p.185
“And their corporeal and facial look is also potentially transformable as the ‘computer hand’ has the ability to reach into the guts of a photograph.”
At what point was nature representable without hands being involved?
Does the rose still have teeth in the mouth of the beast?
Life in the woods with the bears.
Visceral metaphors. Guts… gutsy.
Is the game, with words, which we cannot avoid and give meaning to everything which is not words, even if those things transcend or evade or decline words - not that we are always already trapped in representation? Still. Again.
And in this the giftcurse of irony?
Whether we are seeing nature or representation we are never and have never been getting what we are seeing only what we are reading and able to read and able to not read and notread. We are always handling everything, always in its guts, always in its face, its hair, its swear and its cunt. Always in its balls. In its blood and its viruses. We are in its phlegm, its black bile and its yellow bile, in its mucus and its blood. In its uteral lining. In its pre-come. In its cancer. In its deep vein thromboses and creutzfeldt jacobs disease/bovine spongiform encephalopathy.