Kymberly Ward, Independent
‘The Infinite Pensum vs. Creative Singularity”

No submission of paper-represented by abstract

The paper will address the idea of an infinite pattern of behaviour. By infinite I do not mean behaviour which simply repeats itself throughout time in the human race. This would be an effect. This patter arises from repetition as a fundamental movement of the intellect; a need to constantly understand and rationalise the world. The satisfaction gained from this effort however, can be compared to bodily phenomena in that it shares the same rhythm of a will to satisfaction, which is followed by an effort, the outcome of which is temporary and must be repeated. This idea makes reference to Bergson’s ‘Creative Evolution’.
Beginning with Beckett’s ‘The Unnamable’, I will discuss his concept of an ‘Infinite Pensum’-‘Pensum’ being an imposed task which one is obliged to carry out. The character in ‘The Unnamable’ confuses pensum with lesson: imposed task with something to be learnt. I wish to draw this concept of performativity through notions of both modern labour practice and artistic production. These notions are not typically considered in the same light. Whilst context driven art has sought to deal with the economic and social issues inherent in modern art practice, there seem to be similarities in both efforts of production which are fundamental to understanding the constructed, creative self within time and within organisation. A desire to produce is fundamentally human. This is then desire to assert the will, to shape what is outside the self, but also as a process of reflection of what constitutes the self. I will explore the extent to which labour practice can be considered to have an event based creativity, and the extend to which it can be thought to be an imposition on time and identity.
In this way ,Beckett’s ‘Infinite Pensum’ will be pitched against this notion of ‘Creative Singularity’; which necessarily arises through everyday practice and which stands as a constant whisper of opposition to enforced repetition. Creative Singularity will be viewed as a vice-dictive, anti-capitalist  phenomena.
We can also consider Creative Singularity as an alternative to the dialectic of control and response, which then favours the controller-initiator and sets up a pattern where the individual is constantly placed in a reactionary and therefore secondary position. In thought and speech we place the oppression first and the counter it with the reaction to oppression. Is it possible for us to understand this dialectic, not as a case of consent or resistance to power, but as a pure difference in articulation? This then gives the operator-individual a creativity which does not manifest itself only as a reaction to pressure, but which has always been present, and which will necessarily arise through everyday practice. Although this paper will deal with issues of labour, I see the area of interest more as that of repetition and embodiment. The work of Catherine Sullivan and Ellie Harrison will feature as illustrations of the friction between habitual repetition and the inimitable self.
Lastly, I will entertain the thought that if this paper identifies human endeavour as the embodiment of a repeated movement towards the solution of an infinite problem; then it is, in itself, a mechanical concept, or impermanent rationale-and thereby a thesis wrapped up in it’s own demise.