indifference to and difference of these three definitions is the key of being vulgarity or/and originality.
“singularity” – “specialty” – “individuality”
vulgar singularity – original singularity.
vulgar specialty – original specialty.
vulgar individuality – original individuality.
x x x
Let’s think about the subjects and objects and their connection and respect to these three definitions
modernity (but not being modern)
avant-garde (but not being avant-garde)
x x x
Then let’s think and solve the problem in a very rational mathematical process the influence of social, political, financial, historical and . . . things on those three and compound of these things and those three.
x x x
In other words, there is no utopian happiness but there is salvation. That should be. Otherwise without salvation would be everything boring. Agamben names it ”coming of the place to itself (under taking-place)” (zu-sich-kommen (under statt-finden)) and there is one concept, it can solve the challenge: usage or rather ethos. It’s all about ”what must be” and not ”what is”.