aesthetics and contemporary culture
david black f
aestheticization of experience--where images and aesthetic criteria for
interpreting those images come to dominate public life. This phenomenon
has a history.
If modernity meant that the aesthetic category was separated from
moral (ethics) and practical (logic) reason (the breakdown of the unified
sensibility that T.S. Eliot mourned), the postmodern has seen the revenge
of the aesthetic, as a culture of images, spectacle and simulation has
subsumed the other two fundamental elements in human sensibility. The
aesthetic has become the dominant element in contemporary culture, and the
difficult business of making value choices reduced to who or what looks
good.
The revenge of the aesthetic can be dated at least to some
of the early 20th century artistic modernisms. The example of the
Futurists--under their leader and muse, Marinetti--is instructive. In
offering this example, of course, I am indebted to Walter Benjamin's
famous analysis of fascist aesthetics in his essay "Art in the Age of
Mechanical Reproduction." Susan Sontag has also written on the
topic--with reference to Hitler's filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl--in her
Under the Sign of Saturn, an essay entitled "Fascinating Fascism."
Not for nothing did Futurism enjoy special patronage in Benito
Mussolini's fascism regime. For although direct collaboration between
Futurism and Fascism was limited, Futurism offered an ideology of use to
Fascism. Notably, it allowed politics--normally the place where ethics
and logic are brought to bear on human reality--to be aestheticized. In
celebrating speed, machines, the annihilation of history, danger and
energy, the group of Italian artists, writers, and thespians identifying
as "Futurists" offered myths, images, slogans and other ideological props
for a fledgling Italian Fascist system.
The Futurists' oft-quoted slogan from Marinetti's 1909 "Foundation
Manifesto of Futurism"--"We will glorify war--the world's only
hygiene--militarism, patriotism, the destructive gestures of freedom
bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for women"--could
have been written by any one of the contemporary New Right. Neo-conservative
politicians today have been especially adept at taking advantage of po-mo
aestheticization; witness Reagan's mastery of the TV medium, Newt
Gingrich's information society utopianism (with debts to fellow neo-cons
Daniel Bell and Alvin Toffler).
I find in Cultural Studies a means to engage and decode the
aestheticization of experience, and a way to talk about values while
admitting that such discussion has now to take place with reference to a
world we know largely in picture form. But a clinical separation of
moral, practical and aesthetic reason I find impractical. I welcome
comments on aestheticization and postmodern culture.
Omar Haneef '96
> An unfortunate condition of contemporary culture is the general
> aestheticization of experience--where images and aesthetic criteria for
> interpreting those images come to dominate public life. This phenomenon
> has a history.
experience" is really the end of logocentricism. The word is dead, long live
the image. The reasons probably have a lot to do with saturation of
information and the way pictures carry more information than words. The
written word became very important when the printing press was estabilished
because monks carried around the medieval equivelant of powerbooks with more
information then anyone could carry in their heads and the elite probably
enjoyed their exclusive ability to read. Now everybody reads, there is more
information "in the ether" then we can handle and images are cheaply and
easily recreated just like words. Welcome to the era of the image. Why is
this unfortunate? This might be slightly more democratic since we all decode
images at roughly the same rate and the word is so huge and pretentious that
it, perhaps, deserves to die. The "kill your TV" anxiety that you seemed to
be faced with is a hiccup of Leavisism and his mass cultural fear which
probably dates back to the French Revolution's fear of the masses. You are
not alone, there are proabably plenty of others who agree with you "Amusing
Ourselves to Death" - Neil Postman is a recent example of this line of
thinking.
> If modernity meant that the aesthetic category was separated from
> moral (ethics) and practical (logic) reason (the breakdown of the unified
> sensibility that T.S. Eliot mourned), the postmodern has seen the revenge
> of the aesthetic, as a culture of images, spectacle and simulation has
> subsumed the other two fundamental elements in human sensibility. The
> aesthetic has become the dominant element in contemporary culture, and the
> difficult business of making value choices reduced to who or what looks
> good.
But postmodernity called me up yesterday and explained to me that it
has collapsed these distinctions. The moral, the aesthetic and the practical
are ONE. Pomo does not revel in the aesthetic, it revels in all three.
Whoah! Postmodernism is aesthetic and relies on images. The fascists
relied on images. Pomos are fascists? Uh-uh. This is a huge stretch.
Everyone has always employed images: the communists, the american, the
christians, the muslims, the hindus, the nazis, the lesbians, the jews, the
academics, the media, the law. Notice how an image may pop into your head
when I mention these "movements" : hammer and sickle, apple pie, the cross,
the crescent, that swastika looking symbol, the swastika, the pink triangle
(or more specificall, black), star of david, pen and book?, the camera, the
balance etc. This hardly means they are all postmodern.
On the contrary, postmodernity is concerned with a PROLIFERATION of
images so that no one image stands out. It is concerned with the
multiplicity of images, a mass of images. It is anti-fascist in that sense.
(When one talks of the postmodern aesthetic, I can only think of MTV)
> I find in Cultural Studies a means to engage and decode the
> aestheticization of experience, and a way to talk about values while
> admitting that such discussion has now to take place with reference to a
> world we know largely in picture form.
The world has ALWAYS been "largely in picture form". With
postmodernity DISCOURSE ITSELF is "largely in picture form." Cultural
studies is concerned, partly, with looking at this pictoral DISCOURSE while
the rest of Lit Crit remains logocentric examining the written word (even
after Derrida pretty much killed it).
> But a clinical separation of
> moral, practical and aesthetic reason I find impractical.
Then why do you do it?
-Omar Haneef
Mark Weinles
writes:
An unfortunate condition of contemporary culture is the general
aestheticization of experience--where images and aesthetic criteria for
interpreting those images come to dominate public life. This phenomenon
has a history. [...] The aesthetic has become the dominant element in
contemporary culture, and the difficult business of making value
choices reduced to who or what looks good. [...]
Much as I admire Benjamin, I find his suggestion that fascism
is "the aestheticization of politics" to be one of the least illuminat-
ing ideas that he ever set down. It may offer a handy way to analyze
Futurism, but I'd like to know why you believe that it has a larger
value, or, to put it another way, why you consider that "the aesthetiz-
ing of experience" is necessarily a misfortune. What about the other
possibility that "existence and the world are justified _only_ as an
aesthetic phenomenon"? (Emphasis mine.) And what do you think of the
criticism that your position derives from an animosity to _style_?
-- Mark Weinles
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Launchpad is an experimental internet BBS. The views of its users do not
necessarily represent those of UNC-Chapel Hill, OIT, or the SysOps.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
NS Brown
[David Black wrote:]
: [...] Neo-conservative
: politicians today have been especially adept at taking advantage of po-mo
: aestheticization; witness Reagan's mastery of the TV medium, Newt
: Gingrich's information society utopianism (with debts to fellow neo-cons
: Daniel Bell and Alvin Toffler).
Sloganeering and image-over-substance are hardly new phenomena.
They are the traditional tools of political minorities, who are
in the fortunate position of being able to make a lot of noise
without having to *do* anything. Now that the rad-cons are at
the helm, they'll be backing down from their tall talk in short
order. It's already happening, as clause after clause of the
Contract With (On!) America is being quietly shuffled off to the
shredder.
It's easy to quote Shakespeare's "Power corrupts; absolute power
corrupts absolutely" when one is one step removed from the throne.
Once one takes the throne, the truth of the statement becomes
apparent (at least to everyone else).
Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
Cris
Andy Perry
Brown) wrote:
> It's easy to quote Shakespeare's "Power corrupts; absolute power
> corrupts absolutely" when one is one step removed from the throne.
I believe it was Aristotle who said "Freedom's just another word for
nothing left to lose."
--
Andy Perry "This life has been a test.
Brown University Had this been an actual life,
Dept of English you would have received instructions
Andrew...@Brown.edu OR on where to go and what to do."
st00...@Brownvm.bitnet -- Angela Chase
NS Brown
[In response to David Black's post on the aestheticization of
politics and Futurism (essentially bemoaning the rise of style
over substance), Mark Weinless wrote:]
: Much as I admire Benjamin, I find his suggestion that fascism
: is "the aestheticization of politics" to be one of the least illuminat-
: ing ideas that he ever set down. It may offer a handy way to analyze
: Futurism, but I'd like to know why you believe that it has a larger
: value, or, to put it another way, why you consider that "the aesthetiz-
: ing of experience" is necessarily a misfortune. What about the other
: possibility that "existence and the world are justified _only_ as an
: aesthetic phenomenon"? (Emphasis mine.) And what do you think of the
: criticism that your position derives from an animosity to _style_?
Mark, I don't know what David will have to say to your assertion
that "existence and the world are justified _only_ as an aesthetic
phenomenon," but I concur wholeheartedly. I even end up arguing
that we've constructed the "laws of science" the way we have more
because of *us* and our need for order, rather than because of
anything "writ large on the cosmos." The Universe, if it can be
said to exist as an "it," is a canvas upon which we paint our
experience.
PR...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
(Omar Haneef '96) says:
>
>david black f (dbl...@mach1.wlu.ca) wrote:
>> The Futurists' oft-quoted slogan from Marinetti's 1909 "Foundation
>> Manifesto of Futurism"--"We will glorify war--the world's only
>> hygiene--militarism, patriotism, the destructive gestures of freedom
>> bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for women"--could
>> have been written by any one of the contemporary New Right. Neo-conservative
>> politicians today have been especially adept at taking advantage of po-mo
>> aestheticization; witness Reagan's mastery of the TV medium, Newt
>> Gingrich's information society utopianism (with debts to fellow neo-cons
>> Daniel Bell and Alvin Toffler).
struggle which would lead to revolution. (see Perloff's The Futurist Moment.)
Perhaps their mistake was being naive enough to assume they could somehow
use the fascists to their own ends... but then again, who could have
anticipated the holocaust....?
Especially if you were a futurist with positivist leanings and associated
technical progress with civilized behavior?
I think it is the luxury of your position, looking backwards at the
futurists through the holocaust, that enables you to accuse them of supporting
crimes they didn't even believe were possible.
There were many circumstances in which the Futurists DIRECTLY confronted
fascist policy. See Robert Motherwell's anthology Dada. An excerpt
from the diary of Mohol-Nagy's wife (whose name I can't remember)
describes a Nazi dinner party in which Manaretti made a mockery
of the occasion by reading phonetic poetry and tipping the contents
of the entire banquet table onto the laps of the Nazi brass... including
Goering himself.
I'm not sure what this anecdote really demonstrates besides an equally
valid reading of Futurism as a form of proto-deconstruction perhaps.
I would avoid statements such as futurism=fascism.
Everything the Nazi's touched didn't turn into fascism... that is
giving them far too much credit.
> On the contrary, postmodernity is concerned with a PROLIFERATION of
>images so that no one image stands out. It is concerned with the
>multiplicity of images, a mass of images. It is anti-fascist in that sense.
>
Pattern of Fascist Propaganda) as relying on the proliferation of images.
It is the tactic of fascism to repeat an image endlessly and everywhere
in order to generate an atmosphere which will not only make it seem true,
but restrict the range of possible readings.
>(When one talks of the postmodern aesthetic, I can only think of MTV)
it depends on the ability to posture as anti-establishment.
MTV is more concerned with encapsulating rebellion. It is liberal.
Fascist propaganda overtly rationalized mass movements as normative.
..which means different things if you really think about it.
Andy Perry
Brown) wrote:
Note, however, that order does not equal beauty. There are many theories
of perception, truth, etc. which argue that the "laws of science" are
constructed based upon human needs for order or prediction, which have
nothing to do with aesthetics. Of course, since I've already shown my
Nietzschean colors around here on numerous occasions, you may have
gathered that I too have an occasional sympathy for the aestheticization
of life...
Gordon Fitch
| ...
| On the other hand, Adorno describes fascism (In Freudian Theory and the
| Pattern of Fascist Propaganda) as relying on the proliferation of images.
| It is the tactic of fascism to repeat an image endlessly and everywhere
| in order to generate an atmosphere which will not only make it seem true,
| but restrict the range of possible readings.
I think this is a tactic of all forms of totalitarianism,
including, of course, our own, as a glance at a newsstand or
the supermarket shelves will tell you. The industrialism of
Authority, I suppose. What it the cyberneticization of
Authority?
--
>< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><
Andy Perry
For those of us not up on our Adorno (although, to admit that at Brown is
dangerous. Don't tell anyone...), could you guys expand on this a bit. I
would assume that the proliferation of images would expand, rather than
restrict, the range of possible readings, since each image would be
disseminated through more disparate interpretive contexts...
Gordon Fitch
| > | ...
| > | On the other hand, Adorno describes fascism (In Freudian Theory and the
| > | Pattern of Fascist Propaganda) as relying on the proliferation of images.
| > | It is the tactic of fascism to repeat an image endlessly and everywhere
| > | in order to generate an atmosphere which will not only make it seem true,
| > | but restrict the range of possible readings.
| > | ...
g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
| > I think this is a tactic of all forms of totalitarianism,
| > including, of course, our own, as a glance at a newsstand or
| > the supermarket shelves will tell you. The industrialism of
| > Authority, I suppose. What it the cyberneticization of
| > Authority?
Andrew...@Brown.edu (Andy Perry):
| For those of us not up on our Adorno (although, to admit that at Brown is
| dangerous. Don't tell anyone...), could you guys expand on this a bit. I
| would assume that the proliferation of images would expand, rather than
| restrict, the range of possible readings, since each image would be
| disseminated through more disparate interpretive contexts...
I don't think the disseminators of the images see them that
way. About a year ago, I went to see an exhibition mounted
by Komar and Melamid which included a pyramid upon and
around which stood some seven hundred or so busts of Lenin.
The effect, which one might have thought would be comical,
was remarkably asphyxiating. This installation condensed, I
think, the desired effect of the proliferation of images,
one of power, suppression, and inevitability. However, I
don't know how they worked in real life, not having been a
Soviet Citizen in the time from whence these busts came.
Those I have met who were, seem unsuppressed; so my guess is
that the worshippers of the multiplied image put more faith
in it than it deserved.
--
>< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><
michael calvin mcgee
(nsb...@news.IntNet.net) writes:
>[In response to David Black's post on the aestheticization of
>politics and Futurism (essentially bemoaning the rise of style
>over substance), Mark Weinless wrote:]
>
>: Much as I admire Benjamin, I find his suggestion that fascism
>: is "the aestheticization of politics" to be one of the least illuminat-
>: ing ideas that he ever set down. It may offer a handy way to analyze
>: Futurism, but I'd like to know why you believe that it has a larger
>: value, or, to put it another way, why you consider that "the aesthetiz-
>: ing of experience" is necessarily a misfortune. What about the other
>: possibility that "existence and the world are justified _only_ as an
>: aesthetic phenomenon"? (Emphasis mine.) And what do you think of the
>: criticism that your position derives from an animosity to _style_?
>
>Mark, I don't know what David will have to say to your assertion
>that "existence and the world are justified _only_ as an aesthetic
>phenomenon," but I concur wholeheartedly.
Lest we forget, gentlemen, the association of fascism with this
thread of argument is not simply flaming. Mussolini especially,
and also Hitler, theorized "cultural politics" as the way both
to excite and to control the "experience of the masses." Insofar
as fascism is characterized by +any+ ideological uniformity, it
would be the firm commitment that politics (and even science) had
to be "aestheticized." When "existence and the world" are argued
for solely on a construction that they are "aesthetic phenomena,"
nothing is left to give the "artist" pause. Not only can this be
dangerous politically, but it is also a questionable stance from
an aesthetic viewpoint, because +negation is a necessary posture+
for all artists. "Pure creativity" cannot be "art," for it has
no means to reject its "false starts." Without such terms as
"grace," "eloquence," "style," etc. +you can't have an aesthetic,+
and without an aesthetic, you have no justification for your
experientialism.
michael
PR...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
>
><PR...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>:
>| > | ...
>| > | On the other hand, Adorno describes fascism (In Freudian Theory and the
>| > | Pattern of Fascist Propaganda) as relying on the proliferation of images.
>| > | It is the tactic of fascism to repeat an image endlessly and everywhere
>| > | in order to generate an atmosphere which will not only make it seem true,
>| > | but restrict the range of possible readings.
>| > | ...
>
>g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
>| > I think this is a tactic of all forms of totalitarianism,
>| > including, of course, our own, as a glance at a newsstand or
>| > the supermarket shelves will tell you. The industrialism of
>| > Authority, I suppose. What it the cyberneticization of
>| > Authority?
>
Jameson, in Late Capitalism, says something about how the postmodern
aesthetic can only be flawed by an interuption of its ceaseless
transformations... this makes me think of a liquid... perhaps able to
flow around everything.
Fascist propaganda, which I've seen, was rarely aqueous however.
>Andrew...@Brown.edu (Andy Perry):
>| For those of us not up on our Adorno (although, to admit that at Brown is
>| dangerous. Don't tell anyone...), could you guys expand on this a bit. I
>| would assume that the proliferation of images would expand, rather than
>| restrict, the range of possible readings, since each image would be
>| disseminated through more disparate interpretive contexts...
>
of backdrop for the leader which not only reinforces validity, but
encourages individualism and narcissism through identification, which, in
turn, limits interpretation. The group, then, becomes a fragmented
collection of little dictators undermining any kind of interaction
which might lead to critical thinking.
The presence of the dictator is a bit like the author function
for all propaganda as well as an author/model for ones own behavior...
which, of course, comes into play when interpreting the propaganda.
Advertising functions in a similar way by making commodities for
"you alone" and by appealing to standards of normalcy... but it is
not quite as centralized... I don't think.
NS Brown
[I wrote:]
: >Mark, I don't know what David will have to say to your assertion
: >that "existence and the world are justified _only_ as an aesthetic
: >phenomenon," but I concur wholeheartedly.
[Michael Calvin McGee replies:]
: Lest we forget, gentlemen, the association of fascism with this
: thread of argument is not simply flaming. Mussolini especially,
: and also Hitler, theorized "cultural politics" as the way both
: to excite and to control the "experience of the masses." Insofar
: as fascism is characterized by +any+ ideological uniformity, it
: would be the firm commitment that politics (and even science) had
: to be "aestheticized." When "existence and the world" are argued
: for solely on a construction that they are "aesthetic phenomena,"
: nothing is left to give the "artist" pause.
Viewing life as an aesthetic (experiential) phenomena is not
at the root of facism. Indeed, experientialism notes that we
each construct our *own* experiences, and that there is no
Absolute Truth by which we can determine whose experiences are
true or false. This would *not* fit well in a facist state,
because they *do* believe there is Absolute Truth ... and
they've found it!
Facism is a distinctly *modern* political scheme. It takes the
notion of a mechanistic universe and applies it to the body
politic. It claims to have Absolute Truth, and demands that
every aspect of society be subservient to and directed toward
that Absolute Truth. Art becomes propaganda (rhetoric), yet
another cog in the wheels of politics. Minorities and unde-
sirables are systematically "Othered" to provide a scapegoat
for the ills that remain.
Notions of certainty are crucial to the formation of facism.
Notions of certainty are notably lacking in the idea that we
construct our own experiences.
: Not only can this be
: dangerous politically, but it is also a questionable stance from
: an aesthetic viewpoint, because +negation is a necessary posture+
: for all artists. "Pure creativity" cannot be "art," for it has
: no means to reject its "false starts." Without such terms as
: "grace," "eloquence," "style," etc. +you can't have an aesthetic,+
: and without an aesthetic, you have no justification for your
: experientialism.
Interesting statement, though it has little to do with exper-
ientialism. That is, you're arguing against positions that
I don't hold ... swinging at straw men of your own creation.
Paul Haeberli
Contemporary futurists my enjoy this perspective
on the "science" of computer programming.
http://www.sgi.com/grafica/future/futman.html
--
paul haeberli
pa...@sgi.com