Projection: Vanishing and Becoming, Sean Cubitt
I really liked that Cubitt was able to combine so many different ideas about art into a coherent argument that considers projection as an expression of âbecoming, not vanishingâ. Itâs interesting to think that by analyzing the mode of  perception, artists are able to â[unpack] the machineries they [work] withâ to build understanding and enable ânew ways of seeingâ.
However, though I agree that new perspectives of the world do entail new realities, I would argue that those new realities would be innately self-serving to human needs and restricted in scope to human qualities. Noam Chomsky argues in his book, What Kind of Creatures Are We? that in order to have scope, there must be limits. Chomsky gives the example of growing limbs instead of wings; we do so because of the creatures that we are. So though we might have new vanishing points, or scopes of reference, new inventions like electricity would be different reiterations of fire with new realities that donât fundamentally change our nature as humans.
I would agree with Cubitt that having âan accurate account of the worldâ should not be the business of art. Logicians might have strong reasons for requiring an objective reality, but many things that we experience and reproduce in art donât exist as objects; take for instance the ideas of money, religion, politics. Ideas have real, powerful impacts on the world because we are the physical embodiments of them and do their biddings when we react to the experience. Also, the accuracy of reality would always be questionable.
