M32 I. G. Plamen and Marko Pogačnik

OHO (1966)

The OHO group was part of the wider OHO movement that emerged in Slovenia in the early 1960s. The name is a combination of the Slovenian words oko (eye) and uho (ear), as well as an expression of surprise. Founded in the tiny city of Kranj by the sculptor Marko Pogačnik (b. 1944) and the poet Iztok Geister (also known as I. G. Plamen; b. 1945), OHO promoted experimental art through visual poetry. Their interest in structuralism, and in the German philosopher Martin Heidegger’s use of language as the vehicle through which being can be explored, attracted collaborations from numerous writers, sociologists and philosophers.

The OHO group explored the concept of reism, a theory promoted by the critic Taras Kermauner that reduces all categories to that of things. For OHO, these ‘things’ took the forms of books, games and happenings, anti-art that delineated everyday life. This led them to embrace Arte povera and land art until, in 1970, they conceived the idea of ‘transcendental conceptualism’ – art that exists beyond the boundaries of human experience. As a result of this theory, OHO stopped creating art altogether, opting instead for an aesthetics of silence. They formed a commune in the village of Šempas in which art became subsumed by the day-to-day realities of human existence.

Plamen and Pogačnik presented their idiosyncratic linguistic manifesto in the Slovenian student paper Tribuna in November 1966, on the occasion of the publication of their book OHO.

* * *

What is this on newspaper in printer’s ink in a trace which falls and rises in a curve, then falls past three dots and runs part of the length in a straight line and falls steeply and turns back sharply, curving, falls sharply and levels out lengthwise and curves up to the corner, whence it falls and rises in a curve, then falls past three dots?

This is not a body, rounded along the volume of a foot, with a hole in the form of a split mouth with three arches of thread punctured with three holes twice, which are encircled by six-sided, inwardly curved metal rings, while the tongue lolls out of the mouth, tipped with twelve little arches, opposite the belt which hugs the back, bordered by two columns of stitches, turning inward at the edge under the layer of leather which lines the interior, and is then sewn into the material which stretches to the end of the interior and touches the very bottom, etched on the sole with the golden letters E, X, P, O, R and T, and with rubber on the outer side with parallel ribs which line up from the rough plain on both sides of the centre, which is full of hooked teeth appearing from the right and disappearing to the right, emerges the inscription EURASIA, a sharp ridge rises to an arched wall which raises the heel with hooked teeth appearing from the left and disappearing to the right, with a row of parallel teeth on the sides between the threshold and the rough plain cut into the sole, which lies tightly against the thick leather line, which lies tightly hugging the body, rounded along the volume of a foot, with a hole in the form of a split mouth, with three arches of thread, punctured with three holes twice, which are encircled by six-sided inwardly curved metal rings.

OHO

When does prostor {space} break down into prosti zor {free vision}. When I write this, therefore immediately or simultaneously. When I sprostim {release, relax} prostor {space} into prosti zor {free vision}, therefore immediately or simultaneously. In the pred-stavi {representation, before-position} ob-staja {exists, near-position} prostor {space} which is empty, which is prost {free} in the sense that (n)aught is there. If it is true that (n)aught is there, then what is. Therefore the definition or claiming of space is not possible because of the presence of nothing, which will be there (parts), if anything is already there at the time when (n)ought is.

And truly, prosti zor {free vision} is liberty-filled vision, such a vision is its own master. In the same way as a book is not thrown into (societal) space, as there is no space for the book there, rather the book itself is space, where again there is no space for anything else. Where there is space, there is no space.

Is any kind of engagement possible in space? It is not, as prostor {space} itself is engaged in its prostost {freeness}. And what is it doing in its prostost {freeness}? Looking. To look at oneself means being at liberty. To look elsewhere, away from oneself, means being in od-nosu {relationship, from-carry, from-nose} or in dichotomy. Absolutely and relatively these two have nothing in common. As they each preclude the other. Prosti zor {free vision} is absolute vision. The claimers of space are in odnosu {relationship} with space. Thus they are not in themselves and not in the claimed space.

OHO

What is this, the absurd. We cannot know how misel {thought} misli {thinks}. We can, however, misliti {think} brez misli {without thought} of it. To think means not to understand thought. (To understand thought means to know.) Misliti {to think} z misljio {with thought} of something, that is to be z misljio {with thought}, means to think smisleno {sensibly, wisely}. Misliti {to think} of something brez misli {without thought} of it, that is to be v mišljenju {in thought}, to think precisely, means to think nesmisleno {senselessly, unwisely}.

We can misliti {think} brez misli {without thought} of it because we cannot predstaviti (imagine) thought and because we cannot understand thought.

The criteria for whether something is predstavljivo {imaginable, before-position} or not predstavlja {is represented by, before-position} obstojnost {the quality of lasting, near-positionness}. For human thought, reality ob-staja {exists, near-position} in the manner of predstave {representation}. Thought which is predstavljiva {imaginable} is obstojna {lasting, existent, near-position}. What is the nature of thought which is not predstavljiva {imaginable}. We shall say that such misel {thought} is miselna {of thought}. Is there anyone anywhere who thinks in the manner of misli {thoughts} and not in the manner of predstare {representations}. Children (infants) think in the manner of thought. A child’s thought thinks in a fantastic manner. In its pure purpose, therefore, thought which is not predstavljiva {imaginable} is fantastic.

The criteria for whether something is understandable or not predstavlja {is represented} by the circumstances that the stvar {thing} (misli {thought}) which is zamišljena {in thought, thought up} has forced upon it the logos of razumen {reasonable, understanding} viewing of the thing (thought), which is videnja {seeing} or vedenja {knowing, behaviour}. When the logos of the stvar {thing} (misli {thought}) is discovered in the stvar {thing} (misli {thought}), this stvar {thing} is found in its stvarnost {reality} (mentality). Reason is found only in vedenju {knowing, behaviour}, which is the stvarnost {reality} of reason. We can, therefore, think (not understand) thought in a fantastic manner (this is not in the manner of representation). Misunderstood and unimagined thought which occupies its reality in a fantastic manner is absurd thought.

Now it is clear that thought should be (when it is the issue at hand) fantastic reality or real fantasy. Is not thus absurd thought the only thought?

OHO

A MAN A PLAN A CANAL PANAMA: se-stavljene {composed, self-position} words are in a sestav {composition} or a skupnost {cluster} of stavov {positions} (stališč {standpoints}). The stališča {standpoints} are the following: A, MAN, A, PLAN, A, CANAL, and PANAMA. But these stališča {standpoints} not only se-stavljajo {compose, self-position} the sestav {composition}, they also se rukajo {shove themselves}. The right roka {hand} ruka {shoves} them, as this composition is left-handed. The standpoints of the right-handed composition are the following: ANAMAP, LANAC, A, NALP, A, NAM and A. A two-handed composition is also possible: AMANAPLANACANALPANAMA. But this kind of two-handedness is rare. However, the conceptual standpoint is occasionally more lax than that of words, as in the case of the two-handed composition, shut out by one eye and looked at by the other. LEWDDIDILIVEEVILIDIDDWEL. We obviously made up this word, but the concept has remained the same as if we had written dwell. The conceptual standpoint izhaja iz (za za) mišljenje besede {stems from (for for) the words thought, stems from behind the word thought-up}. Thus we extracted the word from the thought for this word. Or is it possible to think a word up at all?

Stvari {things} are stvarne {real}. We draw close to the stvarnost stvari {reality of things} by accepting a thing as it is. And what is a thing as? A thing, we notice first, is silent. But the thing has something to offer!

With a word we entice the unheard voice from a thing. Only the word hears this voice. The word registers or mars the voice of the thing. This voice, marked with a word, speech utters. Here speech meets with music, which is the heard voice of a thing.

Now we would like to know whether we can entice with a word the unheard voice from thought. Is thought also ever silent, although it has something to offer? These are thoughts yet to be wakened, arising from the ‘subconscious.’ Words which these thoughts mark are not concepts as long as they are not thoughts. Only the thought-up word dewL is therefore a word which helps a thing do besede {to reach expression, to the word}.

OHO

A book has been published; its name is OHO. The bookstores are currently selling it.