[no title: p. 238] 1970

Editor: This is an intriguing piece by Esq Tom Phillips, simply titled “[no title: p. 238]” from an unknown date. It appears to be ink on a printed page, densely overlaid with what looks like cross-hatching. What do you make of this intervention, focusing on how Phillips changes the original text? Curator: The over-layering radically alters the text’s surface and, consequently, its semiotic function. Note the areas where Phillips has subtracted information, creating stark white voids. These absences are as crucial as the red ink, guiding the eye and prompting a re-evaluation of language's capacity for both presence and absence. Editor: So, the act of obscuring is as significant as what remains visible? Curator: Precisely. The red cross-hatching isn't mere decoration; it is a forceful assertion, a visual declaration disrupting conventional modes of reading. Consider how the materiality of the ink itself commands attention, almost overwhelming the printed text beneath. Editor: I hadn’t considered the materiality so much. It's like the ink is fighting against the existing text. Curator: Indeed. It’s a power struggle played out on the page. The act of defacement is a critical act. Editor: I see the textual struggle now! I’ll never look at redaction the same way again.