I Am Making This Essay Beautiful

Cover image by Javier Torras

This collection of intense and enclosed diary entries are from the start of 2014 to the start of 2015. They focus on epistemology in relation to self-awareness in art practice and essay writing.

It implicitly references post-Fordist theories emerging in architecture, design and fine art.


MAKER April 2014
I am a maker. This is a stated structure reflecting (consequentially, justifying) the structures I make, through a personally-constructed framework of myself. With respect to this essay, it is a critical review of myself, and the way the form of this structure built over the last year has concurrently advanced and inhibited my experiences, beliefs, and products. It considers in the terms of itself.

In approximating my environments, I believe myself to continually receive and produce as an autopoietic (self-generating) internal system of storage and communication. In a period of education, I aspire to manually accelerate this autopoiesis of making with external authority – academic structures of continual record, reflection and interrogation.

I aspire here toward a unified and objective theory of my experience, and its products in the structures I make. I present in individual texts contextual to each piece, inclusive indeterminately of both organically structured sketches and stunted attempts of coherent logical construction – order. Both are necessary for me to approach any objective understanding, but suffer by a coagulated and largely textual approach to reflection and conceptual interrogation, which doesn’t cater to the particularly striated styles my work goes through.

Such an approach reflects my limited time and the direction toward specific objects or events, yet contradicts my aspiration toward a unified theory. I have functionally differentiated and isolated this development system, and have attempted the construction and continuous iteration of a single theory of myself, in turn reflecting and justifying the contemporaneous work I make (this series, from which in fundamental extracts are reshaped in this essay are inclusive). It is an offset order, which iterates continuously through comparison to my autopoietic experience and with a function of unity – in resolving any crises that result in this order, the validity of my theory (my order) only increases.

ORDER June 2014
Order is the constructive nature of my consciousness – considered, correct to itself at the point of consideration, aspirant toward an objective and unified understanding of its surroundings.
My ordering process is a subset of a wider internal system of communication, with non-descript measures of consciousness and conscious control. In a primary construction referencing methodological functionalism, I consider the state of order by its aspiration – one toward itself – thereby making non-ordered structure as the absolute complement of order also aspirant toward itself, and resistant to organisation.

My notate my summated internal system as my ‘architecture’, a quasi- heteronomous environment of internal communication (my architecture defies the autonomous aspiration of this document by definition). Though my order as a product of my architecture has a variable fluidity with respect to it, its function aspires to unity. This is reflected in its statement, an external act of making. Statements into sociological systems of society are fluid respective to their individual autopoietic architectures. In set forms and with some kind of sociological construction of ‘physics’ making them legible (like number, or text), order can be re-read and set as a statement offset from my architecture – differential to its contemporaneous order, but in its set form rigid against any kind of fluid shift or architectural ‘folding’.

The iteration of my architecture (therefore by extension, orders and structures/statements) is relative and fluid to the experience of my surroundings – as an open system of internal communication, its experience and statements are its respective inputs and outputs. My architecture and its associated orders iterate concurrently in non- linear relationships, which in departing from core axioms in particular require increasingly complex foundations of knowledge – often stored in stated forms.

Though the order of my surroundings iterates in an aspiration to a unified and total reflection, I assume it as an approximation, total reflection asymptotic to any architectural understanding, and to its
objective state – a void will exist between my ordered understanding (correct to itself) of it and it independent from approximation. New experience makes an order of contradiction and crisis in any theory, subsequently resolved by a deconstruction and reconstruction of a more valid order.

This functional aspiration of order is key, as is its continual dichotomy of assertion and self-doubt in periods of crisis and resolution – order correct to itself and the assumptions not considered (or considered and then placed within an order of constraint), but not correct to anything else.

The differentiation of my internal system between architecture and order (an effective demarcation in the case of ORDER) concerns the hierarchy, contiguity and stability between statements – order is the constructive nature of my consciousness, the nature of logical reasoning. Logic defies my architecture, as my architecture is akin to my fluid experience – an experience I cannot contemporaneously doubt. Architecture is the nature of my existence.

To order requires only consideration (and a judgement of correctness in that consideration against the contiguity and hierarchy of a set authority). Where no authority exists, an architecturally experienced structure regardless of its content may be considered correct – and therefore ordered. This is not to say that these architecturally-sited orders are fluid entirely with experience, but without being externally stated they are susceptible to folding, and without being set as an external authority of reference fail to replicate themselves, being succeeded rather than iterated, with disparate structures. Though temporarily ordered, the architectural site of these orders undermines the validity of the aspiration to a unified and objective order.

The only authority in my architecture contiguous, logically hierarchical, and personally considered – that is, pure – is the aspiration of order itself. The validity of a new order derives from its ability to withstand authority. The validity of an authority derives from its ability to withstand new orders. Itself requiring a succession of architecturally- sited orders, the authority is set in the controlled and iterative form of ORDER, by the aspiration of consciousness in that process gravitating toward a central axiom concerning its own existence. Order aspires to itself.

Of course, I am not a computer and this is not a programme – I am an architecture, and this is an order. Though an accelerator to internal development, aspirations to centralisation and hierarchy in ordered development systems themselves conflict with its purpose as an accelerator of architectural development, and a reflection of architectural experiences.

Despite the abstract aspiration of this document being toward itself, it still operates in a dialogue with my architecture. Yet, beyond a programmatic extrapolation of its central axiom, it relies on architecturally-sited orders stated in development systems like my sketchbook not just to extrapolate its central axiom in a personable way, but also to direct the ordering of internal phenomena in a contiguous and logically hierarchical way – the ordered validity of architecturally sited orders being tested by their ability to withstand the authority of ORDER.

These exist as architectural irritations against ORDER, as ORDER irritates my architecture by occupying my experience and subsequent experiences post-occupation as I perform iterations onto it. This document is not a program – that is it textual rather than programmatic (despite a purist aspiration to be so) reflects its functional personability toward my human architecture – and iterates through the manual juxtaposition, amalgamation and insular iterations of small orders pasted into it from architectural sites.

In its incubatory stage which occupies almost all of my new experiences, this makes ORDER – a system demarcated on the terms of stability – unstable, with discontiguous clutter cut between official drafts.
The judgement of where these architectural irritations enter ORDER is set to where they have at least some contiguity or iterative concern with the epistemological body – beyond this they remain either as a set of disparate discontiguous clutter around the textual arguments in this document, or in architectural development systems like my sketchbook. Precisely that they don’t evolve through an iterative autopoiesis (and the reproductive contiguity it commands) allows them to be far more nimble in reflecting new experiences and perspectives, by expressing in textual, diagrammatic, programmatic and visual terms.

ORDER’s nature of demarcating itself from my general experience encourages the discussion between order and my experience to be one in exclusively methodologically functional terms – that order aspires to itself, that my architecture as the absolute complement of order aspires to itself, thereby creating a dichotomy between ordered structure and architectural mass. Such an algorithmic approach to what is a personable development system becomes dysfunctional in changing its state – amalgamating the new, and accommodating the discontiguous.

Orders discontiguous to this centralised structure, dealing often with complex sociological and spiritual subject matter, defy the internalist stance of ORDER. Yet in being stated within its code and structural language without any support for epistemological contiguity, they remove themselves from the very ambiguities that make them personably – architecturally – ordered. Though phenomena successively recurrent in architectural development systems stands to benefit from iterative structure and the specificity of concern applied to it, in being discontiguous to the centralised iterative structure of ORDER they cannot be immediately resolved with it on its terms – a total logical conclusivity local to a particular set of ideas should not be expected of structure globally discontiguous to its epistemological axiom.
The desire to integrate discontiguous orders into ORDER highlights its aspiration of stability, of the resolved. The failure to enact such a strictly algorithmic approach reflects the personability of order, and as a reflection of that order, this essay, which originally intended to document such structure in discontiguous and disparate outposts.

The contradiction of ORDER’s programmatic internalism with its textual personability is key to understanding the exploitation of its function in making. ORDER is reliant on my architecture to exist –its development originated from many cycles of successive architectural orders, with its internal aspiration directing it from its initial discussion points (now themselves discontiguous to this document). The nimbleness that allowed this derives from its scale, one that as in surpassing my personability to co-ordinate it, becomes dysfunctional.

Here, the issue of resolving an iterative epistemological structure with its surrounding mass of recurrent architectural order then revolves around the exploitation of its form on summated (thereby architecturally-led) terms – interrogating the extent with which my order should operate, and resolving the relationship between it and architecturally-sited orders. This itself is something beyond the demarcated realm of this essay. By reviewing and extending it, the consideration of what order is moves inward, only to be repelled in each section by order discontiguous to its inward gaze. Its poetry extends instead throughout my work, its ambiguities supported by an order held entirely by architectural choice – the choice to demarcate the generator of its phenomenology to a centralised system by existential and epistemological necessity, and to monitor this authority as not to undermine its multiplicit beauty. By poetically undermining this essay within its own terms, am I making it beautiful?

Nathan Caldecott

Nathan Caldecott

Nathan Caldecott is a Fine Art student at the Ruskin, University of Oxford.
Nathan Caldecott

Latest posts by Nathan Caldecott (see all)