Robert Hayes Kee,
Department of Polite Aesthetic Praxis
I am extremely
pleased to continue this second volume of Practicing Etiquette. Your
continued interest in my discourse on the all-too-human is powerful
approbation for this writer. I have been quite busy at my desk in the
back of the library. This time to write to you is a welcome reprieve
from daily affairs. The year has brought itself wholly out of
winter‘s slumber here in the capital of the south. The city has
been active in all quarters, a great number of visitors have come
through my domicile and I have not spent so many nights in the
galleries in several years. I have nonetheless been greatly reward
for expending some time in the home.
A single tulip
has sprouted in my yard, wholly at random. The red petals of this
single flower have surprised and reminded me of the value of chance
and the centrality of the dice roll to any powerful esthetic praxis.
We cannot engage in the world, in life at all, without accepting the
omnipresence of absurdity, buried deep in the core of the
contemporary world. Do not try to dig up this buried treasure,
fearing the dangers of the unexpected or seeking pecunious reward.
Allow it to grow its own flowers and surprise you too, dear readers.
Robert Hayes Kee
interlocutor with an inferior esthetic praxis has requested my
involvement in their project. I, of course, have an established and
fruitful esthetic praxis of my own that I do not wish to taint with
the tabefying concerns of my interlocutor. How may I avoid both
collaboration and confrontation?
We should broadly
approach collaboration with a liberal eye. The considered encounter
of power praxes will outstrip any rote combination of their parts. We
must remain open to the essential nonlinearity of esthetic praxis.
The results of esthetic praxis exceed our ability to predict them on
an extravagant scale.
However, our time,
especially our time dedicated to esthetic reflection, is allotted all
too parsimoniously to give of this precious body to unctuous
inferiority. The rigors of a strong praxis do not allow for the
arbitrary involvement of others. I dare say that even the composer of
the chance piece does not wish to take their chances performing that
piece in the middle of the road.
If there is something to be gained
from engaging the praxis of this interlocutor, do so radically on
your own terms. It has been wisely stated that it is crucial to
consider what is not included in a piece. Strongly broaden that
aspect, allow for a voluminous scope. Neither announce nor plan your
involvement in this next performance. Allow the work to present the
ideal context for your involvement. Bringing a knife to canvas has
brought more recent attention painting than any recent event, so
disconnect your hand from the work to avoid bringing attention to
your interlocutor. The broader possibilities in the field for
wireless explosives should not be overlooked.
take broad interest in a number of subjects and in many broad facets
of life. I have, therefore, collected a great number of things over
my life. Interlocutors advise me that the volume of my possessions
exceeds reason, and that I should lighten the load on the foundation
of my home. Is it polite to hold so tightly onto a great breadth of
possessions? Do I exceed the bounds of decency with this
I am acutely sensitive to your
position, dear reader. I too find delight in a myriad of possessions
that befuddle many of my interlocutors. My fondness for the castoffs
of libraries alone consumes as much space as one my cohabitants. One
could grow a garden in the space I have dedicated to pictures of
flowers. The praxis of the librarian is an art without parallel. Even
amateur efforts in this line can produce all the beauty apparent in
the lines of Wölfli. I encourage all readers to make an esthetic
praxis of maintaining their voluminous possessions and references.
It seems to me
that your interlocutors favor domestic sparseness over breath of
access to the strong praxes of others. This shortsighted concession
is a sacrifice several orders of magnitude to their detriment. Few of
us have resources to match our avarice for pansophy. Accept no
limitation to the scope of your archive. Use third and fourth
editions as the outer-most layer of your privé
praxis has developed a standing in the marketplace in the recent
past. This standing has afforded me an audience Épater la
bourgeoisie. Given the general indecency that is enterprise, am I
within the bounds of politeness to accept an emolumented position
with one of these behemoths of capital?
As a philosophy student who has only
ever labored in the library of the university, I have little
first-hand knowledge with the prospect of success in the bounds of
capitalism. I view your prospect with suitable interest for such a
surreal proposition. To refuse capital on principled ground seems
very silly indeed.
opportunities literally afforded by excessive resources have been
explored by precious few. To burn a pile of money is a sophomoric
gesture; realizing a base metaphor is rarely a praxis of value. Grow
beyond the basic absurdity of the fact that we have paper money that
is a few numbers and a messy mélange of foundational symbols,
and not the fine pages of this magazine, and wield purchasing power
in the name of genuine lunacy.
To refuse this
chance for heightening the world’s absurdity so decisively
would be irresponsible. You could be living the life of a human who
only wears eelskin socks. The best-funded museum of surreality in
this country is dedicated to Avida Dollars. Become such a site
yourself. I will absolve your remaining guilt in return for a pair of