Rooted in Multiplicty

"...my work is most successful when I'm falling apart a little bit in front of you..."--- Julie Tolentino.

This is the phrase I've been looking for within my own muses. I'm attempting to unravel myself in front of you in order to show you how to unravel your self. I become your object for self discovery. The vulnerability I'm catering to, displaying more than hearts on sleeves or candid cliches, is a developmental tactic. Fighting off my own barriers has been liberating, though a seeming producer of anxiety attacks and hurtful epiphanies of displaced moments in time.

I've long thought that the give/take of interactions warranted an equilibrium. Physicality shows that in speaking/listening we mediate our language through our body: hand gestures, breathing patterns, heart rates, and facial expressions. Conversation, the dialectic exchange/receive procedure personified, is naturally something of a give and take, push and pull entity. As person a enters person b's space, person b natural moves back a bit (though how much is dependent on the individual's space bubble/comfort with confrontation).

This banter has always provided thought provoking insights into the human condition. The fragility even the strongest of persona's possess within defense mechanisms and other insecurities are amplified and often projected.

Undercutting projections is what I am attempting to do, through somewhat of a middleman scenario, within my work. Two theories meshed together in potentiality.

One: to critique an existing situation reaffirm its existence. What does this mean? Over exaggerate and expand upon what's obviously at work. Re-itteration in re-presentation [re-representation].

I've often brainstormed that I should mix a little Lewis Carroll into my work. Communicative exchange to have a use rate--- perhaps tie a little tag to my neck that says "Use Me" or "Share Me" or "Neglect Me" or "Watch Me" just as the liquid in Alice in Wonderland says "Drink Me" and the biscuits say "Eat Me". Each produces an action that in turn produces a chain of reactions. This is very much how I interpret conversation, at both its most basic and complex levels. By drawing more attention to the purpose of the exchange we begin to critique the event: macro and micro, motif and motivation.

Two: to critique an existing situation represent in opposition. A more normative response to understanding or critique. The offer of something different to either make a point concrete or crumbling is a frequented method of debate. 

This is me when I openly succumb to vulnerability in front of an audience, open myself to objectification (sometimes passively demanding it), in order to provide a better understanding of vulnerability as a universal trait. I become of screen for projection, unidentifiable as an individual until after the performance, stripped and white washed until the only thing left to see is a reflection of the viewer. Opposing any identity, forces the projection, and then (especially in intimate pieces) becomes a critique of the individual itself. Simultaneously, vulnerability is the loudest of what is being viewed. This opposition to that stasis of what we interpret the 'self' to be (reference phrases and connotations of strong sense of self or concrete beliefs or rooted opinions) in turn critiques from an all over approach.

A multiplicitous identity is hard to place, as multiplicitous often seems synonymous with instability. Plurality, however, is hardly without root or foundation. The whole may seem shaking when denounced to parts but with a multiplicitous media, mediation, and motivation the bonds prevail the whole to be consequential to its various parts. The dialogue begins in a presence through absence. We escapade through muted audio and shouting caps locked subtitles. We dig to the roots. We find the stability branching off in every direction under the ground.