It seems John Rajchman suggests that theory has become some sort of reality. Is this the reason behind suggesting the “experiment!” then? But what he proposes is to get back to the first point by suggesting” Time has come to reinvent theory.” so that the question is: why not stay where we are and use what we have and move forward instead of spending time on reinventing. For me, reinvention and experimentation are two different things but seems as if Rjachman has used the terms interchangeably. I get help from theory to solve the uncertain and I have no idea what happens if I introduce the uncertainty as a mean to examine a new theory. Though I agree with the idea of lightness as a tool for a creative and open criticism.

Theory is an essential part of my studio work and helps me understand it better; therefore, I am trying to bring theory to my studio too.

I agree with Victor. Rajchman's article also reminded me about last class's question about how we approach our work. I think it is very difficult to find a straight answer because I believe it depends a lot on the circumstances and on each person. Some people are very spontaneous and empirical rather than pure logical and conciously driven. Also, in some areas we we do not have an option due to a client where we are given a certain theme.

The article talks about the fact that theory has become too heavy. That is a good point. I believe theory can become more of a restraint, if we let it, it can easily knot up in itself and hide an idea. Rajchman mentions the word "parallax vision" where it is important to get out of the "knot" and watch the work etc from a different angle, from a distance. I believe we all do that to be able to continue with anything, in our works, life, relationships. We need to step aside from things every once in a while.

In abolishing the "death of art" and finding back to the "art of the real", we need to come back to experimenting and become more empirical again. I think that is such an important point. I personally find it important to work cognitively to be able to work/create freely. I find that our mind can restrict us enormously if we let it overtake our natural responses. The reason I say this comes from my experience in golf because the mind is definetley in the way! (that's news! ;) )There is only a certain way to use the mind and it has to be kept at a distance. An example: being "in the flow"- as soon as one realizes one is out of it again.

However, I believe theory is very important and is definetely very helpful if we use it at the right time. So, as I said in the beginning there is no straight answer for me. An equilibrium of both is good, but again it depends on the person.

By the way, If anyone is interested in how Nietsche sees the unconcious, I found this online:

There is no simple theory of the unconscious in Nietzsche’s work. This is because the unconscious is complex, a site for transformation and not a singular ‘object’ of analysis. The unconscious would be everything which accounts for image-object-thought associations, and therefore that by which we could explain relations between thoughts and activities. However, Nietzsche clearly recognized that we cannot simply analyze the unconscious as a thing in-itself: it was very important for him that we should not be taken in by the idea that our explanations for things are adequate expressions of an underlying reality. Because in fact there is no necessary relation between human beings and reality; rather, we artistically create the mode in which we confront and understand the world.

(http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.skull-lab.com/images/identity1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/author/joeofthestars/&h=390&w=300&sz=42&hl=en&start=7&sig2=sg2kbxK5stqot7lk0eBeBA&um=1&tbnid=MPaAE1Sa7WMIHM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=95&ei=fGkvR7PNK6nKiwGy9e2_Cg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsartre%2Bidentity%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DG)