Mark Foster Gage and OOO
While reading it, I was come upon a significant issue where Harman is revealed to his metaphysics.
It appears Gage is an architect that only makes art, but his art uses the state of technology to make structures that appear like they are photos of actual buildings, even though the art may defy what we are able to physically construct as a usable building.
And here is where the issue appears, and is where I think Harman and OOO is finding most of its purchase in at least architecture (Harman works as SCIarc in Los Angeles, an architectural school).
Gage says that he likes to deal in structures that appear real, but are not.
Now, I know what he means, and that’s why in the paragraph above I tried my best not to use the word “real”, And instead use the words “actual” and “usable” and etc.
￼￼￼And this use of “real” by Gage appears to me fitting with OOO Becuase Harman says the real object withdraws from view, or is always kept neatly out of sight, harboring itself in the shadows.
Where I differ with Harman and this kind of OOO metaphysics is when I ask if the art that gage is making is itself real. Are the structures in his art real ? And my next question thus asked in what way am I able to even perceive Gage’s structures in the art itself is not real.
I have a comment on Harman that will only get answered after I die, maybe (lol) For the simple fact that Harmon will never stoop to answer my question or address my point. 🙂
Nevertheless, I submit that Harmans OOO is concerned with philosophical objects, and due to this focus, understands reality is hidden behind a screen of sense. We can begin to see that Harman’s real objects reflect that he sees himself as dealing with thought as the foundation of everything else, Becuase obviously he is using his proposal in a field of other equally valid proposals of thoughts, the actual object they talk about, then, withdraws from the discussion. In this way. Harman’s proposal falls flat so much as it indeed might have to do with real things.
I am skeptical of this kind of hinting that uses thought as unapproachable while foregrounding the discourse as though he is not merely using sleight of hand to not be using his centrality of thinker position.
And I think I thus see an irony that Harman attempts to avoid by simply remaining in philosophical space as though it is able to address all things outside of it. ￼
I side more with Bruno Latour, one of Harmans hero’s, ironically again. Latour suggests that reality is right in front of us at all times, harboring no actuality of itself, nothing hidden, but objects occurring within networks of objects.
What is in the shadows appears to me to be merely another kind of phenomenalism, yet of a kind that Harman decries.
I cannot but wonder how OOO has taken the full power of phenomenal assertion to argue a metaphysics that only has substance due to the motion that Latour describes in his book “The Pasteuriszation of France”. Namely, that Harmon must argue a shadowy reality Becuase Harman is involved in a kind of Pasturian scientific phenomenon where time moves due to a certain kind of religious adherence to phenomenal intension and its power to ignore what Adler and Hillman might call “inferior”. Harman, while his idea to me appears sound, is being used in a particularly dishonest manner, one which only acknowledges the “presence of the superior”.
See my posts on bad faith.