison, What Moves at the Margin:
Selected Nonfiction, ed. Carolyn C. Denard (Jackson: University Press of Missis-
sippi), 65–80.
13 Gaines, “The Theater of Refusal,” 20.
14 Gaines, “The Theater of Refusal,” 12.
15 Samuel R. Delany, The Motion of Light in ­Water: Sex and Science Fiction Writing
in the East Village (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004), 291–92.
16 Delany, The Motion of Light in ­Water: Sex and Science Fiction Writing in the East
Village, 1957–1965 (New York: Plume, 1988).
17 Delany, The Motion of Light in ­Water (1988), 148.
18 Marilyn Hacker, First Cities: Collected Early Poems 1960–1979 (New York: W. W.
Norton, 2003), 160–61.
19 Hacker, First Cities, 163–64.
20 Samuel R. Delany, The American Shore: Meditations on a Tale of Science Fiction by
Thomas M. Disch—­“Angouelme” (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 2014).
21 José Esteban Muñoz, “Phenomenological Flights: From Latino over T ­ here and
Cubania’s ­Here and Now,” unpublished manuscript, 2.
2
2 Muñoz, “Phenomenological Flights,” 4–5.
23 Muñoz, “Phenomenological Flights,” 6.

Chapter 24. Entanglement and Virtuosity

1 Eric B & Rakim, “I Know You Got Soul,” Paid in Full, 4th and Broadway, bway-
4005, lp, 1987.
2 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Righting Wrongs,” South Atlantic Quarterly 103,
no. 2/3 (spring/summer 2004): 526.
3 Dancer and choreographer K. K. Roberts once spoke to me, with regard to Cecil
Taylor’s ­music, of an “endless suddenness” that “reinforces one’s desire to hear
­things differently.”
4 Adam Shatz, “Kamasi Washington’s ­Giant Step,” New York Times Magazine, Janu-
ary 21, 2016, www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2016​/­01​/­24​/­magazine​/­kamasi​-­washingtons​-­giant​
-­step​.­html, paragraph 36.
5 Hear her Listening in Detail: Per­for­mances of Cuban M ­ usic (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2013).
6 See Hortense J. Spillers, “The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual: A Post-­date,” in
Black and White and In Color: Essays on American Lit­er­at­ ure and Culture (Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 460.

Chapter 25. Bobby Lee’s Hands

1 This writing is indebted and seeks to respond to two films, each of which contain
a scene, a view, of an extraordinary force that, in ­these par­tic­ul­ ar manifestations,
is known as Bobby Lee, an inveterate sociality in defiance of portraiture. The

notes to chapter 25  /  315

 films are American Revolution 2 (1969), codirected by Mike Gray and Howard
Alk for The Film Group, and Mike Gray’s The Or­ga­niz­er: A Preview of a Work
in Pro­gress (2007). They are both to be found on Facets Video dv 86930, 2007.
This writing is in memory of Robert E. Lee III, December 16, 1942–­March 21,
2017.

316  /  notes to chapter 25

 WOR K S CI TE D

Acosta, Oscar Zeta. The Revolt of the Cockroach ­People. New York: Vintage, 1989.
Adorno, Theodor. Aesthetic Theory. Translated by Robert Hullot-­Kentor. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1997.
—­—­—. “Bach Defended against His Devotees.” In Prisms, translated by Samuel and
Shierry Weber, 133–46. Cambridge, MA: mit Press, 1981.
—­—­—. Beethoven: The Philosophy of ­Music. Edited by Rolf Tiedemann. Translated by
Edmund Jephcott. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998.
—­—­—. “The Curves of the Needle.” Translated by Thomas Y. Levin. October 55 (winter
1990): 48–55.
—­—­—. “The Form of the Phonograph Rec­ord.” Translated by Thomas Y. Levin. October
55 (winter 1990): 56–61.
—­—­—. “The Function of Counterpoint in New ­Music.” In Sound Figures, translated by
Rodney Livingstone, 123–44. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999.
—­—­—. “­Little Heresy.” Translated by Susan H. Gillespie. In Essays on ­Music, selected,
with introduction, commentary, and notes by Richard Leppert, 318–24. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2002.
—­—­—. “The Natu­ral History of the Theatre.” In Quasi Una Fantasia: Essays on Mod­
ern ­Music, translated by Rodney Livingstone, 65–78. New York: Verso, 1992.
—­—­—. Negative Dialectics. Translated by E. B. Ashton. New York: Continuum, 1972.
—­—­—. “On Jazz.” Translated by Jaime Owen Daniel. Discourse 12, no. 1 (1989–90):
45–69.
—­—­—. “On Some Relationships between ­Music and Painting.” Translated by Susan
Gillespie. Musical Quarterly 79, no. 1 (1995): 66–79.
—­—­—. “On the Fetish-­Character in ­Music and the Regression of Listening,” In Essays
on ­Music, selected, with introduction, commentary, and notes by Richard Leppert,
288–317. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
—­—­—. “Opera and the Long-­Playing Rec­ord.” Translated by Thomas Y. Levin. October
55 (winter 1990): 62–66.
—­—­—. Philosophy of Modern ­Music. Translated by Anne G. Mitchell and Wesley V.
Blomster. New York: Continuum, 1973.
—­—­—. “The Radio Symphony.” Translated by Susan H. Gillespie. In Essays on ­Music,
selected, with introduction, commentary, and notes by Richard Leppert, 251–70.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
—­—­—. “Transparencies on Film.” Translated by Thomas Y. Levin. New German Critique
24/25 (fall–­winter 1981–82): 199–205.
Agamben, Giorgio. Means without End: Notes on Politics. Translated by Vincenzo
Binetti and Cesare Casarino. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.
Althusser, Louis. “Cremonini, Painter of the Abstract.” In Lenin and Philosophy, trans-
lated by Ben Brewster, 229–42. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971.
Auslander, Philip. “Fluxus Art-­Amusement: The ­Music of the ­Future?” In Contours
of the Theatrical Avant-­Garde: Per­for­mance and Textuality, edited by James M.
Harding, 110–29. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000.
Barenboim, Daniel, and Edward Said. Parallels and Paradoxes: Explorations in ­Music
and Society. New York: Pantheon, 2002.
Bennett, Herman L. Africans in Colonial Mexico: Absolutism, Chris­tian­ity, and Afro-­
Creole Consciousness, 1570–1640. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003.
Bern­stein, Leonard. “The Truth about a Legend.” In Glenn Gould Variations: By
Himself and His Friends, edited by John McGreevy, 17–22. Toronto: Doubleday
Canada, 1983.
Bessa, Antonio Sergio. “Word-­Drool: The Constructive Secretions of Lygia Clark.” In
Lygia Clark: The Abandonment of Art, edited by Cornelia Butler and Luis Pérez-­
Oramas, 301–5. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2014.
Blom, Eric. The New Everyman Dictionary of ­Music. 6th ed. Revised and edited by
David Cummings. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, [1958] 1988.
Brady, Mary Pat. Extinct Lands, Temporal Geographies. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press, 2002.
Brecht, Bertolt. “The Modern Theatre Is the Epic Theatre (Notes to the Opera Aufstieg
und Fall der Stadt Mahagonny).” In Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an
Aesthetic, edited and translated by John Willett, 33–43. New York: Hill and Wang,
1964.
Brody, Jennifer DeVere. “Black Cat Fever: Manifestations of Manet’s Olympia.” Theatre
Journal 53, no. 1 (2001): 95–118.
Brooks, Daphne A. Bodies in Dissent: Spectacular Per­for­mances of Race and Freedom,
1850–1910. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006.
Brown, Wendy. States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity. Prince­ton, NJ:
Prince­ton University Press, 1995.
Burning Spear. Marcus Garvey. Island Rec­ords ilps 9377, cd, 1975.
Burton, Johanna. “Cultural Interference: The Reunion of Appropriation and Institu-
tional Critique.” In Take It or Leave It: Institution, Image, Ideology, edited by Anne
Ellegood and Johanna Burton, 15–23. New York: Prestel, 2014.
Butler, Judith. Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Vio­lence. New York:
Verso, 2006.
—­—­—. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories of Subjection. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-
versity Press, 1997.
Cannon, Steve. “David Hammons: Concerto in Black and Blue.” http://­www​.­tribes​.­org​
/­web​/­2001​/­07​/­02​/­david​-­hammons​-­concerto​-­in​-­black​-­and​-­blue.
Carby, Hazel R. Race Men. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Carmichael, Stokely. “Speech given at Garfield High School, Seattle, Washington,
April 19, 1967,” African-­American Involvement in the Vietnam War: Speeches and
Sounds, www​.­aavw​.­org​/­special​_­features​/­speeches​_­speech​_­carmichael01​.­html.

318 / works cited
Cervenak, Sarah. Wandering: Philosophical Per­for­mances of Racial and Sexual Free­
dom. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014.
Chandler, Nahum Dimitri. “Originary Displacement.” boundary 2 27, no. 3 (2000):
249–86.
—­—­—. X: The Prob­lem of the Negro as a Prob­lem for Thought. New York: Fordham
University Press, 2013.
Clark, T. J. The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Era of Manet and His Followers.
Prince­ton, NJ: Prince­ton University Press, 1984.
Clouzet, Jean, and Guy Kopelowicz. “Interview de Charles Mingus: Un Inconfortable
Après-­midi.” Jazz, June 1964, 26–32.
Cohen, John. “Liner Notes.” In An Untamed Sense of Control, by Roscoe Holscomb.
Smithsonian Folkways Recordings, cd 40144, 2003.
Cott, Jonathan. Conversations with Glenn Gould. Boston: ­Little, Brown, 1984.
Davis, Miles. “The Buzzard Song,” Porgy and Bess, orchestra dir. Gil Evans, Columbia
Cl 1274, lp, 1958.
Delany, Samuel R. The American Shore: Meditations on a Tale of Science Fiction by
Thomas M. Disch—­“Angouelme.” Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press,
2014.
—­—­—. “Atlantis: Model 1924.” In Atlantis: Three Tales, 1–121. Middletown, CT: Wes-
leyan University Press, 1995.
—­—­—. The Motion of Light in ­Water: Sex and Science Fiction Writing in the East
Village. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004.
—­—­—. The Motion of Light in ­Water: Sex and Science Fiction Writing in the East Vil­
lage, 1957–1965. New York: Plume, 1988.
—­—­—. Neveryóna. New York: Bantam, 1983.
—­—­—. “The Tale of Fog and Granite.” In Flight from Nevèrÿon, 11–133. Middletown,
CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1994.
—­—­—. “The Tale of Old Venn.” In Tales of Nevèrÿon, 79–138. Middletown, CT: Wes-
leyan University Press, 1993.
—­—­—. “The Tale of Plagues and Carnivals, or: Some Informal Remarks t­ owards the
Modular Calculus, Part Five.” In Flight from Nevèrÿon, 181–359. Middletown, CT:
Wesleyan University Press, 1994.
—­—­—. “Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-­Precious Stones.” In Driftglass, 223–59.
New York: Signet, 1971.
Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. Anti-­Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizo­phre­nia.
Translated by Robert Hurley. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
—­—­—. A Thousand Plateaus. Translated by Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1987.
Derrida, Jacques. Re­sis­tances of Psychoanalysis. Translated by Peggy Kamuf, Pascale-­
Anne Brault, and Michael Naas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997.
Dirlik, Arif. “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capi-
talism.” Critical Inquiry 20, no. 2 (1994): 328–56.
DJ Mutamassik & Morgan Craft. Rough Americana. Circle of Light col 002 cd, 2003.
Donne, John. Devotions upon Emergent Occasions. Edited by Anthony Raspa. Mon-
treal: McGill-­Queen’s University Press, 1975.

works cited  /  319

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave,
Written by Himself. In Frederick Douglass: The Narrative and Selected Writings,
edited by Michael Meyer, 3–127. New York: Modern Library, 1984.
Doyle, Jennifer. Sex Objects: Art and the Dialectics of Desire. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 2006.
Doyle, Laura. Bordering on the Body: The Racial Matrix of Modern Fiction and Cul­
ture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Du Bois, W. E. B. The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press, [1899] 1996.
Dudley, Shannon. “Judging ‘By the Beat’: Calypso versus Soca.” Ethnomusicology 40,
no. 2 (1996): 269–98.
Dumas, Henry. “­Will the Circle Be Unbroken?” In Echo Tree: The Collected Short Fic­
tion of Henry Dumas, edited by Eugene B. Redmond, 105–10. Minneapolis: Coffee
House Press, 2003.
Durham, Jimmie. “Artists Must Begin Helping Themselves.” In A Certain Lack of
Coherence: Writings on Art and Cultural Politics, 61–63. New York: Kala Press,
1993.
—­—­—. “A Friend of Mine Said That Art Is a Eu­ro­pean Invention.” In Jimmie Durham,
ed. Dirk Snauwaert, Laura Mulvey, Mark Alice Durant, and Jimmie Durham,
140–47. New York: Phaidon Press, 1995.
—­—­—. “The Immortal State.” In A Certain Lack of Coherence: Writings on Art and
Cultural Politics, 191–92. New York: Kala Press, 1993.
—­—­—. “Interview: Dirk Snauwaert in Conversation with Jimmie Durham.” In Jimmie
Durham, ed. Dirk Snauwaert, Laura Mulvey, Mark Alice Durant, and Jimmie Dur-
ham, 6–31. New York: Phaidon Press, 1995.
—­—­—. “Material.” In Waiting to Be Interrupted: Selected Writings, 1993–2012, 347–55.
Milan: Mousse Publishing, 2014.
Echols, Alice. “ ‘The Soul of a Martian’: A Conversation with Joni Mitchell.” In Shaky
Ground: The Sixties and Its Aftershocks, 207–22. New York: Columbia University
Press, 2002.
Edwards, Brent Hayes. The Practice of Diaspora. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2003.
—­—­—. “The Shadow of Shadows.” positions: East Asia Cultures Critique 11, no. 1
(2003): 11–49.
Eisenhauer, Letty Lou. “A Version of Trace in 2008; An Interpretation of Scores.”
In Fluxus Scores and Instructions: The Transformative Years, edited by Jon
Hendricks, with Marianne Bech and Media Farzin, 32–36. Roskilde, Denmark:
Museet for Samtidskunst, 2008.
Eisenstein, Sergei. “A Dialectic Approach to Film Form.” In Film Form: Essays in Film
Theory, edited and translated by Jay Leyda, 45–63. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1969.
—­—­—. The Film Sense. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1942.
Ellison, Ralph. Invisible Man. 2nd ed. New York: Vintage International, 1995.
En­glish, Darby. “Good Fences.” In Take It or Leave It: Institution, Image, Ideology,
edited by Anne Ellegood and Johanna Burton, 239–41. New York: Prestel, 2014.

320 / works cited
Eric B & Rakim. “I Know You Got Soul,” Paid in Full, 4th and Broadway, bway-4005
lp, 1987.
Fabian, Johannes. Moments of Freedom: Anthropology and Popu­lar Culture. Charlot-
tesville: University of ­Virginia Press, 1998.
—­—­—. With narratives and paintings by Tshibumba Kanda Matulu. Remembering the
Pres­ent: Painting and Popu­lar History in Zaire. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1996.
Fabião, Eleonora. “The Making of a Body: Lygia Clark’s Anthropophagic Slobber.” In
Lygia Clark: The Abandonment of Art, edited by Cornelia Butler and Luis Pérez-­
Oramas, 294–99. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2014.
Fanon, Frantz. Black Skin, White Masks. Translated by Charles Lem Markmann.
London: Paladin, 1970.
—­—­—. Wretched of the Earth. Translated by Richard Philcox. New York: Grove Press,
2005.
Feld, Steve. “From Ethnomusicology to Echo-­Muse-­Ecology: Reading R. Murray Scha-
fer in Papua New Guineau.” The Soundscape Newsletter/World Forum for Acoustic
Ecol­ogy 8 (June 1994): 4–6.
—­—­—. Jazz Cosmopolitanism in Accra: Five Musical Years in Ghana. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 2012.
Ferreira da Silva, Denise. “No-­Bodies: Law, Raciality and Vio­lence.” Griffith Law Re­
view 18, no. 2 (2009): 212–36.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction. Translated by
Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books, 1978.
—­—­—. “Maurice Blanchot: The Thought from Outside.” In Foucault/Blanchot, trans-
lated by Jeffrey Mehlman and Brian Massumi, 7–58. New York: Zone Books, 1987.
Freud, Sigmund. “The Unconscious.” In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychologi­
cal Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 14, 159–204. London: Hogarth Press, 1953–1973.
Fried, Michael. Absorption and Theatricality: Painting and Beholder in the Age of
Diderot. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.
—­—­—.“Art and Objecthood.” In Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews, 148–72.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Friedrich, Otto. Glenn Gould: A Life and Variations. New York: Random House, 1969.
Funk­houser, Chris. “Being ­Matter Ignited: An Interview with Cecil Taylor.” Hambone
12 (fall 1995): 18–19.
Gaines, Charles. Librettos: Manuel de Falla/Stokeley Carmichael, an installation
shown at the gallery Art + Practice in Leimert Park, Los Angeles. hammer​.­ucla​
.­edu​/­exhibitions​/­2015​/­off​-­site​-­exhibition​-­charles​-­gaines​-­librettos​-­manuel​-­de​-­falla​
-­stokely​-­carmichael​/­.
———. “The Theater of Refusal: Black Art and Mainstream Criticism.” In The Theater
of Refusal: Black Art and Mainstream Criticism, edited by Catherine Lord, 13–21.
Irvine: Fine Arts Gallery, University of California, Irvine, 1993.
García Lorca, Federico. In Search of Duende. Translated by Norman Di Giovanni. New
York: New Directions, 1998.
Gates, Theaster. “The Glass Lantern Slide Archive Relocation,” August 7, 2012.
theastergates​.c­ om/.

works cited  /  321

———. “Thinking about Language and ­Things That ­Matter.” Email message to author,
June 27, 2012.
Gaye, Marvin. “Since I Had You,” I Want You, Motown cd 3746352922, 1976.
Gil, José. Metamorphoses of the Body. Translated by Stephen Muecke. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1998.
Gilroy, Paul. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
—­—­—. Darker Than Blue: On the Moral Economies of Black Atlantic Culture. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.
—­—­—. “Multiculture, Double Consciousness and the ‘War on Terror.’ ” Patterns of Preju­
dice 39, no. 4 (2005): 431–43.
Girard, François, and Don McKellar. Thirty two Short Films about Glenn Gould: The
Screenplay. Toronto: Coach House, 1995.
Glissant, Édouard. “One World in Relation: Édouard Glissant in Conversation with
Manthia Diawara.” Translated by Christopher Winks. Journal of Con­temporary
African Art 28 (spring 2011): 4–19.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Theory of Colours. Translated by Charles L. Eastlake.
Mineoloa, NY: Dover, 2006.
Goodison, Lorna. Guinea ­Woman: New and Selected Poems. Manchester, UK: Carcanet
Press, 2000.
Gordon, Avery F. Ghostly ­Matters: Haunting and the So­cio­log­i­cal Imagination. Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.
Gould, Glenn. “Advice to a Graduation.” In The Glenn Gould Reader, edited by Tim
Page, 1–7. New York: Vintage, 1990.
—­—­—. “Glenn Gould Interviews Glenn Gould about Glenn Gould.” In The Glenn Gould
Reader, edited by Tim Page, 313–28. New York: Vintage, 1990.
—­—­—. “Piano ­Music by Grieg and Bizet, with a Confidential Caution to Critics.” In
The Glenn Gould Reader, edited by Tim Page, 76–79. New York: Vintage, 1990.
—­—­—. “Radio as M­ usic: Glenn Gould in Conversation with John Jessup,” In The Glenn
Gould Reader, edited by Tim Page, 374–88. New York: Vintage, 1990.
—­—­—. A State of Won­der: The Complete Goldberg Variations, 1955 and 1981. Columbia
s3k 87703, cds, 2002.
Gould, Glenn, and Curtis Davis. “The Well-­Tempered Listener.” In Glenn Gould Varia­
tions: By Himself and His Friends, edited by John McGreevy, 275–94. Toronto:
Doubleday Canada, 1983.
Gräwe, Karl Dietrich. “Fixing the Moment: The Conductor William Furtwängler,” liner
notes for William Furtwängler, Recordings: 1942–1944, Vol. 1. Deutsche Gramma-
phon cd Mono 471 289–2, 2002.
Gray, Mike, and Howard Alk. American Revolution 2 (1969). Facets Video dv 86930,
2007.
Guyer, Paul. Kant and the Claims of Taste. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997.
Hacker, Marilyn. First Cities: Collected Early Poems, 1960–1979. New York: W. W.
Norton, 2003.

322 / works cited
Hansen, Miriam B. “Introduction to Adorno, ‘Transparencies on Film’ (1966).” New
German Critique 24–25 (fall/winter 1981–82): 186–98.
Harris, Laura. “What­ever Happened to the Motley Crew? C. L. R. James, Helio Oiticica
and the Aesthetic Sociality of Blackness.” Social Text 112, 30, no. 3 (2012): 49–75.
Hartman, Saidiya V. Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-­Making in
Nineteenth-­Century Amer­i­ca. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Hill, Donald R. Calypso Calaloo: Early Carnival ­Music in Trinidad. Gainesville: Uni-
versity Press of Florida, 1993.
Hölderlin, Friedrich. Hymns and Fragments. Translated by Richard Sieburth. Prince­
ton, NJ: Prince­ton University Press, 1984.
Hunter, Tera W. To ’Joy My Freedom: Southern Black ­Women’s Lives and ­Labors ­after
the Civil War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Jacobs, Harriet. Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. New York: W. W. Norton, 2001.
James, C. L. R. The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revo­
lution. 2nd ed., revised. New York: Vintage Books, 1989.
Jay, Martin. Permanent Exiles: Essays on the Intellectual Migration from Germany to
Amer­i­ca. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.
Johnson, Barbara E. “Response” [to “Canon-­Formation, Literary History, and the Afro-­
American Literary Tradition: From the Seen to the Told,” by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.].
In Afro-­American Literary Study in the 1990s, edited by Houston A. Baker Jr. and
Patricia Redmond, 39–44. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Jones, LeRoi (Amiri Baraka). Black M ­ usic. New York: William Morrow, 1967.
—­—­—. The System of Dante’s Hell. New York: Grove Press, 1965.
Kant, Immanuel. “Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?” Translated by
Thomas K. Abbott. In Basic Writings of Kant, edited by Allen K. Wood, 133–42.
New York: Modern Library, 2001.
Kazanjian, David. The Colonizing Trick: National Culture and Imperial Citizenship in
Early Amer­i­ca. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.
Keil, Charles. “The Theory of Participatory Discrepancies: A Pro­gress Report.” Ethno­
musicology 39, no. 1 (1995): 1–19.
Klagge, James. Wittgenstein in Exile. Cambridge, MA: mit Press, 2014.
Krauss, Rosalind. “The Im/pulse to See.” In Vision and Visuality, edited by Hal Foster.
Seattle: Bay Press, 1988.
Kun, Josh. Audiotopia: ­Music, Race, and Amer­i­ca. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2005.
Laplanche, J., and J.-­B. Pontalis. The Language of Psycho-­Analysis. Translated by
Donald Nicholson-­Smith. New York: W. W. Norton, 1973.
Lepecki, André. “Affective Geometry, Immanent Acts: Lygia Clark and Per­for­mance.”
In Lygia Clark: The Abandonment of Art, 1948–1988, edited by Cornelia Butler
and Luis Pérez-­Oramas, 278–89. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2014.
—­—­—. Exhausting Dance: Per­for­mance and the Politics of Movement. New York:
Routledge, 2006.
Levin, Thomas Y. “For the Rec­ord: Adorno on ­Music in the Age of Its Technological
Reproducibility.” October 55 (winter 1990): 23–47.

works cited  /  323

Levinas, Emmanuel. “Interview with Francis Poiré.” In Is It Righ­teous to Be? Interviews
with Emmanuel Levinas, edited by Jill Robbins, translated by Jill Robbins and Marcus
Coelen with Thomas Loebel 23–83. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001.
Lewis, George. “Toneburst (Piece for 3 Trombones Si­mul­ta­neously).” The Solo Trom­
bone Rec­ord, Sackville skcd2-3012, cd, 2001.
Ligon, Glenn. “Blue Black.” In Chris Ofili: Night and Day, edited by Massimiliano
Gioni. New York: Rizzoli, 2014.
Lincoln, Abbey. “At the Ford Foundation Jazz Study Group.” Columbia University,
November 1999. Unpublished remarks.
Lippard, Lucy. Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966–1972.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.
Lippit, Akira Mizuta. Atomic Light (Shadow Optics). Minneapolis: University of Min-
nesota Press, 2006.
—­—­—. Electronic Animal: ­Toward a Rhe­toric of Wildlife. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 2000.
­Little Walter. The Complete Chess Masters (1950–1967). b001rld6am, Hip-­O Rec­ords,
2009.
Lord Invader. Calypso at Midnight. Rounder 11661-1840-2, cd, 1999.
—­—­—. C
­ alypso in New York. Smithsonian Folkways Recordings cd 40454, liner notes
by John Cowley, 2000.
Lovelace, Earl. The Dragon ­Can’t Dance. New York: Persea Books, [1979] 1998.
Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: mit Press, 1960.
McClary, Susan. Feminine Endings: ­Music, Gender, and Sexuality. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 1991.
McDowell, Deborah E. Leaving Pipe Shop: Memories of Kin. New York: W. W. Norton,
1998.
Macey, David. Frantz Fanon. New York: Picador USA, 2001.
Mackey, Nathaniel. Atet A.D. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2001.
—­—­—. Bedouin Hornbook (From a Broken Bottle/Traces of Perfume Still Emanate),
Callaloo Fiction Series, Volume 2. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1987.
—­—­—. “Cante Moro.” In Sound States: Innovative Poetics and Acoustical Technologies,
edited by Adalaide Morris, 194–212. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
1997.
—­—­—. “Destination Out.” Callaloo 23, no. 2 (2000): 814.
Marks, Laura U. The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the
Senses. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000.
Marks, Sally. “Black Watch on the Rhine: A Study in Propaganda, Prejudice and Pruri-
ence.” Eu­ro­pean Studies Review 13, no. 3 (1983): 297–333.
Martin, Randy. Critical Moves: Dance Studies in Theory and Politics. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 1998.
—­—­—. Financialization of Daily Life. Philadelphia: ­Temple University Press, 2002.
Marx, Karl. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Po­liti­cal Economy. Translated
by Martin Nicolaus. New York: Vintage, 1973.
Melhem, D. H. “Revolution: The Constancy of Change.” In Conversations with Amiri
Baraka, ed. Charlie Reilly, 181–220. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1994.

324 / works cited
Menchaca, Martha. Recovering History, Constructing Race: The Indian, Black, and
White Roots of Mexican Americans. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001.
Michel, Prakazrel “Pras.” With kris ex. Ghetto Supastar. New York: Pocket Books, 1997.
Mingus, Charles. Beneath the Underdog, edited by Nel King. New York: Penguin, 1971.
—­—­—. Charles Mingus Pres­ents Charles Mingus. Candid lp 9005, 1960.
—­—­—. Mingus Ah Um. Columbia/Legacy cd ck 65512, 1998.
—­—­—. More Than a Fake Book, 47. New York: Jazz Workshop, 1991.
Mingus, Sue Graham. To­night at Noon: A Love Story. New York: Da Capo, 2002.
Miyoshi, Masao. “A Borderless World? From Colonialism to Transnationalism over the
Decline of the Nation-­State.” In Politics-­Poetics: Documenta X—­the Book, edited by
Jean-­François Chevrier, 182–202. Kassel, DE: Cantz, 1997.
—­—­—. “Outside Architecture.” In Anywise, edited by Cynthia C. Davidson, 40–47.
Cambridge, MA: mit Press, 1996.
Monson, Ingrid. Saying Something: Jazz Improvisation and Interaction. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Morris, Lawrence D. (“Butch”). “First Curiosity,” liner notes for Testament: A Conduc­
tion Collection. New World Rec­ords, cd, 1995.
—­—­—. “Theory and Contradiction: Notes on Conduction,” liner notes for Testament:
A Conduction Collection. New World Rec­ords, cd, 1995.
Morrison, Toni. “The Site of Memory.” In What Moves at the Margin: Selected Nonfic­
tion, edited by Carolyn C. Denard, 65–80. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi,
2008.
Morse, Chuck. “Capitalism, Marxism, and the Black Radical Tradition: An Interview
with Cedric Robinson.” Perspectives on Anarchist Theory 3, no. 1. flag​.b ­ lackened​
.­net​/­ias​/­5robinsoninterview​.­htm, paragraph 35.
Morton, Ferdinand “Jelly Roll.” The Complete Library of Congress Recordings, disc six,
Rounder Rec­ords b000gfle35, 2005.
Moten, Fred. In the Break: The Aesthetics of the Black Radical Tradition. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 2003.
Mullen, Harryette. “African Signs and Spirit Writing.” Callaloo 19, no. 3 (1996):
670–89.
—­—­—. “Runaway Tongue: Resistant Orality in ­Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Our Nig, Incidents
in the Life of a Slave Girl, and Beloved.” In The Culture of Sentiment: Race, Gender,
and Sentimentality in Nineteenth-­Century Amer­i­ca, edited by Shirley Samuels,
244–64. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Mulroy, Kevin. Freedom on the Border: The Seminole Maroons in Florida, the Indian
Territory, Coahuila, and Texas. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1993.
Muñoz, José Esteban. “Gesture, Ephemera and Queer Feeling: Approaching Kevin
Aviance.” In Cruising Utopia: The Then and ­There of Queer Futurity, 65–82. New
York: New York University Press, 2009.
—­—­—. “Phenomenological Flights: From Latino over T ­ here and Cubania’s ­Here and
Now.” Unpublished manuscript, 2.
Negri, Antonio, and Michael Hardt. Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 2009.
Nelson, Maggie. Bluets. Seattle: Wave Books, 2009.

works cited  /  325

Neptune, Harvey. “Manly Rivalries and Mopsies: Gender, Nationality, and Sexuality in
United States-­Occupied Trinidad.” Radical History Review 87 (2003): 90–92.
Nyong’o, Tavia. “So Say We All.” Social Text Online, January 4, 2012. socialtextjournal​
.­org​/­periscope​_­article​/­so​_­say​_­we​_­all​/­.
O’Grady, Lorraine. “Olympia’s Maid: Reclaiming Black Female Subjectivity.” In Art,
Activism and Oppositionality: Essays from Afterimage, edited by Grant H. Kester,
268–86. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998.
Ostwald, Peter. Glenn Gould: The Ecstasy and Tragedy of Genius. New York: W. W.
Norton, 1997.
Padillo, Genaro M. “Myth and Comparative Cultural Nationalism: The Ideological
Uses of Aztlán.” In Aztlán: Essays on the Chicano Homeland, edited by Rudolfo
Anaya and Francisco Lomelí, 111–34. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press, 1989.
Patterson, Benjamin. Ben Patterson Tells Fluxus Stories (From 1962 to 2002). Rec­ords
Q 07, 2002, 29'20"—31'13".
—­—­—. Methods and Pro­cesses. 2nd ed. Tokyo: Gallery 360°, 2004.
—­—­—. “What Makes George Laugh?” In Mr. Fluxus: A Collective Portrait of George
Maciunas, 1931–1978, edited by Emmett Williams and Ann Noël, 260–63. Lon-
don: Thames and Hudson, 1997.
Pérez-­Torres, Rafael. “Refiguring Aztlán.” Aztlán 22, no. 2 (fall 1997): 15–41.
Philip, M. NourbeSe. Zong. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 2008.
­Piper, Adrian. “Critical Hegemony and Aesthetic Acculturation.” Nous 19, no. 1 (1985):
29–40.
Priestly, Brian. Mingus: A Critical Biography. New York: Da Capo, 1982.
Rankine, Claudia. Citizen: An American Lyric. Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf Press,
2014.
Rapaport, Herman. “Of Musical Headings: Toscanini’s and Furtwängler’s Fifth
Symphonies, 1939–54.” In Threshholds of Western Culture: Identity, Postcolonial­
ity, Transnationalism, edited by John Burt Foster Jr. and Wayne Jeffrey Froman,
60–68. New York: Continuum, 2002.
Reid-­Pharr, Robert. Black Gay Man. New York: New York University Press, 2002.
Richards, Sandra L. “Writing the Absent Potential: Drama, Per­for­mance, and the
Canon of African-­American Lit­er­a­ture.” In Per­for­mance and Performativity, ed-
ited by Andrew Parker and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, 64–88. New York: Routledge,
1995.
Robinson, Cedric J. Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000.
Roddy, Joseph. “Apollonian.” In Glenn Gould Variations: By Himself and His Friends,
edited by John McGreevy. Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 1983.
Rodney, Walter. A History of the Guyanese Working ­People, 1881–1905. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.
Rohlehr, Gordon. Calypso and Society in Pre-­Independence Trinidad. St. Augustine,
Trinidad and Tobago: Gordon Rohlehr, 1990.
Rosen, Charles. Arnold Schoenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Rudder, David. The Autobiography of the Now. Lypsoland cd 45692, 2001.

326 / works cited
Sahlins, Marshall. What Kinship Is—­and Is Not. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2013.
Said, Edward W. “The ­Music Itself: Glenn Gould’s Contrapuntal Vision.” In Glenn
Gould Variations: By Himself and His Friends, edited by John McGreevy. To-
ronto: Doubleday Canada, 1983.
Saldaña-­Portillo, María Josefina. The Revolutionary Imagination in the Amer­ic­ as and
the Age of Development. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003.
Saul, Scott. Freedom Is, Freedom ­Ain’t. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2003.
Schneider, Rebecca. The Explicit Body in Per­for­mance. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Schoenberg, Arnold. Erwartung/Brettl-­Lieder, performed by Jessye Norman, Metro-
politan Opera Orchestra, James Levine, Philips cd 426 621–2, 1993.
—­—­—. Style and Idea. Edited by Leonard Stein. Translated by Leo Black. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1975.
Shakespeare, William. Richard II. Edited by Frances E. Dolan. New York: Penguin, 2000.
Spellman, A. B. Four Lives in the Bebop Business. New York: Limelight Editions, 1985.
Spicer, Edward. Cycles of Conquest: The Impact of Spain, Mexico and the United States on
the Indians of the Southwest, 1533–1960. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1981.
Spillers, Hortense J. “The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual: A Post-­date.” In Black and
White and In Color: Essays on American Lit­er­a­ture and Culture, 428–70. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2003.
—­—­—. “Mama’s Baby, Papa’s Maybe: An American Grammar Book.” In Black and
White and In Color: Essays on American Lit­er­at­ ure and Culture, 203–29. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Righting Wrongs.” South Atlantic Quarterly 103, no. 2/3
(spring/summer 2004): 523–81.
Stevens, Wallace. “The Poems of Our Climate.” In The Collected Poems: The Corrected
Edition, 205–6. New York: Vintage, 2015.
Story, Rosalyn M. And So I Sing: African-­American Divas of Opera and Concert. New
York: Amistad Press, 1990.
Subotnik, Rose Rosengard. Deconstructive Variations: ­Music and Reason in Western
Society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
Swann-­Wright, Dianne. A Way Out of No Way: Claiming ­Family and Freedom in the
New South. Charlottesville: University of ­Virginia Press, 2002.
Taylor, Cecil. “Sound Structure of Subculture Becoming Major Breath/Naked Fire
Gesture.” Liner notes, Unit Structures, lp 84237. Blue Note, 1966.
Thomas, Deborah A. Modern Blackness: Nationalism, Globalization, and the Politics
of Culture in Jamaica. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004.
Vazquez, Alexandra T. Listening in Detail: Per­for­mances of Cuban M ­ usic. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press, 2013.
Wall, Cheryl. Worrying the Line: Black ­Women Writers, Lineage, and Literary Tradi­
tion. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005.
Wallace, Maurice. Constructing the Black Masculine: Identity and Ideality in African
American Men’s Lit­er­at­ ure and Culture, 1775–1995. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press, 2002.

works cited  /  327

Weinberg, H. Barbara. “Studies in Paris and Spain.” In Thomas Eakins: American
Realist, edited by Darrel Sewel, 13–26. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art,
2001.
Williams, William Carlos. The Collected Poems of William Carlos Williams: Volume II,
1939–1962. New York: New Directions, 1988.
Willis, Deborah, and Carla Williams. The Black Female Body: A Photographic History.
Philadelphia: ­Temple University Press, 2002.
Wilson, Olly. “The Significance of the Relationship between Afro-­American ­Music and
West African ­Music.” Black Perspectives in ­Music 2, no. 1 (1974): 3–22.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. The Blue and Brown Books: Preliminary Studies for the “Philo­
sophical Investigations.” New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965.
—­—­—. Philosophical Occasions, 1912–1951. Edited by James Klagge and Alfred Nord-
mann. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993.
—­—­—. Wittgenstein’s Lectures on Philosophical Psy­chol­ogy, 1946–1947, with notes by
P. T. Geach, K. J. Shah, and A. C. Jackson. Edited by P. T. Geach. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1988.
Wright, Michelle M. Becoming Black: Creating Identity in the African Diaspora. Dur-
ham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004.

328 / works cited
 I ND E X

abandonment, 133, 178, 183, 208 African American, term usage, 294n3
absolution, 255, 260 African diaspora, 1, 110, 116–17, 161, 165,
absorption, 244 293n3; colonial Trinidad and, 111–13;
abstraction, 82–83 Eu­ro­pean diaspora and, 98; music/
Acosta, Oscar Zeta, 212–13 musicians and, 87, 92, 96, 115, 295n4;
addressability, 241–42 tradition, 2
Adorno, Theodor, 28, 52, 53, 58, 63; Agamben, Giorgio, 139–40, 172
on Beethoven, 40–41, 48–51, 54, 59, agency, 68, 75–76, 135, 141
85; Erwartung and, 132, 306n1; jazz Althusser, Louis, 29, 30, 31, 193, 204–5;
criticisms, 50, 55, 84, 129, 130–32; on Butler on, 236–37
loneliness, 127, 172; on long-­playing anarchy, 20–21
rec­ords, 126–27, 144; on the movement animateriality, xiii, 64, 239
of artwork, 86, 298n42; on the musical animation, 12, 24, 67, 278; of image, 74,
­whole, 80–81; on ­music’s temporality, 76, 81
77–79; object of theory, 66, 298n42; animeta­phor, 78, 120
operatic per­for­mance and, 118, 120, anti-­blackness, viii, x
126; on phonographs/gramophones, anticolonialism/anticoloniality, 12, 186,
121, 123–26; on radio symphony, 80; 188, 221, 231, 250
on sonorities, 56–57; structural listen- aporia, xii, 2
ing and, 81, 84, 119, 126, 306n2; terror apposition, 2, 37, 72, 76, 140, 142; black-
of Schoenberg and Webern, 84–85; ness and, 300n43
“The Fetish Character in ­Music and the appropriation, 199–200
Regression of Listening,” 83; “Trans- architecture: of attractions, 188; modern-
parencies on Film,” 119; on writing, ism and, 190–91; outside, 195–96;
81–82, 118–19, 120, 128 per­for­mance and, 187; utopian nature
aesthetics: acculturation of, 143; architec- of, 189–90
ture and, 186–88, 191; insurgency, 159, Armstrong, Louis, 215–16, 218, 231, 273
256; judgment and, 29; Mingus’s, 92–93, Arom, Simha, 105
115; musical headings and, 99; politics art history, 168, 206–8, 233. See also
and, 17, 23, 26, 87, 109, 115, 117; radical, ­under historians
152; of self-­in-­relation, 249; sentimental- artist, idea of the, 222–23
ism as, 186; subjectivity and, 122; theory, assembly or assemblage, 185, 186, 190,
221–22; traditional, 298n42; value of, 196–97
28, 143; of wealth and beauty, 196 attraction, 188, 191, 194
audiovisuality, 81–82, 132, 133, 246 Beethoven’s, 289n22; as black Ameri-
aurality, 3, 17, 62 canness, 116–17; of blacks in Chicago,
Auslander, Philip, 137 162; blueblack and, 227–28; body and,
Aviance, Kevin, 192–94, 195, 197 137; defining what “is,” vii, xiii, 117, 133,
Aztlán, 110 202, 279; as escape, 301n43; female
sexuality and, 74; Glenn Gould’s,
Bach, Johann Sebastian, 28, 57, 61; Gold­ 288n3; jazz and, 130–32; Mingus and,
berg Variations, 47–48, 104 113–14; national identity and, 294n3;
Baldwin, James, 177, 228 new world, 2; no-­thingness of, 210,
Baraka, Amiri, 3, 114, 242, 280; on 244; opera and, 130; origins of, 91; as a
“place/meant,” ix, 277; The System of permeable circle, 299n43; predication
Dante’s Hell, 113 of, viii, xii; queer, 207; sociality of, 272,
Barenboim, Daniel, 102–3, 108 275; vio­lence and, xi; whiteness and,
Barry, Judith, 233 281, 312n1
beauty, 155, 188, 192, 196, 223–24; as Black Panther Party, 281–82
kitsch, 207, 210; nothingness and, 228; black radical tradition, 4, 10, 33, 91, 153;
rough, 148, 186 Marx and, 30; origins, 9, 13; Robin-
Beethoven, Ludwig van, 59, 62, 80; son’s theories, 6, 7–9, 29, 110, 285n8
Adorno’s notes on, 40–41, 48–51, black study, viii, xiii, 160, 163, 202
54, 59, 85; bourgeois origins, 54, 59; Blom, Eric, 287n2
First Piano Concerto, 42, 44, 47–48; blue and black: blur of, 226–27, 231, 233,
Furtwängler and Toscanini conducting, 255, 313n1; the face and, 234; ­matters,
96–97; Heideggerian philosophy and, 230; medium of, 239; not-­in-­between,
98–99; musical form, 56; Piano Sonata 237, 238; ordinary, 278; pigment and,
13, op. 27, no. 1, “Quasi una Fantasia,” 234–35; seriality, 240; in white, 228
40–41, 43–44, 48, 53, 58 Blue Rider(s) (Ofili), 230, 232–34, 238,
being-­sent, concept, 67, 75, 76 313n1
Bern­stein, Leonard, 58 blues (musical genre), 229, 274
between, logic of, 312n1 blur, 74, 163, 218, 239, 259, 281; absolute
between ­things, relationship, 204–5 presence of, 226; in artwork, 244, 246;
black art, 67, 161, 242, 260–61; trauma/ of blueblack, 226–27, 231, 233, 255,
violence and, ix–­x, xiii 313n1; and breathe, 266, 268–69; to
black body, 137; female, 72 bring forth in the, 254; evangelical mis-
Black Jacobins, The (James): black radical sion of, 223; fear and, 262; in Gaines’s
tradition and, 7–9; dialectics in, 10–12; work, 252–53; of Koreatown and South
enlightenment and darkness phrasing, Central L.A., 254; of movement, 248;
4–7, 10; lyric and narrative, 2–3 of score and speech, 247–48; vision
Black Marxism: The Making of the Black and, 261, 263
Radical Tradition (Robinson), 7–9, Bonaparte, Napoleon, 5, 6, 7, 10
285n8 borders, concepts, 109–10, 227, 239
black ­music, 147–48, 151, 273–75; terror bourgeoisie, 9, 12, 50, 125, 140, 142;
in, x, xi. See also specific musical genres Beethoven’s origins, 54, 59; loss of
blackness: in African American culture, gestures and, 139; Marx on, 185–86;
165; anti-­blackness and, viii; apposi- opera and, 143
tion and, 299n43; art and, 206, 231; Brady, Mary Pat, 109–10, 117

330 / Index
Brecht, Bertolt, 66, 154, 161; absorption civil rights movement, 277
of plea­sure and, 142; on opera, 137, Clark, Lygia, 180, 194–95, 197, 215
139–41, 145–46 Clark, T. J., 240–41, 244; The Painting of
bridge imagery, 177, 181–82, 261 Modern Life, 71–72
Brooks, Gwendolyn, 171 Coleman, Ornette, 114, 117, 195, 227;
Brooks, Peter, 3, 139 Mingus’s contempt for, 87–89; origins,
brutality and necessity, 217 90, 304n51
Bulworth (Beatty), 29–30 collective head, 188, 218, 269, 272, 280;
Burton, Johanna, 200 Clark’s Cabeça Coletiva, 194–95, 197,
Butler, Judith, 29, 32, 239–40, 241; on 215
Dolar and Althusser, 236–37; on the collectivity, 35, 85, 90, 243
structure of address, 242–43 colonialism, 15, 18–19, 22, 300n43; in
Trinidad, 111–13. See also anticolo-
calypso, 87, 295n4, 295n12; marketing of, nialism/anticoloniality; postcolonial
94, 115; rhythmic feel of, 96, 104, 106, futurity
108. See also Coleman, Ornette; Lord color, 230–31, 233, 239; numbers and,
Invader 252–53; space and, 234, 237; theory of,
Cannon, Steve, 226–28 235. See also blue and black
capitalism, 34, 116, 166, 210; Miyoshi on, Coltrane, John, 94, 276
187, 189–90 commodity, 26, 71, 126, 166; Marx on,
captivity and servility, 45–46 186; world, 131, 132
Ca­rib­bean, 2, 110, 115 commune, 184–85, 187, 196
Carmichael, Stokely, 255–56, 266, 269; Concerto in Black and Blue (Hammons),
Garfield High School speech, 247–51 226–29, 230
carnival, 236, 239, 243, 244, 304n51 conduction, 103, 296n30
cele­bration, 221 cosmopolitanism, 102, 293n3
centrality and authenticity, 161–62 counterpoint: fantasy and, 56; film and
Cervenak, Sarah, 101 ­music, 41, 47, 57–58, 64, 65, 288n3;
Chandler, Nahum Dimitri, 312n1 per­for­mance of, 57, 63; thingliness
charismata, 217, 277 and, 46
Chicago, 161, 162–64 Crouch, Stanley, 295n12
cinema: animation and, 74; counterpoint Cuban-­Americanness, 269
and, 56, 64; movement and, 75; ­music culinary, concepts, 28, 83; in opera, 137,
and, 40–41, 70–71, 79; narrative, 76; sub- 140, 142, 144–45
jective experience of, 119. See also film culture: black or African American,
circles, musical context, 90–93, 96, 165, 294n3; as a false totality, 23;
299n43; flight from, 132; groove and, industry, 29, 31, 121, 189; traditional
108–9, 117 African, 25
citizenship, 164, 167, 186, 219; consump-
tion and, 165; minoritarian, 36; per­for­ dance, 221, 296n30, 300n43; encounter
mance studies and, 36–37 of Taylor and Delany, 175–77; as move-
city: architecture and planning, 189–91; ment, 174–75, 183; practice of, 275;
commune and the, 184–85, 196; outside propensity to, 219–20; rematerializa-
discourse of, 191, 194; raise/raze the, tion of, 193; sociality of, 272
183; world and the, 188–89 Davis, Miles, 85, 140, 199, 274

Index / 331
Delany, Samuel R., 154, 261, 277; death of Eakins, Thomas, 71, 72–75, 80, 82–83
parents, 178, 179; encounter with Cecil economy, 34, 153, 195, 209, 210; general,
Taylor, 175–76; The Motion of Light 107, 161, 187, 194; global, 190
and ­Water, 103, 188, 262–63, 265–66; Edwards, Brent Hayes, 110, 232
references to bridges, 177, 181–82; rela- Edwards, Erica, 217, 277
tionship with Hacker, 266, 269; “Time Eisenhauer, Letty Lou, 136, 138–39
Considered as a Helix of Semi-­Precious Eisenstein, Sergei, 21–22, 40–41, 48; on
Stones,” 114 counterpoint in film, 57, 64–65
Deleuze, Gilles, 19–20, 26, 56, 78 Ellison, Ralph, 97, 273, 274; Invisible
democ­ratization, 20–21 Man, 216–17, 229, 231
Derrida, Jacques, 11, 56, 69, 97, 100, 257, En­glish, Darby, 200–203, 205
260; Of Grammatology, 3–4 entanglement and virtuosity, 275, 277,
Dessalines, Jean-­Jacques, 4–7, 9, 12 279
Dial, Thornton, 152–57, 171; conversation ephemera, 193–94
with Mike Kelley, 207–8 escape, 193, 194, 214; blackness and, 140,
dialectics, 64, 257, 261; in The Black Ja­ 301n43; constant, 84–85, 174, 177;
cobins, 2, 7, 8–12, 286n17; of historical musical, 114; from slavery, 68–69
materialism, 9 ethnographer/ethnography, 13, 15, 17
diffusion: prob­lem of, xii; of terror, viii, Evans, Gil, 85
x–­xi exceptionalism, 87, 116, 294n3
Disch, Thomas, 266
disenfranchised subjectivity, 131, Fabian, Johannes: on anarchy and
132–33 democ­ratization, 20–21; dialogue with
dispersion, 159–60, 162, 165 Tshibumba, 1, 13–18, 24–25; ethno-
displacement, 9, 84, 193, 200, 201, 205; graphic per­for­mance, 22; po­liti­cal
colonial, 300n43; literary, 118; origi- aesthetics and, 23
nary, 108, 110, 198; of queerness, 192; Fabião, Eleonora, 194
re­sis­tance to, 109; utopian, 190 ­faces, 234, 240–41, 244, 252
dispossession, 85, 106, 117, 153, 192, 222 Falla, Manuel de, 246–49, 252, 266,
dissolution, 254–55 269
dissonance, 75, 82, 85, 119; absolute, fallenness, 181, 228, 239, 250, 252
255; calypso’s, 100; collective, 187; dis- Fanon, Frantz, 158, 164, 231, 234, 238;
sidence and, 96, 113, 114, 115; Rosen’s Black Skin, White Masks, 312n1; case
theory of, 127–30 of Mlle. B., 298n43; failure of, 11
Dolar, Mladen, 236 fantasy, 290n24, 299n43; counterpoint
Dolphy, Eric, 106, 297n30 and, 56; definition of, 52; in documen-
Donne, John, 86, 103, 117 tary film, 40–42, 44–48, 51–52, 63–64;
Douglass, Frederick, viii–­x, 90, 299n43 Freud’s analyses, 52–56; musical and
Doyle, Laura, 303n45 po­liti­cal, 117; phyloge­ne­tic, 53–54,
Dr. Faustus (Mann), 57 288n3
Du Bois, W. E. B., 71, 294n3, 312n1 Faubus, Orval E., 87, 88, 113–14
Dudley, Shannon, 96, 103–6, 108 Feld, Steven, 160
Dumas, Henry, 90–91, 106 femininity, 132, 133, 137
Durham, Jimmie, 220–25 Ferreira da Silva, Denise, 165, 175, 195,
Dylan, Bob, 106 313n1

332 / Index
 fetish: character, 3, 30, 38, 162; counter- Girard, François. See Thirty Two Short
fetish and, 192–94 Films about Glenn Gould (Girard)
film: color in, 22; counterpoint in, 57–58; Glissant, Édouard, 13, 161, 227, 249
documentary, 40–42, 44–47, 51. See Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 208, 233
also cinema Goldberg Variations (Bach), 47–48
flesh, 171, 195–96, 231 Goodison, Lorna, 66, 160
Fluxus, 137, 138, 142–43, 145 Gould, Glenn, 53, 54; blackness of,
Foucault, Michel, 74, 76, 91 288n3; fear of mortality, 288n7;
freedom: determination and, 74; dialectic Goldberg Variations, 47–48, 104; per­
of, 11; escape and, 84, 214, 221; of the for­mances, 48, 57–65; on the tyranny
imagination, 69; materialization of, 12; of the calendar, 289n8. See also Thirty
as a ­matter of taste, 83; slavery and, xii, Two Short Films about Glenn Gould
76; unfreedom relation, 49, 51, 85, 128, (Girard)
129, 133, 288n3, 289n22 grammar, 3, 14, 203–5, 312n1; narration
­free jazz, 88, 92, 94, 96, 297n30 and, 236–37
Freire, Paolo, 218 gramophone, 125–26. See also
Freud, Sigmund, 52–56, 288n3 phonograph/phonography
Fried, Michael, 70, 119–20, 128, 203, 244 Gramsci Monument, 170–71
Friedrich, Otto, 42 Grant, Rupert Westmore. See Lord
Frost, Robert, 203 Invader
fugitivity, 71, 76–77, 81, 140; movement Gräwe, Karl Dietrich, 101
and, 71, 75; ­music and, 85, 131 Griffith, D. W., 76
Furtwängler, Wilhelm, 88, 113; Guattari, Félix, 19–20, 56, 78, 299n43
Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, 96–97; Guyer, Paul, 202–3
conducting style, 101–2, 104, 105–6;
the philosophical in, 98–99 Hacker, Marilyn, 262, 266, 268, 269;
“Prism and Lens,” 263–65
Gaines, Charles, 251, 254–56; Hoyun Hall, Ben, 215, 217–18, 231
Son and, 253, 269; Librettos, 246–47, Hammons, David, 226–29, 230
248, 252–53, 260, 261; on marginal- hapticalities, 204, 253–54
ity, 257–58, 260–61; The Theater of Hardt, Michael, 152, 153
Refusal, 247, 257, 260 Harris, Laura, 272
Garcia, Matt, 110 Hartman, Saidiya, 70, 128, 210; diffusion
Gates, Theaster: artistic practice, 158, of terror and, viii, x–­xi; on slavery, xii,
162–63, 166–67; On Black Founda­ 76
tions, 166; as a citizen of Chicago, 164; Hathaway, Donny, 170
The Dorchester Proj­ect and Plate Con­ Hegel, G. W. F., 7, 8, 9, 10, 49
vergence, 159, 163; in London, 161 hegemony, 115, 116, 165, 170, 238
Gaye, Marvin, 84 Heidegger, Martin, 50, 76, 190, 192, 249;
gest and gesture, 64–65, 139–40, 142, 145 Beethoven and, 96, 98–99
“Ghetto Supastar” (novel) (Pras/kris ex), Higgins, Billy, 304n47
30–33 high art, 302n45
“Ghetto Supastar” (song) (Pras), 28, hip-­hop, 271–74, 276, 277
29–30, 33 Hirschhorn, Thomas, 171
Gilroy, Paul, 87, 161, 165, 166, 293n3 historians, 1–2, 13–14; art, 202–3, 204

Index / 333
historical emotion, 11 Jafa, Arthur, 273
Hoffman, Hans, 206–7 James, C. L. R., 286n17; The Black Jaco­
Holcomb, Roscoe, 106, 304n47 bins, 2–12
Hölderlin, Friedrich, 237, 239 jazz, xii, 87, 108, 295n4; Adorno’s criti-
Hopkins, Fred, 302n43 cisms, 50, 55, 84, 129, 130–32, 133;
Hopkins, Lightnin’, 253, 269 British, 102; democracy and, 97;
Hudson, Hosea, 153 limitations of, 92; Los Angeles, 270–71;
­human, more or less than, 174, 183, per­for­mance, 95, 99. See also Davis,
216–17 Miles; ­free jazz; Mingus, Charles
humanity, 34, 37, 54, 161, 183, 185 Johnson, Barbara, 302n45
Hunt, Erica, 243 Jones, A. M., 104, 105
Hunter, Tera, 70 Joseph, May, 36–37, 38
hybridities, 9, 29, 116, 128, 132, 189; cir-
cus and burlesque, 119–20; Mingus’s, Kant, Immanuel, 50, 79, 83, 141, 238,
93; valorization and, 30 259; on the imagination, 208
hypervisibility, 74 Kantorowicz, Ernst, 250
Kazanjian, David, 160
identity, 258, 261; African American, Keil, Charlie, 108
115; allotment of, 220; loss and, 193; Kelley, Mike, 206–11, 233
national, 8, 87, 294n3; politics, 186; kitsch, 207–10
social, 35, 38; U.S., 165 knowledge: Adorno on, 65, 298n42; of
imagination, 69, 208, 234 the inappropriable, 68; of slavery, 76, 90
imperialism, U.S., 109–12 Kolinski, Mieczyslaw, 105
improvisation, 108, 120, 147, 176, 299n43; Krauss, Rosalind, 302n45
collective, 297n30; contact, 183, 202, Kuti, Fela, 115
277, 313n1; self-­analysis and, 53, 180;
of song, 10; writing and, 81–82 ­labor, 26, 35, 153, 298n42
individualism of art, 127 Laplanche, Jean, 52–55
individuality, 85, 126, 283 latinidad, 269
individual life, 239, 258–59, 278 law of motion, 69, 70–71, 73–74; in paint-
individuation, 259, 268, 274, 278–79; of ing and ­music, 77–79, 81, 106
the artist, 222; metaphysics of, 201, 275 Lee, Robert (Bobby) E., III, 281–83, 315n1
insolvency, 255 left politics, 117, 305n69
institutional critique, 199–201 Lepecki, André, 194
interinanimation, 46, 81, 101, 121, 139, Levinas, Emmanuel, 250
301n43 Levine, James, 118, 121
internationalism, 116 liberatory, concepts, 29, 33
interpolation and interpellation, 28, 30, 31 Ligon, Glenn, 231, 232–34, 237
intersubjectivity, 202–3 Lippit, Akira Mizuta, 78, 117, 291n14,
invisibility, 215–18 305nn69–70
Invisible Man (Ellison), 216–17, 229, 231 listening, structural: Adorno and, 81,
84, 126, 306n2; loneliness and, 127;
Jackson, Mahalia, 234 mechanical reproduction and, 119; the
Jacobs, Harriet, 71, 76, 85, 161; Incidents phonograph and, 121, 122–23
in the Life of a Slave Girl, 67–70 Listening Walk, The (Showers), 248

334 / Index
literary voice, 8 McDowell, Deborah, 153, 156
loneliness, 127, 172, 173, 244 Mendez, Harold, 168–69
Lord Invader, 108, 115, 117, 304n47, meter, musical concept, 104–5, 107, 114
304n51; “Crisis in Arkansas,” 87, Mexico–­United States relations, 109–11
113–14; “Rum and Coca-­Cola,” 305n63 Mingus, Charles: black maternity and,
loss, 192–93 106–7, 304n46; contempt for Cole-
Lovelace, Earl, 235–36 man and calypso, 87–90, 100, 295n12,
Lumumba, Patrice, 1, 20–21, 25–26; 304n51; detachment of, 103; “Fables of
Tshibumba’s paintings of, 13–19 Faubus,” 87, 88, 113–14; per­for­mance
lyric/lyricism: historical trajectory of, 6, 9, style, 102–3; po­liti­cal aesthetic, 115;
11–12; Lumumba’s, 1, 19, 21; materiality relation to Mexico, 109–11; rootless-
of, 10; narrative and, 2–3 ness of, 100–101; rotary perception,
92–96, 106, 302n43; spatial chauvin-
Macey, David, 300n43 ism, 91–92; “The Circle with a [W]hole
Maciunas, George, 135, 138–39 in the ­Middle,” 117; “The French Lady”
Mackey, Nathaniel, vii–­viii, 69, 77, 91; instrument, 106, 302n43; Tijuana
premature and postexpectant terms, 7, Moods, 92–93
59, 246, 268 Mingus, Sue Graham, 88, 91, 94
Manet, Édouard, 75, 80; Olympia, 72–73, mise-­en-­scène: of desire, 55; phono-
136, 138, 307n4 graphic, 119, 121–22, 127–29
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom (Wilson), 130 Mitchell, Joni, 106
marginality, 161–62, 256–61 Miyoshi, Masao: architecture discourses,
Marks, Laura, 253 186–89; encounter with José Muñoz,
Marley, Bob, 239 196; Lygia Clark’s photo­graphs and,
Martin, Randy, 34–35, 36, 38, 196, 313n1 194; on modernism, 190–91
Marx, Karl, 12, 35, 187, 194, 196, 205; Mobutu Sese Seko, 15, 24
black radical tradition and, 9, 30; on modernity/modernism, 119, 120, 190–91,
capitalism, 34; commodity and, 26; fe- 198
tishism and, 193; Grundrisse, 184–86; Mondrian, Piet, 83, 204; Victory Boogie
sensual and material and, 275 Woogie, 232
Marxism, black, 152–53 Monk, Thelonious, 223, 235, 274
masculinity, 112 monodrama, 118, 306n1
materiality: blur and, 252; of color, 234; montage, 21–22, 47, 48, 119, 120
the conceptual and, 238; demateri- Moore, Peter, 135
alization and, 142–43; freedom and, Morris, Butch, 296n30
128; of individual life, 239; lyric, 10; Morrison, Toni, 178, 260
maternity and, 178; ­music and, 129, Morton, Jelly Roll, 91, 289n22
132, 142; radical, 67; of repre­sen­ta­tion, motion/movement: of artwork, 86,
23; of social identity, 35, 38; of sound, 298n42; black ­women and, 277; of
65, 218; taste and, 177; thingly, 205; bodies, 73; borders and, 110; fidelity
transcendence of, 64; writing and, 78 and seriality and, 74–75; hazard of, 174;
maternity, black, 107, 178, 208, 276, 278, in photography, 70–71; re/production
304n46 of, 73–74. See also dance
Mayfield, Curtis, 173 mourning and melancholia, 33, 293n3
McClary, Susan, 123 Mullen, Harryette, 77

Index / 335
multiculturalism, 293n3 and the, 26; prob­lem of, 230; seriality
Muñoz, José, 37, 196, 261; Kevin Aviance of, 233
and, 192–94; “Phenomenological nowhere–­everywhere relationship, 158,
Flights: From Latino Over ­There and 167
Cubania’s ­Here and Now,” 267–69; on Nyong’o, Tavia, 165–66
queerness, 192
­music: African–­Western distinction, Obama, Barack, 314n2
104–5; analy­sis and, 178; and cinema object: art and, 119, 136; changing, 219,
intersection, 70–71; constant escape 220, 222–23; dematerialization of,
and, 84–85; fantasy and, 52; image 205; image of the, 82; of per­for­mance,
of, 63, 65; improvisation in, 81–82; vii, 33, 35–37, 68; practices and,
impulse and taming of, 83; muting of, 34–35; public/private, 203; re­sis­tance
125; racialization of, 299n43; spatiality of the, 33, 68; sexual, 135; surplus and,
in, 52; totality and temporality of, 40, 38–39; theory, 66, 298n42
77–78, 96–98; truth in, 44, 51, 64; as Ofili, Chris, 239, 242, 244, 313n1; The
­whole, 80–81; writing and, 68–69, Blue Rider(s), 230, 232–34, 238,
81–83, 122, 126, 128–29. See also black 313n1; colors used in works, 230–31
­music; rhythm and beat; and specific Olympia (Manet), 72–73, 136, 138,
musical genres 307n4
musical headings, 96–100 openness, 175
musicology, 118, 121, 129 opera: black sound in, 130; Carmen, 134,
137, 144–45, 308n9; culinary moment
narrative: cinema and, 47, 76; historical of, 145–46; Erwartung, 118, 122–23,
trajectory and, 6, 13; improvisation 127, 129–33, 306n1; La Vida Breve,
of, 120; lyric/lyricism and, 1–3, 10–12, 246–49, 251–52; objectification of,
17–18; ­music and, 6, 13; of photo­ 126; sense and sensuality of, 140–41;
graphs, 80, 82; on re­sis­tance, Tristan and Isolde, 134, 137, 145,
237 308n9; vulgarity of, 142–43
Negri, Antonio, 30, 152, 153 Ostwald, Peter, 47, 61–62
Nelson, Maggie, 235
Neptune, Harvey, 94, 111–12 painting: aural accompaniments, 18–19;
Newton, Huey P., 250 exhibits, 73; lyricism in, 21; materiality
New York City, 176–77 of, 238; per­for­mance and, 23–24, 26;
Nkrumah, Kwame, 231 realist, 74; sociality of, 83; temporaliza-
Norman, Jessye, 118, 120, 121, 129, tion of, 77–80; truth of, 239; Tshibum-
132–33 ba’s, 13–19; writing and, 82
nothingness and no-­thingness, 154, 158, paradise, 171–72
201–3, 204, 224; absolute, 261; beauty paraontology, 312n1
and, 228; of blackness, 210; ­future and, Parker, William, 302n43
240; misunderstood, 241; practice of, patriarchy, 208, 278
220 Patterson, Benjamin, 134–35, 142–46;
not-­in-­between, concepts, 266, 269; Lick Piece, 135–39
of addressability, 242; of blue and Pérez-­Torres, Rafael, 110
black, 237, 238; in James’s The Black per­for­mance: aesthetic and, 26; archi-
Jacobins, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12; postcolonial tecture and, 187; body in, 134–35, 140;

336 / Index
 ethnographic, 22; Glenn Gould’s, 48, psycho-­analysis, 53, 56; transference,
57–65; object and, vii, 33, 35–37, 68; 300n43
operatic, 118, 120–21, 128; oral, 17;
paintings and, 23–24, 26; potential, queerness, 192–93, 207
130; practice and, 207; recording and,
51, 60, 121, 129; rematerialization of, race, 165–66
193; of the repetition, 50–51; of ritual, racial and sexual difference, 122, 129,
236; studies, 34, 35–38; temporality 299n43
of, 51 racialization, 52, 74, 140, 222, 300n43
performer–­audience relationship, 45–46 racism, 112, 165, 293n3
personality, 278 radiophonics, 1, 19, 24
phantasy. See fantasy Rakim, 160, 271, 274; “I Know You Got
phenomenology, 36, 267–69 Soul,” 272–73
Philip, M. NourbeSe, 160 Rankine, Claudia, 243
phonic substance, 19, 26, 62–63, 65 Rapaport, Hermann: on Furtwängler’s
phonograph/phonography, 1, 4, 19, 118; conducting style, 104, 105–6; on
Adorno’s views on, 121, 123–24 musical headings, 99–100; Toscanini-­
photo­graphs: Eakins’s ­little girl photo, Furtwängler comparison, 96–99
70–72, 75, 80; Lygia Clark’s work, real­ity–­fantasy distinction, 52–53
194–95; movement and, 73; phono- rec­ord industry, 114–15
graphs and, 126 refuse/refusal, theater of, 256, 257,
physical embodiment, 162 259–61, 266
­Piper, Adrian, 135, 143, 198, 218, 233 relationality, 204, 255, 257, 259, 274
plea­sure, 28–29 Rembrandt, 240–41
poetry, 3, 11, 215, 271 repair, concepts, 168, 169
po­liti­cal power, 257 repre­sen­ta­tion and self-­representation,
Pontalis, Jean-­Bertrand, 52–55 23, 193, 223, 228, 259; relation as,
portraiture and self-­portraiture, 221–22, 204–5
239, 315n1; the face and, 234, 252 reproduction, mechanical, 48, 50, 51, 119,
posing and positioning, 141–42; agency 145; of motion, 70, 73
or sovereignty and, 72, 76; history of, Revolt of the Cockroach ­People, The
71, 75, 80 (Acosta), 212–13
postcolonial futurity, 1, 21–22, 25–26, 29 revolution, 38–39; theory and practice
postdiscipline, 34, 37, 38 of, 2, 4, 8
poverty, 152–54, 156, 283 rhythm and beat, 103–7, 108, 150; feeling
Powell, Colin, 294n3 and, 114, 117
practices, concepts, 34–35, 275, 278 Rice, Condoleeza, 294n3
prayer, 231, 233–34, 237, 244, 313n1; Richards, Sandra, 130
preparation and, 168–69 Richard II (Shakespeare), 245–46, 255,
Priestly, Brian, 92–95 266
privacy, 203–4 Richmond, Dannie, 93
privilege and precarity, 219–21, 281 Ritson, Alicia, 312n1
proletariat, 12, 286n17 Robinson, Cedric, 12, 67, 210, 217; black
property, 185, 186, 187 radicalism, 6, 7–9, 29, 110, 130
prostitution, 71–72 Roddy, Joseph, 60–61

Index / 337
Rodney, Walter, 286n17 57; dissonance, 128, 130; image and,
Rollins, Sonny, 295n12 26–27, 41, 70, 79; light and, 218; in
Rosen, Charles, 127–30 lit­er­a­ture, 3; painting and, 18–20, 26;
Rough Americana (Mutamassik/Morgan relative place of, 52; in Rough Ameri­
Craft), 147–51 cana, 147–51; valorization of, 121. See
Rudder, David, 108, 117, 304n51 also ­music; opera
soundscape, 148–49, 151
Sahlins, Marshall, 258–59 sovereignty, 73, 247, 254–56, 266, 269;
Said, Edward, 56, 58, 101, 108, 196 autopositioning of, 72; democ­ratization
Saul, Scott, 103 of, 251; re­sis­tance to, 222
Schneemann, Carolee, 134–38, 145 spatialization, 77, 78, 109–10
Schneider, Rebecca, 134–36, 291n8 speech–­writing interplay, 3–4, 7
Schoenberg (Schönberg), Arnold, 57, 85, Spicer, Edward, 109
288n7; on dissonance, 127, 128; Erwar­ Spillers, Hortense, ix, xi, xiii, 67, 69, 278
tung, 118, 122–23, 127, 129–33, 306n1 Spivak, Gayatri, 273, 305n69
Searle, John, 259 Stevens, Wallace, 226, 229, 257
self-­condemnation and self-­ Subotnik, Rose Rosengard, 121, 123, 128,
determination, 214, 249–50, 255–56, 131, 306n2
314n2 surplus, 17, 34–35, 101; lyricism, 1, 20, 21;
self-­reflection, 251, 256 object and, 38–39
sense and sensuality, 140–41, 238 Swann-­Wright, Dianne, 153
sense datum, 204 Swed, Mark, 252
seriality, 233, 234, 253, 254; blue, 240; swing, 94, 95, 99–100, 304n47; in Gersh­
motion and, 75 win, 98; originary displacement of, 108
severalty, 220–22
sexuality, 74–75; autonomy, 111; musi- tactile experience, 61–64
cians and, 100, 103, 106–7 Taylor, Cecil, 53; death of parents, 178,
Shatz, Adam, 271, 276, 278 180; encounter with Samuel Delany,
Skinner, B. F., 37 175–77; piano playing, 180–81
slavery: escape, 68–69; freedom and, temporal geography, 109
xii, 76; global modernity and, 198; thingliness: of artwork, 99; audiovisual,
knowledge of, 76, 90; proletariat and, 132; counterpoint and, 46; image and,
286n17; vio­lence of, x 205; machinic, 177; personhood and,
Smith, Wadada Leo, xiii 186; of swing ­music, 99–100; tempo-
Snoop Dogg, 276–77, 278 rality and, 77, 96, 101
sociality and antisociality, 202–3, 204, Thirty Two Short Films about Glenn
244; of blackness, 272, 275 Gould (Girard): Forty-­Nine, 288n7;
solitude, 44, 46, 48, 58, 269 Glenn Gould Meets Glenn Gould,
something–­nothing relationship, 154–57 44–45; Gould’s performativity, 64;
Son, Hoyun, 253, 269 Hamburg, 40–44, 45–47, 48, 56, 63,
sonata: definition, 287n2; fantasy and, 56. 289n8; The Idea of North, 47, 58;
See also ­under Beethoven, Ludwig van “Practice” and “Passion according to
sonorities, 56–57, 304n47 Gould,” 65
sound: black, 130; body and, 125–26; thought, concepts, 66–67
color and, 22, 88; counterpoint and, time signature, 104–6

338 / Index
tonality/atonality, 82, 123, 129–30 black/queer maternity, 178; of diaspora,
Toscanini, Arturo: Beethoven’s Fifth Sym- 116, 301n43; of muted speech, 228;
phony, 96–97; Heideggerian philoso- state monopolization of, 224
phy and, 98–99 voice: black, 127, 130, 132; male vs.
totality, 189; fantasy and, 54, 56, 65; in female, 125–26
film, 41, 51, 65; h
­ uman, 185; in ­music, vulnerability, 241–42
40, 44, 52; in paintings, 15, 22; paraon-
tological, 110, 130, 157; social, 23, 52 Walker, David, 3
Toussaint L’Ouverture, François Domi- Wallace, Maurice, 69, 161
nique, 4–10, 12 Washington, Kamasi: dinner with ­father
transcendence, 48–49, 62 (Rickey), 270–71; The Epic, 277–78;
Trinidad, 94, 111–12, 234, 304n51 playing with Snoop Dogg, 276–77
Tshibumba Kanda Matulu: African cul- wealth: communal, 188; Marx on, 185,
ture and, 23, 25; as a historian, 13–14, 196; poverty and, 152–54, 156; private,
17; paintings of Lumumba, 14–17, 21; 190; rematerialization of, 186, 196
per­for­mance and, 26; politics and aes- Weber, Max, 50
thetics, 23, 27; post/colonialism and, Webern, Anton, 85
1, 22; retelling of dream, 23–24; sound white flight, 208–10
and content of paintings, 18–19 whiteness, 210, 227, 238, 281, 312n1
Turot, Henri, 71 white ­people, 54, 280–81
Wiggins, Cynthia, 74
United States, 115; acad­emy, 34, 37, 38; Wildness (Wu Tang), 213
Mexico relations, 109–11; military oc- Williams, Carla, 72
cupation in Trinidad, 111–12, 304n51, Williams, William Carlos, 107, 303n46
305n63 Willis, Deborah, 72
universality, 1, 20, 37, 53, 96; of individual Wilson, Olly, 106, 108
needs, 185, 187 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 36, 203–4, 234,
utopia, 30, 33, 189–90 237; The Blue and Brown Books, 246,
utterance, accompaniments, 18–19, 63, 252; seriality blues, 253
64–65 writing: Adorno on, 81–82, 118–19, 120,
128; aesthetic and, 118; materiality
Vazquez, Alexandra, 277 and, 78; the rec­ord and, 126; reproduc-
vio­lence, ix–xi, 146, 150, 220, 256; of art, tion of, 119; sound and, 121; speech
233, 248; black-­on-­black, 314n2; of and, 3–4, 7

Index / 339
This page intentionally left blank
This page intentionally left blank
This page intentionally left blank