[january acknowledgment]

Almost a half year has past since the talk of a simple unit was mentioned. The answer to this thought was revealed somewhere between the two bags of possibility; the skunk and the bag which became emblazoned with the NFCO image. The first of the two was the basic black model, which after building was not quite basic enough. Then came the second, the vehicle to freedom, which was both more simple and more complicated. Each a success, and each a failure in their own right. Following these shoulder bags, sometimes referred to as “messenger” bags, was the rattle of the Brother, rattling away as we pulled scraps of material between the feed-dog and the presser-foot. This; however, was the faint cry of preparing to exhibit smocks in Berlin. Per usual, as these posts are often well behind schedule in terms of the physical making, January was used to build smocks of a shorter and more defined manner. The new garments were based on a mens shirt hem suitable for tucking in, but to be worn out (not to be confused with worn out, like wear-out, although the materials used were of a more suitable sub-system/structure for durability and comfort to the user, as the previous smocks lacked a certain user function, the new ones would be built to re-invest the wearer with the garment, completing and or creating a “true” architecture between the biological body and the fiber/textile body-system-structure-equivalent) in a more casual manner. Needless to say, this is the second month without a post – a sans’post month.

The Borg – Hive Mind – AI

In these acknowledgments we want to make our best attempt to clarify what has happened over the time slot which came up missing (as always the recording of this, is in itself, elusive and meandering, maybe due to looking back [into the hazy time], or because the actual events which occurred were elusive in themselves. Sometimes it seems that our best intentions are simply to create movements and connections between the anthropomorphic body and the other; these links and organizations are projecting thoughts in an abstract manner as there is no specific goal in mind to hold them to. With this the activity which follows becomes its own process – whether absorbed first-hand or second – creating and leap-frogging a new type of grammar less susceptible to hierarchies and imperialistic tendencies). January saw smocks and boots primarily, along with travel plans, and massive outside forces coalescing into a tumult of action and resistance. The boots, which became known as Boots [built for berlin] would be an intense lesson in leather, shoe-making, and stitching; along with material handling, representation, and path building. Much, or some, of this info – is being and has been – put into words within a few posts documenting the boots and their lineage. Some of the latter thoughts still simmer away. What stands out most is the direction in which the materials travel between user/activator and user/user. At what moment do the joining of the materials together – which form the idealized shape of a shoe – idealize the idea of the foot in motion with this particular shell that has superseded our natural apparatus. Which came first the chicken or the egg? In this sense we are going to go with the egg. Well, in all fairness, it probably was the egg. Either way; is the shoe and/or the idea of the shoe, stifling the ability for the foot to evolve and adapt? At what point do the materials which we breathe so many of our thoughts into take over natural occurrences? And if/when this happens is our making involved with creating things – in the likeness of our self? Or is it actually a pointed deviation from the anthro-us? It is hard to say, that when someone develops a product, that they are thinking through their body, or if their body is thinking through them. It would be wildly fascinating if there were a way to see this ability of the body thinking through us in the flesh (of course this is a horrible pun of sorts, is it not strangely determined that many, if not most, of us tend to see the world as it can be compared to our mirrored image? Is it not the other-way-around? Looking into the world around us inevitably has the most resolve of how our bodies came to be, thus does the world around us also point in the direction of how certain objects – human’made – came to be?). An example of the body thinking through us is difficult to conjure, and even more so it forces us to step backwards and ask what is the driving force in out decision making. The matter comes down to two sides (well, actually many many sides, but there is not enough room to dive into anymore at the moment) do we build to fulfill representational requirements (i.e. can we only see value in those objects which can relate to ourselves, necessitating connecting (any)things in a visual manner)? Or can, or do we, build things that possibly stem from an impulse deep inside of us which we do not understand until we can make the visual definition of such, whether in the first dimension, second, third, fourth, etc.. In other words, do the things we make, have to do with searching for “answers” or at best “solutions” to “problems” that we run into during our lives, in the most expansive sense – or, are we somewhat blinded by our vision, in the sense that it is very difficult to step away from our visual acuity when we design and build, and therefore are the results of our productive searches only slight variations and simulations of the environment around us which we see before we do anything else with it? Are our specific objects only appendages of the natural and built world, or can we build something truly unique, or from a truly unique source? And if we can, is there any source other than our own body to build from, can someone tap into the thought pattern of animals, or plants, or galaxies; and then build according to the systems those employ to “solve problems”?