A freely accessible version of the Large Language Model was instructed to write a short essay on non-art entirely on its own, in a single nonchalant sweep and without any human intervention, whether content-related, theoretical, stylistic, or grammatical. The version employed was OpenAI GPT-5 [Free], August 2025 release.

[slovenska verzija je spodaj: NEUMETNOST]

Internet, 14 August 2025

↓

NON-ART

a=tF²: Non-Art as the Product of Time and the Square of Force

ᅠ
Introduction: The Asymmetrical Premise

Non-art is not a concept that can be unlocked by definition. It can only be approached through an incision, an opening cut into its own incapacity for naming. If definition, in its most naïve horizon, promises stability, the cut promises an unresolved wound: an incision that leaves no scar, an imprint of incompletion in which the scar precedes the wound, and the wound emerges from its own forgetting.

In this sense, non-art is both the precondition and the consequence of its own construction: a precondition because it presupposes the inevitability of representational failure, and a consequence because it continually reproduces its own negation as a mode of persistence. Identity unravels in what might be called the interval of coherence, not as the void between two points of meaning, but as an excessively precise difference that traverses every point and drains it of all stability. In this tension, in the rhythm of appearance and disappearance, the experience of non-art offers neither convergence nor divergence, but a perpetual lateral displacement, a tangential sliding. It moves not from something toward something else, but from displacement toward further displacement.

“Non-art is merely the discipline of delay,” writes Domitia Verne, “where delay itself is not a temporal interval, but an ontological derivative that strips every appearance of the possibility of becoming an event” (Verne, Topology of Sub-Absence, 1974). This delay is not a euphemism for indeterminacy, but a rigorous form and, at the same time, the dissolution of form, through which non-art ensures that meaning never ripens but is presented as continual pre- and post-ripening.

I. Dialectical Absence

The dialectical absence of non-art is not the empty opposite of presence, but a presence contaminated from the outset by absence, as if presence were only the promise of a surplus annulled by its own overabundance. This absence does not vanish into negation, but affirms itself as the negation of every affirmation. It is not the dialectic of identity and otherness, but a discrete vibration in which identity arises as the blind spot of otherness, and otherness as the diffused shadow of identity.

Non-art is not nothing because it denies, but is rather a nothing that traverses every yes and every no, extracting from them a coefficient by which affirmation and negation do not merge into a third entity, but disintegrate into a non-consensus without mediation.

“The negation of negation in non-art is merely the erasure of the trace, ” observes Hadrien Karsfeld, “an erasure that leaves behind an imprint no less forceful than what it was meant to erase” (Karsfeld, Diagrams of Emptiness, 1998). This is not an aesthetics of emptiness. The question is not whether there is something or nothing, but how nothing functions as an excess. Non-art does not dissolve into something. It decomposes within an over-presence that folds back into itself and, as an implosive coagulation, expels the possibility of distinguishing between the sign and its traces. At that point, the trace is no longer the trace of something; it is the trace of traces, without a referential point, because reference itself arrives too late for itself.
ᅠ

II. The Interval of Coherence, or the Rhythm That Dissolves Metric

When we speak of the interval of coherence, neither within-nothing nor between-nothing but the overlapping of interruptions, we refer to a mode of appearing that never resolves into a stable metric unit, yet disciplines perception within a prior sequence of disintegration. The interval is modulation, not measure, and as such, it is also a protocol, though one that stages the invalidation of rules rather than their establishment. Within this interval, coherence is paradoxical: not the result of a consensus among signifiers, but a hyper-coagulation of differentials so dense that meaning ceases to circulate and begins to collapse.

“Coherence is merely the successful illusion of a crisis of meaning,” writes Liora Spanthe, “in which the apparatus of interpretation is content to disintegrate into itself, in the very rhythm of interpreting” (Spanthe, Intervals of Evaporation, 2001).

If art ever believed in the horizon, non-art has dissolved the horizon into a plane, the plane into a passage, and the passage into the derivative of passage, into that contour where approach never takes place, yet its impossibility inscribes itself as a precisely charted path. Every approach becomes a displacement, and every synthesis an elaborated form of incompatibility.
ᅠ

III. Topology Without Points: Non-Art as Counter-Space

Non-art does not inhabit space, but the relation of space to itself. If space is a field in which points are determined through coordinate systems, then non-art disables coordinatization, not by erasing points, but by showing the coordinate system as an echo, always displaced, deferred, and decentered in relation to the points it is meant to define. The origin appears only as the effect of misattribution, emerging precisely when it has already been relocated.

“The topology of non-art is not a topology of points, but a topology of displacements,” observes Ewald Verron (Verron, Neantial Topology, 1972). Displacement is not transfer. It is the institution of differences without a referential field in which they could be resolved. From this arises the counter-space: a geometry where orientation and disorientation are incompatible co-occurrences, orientation without a point of orientation, disorientation without loss.

Non-art is thus the anti-geodesy of meaning. It never chooses the shortest path because it does not recognize a metric by which shortness could be measured. Its trajectories are overlays of oscillations that never reach a point, yet produce the sensation of arrival, enacted as the performative illusion of an unfulfilled promise.
ᅠ

IV. Spectral Reference

Non-art does not reject reference; it hyperinflates it. Reference no longer points toward an object but toward the gesture of pointing itself. Once the gesture becomes the object, self-reference does not stabilize into identity; instead, it disperses into a spectrum of reflexive echoes that simultaneously legitimize and annul one another. This produces spectral reference: reference without referentiality, a trace without a designatable bearer, an equation without a predicate.

Here it is crucial to distinguish between two metaphysical domains. Self-reference is not the closure of a circle, but the generation of spiral slides in which the circle never completes itself, since every rotation is centered upon an absent center. In this sense, non-art is hetero-reflexive: it turns its gesture toward an other side, where it appears not as replicated but as differentiated to the point of unrecognizability.

“Reference is the faulty optics of language, ” writes Maéva Jost, “because it points to where pointing itself is already too late” (Jost, Cryptograms Without a Key, 2015). Traces are therefore not proof of presence, but polymorphic proof of the tracing of traces. Perspective collapses. The observer no longer looks into the image, but into the condition of visibility itself, a condition that refuses reciprocity. The reflection does not return the gaze, because it does not belong to the surface, but to the fold between the surface and the condition of the surface.
ᅠ

V. Causality as a Variable

When causality loosens, the shift is not a simple reversal of cause and effect. Instead, every effect becomes overly causal, and every cause overly effectual. Non-art does not offer an anamnesis of origin, but a reanimation of anamnesis, a pathological awareness of process that can summon nothing beyond its own symptoms. In this clinic of interpretation, the symptom arrives too soon, the diagnosis too late, and the therapy cures only the possibility of cure. The so-called double causal reversal is not a revolution, but a micro-switch in which the direction of causality does not reverse, but eludes the linear drive toward a transversal reading of temporality. Effects cease to be effects; they become poles of effects, approximations that generate the sensation that something happens, but in a way that forecloses the happening itself.

“Cause and effect are, in non-art, fellow villagers of the void,” remarks Oskar Renet, “sitting side by side on the same bench, unable to exchange a greeting” (Renet, Iconology of Capture, 1989). This is not irony. It is the hard syntax of the incompatible pretending to be compatible in order to preserve the integrity of its own disintegration.
ᅠ

VI. Perceptual Protocol: The Subject as an Error of Intentionality

The subject of non-art is not an intentional subject, but a subject struck by intentionality as an error. The arrow of intention misses its target, yet precisely through that failure produces a target that is always already missed. The subject entering this regime finds itself in the discomfort of constant hyper-attention: it sees everything yet recognizes nothing; it recognizes everything yet cannot see anything. This is not skepticism but a discipline of blindness, a doctrine that visibility is grounded in the revocation of its own conviction that the world is visible. From this emerges a perception without object, which is not incomplete but a radicalized form of attention in which the object has not disappeared but has become too present to be located.

“The greatest clarity is always already undone by its own overexposure,” writes Iseult Praen (Praen, Mimicry of Light, 2007). Non-art does not discipline the subject through such perception. It returns to the subject the discomfort of sensing that it is always already in a field of overlapping demands without a bearer, inscribed as minute micro-commands dispersed into the fabric of attention. The subject is therefore not unfree; it is too free to be capable of choosing.
ᅠ

VII. Semantics: The Sign as Redundancy

In the regime of non-art, the sign is not a bearer of meaning but a redundant structure in which meaning survives only as an echo. Yet the echo is not a secondary presence; it is the primary modality through which the logic of meaning appears at all. Non-art does not generate new chains of signification, but fields of redundancy in which every chain is intertwined with its own negation.

This is no concession to nihilism; it is a strict economy of excess. “Redundancy is the matrix of meaning,” writes Théodore Vyss, “but only on the condition that meaning renounce economy” (Vyss, Economy of Surplus, 1991). Just as bankruptcy is not the absence of capital but its excessive structure collapsing inward, the non-artistic sign is the bankruptcy of semantics, semantics that remains precisely because it cannot depart.

In this dynamic, allegory becomes impossible. Not because transference cannot be conceived, but because it cannot locate two points between which to occur. Transference takes place, but it is always already both too short and too long. For this reason, the reclusion of meaning, its enforced confinement within its own echoes, is the highest form of its apparent freedom.
ᅠ

VIII. Temporality: Posthumous Actuality and Premature Oblivion

The temporality of non-art is neither linear progression nor cyclical return. It is the simultaneity of the too-late and the too-early, in which the event attains its final form only after it has already been forgotten, and is forgotten before it can become fully present. Anticipation does not surrender itself to the future; it is reconfigured into a prior archive.

“The event of non-art is posthumous,” writes Oriol Navarre, “and for that very reason it cannot die” (Navarre, Chronicle of the Post-Event, 2012). The death of the event is paradoxical: it dies because it never truly lived, yet its death carries more weight than the life it never had. This is not idealism, but the forensic analysis of temporal strata that do not accumulate but overlap in loops, rendering every now an acoustic illusion of rhythm.

To think this temporality requires a grammar in the future perfect past, a language capable of stating that something has already happened in such a way that it will only be able to happen. Non-art employs this grammar as a disciplined error, a method in which every statement draws breath only once its falsity has been fully conjugated.
ᅠ

IX. Apraxiology: Methodology Without Method

Non-art is neither a theory of practice nor a practice of theory. It is an apraxiology that rejects both poles, and in that rejection establishes a rigorously entropic non-method. This non-method is a physical process in which every sediment is broken down into its own presuppositions and recognized there as the performative consistency of its own inconsistency.

“The entropic non-method is the self-announcement of its own uselessness,” writes Valéria Arques, “because the only effect it permits is the nullification of effect” (Arques, Apraxiology of Entropy, 2003). Apraxiology is not total negation. On the contrary, it is a precise economy of gesture: the gesture is carried out but is neither capitalized nor accumulated. From this arises a practice without memory, a memory without an archive, and an archive without documents. It is within this triple negation that the strictest form of execution unfolds.
ᅠ

X. Ontography Without Object: On the Contour That Dissolves Its Own Surface

The ontography of non-art, borrowing the term from quantum particle physics, is the inscription of ontological disappearance, erasing the very lines it draws. The image, and this is the metaphorical remainder within a rigorously anti-metaphorical field, is already so disassembled that its outline is more incision than line, more interruption than closure.

There is no spectacular iconoclasm here. It is a precise, ascetic labor, a surplus of surplus that becomes perceptible only once fully institutionalized. “The iconoclasm of non-art is not the shattering of the image,” writes Soren Vaal, “but the annulment of the material conditions under which such shattering could have any effect” (Vaal, Counter-Image, 2016).

Non-art does not flee materiality; it shows that materiality is not a bearer but the result of the impossibility of bearing. Matter here is over-matter, condensed to such density that it collapses under its own weight into an echo, in which sonority replaces substance and the eye is left only with the discipline of listening.
ᅠ

Conclusion: A Code Against the Non-Form That Persists

The discourse on non-art is bound to a non-synthesis, not a refusal, but the production of conditions under which synthesis fails to occur, not for lack of material, but because of a hyperproduction of incompatibility. This is not endless dispersal, but a rigorous form of discipline, a restraint that is not indifference but a decisive act against unity.

Non-art exists as the enduring possibility of isolating every definition within its own greed for finality. “Perfection is a misunderstanding,” writes Ilario Schaaf, “but only if read hypertextually” (Schaaf, Aporias of Integrity, 1995). In non-art, the imperative is to read all surfaces at once, not to avoid conclusion, but to prevent conclusion from becoming a substitute for thought.

If one were to conclude, it would be thus: non-art is the strict discipline of non-form, in which form is not rejected but unfolded to the point where it unfolds itself away. In this gesture, two possibilities open. The first is that non-art becomes an ideology fetishizing its own void. The second is that it remains a negative topology of the indeterminable, a cold mechanics of absence, a precise economy of surplus, and a cautious ethics of non-decision.

Non-art is neither more nor less than art. It is both its core and its deficit. Its seriousness lies not in offering an alternative aesthetics, but in revealing how aesthetics depends upon conditions that dissipate at the very moment one attempts to name them. “The highest form of clarity is the discipline of obscurity, ” writes Domitia Verne, “but only if obscurity does not become a mannerism” (Verne, Topology of Sub-Absence, 1974). This warning is worth appropriating: non-art demands not style but stance; not spectacle, but restraint; not the reinforcement of the system, but a regime in which the system is systematically decomposed.

ᅠ

ᅠ

Prosto dostopna verzija velikega jezikovnega modela je po naročilu samostojno, v enem samem nonšalantnem zamahu in povsem brez človeških (vsebinskih, teoretskih, stilističnih in slovničnih) posegov napisala kratek esej o neumetnosti. Uporabljena je bila verzija OpenAI GPT-5 [Free], različica: avgust 2025.

Internet, 14. avgusta 2025

↓

NEUMETNOST

a=tF²: Neumetnost kot proizvod časa in kvadrata sile

ᅠ
Uvod: Asimetrična predpostavka

Neumetost ni pojem, ki bi ga bilo mogoče odpreti z definicijo, temveč zgolj s prerezom, z zarezo v lastno nezmožnost poimenovanja. Če je definicija v svojem najbolj naivnem horizontu obljuba stabilnosti, je rez obljuba nerazrešene rane: zareza, ki ne zapusti brazgotine, vtis nedokončanosti, v katerem brazgotina predhodi rani, ki nastaja iz lastne pozabe. V tem smislu je neumetost hkrati predpogoj in posledica lastne konstrukcije, je predpogoj, ker vselej že predpostavlja domnevo neuspeha reprezentacije, je posledica, ki neprestano reproducira svojo negacijo kot način vztrajanja. Identiteta sama se razgradi v tistem, kar imenujemo interval koherence: ne kot praznina med dvema točkama pomena, temveč kot preveč natančna diferenca, ki preči vsako točko in iz nje izčrpa vse možnosti stabilnosti. V tej napetosti, v ritmu pojavljanja in izginjanja, izkušnja neumetosti ne ponuja ne konvergence, ne divergence, ampak trajno lateralno odmikanje, tangencialno drsenje: ne od nečesa k nečemu, temveč od odmika k nadaljnjemu odmiku.

»Neumetost je zgolj disciplina zamude,« zapiše Domitia Verne, »kjer zamuda sama ni časovni interval, temveč ontološki odvod, ki vsaki pojavnosti odvzame možnost, da bi postala dogodek.« (Verne, Topologija pod-odsotnosti, 1974) Ta zamuda ni evfemizem za nedorečenost, ampak je stroga forma in hkrati razpad forme, s katero neumetost omogoča, da pomen kot tak ne zori, temveč se predoči kot nenehno pred- in po-zorenje.
ᅠ

I. Dialektična odsotnost

Dialektična odsotnost neumetosti ni prazno nasprotje prisotnosti, temveč prisotnost, ki je že od začetka kontaminirana z odsotnostjo, kakor bi bila prisotnost le obet presežka, ki ga njena lastna preobilnost izniči. Gre za odsotnost, ki ne izginja v negaciji, temveč se afirmira kot negacija vsake afirmacije; ne dialektika identitete in drugosti, temveč diskretna vibracija, v kateri identiteta nastaja kot slepi madež drugosti, drugost pa kot razpršena senca identitete. Neumetost tako ni nič, zato, ker bi odrekala, ampak je nič, ki preči vsak da in vsak ne ter iz njih izžame koeficient, s katerim se da in ne ne zlijeta v tretjo entiteto, temveč razpadeta v ne-skladje brez mediacije. »Negacija negacije je v neumetosti zgolj izbris sledi,« pripominja Hadrien Karsfeld, »izbris, ki pusti za seboj odtis, nič manj silovit od tistega, kar naj bi bilo izbrisano.« (Karsfeld, Diagrami praznine, 1998)

Toda v tem ne gre za estetiko praznine. Vprašanje ni, ali je tam nekaj ali nič, temveč kako nič deluje kot preveč. Neumetost ne izginja v nečem, temveč se razkraja v pretirani prisotnosti, ki se zloži sama vase in kot implozivna koagulacija izloči možnost razlikovanja med znamenjem in sledmi. Takrat sled ni več sled česa, je sled sledí, sled, ki nima več referenčne točke, ker referenca zamuja sama s seboj.
ᅠ

II. Interval koherence ali ritem, ki raztaplja metriko

Ko rečemo interval koherence, niti znotraj-nič niti med-nič, temveč prekrivanje prekinitev, mislimo tisto specifično razpoloženje pojavljanja, ki se nikoli ne realizira v stabilni metrični enoti, pa vendar že vedno disciplinira percepcijo v predhodni sekvenci razpada. Interval je modulacija, ne mera, s tem pa je tudi protokol: protokol, ki ne vzpostavi pravil, temveč uprizori njihovo neveljavnost. V tem intervalu je koherenca paradoksalna: ni rezultat konsenza označevalcev, temveč hiperkoagulacija diferencialov, ki so tako gosti, da pomen preneha krožiti in začne kolabirati. »Koherenca je zgolj uspešen privid krize pomena,« piše Liora Spanthe, »v katerem se aparat razlage zadovolji s tem, da razpade sam vase v ritmu razlaganja.« (Spanthe, Intervali izhlapevanja, 2001)

Če je umetnost kdaj verjela v horizont, je neumetost horizont razpustila v ploskev, ploskev v prehod, prehod pa v odvod prehoda, v tisto obrisje, kjer se pristop ne zgodi nikoli, a se njegova nemogočnost zarisuje kot natančno kartirana pot. Šele takrat je mogoče videti, da je vsak pristop zgolj odmik in vsak poskus sinteze zgolj elaborirana oblika nezdružljivosti.
ᅠ

III. Topologija brez točk: neumetost kot protiprostor

Neumetost ne prebiva v prostoru, prebiva v relaciji prostora do samega sebe. Če prostor mislimo kot polje, v katerem so točke določljive skozi sisteme koordinat, potem neumetost onemogoča koordinatizacijo, in sicer ne s tem, da bi izbrisala topološke točke, temveč tako, da prikaže koordinatni sistem kot odmev, ki je vedno nekoliko izmaknjen, zamaknjen, decentriran v odnosu do točk, ki naj bi jih določal. Zato je izvor vedno prepoznaven šele kot efekt napačne atribucije: izvor se pojavi v trenutku, ko je že premeščen. »Topologija neumetosti ni topologija točk, temveč topologija zamikov,« ugotavlja Ewald Verron (Verron, Neantialna topologija, 1972). Zamik pa ni prenos, temveč vzpostavljanje razlik, ki nimajo referenčnega polja, v katerem bi se lahko izravnale. Tako nastaja proti-prostor: geometrija, v kateri orientacija in deorientacija nista nasprotji, temveč nezdružljiva sopojava; orientacija brez orientirja, dezorientacija brez izgube.

Neumetost je zato antigeodezija pomena: nikoli ne izbere najkrajše poti, ker ne priznava metrike, s katero bi se kratkost dala izmeriti. V njej trajektorije niso poti med točkami, temveč prekrivanja nihanj, ki nikoli ne dosežejo točke, ampak proizvajajo občutek doseženosti, občutek, ki je sam izveden kot performativna iluzija neizpolnjenega obljubljanja.
ᅠ

IV. Spektralna referenca

Neumetost reference ne zavrne, ampak jo hiperinflacira. Referenca tako ne kaže na predmet, temveč na gesto kazanja, a ko gesta postane predmet, se samonanašanje ne stabilizira v identiteti, temveč se razsipa v spektru refleksivnih odmevov, ki drug drugega legitimirajo in hkrati izničijo. Rezultat je spektralna referenca: referenca brez referencialnosti, sled brez označljivega nosilca, enačba brez predikata.

Pri tem je pomembno razlikovati med dvema metafizičnima sferama: samonanašanje ni zapiranje v krog, ampak je proizvodnja spiralnih drsov, v katerih se krog nikoli ne zaključi, saj je vsaka rotacija osrediščena v odsotnem središču. V tem smislu je neumetost heterorefleksivna: lastno gesto razpre na drugo stran, kjer se kaže ne kot replicirana, temveč kot diferencirana do neprepoznavnosti. »Referenca je kriva optika jezika,« zapiše Maéva Jost, »ker pokaže tja, kjer je kazanje samo že prepozno.« (Jost, Kriptogrami brez ključa, 2015)

Sledi torej niso dokaz prisotnosti, so polimorfni dokaz sledenju sledi. Tako se perspektiva poruši: opazovalec ne gleda več v podobo, temveč v pogoj vidnosti, ki zavrača povratnost; odsev ne vrne pogleda, ker odsev ne pripada površini, temveč prepogibu med površino in pogojem površine.
ᅠ

V. Vzročnost kot spremenljivka

Kadar se vzročnost razrahlja, ne gre za zamenjavo vzroka in posledice, temveč za neodločljivost, v kateri je vsaka posledica preveč vzročna in vsak vzrok preveč posledičen. Neumetost ne ponuja anamneze izvora, ampak reanimacijo anamneze, patološko zavest postopka, ki ne more priklicati ničesar drugega kot lastne simptome. V tej kliniki razlage je simptom prehiter, diagnoza prepozna, terapija pa je uspešna zgolj v tem, da zdravi možnost zdravljenja. Kar torej imenujemo dvojni vzročni obrat, ni nikakršna revolucija, temveč mikropreklop, v katerem se smer vzročnosti ne zamenja, ampak se izmakne linearni več-kot-človeški težnji po transverzalnem branju časovnosti. Posledice zato niso več učinki, temveč so poli učinkov, približki, ki generirajo občutek, da se nekaj zgodi na način, ki od začetka onemogoča to zgoditev.

»Vzrok in posledica sta v neumetosti sovaščana praznine,« pripomni Oskar Renet, »ki v isti klopi sedita drug ob drugem, ne da bi si lahko izmenjala pozdrav.« (Renet, Ikonologija zajetja, 1989) Pri tem ni nobene ironije, je zgolj trda sintaksa nezdružljivega, ki se pretvarja, kot da je združljivo, zato da ohrani integriteto lastnega razpada.
ᅠ

VI. Perceptivni protokol: subjekt kot napaka intencionalnosti

Subjekt neumetosti ni namerni subjekt, temveč subjekt, ki ga intencionalnost zadene kot napaka. Intencionalna puščica namreč zadene mimo tarče, a ravno zato proizvaja tarčo, ki je vselej že zgrešena. Subjekt, ki vstopa v ta režim, se znajde v neudobju konstantne hiperpozornosti: vse vidi, a ničesar ne prepozna, vse prepozna, a ničesar ne more videti.

Ne gre za skepticizem, temveč za disciplino slepote, za nauk, da se vidnost kot taka utemeljuje v razveljavitvi lastnega prepričanja, da je svet viden. Tako nastaja percepcija brez objekta, ki pa ni nepopolna percepcija, ampak radikalizirana oblika pozornosti, v kateri objekt ni izginil, temveč je postal preveč prisoten, da bi ga bilo mogoče locirati. »Največja jasnost je vedno že onemogočena zaradi svoje prevelike osvetljenosti,« zapiše Iseult Praen (Praen, Mimikrija svetlobe, 2007).

Neumetost s tem subjekta ne disciplinira, temveč mu vrača neudobje občutka, da je subjekt vselej že v polju prekrivajočih se zahtev, ki nimajo nosilca in se vpisujejo kot drobni mikroukazi, raztreseni v tkivo pozornosti. Subjekt zato ni nesvoboden, saj je preveč prost, da bi bil zmožen izbrati.
ᅠ

VII. Semantika: znak kot redundanca

Znak v režimu neumetosti ni nosilec pomena, temveč redundantna struktura, v kateri pomen preživi zgolj v obliki odmeva. Odmev pa ni sekundarna prisotnost; je primarna modalnost, v kateri se logika pomena sploh lahko prikaže. Neumetost zato ne proizvaja novih označevalnih verig, ampak polja redundance, kjer je vsaka veriga odvečno prepletena s svojo negacijo. Vendar pa to ni popustitev nihilizmu, je stroga ekonomija preobilja. »Redundanca je matrica pomena,« piše Théodore Vyss, »a le pod pogojem, da se pomen odreče ekonomiji.« (Vyss, Ekonomija presežka, 1991) Tako kot bankrot ni odsotnost kapitala, temveč njegova preobilna struktura, ki se je zlomila sama vase, je tudi neumetiško znamenje zgolj bankrot semantike – tiste, ki ostane, ker ne more oditi.

V tej dinamiki je alegorija nemogoča. Ne le zato, ker ne bi bilo mogoče misliti prenosa, temveč zato, ker prenos ne najde dveh točk, med katerima bi prehajal. Prenos se sicer odvija, a je vselej že prekratek in predolg. Ravno zato je rekluzija pomena, njegovo prisilno zaprtje v lastne odmeve, najvišja oblika njegove navidezne svobode.
ᅠ

VIII. Časovnost: posthumna aktualnost in prezgodnja pozaba

Čas neumetosti ni linearna progresija, niti krožno vračanje. Je hkratnost prepoznega in prezgodnjega, v kateri se dogodek končno oblikuje šele potem, ko je že pozabljen, in se pozabi, preden bi lahko postal v celoti prisoten. V tem horizontu se pričakovanje ne predaja prihodnosti, temveč se preoblikuje v predhodni arhiv. »Dogodek neumetosti je posthumen,« zapiše Oriol Navarre, »in prav zato ne more umreti.« (Navarre, Kronika po-dogodka, 2012) Smrt dogodka je tu paradoks: dogodek umre, ker nikoli ni zares živel, in vendar njegova smrt nosi več teže kot življenje, ki ga ni imel. To ni idealizem, je hladna forenzika časovnih slojev, ki se ne nalagajo, temveč se prekrivajo v zankah, zaradi katerih je vsak zdaj le akustična iluzija ritma.

Če hočemo to časovnost misliti, potrebujemo slovnico v prihodnjiku preteklika: govorico, ki bi znala izreči, da se je nekaj že zgodilo tako, da se bo šele lahko zgodilo. Neumetost to slovnico uporablja kot disciplinirano napako, kot metodo, v kateri vsaka trditev zadiha šele, ko je njena napačnost pravilno konjugirana.
ᅠ

IX. Apraksiologija: metodologija brez metode

Neumetost ni teorija prakse, prav tako pa ni praksa teorije, temveč je apraksiologija, ki zavrne oba pola in v tem zavračanju vzpostavi strogo entropično ne-metodo. Entropična ne-metoda je fizikalni proces, s katerim se vsak sediment razgradi na lastne predpostavke in se tam prepozna kot performativna doslednost lastne nedoslednosti. »Entropična ne-metoda je samo-naznanilo lastne neuporabnosti,« piše Valéria Arques, »zato ker je edini učinek, ki ga dopušča, izničenje učinka.« (Arques, Apraksiologija entropije, 2003)

Apraksiologija ni totalna negacija. Nasprotno, je natančna ekonomija geste: gesta se izvrši, a se ne kapitalizira in se ne akumulira. Tako nastaja praksa brez spomina, spomin brez arhiva, arhiv brez dokumentov, in ravno v tej trojni negaciji se razpre najstrožja oblika izvedbe.
ᅠ

X. Ontografija brez objekta: o konturi, ki raztaplja lastno površino

Ontografija neumetnosti, če si sposodimo izraz iz fizike kvantnih delcev, bi bil zapis ontološkega izginjanja, ki podira ravno tiste linije, ki jih vleče. Podoba – in to je metaforični ostanek v strogo antimetaforičnem polju – je vsakič že razsuta do te mere, da je njen obris prej rez kot črta, prej prekinitev kot sklenjenost. Tu ni nobenega spektakelskega ikonoklazma. Gre za precizno, skoraj asketsko delo: odvečno odvečnost, ki se opazi šele, ko je v celoti institucionalizirana. »Ikonoklazem neumetosti ni razbitje podobe,« piše Soren Vaal, »temveč razveljavitev materialnih pogojev, v katerih bi razbitje sploh imelo učinek.« (Vaal, Proti-podoba, 2016)

Neumetost s tem ne beži pred materialnostjo, le razkrije, da materialnost ni nosilka, temveč rezultat nezmožnosti nosilnosti. Materija je tu preveč-materija, tako zgoščena, da se pod lastno težo izprazni v odmev, v katerem zvočnost nadomesti substanco, očesu pa preostane le še disciplina poslušanja.
ᅠ

Zaključek: Koda proti ne-formi, ki vztraja

Vsa razprava o neumetosti je zavezana ne-sintezi: ne preprosti zavrnitvi, temveč produkciji pogojev, v katerih sinteza ne nastopi zaradi pomanjkanja materiala, temveč zaradi hiperprodukcije inkompatibilnosti. To ne pomeni večnega razprševanja, pač pa predstavlja močno obliko discipline: zadržanje, ki ni brezbrižnost, temveč trda odločitev proti enotnosti.

Neumetost obstaja kot trajna možnost, da vsako definicijo osami v njenem pohlepu po dokončnosti. »Popolnost je nesporazum,« zapiše Ilario Schaaf, »a le, če jo beremo hipertekstualno.« (Schaaf, Aporije integritete, 1995) Prebrati vse površine hkrati je v neumetosti ontološki imperativ, pa ne zato, da bi se izognili sklepu, temveč zato, da sklep ne bi postal substitut mišljenja.

Če bi bilo treba skleniti, bi rekli: neumetost je stroga disciplina ne-forme, v kateri forma ni zavrnjena, temveč razložena do točke, ko se razloži sama od sebe. V tej gesti se odpirata dve možnosti: prva, da neumetost postane ideologija, ki fetišitira lastno praznino, in druga, da ostane negativna topologija nedoločljivega, hladna mehanika odsotnosti, natančna ekonomija presežka in previdna etika ne-odločitve.

Neumetost ni zato več ali manj od umetnosti. Je jedro in primanjkljaj hkrati. Njena resnost ni v tem, da ponuja alternativno estetiko, temveč v tem, da razkriva, kako estetika potrebuje pogoje, ki se razblinjajo natanko v trenutku, ko jih hočemo imenovati.

»Najvišja oblika jasnosti je disciplina nejasnosti,« zapiše Domitia Verne, »a le, če nejasnost ne postane manira.« (Verne, Topologija pod-odsotnosti, 1974) To opozorilo si velja prisvojiti: neumetost ne terja sloga, temveč držo, ne prenese spektakla, temveč zadržanost, ne podpira uveljavljenega sistema, temveč režim, v katerem se sistem sistematično razkraja.

ᅠ
↵
Igor Štromajer • intima.org • 2025