Practicing Etiquette, Issue II.II
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

March 30th

Atlanta, GA

An 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.

I 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 fastidiousness?

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 bibliothèque.

My 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.

The beautiful 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 eelskin socks.