1: Travel to an initial site of meaning for a work. Provide a dissection of the act of travelling to the site. Think about space and time, and their relationship to objects.
2: Objectively describe the map of the site. Objectively describe the populist representation of the site.
3: How is the site represented? What is called attention to? Form a sentence that compares your own personal narrative to that representation.
4: Informally invent your own god. Find them in history, botany, geography, anything arcane. Name them. Name what they command. Have them comment on the site.
5: Show that there is a poetic violence that all these things imply. How has it been recontextualized? What is being misplaced?
Talk about the actual work:
The 1st piece:
Describe it objectively, simply, but imply a purpose.
e.g. “supported from above and below by the scorched earth alone.”
Form one sentence on what is being acheived.
The 2nd piece:
Objective description only. The purpose and activity are already implied. Invoke your god again. Back him up with a metaphor found on the site. Now, talk about that metaphor in a completely abstract manner. What are the implications of this in the site?
The 3rd piece:
Launch into a poetic anecdote with no preamble. Describe objectively the third piece. Describe the transformation from the site the work entails. Describe how this relates to the anecdote, how it encompasses it. In terms of material and medium, take apart what is happening here. What is metaphysical about these objects?
e.g. “Space is the remains or corpse, of time. It has dimensions. Objects are sham space, the excrement of thought and language, Objects are phantoms of the mind, as false as angels.”
Provide a scientific fact that relates to your anecdote. Relate it to your god, and the “coincidence” at hand. Speak in the god's voice about a contemporary reference. Have the god disappear in front of your eyes. Describe this performance.
The 4th piece:
Describe a failure of the medium. Describe how the experience cannot be described. What are the implications of these two failures?
e.g. Surd 1) Voiceless. 2) Incapable of being expressed in rational numbers. Irrational.
The 5th piece:
Describe and dissemble the essential qualities of the pieces. Become confused and enthralled. Take apart matter. Question the existence of everything and/or anything. Suggest future possibilites of making.
The 6th piece:
Bring your own narrative into the work again. Describe your experience of moving through a place and in the same way describe a piece. What is the speed, disorientation, and perimeter?
The 7th piece:
Talk about the history that is being drawn from; not only what is being referenced, but also what subject is being addressed by both the present work and its referent. Speak about how complexity incites dematerialization. Relate this to a past work. Theorize as to their relationship. Find an unlikely viewer for the work. Tell their experience.
The 8th piece:
Question the ability to write and talk about the work. Question your ability to look at the work, to understand it.
e.g. “ Oh, for the happy days of pure walls and pure floors!”
Question the efficacy of a narrative memory.
The 9th piece:
Analyze the form of the site and how it is reflected in the work. Claim that the site itself is a work. Have your god propose a work.
1: Talk about the discrepancies of metaphor.
2: Talk about the invented memories of a place where you have never been.
3: Talk about the hypothetical inexistence of an experience.
e.g. “vacant memories constellating the intangible terrains in deleted vicinites. It is the dimension of absence that remains to be found. The expunged colour that remains to be seen. The fictive voices of the totems have exhausted their arguments [The conversation is over]. Yucatan [the site, the jungle, the garden, the desert, the conservatory, the museum] is elsewhere.”