#and I think you’re implying that he’s utilitarian based on that last part but I don’t think he is | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

slaaneshfic · 5 years ago

Text

There is No Reason for you to Live. Part two: Excess

This is part of chapter I have written in the last two weeks, which uses the game Sticky Zeitgeist: Episode 2 Aperitif by Porpentine and Rook to draw out processes of art practice. I presented the beginning of the first part of this chapter at Beyond The Console: Gender and Narrative Games in London at the start of 2019. This is still very much a work in process, I’ve not even read this section back before posting it here. But I am very interested in the overlaps between Cixous’s figure of “woman”, “Becoming-Woman / Becoming-Girl” in Deleuze and Guattari, Bataille/Kristeva’s “Abjection” and “Johanna Hedva’s Sick Woman Theory” in regards art practice and trans* identity.

Part two: Excess “Small salvage is $5. Hear that sis, you’re $5. Nooooo” (Heartscape & Rook, 2018).

Excess is a concept which arises in many areas of George Batailles work which spans art, literature, politics, economics, anthropology and mysticism. The concept, or rather an aspect of it, is particularly near the surface and therefore easy for us to grasp here, in Bataille’s essay “The Notion of Expenditure” (Bataille, 1985). Bataille begins by stating that while “there is nothing that permits on to define what is useful to man” (Bataille, 1985). Classical utility can be understood as follows;

“On the one hand, this material utility is limited to acquisition (in practice, to production) and to the conservation of goods; on the other, it is limited to reproduction and to the conservation of human life” (Bataille, 1985).

In contrast to utility Bataille positions “pleasure”, which he argues society judges to be lesser than utility in the eyes of society and is therefore permissible as a “concession” (Bataille, 1985). However Bataille proposes that just as a young man’s desire to waste and destroy demonstrates that there is a need for this kind of pleasure even while this cannot be given a “utilitarian justification”, “human society can have, just as he does, an interest in considerable losses, in catastrophes” (Bataille, 1985). Bataille sets this up as the tension between the ideological authority and the real needs for “nonproductive expenditure” which are at times not even articulable through the language of that authority. As examples of unproductive expenditure Bataille offers the following list;

“Luxury, mourning, war, cults, the construction of sumptuary monuments, games, spectacles, arts, perverse sexual activity (i.e., deflected from genital finality)” (Bataille, 1985).

A handful of these examples are examined further, but Bataille argues that in each “the accent is placed on a loss that must be as great as possible in order for the activity to take on its true meaning” (Bataille, 1985). Just as Lyotard identified affect as the point of excess which marks art apart from other things, and Cixous defines her figure of woman in terms of an unending outpouring, Bataille has identified “the principle of loss” (Bataille, 1985) as essential to a range of activities including but spreading beyond art and literature. The excess in Lyotard as deployed by O’Sullivan is that which is beyond the system of accounting for art, namely affect. In Cixous the excess is the capacity of the artist-figure woman when enacting ecriture feminine, to operate beyond the system prescribed by power to the production of art. As Allan Stoekl notes in his introduction to the edited volume “George Bataille Visions of Excess Selected Writings, 1927 - 1939”, for Bataille “People create in order to expand, and if they retain things they have produced, it is only to allow themselves to continue living, and thus destroying” (Stoekl, 1985). Bataille’s nonproductive expenditure is what is being freed in Cixous’s process of Ecriture Feminine, and I would therefore further argue, is being deployed in Aperitif, an artwork which deals with excesses both offered and implied (and therefore to be created at the point of interface with audience). More than this though, Bataillian excesses appear within the world of the game which the characters, and by extension us as players occupy. I would like to explore how different kinds of excess appear in Aperitif, and how these fit with Bataille’s observations around class struggle and manner in which those in power retain control of non-productive expenditure, including the expenditure of other beings. Finally I will consider these excess as areas which clarify Aperitif as abstracted horror and Ecriture Feminine.

A point where waste is rendered visible in Aperitif, in The Laugh of The Medusa, and in the work of Bataille, in the act of masturbatation. The character Ever, from whose perspective we begin Aperitif is the sole player character in the episode of the “No World Dreamers: Sticky Zeitgeist” which precedes it, “Hyperslime” (Heartscape & Rook, 2017) [KEYWORD Link to Smeared into the Environment]. Ever’s story in Hyperslime begins with a scene of anal drug use and masturbation which is interupted by the call to attend work. In the following episode, Aperitif, we learn that this work is in fact community service after Ever “whacked off in public” (Heartscape & Rook, 2018). This detail of Ever’s life is exposed by Brava but in Ever’s interior monologue we learn that she herself does not fully understand why it occurred. Ever can only speculate on the reason for her doing something she identifies as harmful, and that the experience was like “watching through a window” after which she “blacked out” (Heartscape & Rook, 2018). As an aspect of Ever’s character masturbation points to her isolation and desire, and to her struggle with the unbearable tension of shame which she alludes to when considering that “maybe I just wanted what they thought about me to come true” (Heartscape & Rook, 2018). This enfolding of personal desire, the projection of being seen by another, the need to resolve an uncertainty, and the potential shame which runs through it is precisely how Cixous describes the struggle to produce Ecriture Feminine;

“[Y]ouv’e written a little, but in secret and it wasn’t good because you punished yourself for writing because it didn't go all the way; or because you wrote irresistibly, as when we would masturbate in secret, not to go further but to attenuate the tension a bit, just to take the edge off” (Cixous, 1976).

Ever, who the artists attribute the title/archetype/role “The Loser”, seems perpetually to be trying to manage the tension of her desires, with the only temporary resolution occurring in some kind of overwhelming loss of self. The struggle for a creative process which Cixous describes is not something I can identify in Aperitif because it is very much embedded in the experience of the process of making, which I do not have access to. However, I would argue that Aperitif is open to being played in a manner which is analogous if not in a similar affective register to the tension and collapse cycles of Ever. We begin both Aperitif and its prequel controlling Ever, but prior to the narrative beginning and still within the context of the title menu the game instructs us that we can “hold escape until you black out” (Heartscape & Rook, 2018). On one hand this instruction is informing player-audience of the keypress which will allow them to exit the game. On the other hand, the use of the term “black out” echo’s Ever’s use of the same. When playing the game-artwork, I feel that the means of exiting has been embedded with an emotional resonance. Playing the game-artwork now has a resonance with Ever’s narrative, even outside of the points of play where I am controlling her character. The emotional content of the game is foregrounded, and the promise of the opportunity to in a manner, ‘lose consciousness’ as an escape from it invites/dares the audience-player to engage more with that content. We have permission to be a loser, to fail.

The concept of failure here is made complex when it is brought into the parameters of the game itself. It becomes an action. Ever berates herself for failure, but the artwork-game does not pass this judgement, and in aligning us with her and with failure, it invites us to not pass judgement either. Returning to Cixous, the other resonance of the allegory of masturbation to Ecriture Feminine is that the writer is given permission to write for themselves and for the act of writing to be self gratifying rather than requiring it before another. In “The “Onanism of Poetry”: walt whitman, rob halpern and the deconstruction of masturbation” the poet and lecturer Sam Ladkin notes the contradiction in the considered works “between masturbation as the failure of fecundity, spent energy without the returns of an investment” and something which has value in sowing “male seed across the typically female gendered earth” (Ladkin, 2015). In Ladkin’s work, the discourse around Onan, the poets being discussed, and the particular queer theory used tends toward the image and language of male homosexual desire but the author emphasises that beneith this the structure of “failed or suspended address” is not specific to a particualr “gendered identification fo desire” (Ladkin, 2015). In Cixous this contradiction between value and waste is articulated as fight to develop one’s own value system. To engage based upon the subjects desire, rather than exchange within an external economy which ascribes or denies a degree of value based on adherence to preexisting parameters. Ladkin explores the potential to “recuperate the wasteful excess of masturbation via the general economy of Bataille” yet in the author’s focus on the ejaculatory “economy of finitude” and the monetary economy of pornography, this avenue is effectively discounted and not further pursued (Ladkin, 2015). However I think there is a different dialectic at play in the systems of Bataille, and which are played out in the world of Aperitif as the struggle between the individual release of excess of the player characters, and the destructive forms of excess employed by power and authority, which render both landscape and those same player characters, as waste.

Bataille lays out his position that “Man is an effect of the surplus of energy: The extreme richness of his elevated activities must be principally defined as the dazzling liberation of an excess. The energy liberated in man flourishes and makes useless splendor endlessly visible” (Bataille, 2013). In Aperitif, this dazzling liberation of an excess is attempted by characters such as Brava, but it is always curtailed by the tyranny of an outer authority, the call to attend community service, the police. The motif of masturbation in Aperitif points to repeated denial of excess in the following of individual desire. As previously noted, character’s remain in a limbo of struggling survival, to “never perfectly live or die” (Heartscape & Rook, 2018). In this state the following of individual desire into the expression of excess is denied to everyone except those who can afford it, as Brava recalls;

“When the internet 3 was invented the economy of really extra fucked, most stores were automated. Except the usual dollhouse experiments ran by rich people who fantasized about running a restaurant or cupcake shack of some shit” (Heartscape & Rook, 2018). Bataille argues that “As the class that possesses the wealth -- having received with wealth the obligation of functional expenditure -- the modern bourgeoisie is characterized by the refusal in principle of that obligation” (Bataille, 1985). Bataille maps how earlier structures of social and material power would have led to the possessors of such power and wealth to express this through expenditure such as feasts, sacrifices and the construction of elaborate religious and cultural objects. In contrast to this, the logic of accumulation unders Capitalism leads to a “hatred of expenditure” (Bataille, 1985). In Aperitif this is demonstrated in the quote above from Brava showing that even with full automation, the bourgeois can only either imagine, or allow itself, a useless expenditure which takes the surface form of work by running a “cupcake shack” (Heartscape & Rook, 2018).

There is a second manner in which excess plays out through the agency of the authority in Aperitif and this is concerned with the rendering of subjects as objects, and then waste. Cultural theorist Sylvere Lotringer attempted to reexamine the concept of ‘Abjection’ in the work of Bataille, identifying a different trajectory from that subsequently developed by Kristeva in “Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection” (Kristeva, 1984). Lotringer’s short essay “Les Miserables” (Lotringer, 1999) positions Bataille’s fragmentary addresses of abjection written in the early 1930s as specifically in response to the “only truly original political formation to have emerged since the end of WWI [...] fascism” (Lotringer, 1999). Lotringer notes that in “The Notion of Expenditure” Batialle deplores the manner in which the bourgeoisie attenuate the damage done and “ameliorate the lot of the workers” (Bataille, 1985) as “abysmal hypocrisy” (Lotringer, 1999); “The ultimate goal; of industrial masters, he asserted, wasn’t profit or accumulation, but the will to turn workers into pure refuse. Instead of extracting surplus value from the wretched population working in [the] factory, they enjoyed a surplus value of cruetly” (Lotringer, 1999).

The world of Aperitif presents a world in which authority has still not passed through its hypocrisy, but nevertheless continues to render the workers as waste. The company that employers Ever and the others to scavenge is represented by a character called “The Therapist”, which at least suggests a role of care, yet the job remains one of collecting scrap from a toxic environment which degrades and destroys their bodies (Heartscape & Rook, 2018). Lotringer’s published his essay Les Miserables in the edited book “More & Less” along with Bataille’s essay “Abjection and Miserable Forms” and interview with Kristeva titled “Fetishizing the Abject” (Bataille, 1999; Lotringer, 1999; Lotringer & Kristeva, 1999). Both Lotringer’s essay, and the line of questioning in the interview are in part concerned with a bifurcation within Bataille’s concept of abjection, which has not been given as much attention in its rearticulation and development by Kristeva in Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection and that works continued influence. Lotringer draws from Bataille a distinction between “The union of miserables reserved for subversion” and “wretched men rejected into negative abjection” (Lotringer, 1999).

The difference between the positive abjection which leads to action, solidarity, and perhaps martyrdom, and the negative abjection which leads simply to inertial, apathy, and alienation. The tension between these two forms of Abjection is something which appears throughout Aperitif, as its protagonists navigate a world of trash, see themselves to degrees become or be made trash, and navigate the threshold between agency and alienation. In his summary, makes the following statement about Abjection without differentiating between the positive or negative form;

“Abjection doesn't result from a dialectical operation- feeling abject when “abjectified” in someone else’s eyes, or reclaiming abjection as an identity feature- but precisely when dialectics breaks down. When it ceases to be experienced as an act of exclusion to become an autonomous condition, it is then, and only then, that abjection sets in” (Lotringer, 1999).

It is unclear in this text whether Lotringer is arguing that what he elsewhere describes as people “becoming things to themselves” (Lotringer, 1999) defines Abjection in both positive and negative forms, or whether he is arguing for the primacy of the negative form. It is possible to read this as Lotringer trying to shift the definition of Abject to the negative, and the interview with Kristeva that will be addressed shortly in some ways supports this view.

Returning to Goard’s text on the trans* body and the cyborg it is worth nothing the importance of the process by which either are rendered Abject is addressed, though with different terminology;

“The dream of a world without surplus, illegitimate bodies is not feasible without a society that relies on surplus” (Goard, 2017).

Goard makes steps toward a politics whereby “bodies-made-surplus” (or trans* people and others) are not redefined, rearticulated and included, but simply allowed to exist (Goard, 2017). The politics not of “defining but defending” (Goard, 2017). Goard’s position seems to cut across Lotringer, proposing the act of oneself making and being made a thing as still containing revolutionary agency. In Lotringer’s reading of Bataille’s Abjection, at least in its negative form, is a place without hope of agency, a kind of living death. However Goard does seem to offer a position which is neither that living death, nor the simple dialectical struggle of being labeled abject and owning this label. Goard’s proposal becomes about a surplus yes, but an undefinable surplus which crosses categories of gender, class, race, ability, and attempts to tactically use such categories whilst aiming to ultimately destroy them. Goard articulates this party with the statement that “we should be deeply skeptical of placing value on the acquisition of formal rights when they are used in the legitimation of a violent border regime” (Goard, 2017). At the same time, Goard refuses the dialectic of power vs resistance by pointing out that the tactic entering into established modes of identity such as the gender binary are important at times for safety and so should not exclude a person from solidarity toward a common project of gender abolition for example.

[Footnote: The acquisition of rights for one group used as a means to justify is articulated by post-colonial theorist Jasbir Puar as “Homonationalism” in the 2007 book “Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer times” and developed further in the text “" I Would Rather Be a Cyborg Than a Goddess": Becoming-Intersectional in Assemblage Theory” (Puar, 2007, 2012). In the latter text Puar focuses on expanding upon the form’s negotiation between Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of “intersectionality”, “analyses that foreground the mutually co-constitutive forces of race, class, sex, gender, and nation” and an assembalge model which identifies “ the “retrospective ordering” of identities such as “gender, race, and sexual orientation” which “back-form their reality” (Puar, 2012). Puar sees these too positions not as “oppositional but rather,[...] frictional (Puar, 2012).]

As has been indicated throughout this chapter, Aperitif frequently plays establishing categories, names, structures, or identities, and having things which are surplus to these, which disrupt with either a counter-order, or the refusal of any order. Characters in some places self-define their identity on an axis of the gender binary, whereas the the game leaves other identity markers not only unknown but unacknowledged. The game frames and withholds information through its limited graphics showing animal ears, and text which trails off to convey emotion through lack of definition. An implication through explicit and implied information is that all characters in Aperitif are “girls”. However this category is broken open so wide as to be more in line with Cixous use of woman as catagory abstracted from sex, gender, or identity. “Girl” can be a category if it is deployed in that way, or it can something less stable.

Something about the four protagonists in Aperitif that remains consistent, and is presented unambiguously, is that the society they inhabit does not value their existence. Throughout the narrative, each protagonist struggles with whether or not they themselves value their own own existence. Society is ordered in a way that each of the four girls needs to undertake a job which is extremely damaging to their physical and mental health. A common thread throughout their conversations and many interior monologues is the consideration of whether than can, or should, survive this. In the interview with Lotringer titled “Fetishizing The Abject”, Kristeva describes her development of the concept through researching “borderline” clinical states in psychoanalysis;

“Without going as far as psychotic persecution, without going as far as autistic withdrawal, [the patent] creates a sort of territory between the two, which he often inhabits with a feeling of unworthiness, of even deterioration, a sort of physical abjection if you like” (Lotringer & Kristeva, 1999).

It would be out of the remit of this research to follow further into these pathologies. However; the oscillation of internal states, struggle, exploded categories, the question of self worth and being made thing invites another text to placed alongside Aperitif and Abjection. “Sick Woman Theory” by writer and artist Johanna Hedva (Hedva, 2016) is an examination of the politics which intersect in the bodies of disabled people, and offers a figure of protest in the form of the Sick Woman. As Hedva states, “Sick Woman Theory is an insistence that most modes of political protest are internalized, lived, embodied, suffering, and no doubt invisible” (Hedva, 2016). Applying Sick Woman Theory to hypothetical borderline case described by Kristeva repositions them as a political agent;

“The Sick Woman is all of the “dysfunctional,” “dangerous” and “in danger,” “badly behaved,” “crazy,” “incurable,” “traumatized,” “disordered,” “diseased,” “chronic,” “uninsurable,” “wretched,” “undesirable” and altogether “dysfunctional” bodies belonging to women, people of color, poor, ill, neuro-atypical, differently abled, queer, trans, and genderfluid people, who have been historically pathologized, hospitalized, institutionalized, brutalized, rendered “unmanageable,” and therefore made culturally illegitimate and politically invisible” (Hedva, 2016).

As the quotation marks around medical terms indicate, Hedva’s Sick Woman Theory is a kind of tactical categorization in order to refute a larger number of categories. Sick Woman Theory reads Abjection not from the position of analyst, but “the person with autism whom the world is trying to “cure”” as well as a multitude of other positions whose comonolity is that they are disenfranchised, suffering, and abused (Hedva, 2016). From the former position, categories become the norm, and things which transgress them a deviation or disruption. From the latter position of the multitude, the transgression across categories is the norm. It is possible to read the category of “girl” in Aperitif as Sick Woman, just as both, like Cixous’s woman’s writing, serve to encapsulate a sea of difference with an act of refusal against categories.

As mentioned previously in this chapter, a focus of Lotringer’s interview with Kristeva is questioning whether Abjection can form an oppositional function to power. Lotringer is particularly concerned with what he sees a broad tendency or movement within art and culture which attempts to reclaim the process of being made Abject and instil it with emancipatory potential. When asked at one point on this Kristeva responds “I feel very ambiguous in relation to this movement [...] I don’t adhere to it, and at the same time I realize that, as a kind of strategy, it is opposed to some kind of intolerable conservatism, so it's hard to adhere to that” (Lotringer & Kristeva, 1999). Kristeva’s concession is based in dialectic of Abjection against what must be imagined as a kind of totalitarian homogenous cultural sterility. Sick Woman Theory, is presented as “an identity and body” not against but in place of one of intolerable conservatism (Hedva, 2016). Hedva at point identifies this conservatism as the privileged existence, or “cruelly optimistic promise” (Hedva, 2016) of this existence, embodied by the;

“white, straight, healthy, neurotypical, upper and middle-class, cis- and able-bodied man who makes his home in a wealthy country, has never not had health insurance, and whose importance to society is everywhere recognized and made explicit by that society; whose importance and care dominates that society, at the expense of everyone else” (Hedva, 2016).

However, Kristeva seems to be describing an oppositional practice in line with what Lotringer describes as “reclaiming abjection as an identifying feature” (Lotringer, 1999). This Abjection is oppositional, it uses the definition given to it by what it opposes, and defines itself through that opposition. Sick Woman Theory instead repositions itself as the exclusion of what it can be seen to be opposing. Hedva argues that capitalism sets up binary between a default position of “wellness” and deviation from this in the form of “sickness”. To simply embody this deviant category of “sick” would be exactly the oppositional process of Abjection described by Lotringer and Kristeva. However, Hedva also argues that under capitalism “wellness” is positioned as a temporal norm, whilst “sickness” and therefore “care” is positioned as temporary. Hedva’s position can be seen as arguing that a broad encapsulation of vulnerabilities, oppressions, and suffering should be considered the norm. Crucially, care for oneself and for others, could and should follow as another norm. It can then be proposed that Sick Woman Theory, is not a struggle with another, but a reconfiguration of the context underneath both which shifts perspective. This reconfiguration is analogous to an operation I have elsewhere discussed as occurring within horror narratives, using the example of the film “Ringu” (Nakata, 2000). [LINK TO “FROLIC IN BRINE” performance SCREENPLAY]

Hedva’s call for the centering of their broad category of sickness, which includes not just sufferers of illness, but also victims of the violent enforcement of acceptable categories of gender, sexuality, class, etc. does find a direct parallel in Kristeva’s thought;

“These states, far from being simply pathological or exceptional, are perhaps endemic. And it is perhaps against this sort of structural uncertainty that inhabits us that religions are set in motion, at once to recognise them and to defend ourselves against them” (Lotringer & Kristeva, 1999).

I am wary of pursuing an argument regarding the subjectivities included within Hedva’s Sick Woman predating, and perhaps causing the social structures which their existence transgresses. Such an enquiry would move beyond the scope of this project, which is concerned with the practice of art.

In Fetishizing The Abject much of Lotringer’s direction of the interview focuses on ways in which further discourses, including art, have misincorporated Abjection following Kristeva’s popularisation of the term. While a number of art tendencies and specific exhibitions are critiqued, it is the speculation on what Abjection could do in art that is most relevant here. Both Lotringer and Kristeva agree that when something is placed in a gallery, it “becomes a new identity” and thus “fetishised” it joins other “[i]institutional objects” (Lotringer & Kristeva, 1999). Regarding potential to move beyond this, Kristeva proposes that “verbal art, insofar as it eludes fetishization, and constantly raises doubt and questioning [...] lends itself better perhaps to exploring those states that I call states of abjection” (Lotringer & Kristeva, 1999). I am skeptical about the claim that any art form including verbal art might elude fetishization, but the operation of constantly raising doubt and questioning resonates with other observations in this chapter, as well as this PhD project overall. Elsewhere I discussed a concept from my research which I call Incomplete Provocations [LINK TO TEXTS]. Also, the use of unreliable narrators occurs in the majority of what might be called the fiction elements of this project. Something which is important to note regarding at least my use of unreliable narrators is that there is a rarely deliberate deception on the part of the narrator. Deception would necessitate that the narrator knows more than the audience who learns only from that the narrator reveals, at least initially. The application I am more interested in, is the unreliable narrator as point of which by either being cognitively compromised or simply different, has another perspective on events. The ideological position implied through this is that there is no one narrative which could encapsulate the entire event and therefore resolve it. There is always doubt and questions, each of which solicit speculation from the audience. In Deleuze and Guattari’s “A Thousand Plateaus” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) the line that illustrates this non-deceptive unreliable narrator occurs at the start of the chapter “1730: Becoming-Intense, Becoming-Animal, Becoming-Imperceptible…”. While beginning an account of a film, the authors offer the disclaimer, “My memory of it is not necessarily accurate” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). The author’s uncertainty in their memory would fall within my description of the cognitively compromised unreliable narrator, and before even getting to the recounted film, doubts and questions are ready to be raised. These doubts and questions do not all have to be positioned in the gap between recollection and what was witnessed, though in this case we could look for differences between Deleuze and Guattari’s account, and the film itself. The other doubts and questions that I am interested in project not backwards in time to the witnessing but forwards. What is interesting to me is not what is lacking from the film in the recounting, but how the recounting is a process of addition which grows from the film even while it might leave out parts of that source material. In this way, the unreliable narrator offers a provocation not for a return to the stillness of certainty, but for the movement of more emerging possibilities. Kristeva proposes something similar in her proposal for future Abject art, which involves processes of “anamnesis on the one hand, and gaming on the other” (Lotringer & Kristeva, 1999). In terms of amnesia Kristeva expands this as “a sort of eternal return, repetition, perlaboration, elaboration” (Lotringer & Kristeva, 1999). Within Aperitif the process of amnesia enacted as the player returns to walking a path through the same environment with different characters, as well as through the game form which allows itself to be replayed.

[FOOTNOTE: For a radically different analysis of a comparable creative terrain to Kristeva’s Anamnesis see Mark Fisher’s “Ghosts of my life: writings on depression, hauntology and lost futures”. “This dyschronia, this temporal disjuncture, ought to feel uncanny, yet the predominance of what Reynolds calls ‘retro-mania’ means that it has lost any unheimlich charge: anachronism is now taken for granted” (Fisher, 2014).]

Kristeva follows Anamnesis with Gaming which involves “compositions, decompositions, recompositions” and is presented as a continuation of the “trajectory” as Anamnesis (Lotringer & Kristeva, 1999). Examples provided for this process involve the process of chance through rolling dice, and the “glossolalia in Artaud, or like Finegan’s Wake” (Lotringer & Kristeva, 1999). This resonates with Aperitif on multiple levels. At the game level Aperitif, despite being fairly linear in form, composes, decomposes,and recomposes itself continually. From the position of the player audience, this is perhaps most clear as the game shifts its genre and method of play at points. At points the player controls characters which walk around an environment and interact with one another in the manner of a role playing game. At other points the game switches to the form of a medical simulator where the player but diagnose and repair a robotic character with a completely different mode of interaction from the role playing game sections. This medical simulation then decomposes further as the performing of a specific repair sakes the form of side scrolling “shoot ‘em up” as a game within a game within a game. What would however be more in keeping with what Kristeva is describing would be evidence that at some level the making of this artwork included a shift to a less consciously direct mode. The reference to dice alongside glossolalia leads me to conclude that Kristeva’s Gaming is about the movement between conscious decision making, and something else which destabilized it, before potentially returning to conscious decision making. This destabilisation could be through the cold probability of a dice roll, the path for the works creation decided by the resulting number. The inclusion of Finegan’s Wake and Artaud’s glossolalia suggests that the destabilisation does not have to be the surrender to chance. Destabilisation could include the shift to using or creating words based on their sound rather than meaning for example. Cultural theorist Michel De Certeau described glossolalia as “vocal vegetation” not an exceptional thing constrained to the devout and artists, but the “bodily noises, quotations of delinquent sounds, and fragments of others' voices [which] punctuate the order of sentences with breaks and surprise” (De Certeau, 1996). The language in Aperitif, particularly where it comes to building its world through this language feels full of moments of shifts to a destabilised mode. Swamp-Dot-Com is populated with things like “bombo cabbage bludbud”, “lichen mommy board” and “whackback” (Heartscape & Rook, 2018).

[FOOTNOTE: A methodological decision has been made not to include research drawn from Heartscape and Rook’s other work, in order to focus on how this can inform methods of art practice, rather than drawing out the tendencies of these specific artists. However, it is worth noting that the processes of Kristeva’s Gaming are evident throughout Heartscape’s individual art practice. Heartscape curated the 2018 exhibition at Apexart in New York, entitled “Dire Jank” (Apexart, 2019). Dire Jank included artist Tabitha Nikolai’s video game “Ineffable Glossolalia” (Nikolai, 2018) and “Divination Jam” which invited the audience to “use divination, randomization, etc to make your game. when you get stuck, instead of feeling like shit, let some arcane system decide for you! rolling a die, i ching, tarot, anything that invokes fate! many ancient systems have been digitized, or you can look for randomness in the world around you…” (Heartscape, 2018). Furthermore, Heartscape’s 2016 novel “Psycho Nymph Exile” both contains the same collapsing worldbuilding language as Aperitif, and features such processes within its plot. “The crystal gives them an allergic reaction to language. Each girl has a unique combination of trigger words. They sit on the floor in rows, mumbling under their breath, reading from dictionaries until they find their combination” (Heartscape, 2016).]

This play in language is subtle, but I believe it a shift away from the direct conveyance of meaning to sounds and the joy of what words written down can do.

An area the gap between Kristeva and Lotringer’s Abject Art, Hedva’s Sick Woman Theory, and Aperitif widens is with the issue of the abject and identity. Lotringer sees Abjection’s relation to Fascism which he stresses is its origin in Batialle’s text “displaced” (Lotringer & Kristeva, 1999). He broadens this further with the claim that “politics has become the politics of the notion of identity” (Lotringer & Kristeva, 1999). This broad position is agreed by Kristeva who replies “everything has been taken up by the “politically correct” which are in fact identity related claims” (Lotringer & Kristeva, 1999). It is this identity that Kristeva and Lotringer see in what they consider the problematic Oppositional Practice already outlined. I would like to argue though that their perceived problem with Abject identity would not apply to the way identity figures in Sick Woman Theory. Hedva sets out their position with clarity;

“The sick woman is an identity and body that can belong to anyone denied the privileged existence, or the cruelly optimistic promise of such an existence- of the white, straight, healthy, neurotypical, upper and middle class, cis and able-bodied man” (Hedva, 2016).

Sick Woman Theory is not a politics of sexual identity, but a broad identity which encapsulates sexual identity along with bodily, cognitive, and class differences. This is not the sidestepping of class struggle and opposition to fascism Lotringer in particular is concerned with in his observations about previous attempts at an Abject turn in art. Hedva creates an amorphous, fluid grouping, brings to the centre difference and care under the banner of the Sick Woman. Returning to The Laugh of The Medusa, Hedva’s project has strong resonances with Cixous’s; “If there is a “property of woman,” it is paradoxically her capacity to depreciate unselfishly: body without end, without appendage, without principal “parts.” If she is a whole, it’s a whole composed of parts that are wholes, not simple partial objects but a moving, limitlessly changing ensemble, a cosmos tirelessly traversed by Eros, an immense astral space not organised around any one sun thats any more of a star than the others” (Cixous, 1976).

Cixous frames this “property of woman” within a text which is concerned with the practice of making art, but this practice is part of process which includes woman putting herself “into the world and into history” (Cixous, 1976). Writing, is embedded in a politics of living. For Cixous’s woman to write only in the dominant mode of man’s writing, is to be restricted not only from writing herself (as Cixous would put it) but to enter into the world as a subject, as an agent. If we read Cixous’s woman not in terms of an essentialist category which might be attached to some biological marker, but as a class category, she readily aligns with Hedva’s Sick Woman. Cixoux’s contemporaries Deleuze and Guattari describe the process of “becoming-woman” which can be considered like the former’s woman but now not a class but a process (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). MacCormack gives a succinct explanation of Becoming-Woman, “Woman as minoritarian is defined by lack and failure so an element of woman - gesture, fluid libidinality - taken in or as part of the self will necessarily alter the self” (MacCormack, 2008). In Hedva’s text, the woman is named for the “subject position [that] represents the uncared for, the secondary, [...] the non-, the un-, the less-than” (Hedva, 2016).

Even when addressing cisgendered women, the call Cixous is making entails Becoming, which MacCormack describes as selecting “certain specificities and intensities of a thing and [dissipating] those intensities within our own molecularities to redistribute our selves” (MacCormack, 2008). Cixous calls us to redistribute into ourselves the intensity of fluid libinality which she calls the “unflagging, intoxicating, unappeasable search for love” (Cixous, 1976). This pull of desire and connectivity reads like an antithesis of Valerie Solanas’s description of “the male” as an “unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness” (Solanas, 1971).

[FOOTNOTE: For a trans* reading of gender in Solanas as creative process see writer Andrea Long Chu’s proposal that “Here, transition, like revolution, was recast in aesthetic terms, as if transsexual women decided to transition, not to “confirm” some kind of innate gender identity, but because being a man is stupid and boring.” (Long Chu, 2018).]

The Woman in Sick Woman Theory is similarly a source of creative desire, which Hedva explains through a description of some of their own symptoms;

“Because of these “disorders,” I have access to incredibly vivid emotions, flights of thought, and dreamscapes, to the feeling that my mind has been obliterated into stars, to the sensation that I have become nothingness, as well as to intense ecstasies, raptures, sorrows, and nightmarish hallucinations” (Hedva, 2016).

These descriptions form part of Hedva’s consideration of political agency of those, who for bodily, social, or other reasons cannot engage in the direct politics of public action. However the language, as with Solanas’s, is as concerned with emotion, affect, aesthetics, and creativity. Solanas’s Male is “incapable of empathizing” (Solanas, 1971) while “Sick Woman Theory asks you to stretch your empathy” (Hedva, 2016). Solanas’s manifesto is explicitly a response to the boredom society provocokes as it is dominated by the “psychically passive” figure of the Male (Solanas, 1971). Without exoticising and objectictifying illness, mental or otherwise, the subject of Sick Woman Theory is undoubtedly a creative force.

I hope that I have demonstrated that the world, characters, and player-audience experience of Aperitif have a resonance with theories of Abjection, and creative difference connected to a broad category of Woman. Aperitif is on one level, a video game about a group of runaway broken robots, and hybrid animal kids trying to improvise through wasteland failures, emergent tactics of living through giving and receiving care.

Throughout Aperitif, many things are left undefined, or only implied. Dialogues are full of the pointed absence of speech in ellipses. Delivery of information gives way to Gaming. Character’s themselves are unsure of what has happened, cannot remember, are too traumatised, or simply offer a conflicting view of events to one another. Finally the game itself, with its limited interface and graphics which hark back to games long before the turn of the millenium, makes clear that details are being withheld. With this in mind, the group of protagonists being self identified as, or implied to be “girls” rather than Women, can be understood through another Becoming proposed by Deleuze and Guattari, and explored further by MacCormack. Within the context of Becoming-Woman Deleuze and Guattari ask “What is a girl? What is a group of girls?” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). They consider Marcel Proust’s protagonist’s search for “fugitive beings” (Proust, 2010) and conclude that the Girl whether singular or in a pack, is “pure haecceity” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987).

[Mark Fisher defines Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of Haecceity as “non-subjective individuation. [...] the entity as event (and the event as entity)” (Fisher, 2018).]

MacCormack states that the Girl is the “larval woman”, but “It is not the girl who becomes a woman; it is becoming-woman that produces the universal girl [...] the girl is the becoming-woman of each sex, just as the child is the becoming-young of every age” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). For Deleuze and Guattari, Girl is the individuation of Becoming-Woman, not attached to any substance or function, or “age group, sex, order, or kingdom” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). Girls in Aperitif are undefined, only self identified in one instance and they move “between orders, acts, ages, sexes; they produce n molecular sexes on the line of flight in relation to the dualism machines they cross right through” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). They speak in irony, silence, thoughts of sex and unspeakable past trauma and modify their bodies with drugs and used parts. They are elusive, arising moment to moment from encounters. MacCormack notes that the “less defined a term is within majoritarian culture the more larval the becoming and thus the move open to unique and unpredictable folding and unfolding the becoming” (MacCormack, 2008). Girls are capable of Abject art practices in the manner argued by Lotringer and Kristeva, slipping between dualisms, rather than in reactive opposition. As Deleuze and Guattari write, Girls “draw their strength neither from the molar status that subdues them nor from the organism and subjectivity they receive; they draw their strength from the becoming-molecular they cause to pass between sexes and ages” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). So it is no wonder that the Girls in Aperitif improvise in the wasteland of Swamp-Dot-Com. They are ungraspable in their identities, and forever on the way to something. They tell as much, even though for them the process might be traumatic, to “never perfectly live or die” (Heartscape & Rook, 2018).

#games #.theory #gender #play #waste #excess #porpentine #Deleuze #Kristeva

3 notes · View notes

theonceoverthinker · 6 years ago

Text

OUAT Rewatch 4x12 - Darkness on the Edge of Town

I hope my knowlEDGE on this episode will make for an engaging review! XD

...Yeah, this was a hard one to make a pun for. I miss the ice puns already.

Anyway, as I said, just below the cut, there’s an honestly fairly short review by my regular standards. If you feel like checking it out, go below the cut!

So, if you’re at all familiar with my reviews, by now you know that I usually post my main takeaways here, but this time, I don’t really have them and what I do have to say is small enough to not need a ton of elaboration. So instead, we’re gonna skip it this time and just go right to the Stream of Consciousness! With that being said...

Stream of Consciousness

-”Tried to impregnate.” Not even one minute in and we get a hentai joke!!! XD I love this series!

-You know, the music that play in the Storybrooke owner sounds like a somewhat harsher version of what is later the happy endings montage in Season 6, as if to say a lot is right, but not everything.

-I would honestly love more Snow and Bird interactions! XD

-Wait, so is Granny’s just closed, or is she babysitting WHILE running a popular diner! This woman is a freakin’ superhero! Also, where’s David?

-I love how Belle actually thinks to reach out to people outside the fairy tale world.

-”How could I have been so weak?” MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY.

-”You -- you should’ve been stronger, but you weren’t, and well...neither was I.” No. I love Killian, Belle, but there was a difference between Killian being sort of manipulated (sort of -- the present segment of “The Apprentice” just sucks) and being straight up lied to.

-”I just hope he’s found whatever it is he’s looking for.” Umm, considering when you last saw him, he was looking to kill people and take over the world, you probably shouldn’t hope that! XD

-I repeat what I asked in the last episode: WHY are all of these fairytale creatures living in New York! I love my home state, but it is EXPENSIVE!

-You know, I just feel really bad for Ursula. We don’t see enough of what she did as a villain to hate her in any way and in this world, apparently all she can afford to eat is RAMEN! That is so fucking sad! This woman does not deserve this!

-”What you do is complain.” And what you do is mooch, Rumple! Don’t bitch at the person who is hosting you, especially when she’s pissed! See, the one thing about being a coward (And I am a big fucking coward) is that we’re not confrontative when we don’t have the power! XD

-I love the implication that Cruella just went around our land AND landed a rich husband with the name “Cruella.” XD

-You know, CAN Cruella kill in a land without magic? Because no one else’s magic works, so maybe she’s been free all along! ...But then again, she probably would’ve killed her husband, so I guess it’s more of a reverse Weaver situation. Actually, to serve my point, at the end of the scene, Cruella drives down and like by all means, should’ve killed this guy but instead gets flung back into a bush! The universe is conspiring against her!

-”Aren’t you tired of feeling ordinary?” Please, even in this world, Cruella’s far from ordinary! Besides, for the wham line that this is, Cruella’s problem wasn’t that she was ordinary -- it’s that she couldn’t kill!

-Okay, so apparently Regina has a weakness for root beer! I hate the stuff, but good to know!

-I love how Killian smiles at Belle as she tells them that she did it! He’s so proud!

-Cruella’s power is so fucking cool! She can not only control animals, BUT she can have her commands spread from one animal to another. Like, how did this woman not at the very least take over a whole town with an army of rhinos?

-How come Mal’s staff absorbed the fire instead of just...Mal? She’s a fire breathing dragon! Give her some extra fire!

-Or...CAN Cruella kill? Because Rumple knows she can’t kill, but is still afraid?

-I know that Blue and Regina are far from friends, but it’s weird how much focus is put on their dynamic in this episode. There’s a lot of hesitation whenever they interact and given how little they interact on a regular basis, it’s odd.

-Why wouldn’t Blue not know or even not think about the possibility of the Author working for The Sorcerer, or vice versa?

-When did Isaac have the time to leave these “hidden clues?” And how come neither Merlin nor The Apprentice had anything to say about them if they were rumors?

-”This isn’t our first monster bash.” I honestly love how freakin’ well oiled this town is at times!

-I’m honestly curious what a 4B where the Queens of Darkness do decide to leave Rumple behind would look like. Because Cruella would’ve at least considered it, let’s be honest. I’m not saying I’d have preferred that, but I would totally read a fic of that universe.

-You know, I like the subtle costume details of just how destitute Rumple’s life has become. Everything from his phone to his cane are of poorer quality and his coat looks like he got it out of Goodwill. It a really good instance of costuming telling a story.

-”The sea bitch.” To my knowledge, you and Ursula have never met! Why are you calling her a bitch?

-”Swallows the heart with the darkest potential.” I’m trying to think about this in regards to Emma, the character we’re supposed to believe fulfills that role. I mean, sort of. I can see her intelligence, ability to detect lies, and connection to her family and friends to have potential to be abused to the detriment of others. It’s an interesting concept. And given how life in Storybrooke, while rewarding in a lot of senses, has made her life complicated as all hell, I can see her having a lot of baggage about it.

-David, welcome to the fucking episode! Seriously, was Josh just sick this week or something?

-”What made you choose yellow?” I love how Regina asks this as a means of not freaking the fuck out that a Chernabog is chasing her! It’s a very Regina thing to comment on and it’s hysterical because of it!

-I like how Emma points out the hypocrisy at play with her parents not trusting these two lower tier villains.

-”Not as horrible as I once was. And if I deserve a second chance, so do they. How can I sit here looking for my happiness and deny two others a chance at theirs?” This is a FANTASTIC Regina speech. It really shows how Regina’s grown to be more self aware and better equipped to help redeem other villains.

-I kind of wish Rumple had more of a scared reaction to the possibility of not being let into Storybrooke. Like, the rest of his life depends on this.

-”Make friends, build relationships.” And NONE of this ever happens! XD

Favorite Dynamic

The Queens of Darkness and Rumple - These guys are the main dynamic and they really do provide the most entertainment value. First, I want to point out how cool it is that Rumple is the one with power (both actual and figurative) in the past segment while the queens are in the present. That’s just interesting storytelling. Second, what I love about them in the present is that they get just as exasperated as we do about how frustratingly vague Rumple often is and that they use their power in the situation to get him to fucking stop to some degree. Their frustration slowly but noticeably builds up in the episode as Rumple continues not really saying anything and finally explodes and that is honestly really cathartic to watch. For as much as I love Rumple for how cryptic he can be, its a quality of his character that can easily be overdone and in a meta-sense, this was pointed out in-universe and almost prevents him from losing his own plan of revenge.

Writer

Adam and Eddy start up our half season with a solid start. Again, there’s not a lot to say here because while these two episodes have stories, they’re not so much rooted in something like theme which can be analyzed. The characters are all in solid form, and Regina’s in particularly great form. I will say though, there is a clunkiness to a lot of the lines. Sometimes, it’s a matter of people giving weird exposition or explaining things in a way that characters shouldn’t be able to understand (Ex. The entire middle of Killian and Belle’s discussion, Rumple telling Ursula and Cruella about being the Oxford professor).

Rating

10/10. I feel like there’s a singular word to describe this episode: Utilitarian. It’s all setup and a bit of tying loose ends up with a really basic ‘working together is good’ storyline in the past and sort of present. That’s not to say that it’s bad -- far from it. It just means that there’s not a lot of story to comment on. But this is a good version of setting up a story and biting off a loose end of two. There’s a lot of fun and interesting dynamics, it’s great to see all of our main heroes working together, and the queens get to show off the bulk of their charisma and intrigue.

Flip My Ship - The Home of All Things “Shippy Goodness”

Captain Swan - I love the bits of domesticity we get with Emma and Killian here. You can see that they’re really gotten the most out of these six weeks and have integrated themselves into each others lives. Like, the sequence at the beginning of the episode implies that this is a normal morning for the people of Storybrooke and Emma and Killian are literally part of each others routines! That shit is just too fucking cute!!! I’mma also plug my fic “Hero,” which is based around this episode. It’s one of my better work in my humble opinion and deals directly with Killian’s doubts in his own heroism that he displays in the hallway scene. Speaking of which, I do like the hallway scene. While I don’t like Emma giving Killian a total free pass, I do think that with the fairies, it’s warranted and deserved given how he very clearly didn’t want to go through with it.

-----

Thank you all for reading this pretty relaxed review. Sorry for all the delays lately, but I’m hoping I can pick up the pace from here.

Also, shoutout to @watchingfairytales and @daensarah. See you all next time!

Season 4 Total (105/230)

Writer Scores: Adam and Eddy: (34/60) Jane Espenson: (20/40) David Goodman and Jerome Schwartz: (30/50) Andrew Chambliss: (14/50) Dana Horgan: (6/30) Kalinda Vazquez: (14/40) Scott Nimerfro: (14/30) Tze Chun (8/20)

Operation Rewatch Archives

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

#ouat #once upon a time #watching fairytales #ouat 4x12 #ouat rewatch #jenna watches ouat

8 notes · View notes

marketrendy · 6 years ago

Text

The Future Of Sales: What If The Best Salesperson Is A Robot?

In an ongoing scene of Last Week Tonight, have John Oliver handled developing feelings of trepidation encompassing occupation uprooting because of robotization. "What would you like to do when you grow up?" he solicited a gathering from delightful 4-

what's more, 5-year-olds who provided the regular answers: pilot, legal advisor, specialist — and obviously, mermaid specialist.

Pouring water on these little children's fantasies — and those of grown-ups alike, Oliver refered to a disturbing University of Oxford ponder foreseeing up to 50 percent of human employments are in danger of being usurped by robots. (Albeit perhaps not the much-pined for mermaid specialist position.) By the sketch's end, Oliver made a forecast that different intellectuals have proposed: In the future "more secure" professions will include non-standard, particular work including imagination and enthusiastic knowledge (EQ.)

Quite a bit of what I have gained from cowriting the forthcoming book, Own the A.I. Upheaval: Unlock Your Artificial Intelligence Strategy to Disrupt Your Competition with U.N. Computer based intelligence counselor Neil Sahota has affirmed reality of Oliver's attestation. Numerous specialists have disclosed to us that advertise powers in the fourth Industrial Revolution will extend the requirement for people equipped for comprehension and reacting to others' passionate states. However, imagine a scenario where PCs could figure out how to distinguish and show sympathy superior to us.

Familiarity with this plausibility drove tech pioneer Scott Sandland to help establish Cyrano.ai, consolidating AI and EQ for business advancement. A Southern California-based business person, Sandland is an eminence subliminal specialist who sees the benefit of preparing machines to comprehend the lavishness of language, explicitly subtext, to convey feelings. "For quite a while now, PCs had not too bad voice acknowledgment equipped for understanding human discourse," says Sandland. "In any case, language is more unpredictable than the strict words we use. Which means can likewise be imparted through tone, setting, social channels, and subtext."

To outline what he implies by subtext, Sandland refers to the case of a companion welcoming you to their Super Bowl party. On the off chance that you state, "I'll attempt to be there," what you're truly saying is, "Much appreciated, yet I presumably won't come." Your wary reaction signs to your buddy the unrealisticness that you will eat jalapeno poppers on his lounge chair next Sunday. "You were being gracious in your answer," Sandland clarifies, "which any individual fit for perusing expressive gestures would get on. What we're doing now at Cyrano is instructing machines to distinguish such subtlety since it likely contains the genuine message being conveyed."

Without minds advanced to recognize the scarcest pitch change to uncover how another is feeling, Sandland and his group prepared their PCs to review printed signs for passionate states, including length of reaction, explicitness, the sort and assortment of words picked, avoidance, and the nearness or absence of duty words. As Disruptive Technology Director at Elsevier Labs Paul Groth, Ph.D., proposes, information is critical to utilitarian AI. Cyrano's A.I., in this manner, figured out how to identify phonetic hints by perusing transcripts among prospects and vehicle vendor agents. In time, their framework developed a calculation to anticipate if a prospect would purchase or not just founded on the words they utilized in an online interaction.Let's progression back for a minute and enable this plan to soak in. What Cyrano's organization does is out and out uncommon. Generally, the group has shown a PC to decide the internal passionate conditions of an individual — including their probability of purchasing from you — all dependent on as meager as the words composed to a sales bot. Presently, simply envision how much better an AI's end rate may be in the event that it had significantly more information to use.

For a look at what's conceivable, meet Cheri Tree. Tree helped to establish Codebreaker Technologies, Inc. with Esther Wildenberg, the organization's leader. As Tree depicts in her book, Why They Buy, she grew up adoring the surge of sales — even minimal ones like those she made pitching snacks to her companions at life experience school. Nonetheless, she hit a stopping point in her youngster profession as a monetary consultant by following conventional sales guidance. "Specialists will disclose to you sales is a numbers amusement," says Tree. "They state so as to get more yeses, you need to get more nos. I state that is one of the best legends at any point advised in light of the fact that the fact of the matter is to get more yeses you need to get more yeses, not more nos."

The following legitimate inquiry would be: So how could you get those yeses?

To answer this, Tree designed a logically approved appraisal procedure called B.A.N.K.; it has been included at the absolute biggest business gatherings around the globe, at Harvard University, and has been sponsored by research from San Francisco State University. "You may as of now be comfortable with Disk or MBTI," says Tree. "I basically figured out identity science and instead of structure it utilizing brain science, I assembled it utilizing BUYology, the investigation of purchasing conduct. Rather than surveying your identity, I constructed an appraisal dependent on who your client, depends on four identity types: Blueprint, Action, Nurturing and Knowledge. Our attention is on why they purchase and what triggers the yes and tripwires the no."

Drawing on a similar acknowledgment as Sandland, Tree perceived the key to sales includes correspondence authority. Shunning the common universality proposing a salesperson needs to just chip away at their introduction, Tree perceived the Dale Carnegie-esque truth that Sandland's sympathy driven bots flourish with: sales happen most every now and again when the qualities between a purchaser and dealer are adjusted. She often refers to an examination done by the Chally Group that just 18 percent of purchasers will purchase from a salesperson who doesn't coordinate the purchaser's identity type versus a 82 percent achievement rate when identity types are adjusted. Coming up short on the empathic authority shown by Cyrano's A.I. bots, many failing to meet expectations salespeople, in this way, end up rehashing a similar message, trusting the sheer number of endeavors will yield constructive outcomes and exposing themselves to the notorious numbers diversion.

As any veteran cold-guest will bear witness to, following a numbers approach can be productive — yet in addition tedious and crippling. Why trouble, asks Tree when you can alternate route the procedure and increase better outcomes (as much as 300% or higher) by realizing your prospect better. "The B.A.N.K. framework depends on an esteem framework," says Tree. "You can't simply consequently realize what somebody esteems. You can positively make suppositions, yet why B.A.N.K. has been so ground-breaking for sales is that it uncovers the needs of its prospects."

As of not long ago, Tree and her numerous followers have had the capacity to decide the purchasing propensities for their prospects inside 90 seconds by utilizing a card framework. In the case of gathering eye to eye or taking a snappy online appraisal, prospects are allowed the chance to choose which of the four identity types best speak to them arranged by significance. They can choose in the event that they see themselves as somebody who organizes steadiness and structure (Blueprint), a full-speed-ahead mover/shaker daring person, (Action), a warm and amicable relationship-driven sort (Nurturing), or an explanatory, legitimate mastermind (Knowledge).

"We found each client isn't only one of these four, they're really a mix of every one of the four," says Tree. "Along these lines, every individual has their very own B.A.N.K. code. Think about a B.A.N.K. code like a PIN code to your charge card. Each human has a four-digit B.A.N.K. code. Eventually, there are 24 mixes, which implies the normal salesperson has about a 4 percent shot of addressing their client in their careful code — which isn't exceptionally high."

B.A.N.K. Code tries to significantly expand sales adequacy from a troubling 4 percent to something a lot higher, which is the place Cyrano comes in. Inside the previous year, Sandland and Tree have joined to make DAVINCI. Fueled by Cyrano and educated by Tree's identity technique, it will be the world's first advanced specialist fit for unraveling a prospect's code. Utilizing an exclusive calculation, it can foresee an individual's purchasing conduct in nanoseconds.

"Here's a case of how this functions," says Sandland. "Envision you have been seeking a prospect for quite a while. DAVINCI can take a bunch of messages this individual has thought of you and with a push of a catch decide this present individual's code. In any case, that is not all. It can even prescribe how to tailor your composed reactions in order to best line up with your prospect's qualities. For instance, after I've composed my answer email, the framework can let me know whether I'm talking my client's language. In case I'm not, it will consequently disclose to me how to modify the email like the way A.I. autocompletes sentences."

This sort of A.I.- helped sales direction just indicates the future of DAVINCI's offerings. At this moment, it's being taken off to examine content, yet it will likewise work with voice information and video. In time, its advanced examination will include handfuls more measurements, estimating numerous parts of identity to best figure out what will at last lead to a yes. In light of these capacities, both Sandland and Tree concur PCs will before long beat the best salespeople. Past the straightforward actuality, AI is unequipped for having a self image or becoming exhausted of an extensive sales experience, it is enriched with a tremendous database of inquiries, answers, and reactions it has collected after some time. Accordingly, it can attract on memorable examples to decide the best game-plan. Or then again to utilize another abbreviation — A.B.C. — the one Alec Baldwin's character utilizes in the motion picture, Glengarry Glen Ross, AIs can truly "Dependably Be Closing."

Coming back to the subject of computerization raised toward the start of this article, does the rise of DAVINCI port

#future of sales sales marketing

0 notes