The Language of Postmodernism
zi...@interport.net
I have been learning slowly. Those who consider themselves to be
postmodernists have a special language. They use it in order to
confute the enemy and those who reject their position. This position
is one which must be true and must be spread not only by words but in
any and every possible way.
What is so peculair about this is that they are doing all of this in
the service of the most absolute and unquestioned domination of the
art world since I became aware of it in 1948. There is an
establishment which has the power, the control and not just of the
museums but the auction houses. The Museum of Modern Art has just
blended as an institution with P.S. 1.
P. S. 1 was a public school leased from the city at $1.00 per year and
then used as a centre for the work which the etablishment thought was
cutting edge. The people who chose who would have studios there, who
would get performed there were the most influential critics and
patrons and museum people Etc. in America.
And they were sure that what they were getting was "Avant Garde" art.
And not only that, the best for the future. Now that "experiment" has
become an actual part of the most powerful of the three most powerful
museums of modern art in New York City. It is an integral part of
that place. And none of them can see that they are the establishment.
They still think that they will be getting "avant garde" work from the
artists at the school.
It is all one big, fat, wrapped up package. The chain has no
beginning and no end and it is going nowhere.
And if anyone dares to question it, then use the vocabulary. The
words which are not real words. The expressions which make no sense.
The verbal offal which will protect the grand establishment from
attack.
Well, if it is so great and so wonderful and you are all so glad to
be a part of it, why does itneed defending so badly?
By the way I don't mind if I don't hear from any of you. I hope that
you read some sense. And quit behaving like members of communist cells
in the 1930s. They at least were working, or thought they were
working, for the benefit of the people. That was true of all of the
socialists, reds and pinks back then. That is part of the source of
this new language. But there is no social or populist reason for any
of this. Quite the reverse it is being used in defense of privilege.
Gabriel
emat...@tomatoweb.com
zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
> I have been learning slowly. Those who consider themselves to be
> postmodernists have a special language. They use it in order to
> confute the enemy and those who reject their position. This position
> is one which must be true and must be spread not only by words but in
> any and every possible way.
I would take heart in one thing, Gabriel, and that is that the
'establishment' has a way of completely devitalizing whatever it takes up. I
don't know much about New York culture, but the establishment in San
Francisco pretty much knocked the wind out of the sails of the Beatniks.
There was a nice genuineness to to the original Ferlenghettis and Ginsburgs
and Keroaucs that got shot all to hell once the establishment decided it was
'avant garde' and 'stylish.' It quickly became a ghost of itself. The same
thing happened with the hippy culture, which started out to be another form
of bohemianism -- but in this case the establishment in the form of national
mass media drove it into the ground, and it became superficial and, well, a
joke, really.
So there may be a similar fate for post modernism once it becomes
institutionalized on the scale you are speaking of. It just makes what was
formerly obscure commonplace.
But what about this 'language' you speak of? A lot of it is fluff, in my
opinion, but not all of it. I personally don't find it that difficult to
understand. We can always discuss specific terms here on this news group.
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
yogi R. Lund
has already elected the art-elite? Or am I having trouble reading you clearly?
But responding to that, even if it is not what you are saying, I wonder if
anyone society is prepared to sponsor ever finds inspiration. Perhaps it is
being rejected that matters; perhaps that is what you could be cheated out of.
Like the fellow who is always being cheated out of money, it is hard for most
people to realize that one can be cheated out of being cheated as well; that
we are living and not measuring our lives, so that we are not guided by the
rulers society applies to guage our worth, not trying to put life into the
things put into our heads, but guided by our closeness to the light of day
shining on the present world, the present beauty, the present peak of
evolution.
In article <36fc2669...@news.interport.net>,
zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
> I have been learning slowly. Those who consider themselves to be
> postmodernists have a special language. They use it in order to
> confute the enemy and those who reject their position. This position
> is one which must be true and must be spread not only by words but in
> any and every possible way.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Ariane
On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
> I have been learning slowly. Those who consider themselves to be
> postmodernists have a special language. They use it in order to
> confute the enemy and those who reject their position.
=== They also use it to flaunt their academic status, like scientists,
philosophers, and non-PoMo professional alike; and the result is the
exclusion of the uninitiated from their conversations......like
with non-PoMo professionals.
> This position
> is one which must be true and must be spread not only by words but in
> any and every possible way.
>
> What is so peculair about this is that they are doing all of this in
> the service of the most absolute and unquestioned domination of the
> art world since I became aware of it in 1948.
=== Absolutely. Welcome to the `New World Order'. As someone else put it
"Same crap, different flies".
> There is an
> establishment which has the power, the control and not just of the
> museums but the auction houses. The Museum of Modern Art has just
> blended as an institution with P.S. 1.
>
> P. S. 1 was a public school leased from the city at $1.00 per year and
> then used as a centre for the work which the etablishment thought was
> cutting edge. The people who chose who would have studios there, who
> would get performed there were the most influential critics and
> patrons and museum people Etc. in America.
>
> And they were sure that what they were getting was "Avant Garde" art.
> And not only that, the best for the future. Now that "experiment" has
> become an actual part of the most powerful of the three most powerful
> museums of modern art in New York City. It is an integral part of
> that place. And none of them can see that they are the establishment.
=== Voila! You got it!
> They still think that they will be getting "avant garde" work from the
> artists at the school.
>
> It is all one big, fat, wrapped up package. The chain has no
> beginning and no end and it is going nowhere.
=== Well, there are alternatives......
> And if anyone dares to question it, then use the vocabulary.
=== No the vocab is the only way of addressing `specific' issues. Its a
specialized vocabulary like they use in every other specialized vocation.
If you want to discuss Derrida's "differance" and how his double-framing
method applies to painting, (say you want to start an art-movement right
at the grassroots level) then you can't do this unless you can refer to,
and understand his terms. You need to do the work.
> The
> words which are not real words.
=== This is just plain wrong. They are real words because people
communicate with them. Just like Inuktitut employs real words which none
of us, here, can understand. But for all that, the Inuit themselves get
by rather nicely. As do physicists, PoMo theorists, continental
philosophers, classicists, etc......(even painters......most people
would give you a blank look if you brought up `chiaroscuro' at an
accountant's festival).
> The expressions which make no sense.
=== Not the case with everybody. Consider this: most PoMo is an American
derivative of German and French philosophy and is an attempt by American
academia to become the foremost tradition in the world by appropriating
continental thought and then by Americanizing it. This also helps in the
process of Western globalization (at the cultural level anyway). So
you're talking in english about concepts and relations, (even alternative
logics) which are German or French in origin. Things get lost in the
translation, so english must be changed to accomodate this movement.
> The verbal offal which will protect the
grand establishment from > attack.
=== Sort of, but its even "grander" than you're implying.
> Well, if it is so great and so wonderful and you are all so glad to
> be a part of it, why does itneed defending so badly?
>
> By the way I don't mind if I don't hear from any of you. I hope that
> you read some sense. And quit behaving like members of communist cells
> in the 1930s. They at least were working, or thought they were
> working, for the benefit of the people. That was true of all of the
> socialists, reds and pinks back then. That is part of the source of
> this new language.
=== Not really, but again, your intuition is on the right track....
> But there is no social or populist reason for any
> of this.
=== Populism is not the issue......the new American aristocracy is...
> Quite the reverse it is being used in defense of privilege.
=== Exactly. I think you're getting it Gabriel......
A.
mdeli
>
>I have been learning slowly. Those who consider themselves to be
>postmodernists have a special language. They use it in order to
>confute the enemy and those who reject their position. This position
>is one which must be true and must be spread not only by words but in
>any and every possible way.
PoMo is Dada Philosophy with on major exception. Dada admitted it was
nonsense.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
doug L.
> I have been learning slowly. Those who consider themselves to be
> postmodernists have a special language. They use it in order to
> confute the enemy and those who reject their position. This position
> is one which must be true and must be spread not only by words but in
> any and every possible way.
You are exactly correct. (as a generalization)
We need to look at artists, and judge them on an
individual basis. We need to shed the isms which
serve only the power brokers who often manipulate
the art market by placing value on their own endorsed
strategies(isms). Too political. Too false. The internet
will destroy them, eventually. - doug
doug L.
"yogi R. Lund" wrote:
> You feel that you are posessed of a gift that is being ignored because society
> has already elected the art-elite? Or am I having trouble reading you clearly?
You are having trouble reading clearly. I suggest meditation.
He's saying the art establishment is investing in a narrow
strategy, which probably hinders the vital prosperity of
artists who don't fit the "mold". Just might be a valid concern.
>
> But responding to that, even if it is not what you are saying, I wonder if
> anyone society is prepared to sponsor ever finds inspiration. Perhaps it is
> being rejected that matters; perhaps that is what you could be cheated out of.
I wonder if you realize that society's sponsorship doesn't
necessarily exclude inspiration. - doug
>
>
> Like the fellow who is always being cheated out of money, it is hard for most
> people to realize that one can be cheated out of being cheated as well; that
> we are living and not measuring our lives, so that we are not guided by the
> rulers society applies to guage our worth, not trying to put life into the
> things put into our heads, but guided by our closeness to the light of day
> shining on the present world, the present beauty, the present peak of
> evolution.
>
> In article <36fc2669...@news.interport.net>,
> zi...@interport.net wrote:
> >
> > I have been learning slowly. Those who consider themselves to be
> > postmodernists have a special language. They use it in order to
> > confute the enemy and those who reject their position. This position
> > is one which must be true and must be spread not only by words but in
> > any and every possible way.
> >
> > What is so peculair about this is that they are doing all of this in
> > the service of the most absolute and unquestioned domination of the
> > art world since I became aware of it in 1948. There is an
> > establishment which has the power, the control and not just of the
> > museums but the auction houses. The Museum of Modern Art has just
> > blended as an institution with P.S. 1.
> >
> > P. S. 1 was a public school leased from the city at $1.00 per year and
> > then used as a centre for the work which the etablishment thought was
> > cutting edge. The people who chose who would have studios there, who
> > would get performed there were the most influential critics and
> > patrons and museum people Etc. in America.
> >
> > And they were sure that what they were getting was "Avant Garde" art.
> > And not only that, the best for the future. Now that "experiment" has
> > become an actual part of the most powerful of the three most powerful
> > museums of modern art in New York City. It is an integral part of
> > that place. And none of them can see that they are the establishment.
> > They still think that they will be getting "avant garde" work from the
> > artists at the school.
> >
> > It is all one big, fat, wrapped up package. The chain has no
> > beginning and no end and it is going nowhere.
> >
> > And if anyone dares to question it, then use the vocabulary. The
> > words which are not real words. The expressions which make no sense.
> > The verbal offal which will protect the grand establishment from
> > attack.
> >
> > Well, if it is so great and so wonderful and you are all so glad to
> > be a part of it, why does itneed defending so badly?
> >
> > By the way I don't mind if I don't hear from any of you. I hope that
> > you read some sense. And quit behaving like members of communist cells
> > in the 1930s. They at least were working, or thought they were
> > working, for the benefit of the people. That was true of all of the
> > socialists, reds and pinks back then. That is part of the source of
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
(the real discussion snipped)
Zita
> > The
> > words which are not real words.
Ariane
> === This is just plain wrong. They are real words because people
> communicate with them. Just like Inuktitut employs real words which none
> of us, here, can understand.
lauri
Are you sure? I thought they use only signs and symbols.
And you are supposed to decompose it without signifier :-)
My real problem is,
I have sometimes tried to read PoMo texts. Seriously.
I do believe, there are thoughts behind, but I cannot relate
it to the words. My last serious attemt was Martin Heidegger
( translated into Finnish, part of the guilt lies on the
translator {a true believer}). After compiling
all those double and triple negatives, I was totally out.
I Worked through it, anyway, and got an impression that
the main point was something like zen, immediate
awareness.
There must be a decent way, too, to say it.
- lauri
journeyman of sculpture.
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
yogi R. Lund
saying what he has thought to say. I asked what the feeling was. Meditation
leads to more serious concerns (and reading) about people than what they
think. Thought is in part a defense against people who would take the simple
as the person because they are perpetually too busy to take a person as a
person. Thought baits the callous enterpriser, which on the surface would
appear to be you.
The way you attack the fringes of my statement (and pose as my guru, implying
that you are better as a disinterested amateur than I am as yogi who has
devoted his life), steering well clear of its substance, its passion, adds to
the weight of evidence of a congenital disregard for inspiration and
relationship. Your artificial eloquence is your primary field of endeavor;
you prefer people who are too affable to wish you could communicate; people
you can impress; the superior status. You should try people who pay you to
make them seem smart (or are you already doing that?).
I am sure the state feels that the propaganda it is buying with its support of
"artists" is art, inspired; and your "eloquent" support of its process on the
one hand (while on the other you agree fervently with the opposite) must be
very reassuring to it.
You are caught up in how easy it is to be right as long as you only care if
it looks right; you want to be superior in a world where no one but you wants
it to be easy to be right (which you interpret as a world too stupid to do
the easy artificial thing properly), where no one but you wants the delusion
that artifice is passionate. If you "lower yourself" to confronting the
actual scope of the problem you will find yourself ordinary again. I am
prepared to bet that habit will find itself unchallenged in your case.
Meditation is to challenge habit.
In article <36FE7E94...@primenet.com>,
"doug L." <dug...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>
> "yogi R. Lund" wrote:
>
> > You feel that you are posessed of a gift that is being ignored because
society
> > has already elected the art-elite? Or am I having trouble reading you
clearly?
>
> You are having trouble reading clearly. I suggest meditation.
> He's saying the art establishment is investing in a narrow
> strategy, which probably hinders the vital prosperity of
> artists who don't fit the "mold". Just might be a valid concern.
>
> >
> > But responding to that, even if it is not what you are saying, I wonder if
> > anyone society is prepared to sponsor ever finds inspiration. Perhaps it is
> > being rejected that matters; perhaps that is what you could be cheated out
of.
>
> I wonder if you realize that society's sponsorship doesn't
> necessarily exclude inspiration. - doug
>
> >
> >
> > Like the fellow who is always being cheated out of money, it is hard for
most
> > people to realize that one can be cheated out of being cheated as well; that
> > we are living and not measuring our lives, so that we are not guided by the
> > rulers society applies to guage our worth, not trying to put life into the
> > things put into our heads, but guided by our closeness to the light of day
> > shining on the present world, the present beauty, the present peak of
> > evolution.
> >
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
-N.
>
> You are having trouble reading clearly. I suggest meditation.
> He's saying the art establishment is investing in a narrow
> strategy, which probably hinders the vital prosperity of
> artists who don't fit the "mold". Just might be a valid concern.
Not in my world. Which is largely comprised of NYC. For example, there is
a plethora of galleries in NYC, catering to almost any variety of art
under the sun...Mayan? You got it. Abstarct High Modernist? You got it.
Beaux Arts? You got it. Folk? Yep. Bad, weak, tepid art of every strain?
In turgid abundance.
Graffiti? Hell yes.
There is no lack of variety of art within the established art world..which
is a vast wide beast.
There is no mandate that one section of the art establishment has to be
interested in any other sector, or visa versa. As for an individuals's
work: If no one is interested, than no one is interested. You can't demand
people be interested in something that they could care less about. I do
not in the least see a 'narrow startegy' as you suggest, I see the
opposite, mind numbing diversity. I suggest you get out and about a bit
more, instead of whining. Tis a big art world out there.
If nobody cares for what you are selling, then maybe you are in the wrong
market. Wanting the world to be different, desiring a world in which
everyone is falling all over themselves to get at you and what you have to
offer is nice for some idle infantile daydreaming, but kvetching how you
are unloved isn't going to do much for your desirablity quotient, and will
have zippo impact on those who are indeed loved. Perhaps moving in the
wrong circles and a maintaining piss poor attitude are all thats needed.
It is comfy and is a soothing balm to the self-righteously enobled,
disregarded artist coveting entitlement (about as bourgeois an aspiration
as exists in this world...just a hop, skip, and a jump to Martha Stewart)
to burn red-faced and spat envy soaked invective at the 'bourgeois'
artworld...if only somehow they could get um' a peice of dat pie. If only.
Turn. 'Bout face (as every wanna-be bourgeois fiber of being is evoked to
maintain the sustained charade-attack) good-damned bourgeois art
establishment!!! I want my fame!! I want bourgeois acceptance, validation,
and notoriety!! I want to sell my works and and be praised....the Martha
Martha Stewart of the art world! Goddamn these rebel/poser threads are
gettin' kinda shabby, I would look smart and snappy in that thirties
intellectual garb, or maybe an Armani four-button semiotician's jig.
Fuckin' bourgeois art establishment!! Fuck you!....Shit! Almost forgot, I
got dinner guests tonight! Got to at least play-act at bourgeois
respectability.
The bourgeois. Only at rare times does that really sound good, and from
the right lips. My alcoholic friend*, dressed in cast offs, who works in a
metal shop with swollen hands looking like they were beaten with hammers
then left soaking for weeks in the East River, pale and bloated, the
indelible black grease so deeply ingrained in the flesh, and nails, and
around the cuticles, smoking a Basic ciggarette and telling me he has to
stick these same fingers in his wife's pussy tonight. That thars some
convincing non-bourgeoise authenticity. The rest of you wanna-be's find
another excuse for your own failures. Or put together a better act.
Cheers,
-N.
*A good sculptor to boot.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
Ariane
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> (the real discussion snipped)
> Zita
> > > The
> > > words which are not real words.
> Ariane
> > === This is just plain wrong. They are real words because people
> > communicate with them. Just like Inuktitut employs real words which none
> > of us, here, can understand.
>
> lauri
> Are you sure? I thought they use only signs and symbols.
> And you are supposed to decompose it without signifier :-)
=== Yes signs & symbols and what is signified is an abstraction but poetry
is also abstract and no one complains about that........
> My real problem is,
> I have sometimes tried to read PoMo texts. Seriously.
> I do believe, there are thoughts behind, but I cannot relate
> it to the words. My last serious attemt was Martin Heidegger
> ( translated into Finnish, part of the guilt lies on the
> translator {a true believer}).
=== Heidegger is not a PoMo philosopher but is a `modernist' and as such,
has a very big influence on the PoMo theorists like Foucault and Derrida
who came after him. Another reason why I see PoMo as just a continuation
of Modernism, no big break, just over-dramatic prophesying at the
millenium's end....
> After compiling
> all those double and triple negatives, I was totally out.
=== Yeah, Heidegger's a pain for this, but the original is in German and
so we should be consulting this text (if possible) and not the
translations which only obscure understanding.....
> I Worked through it, anyway, and got an impression that
> the main point was something like zen, immediate
> awareness.
=== Well, that's a common summarization of Heidegger but I would have to
disagree. Only because of the fact that he was influenced by eastern
philosophy, for sure, but his own work on Being, time, and language is
much more occupied with Western thought than with eastern spirituality.
Maybe because his work is, in a way, as deeply profound as Zen that we
tend to consider Heidegger in this way. I see him as a lover of Greek
philosophy, and a reformer of 20th century Western thought.
> There must be a decent way, too, to say it.
> > - lauri > journeyman of sculpture. > lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
=== But, to stay true to the nuances of what you're saying, you have to
press language into the service of your needs. Simple conformity to the
limitations of english, french, german, finnish or what have you only
limits your thinking, when language can no longer capture your thinking,
how do you choose to express yourself. Sometimes through music?
Sometimes through poetry? Painting? Philosophy? Well if you choose
poetry or philosophy, then be prepared to manipulate your language.
That's part of the art. *Especially* when it is language and its
ambiguity and limitations that you are exploring! This is the case with
Heidegger. Philosophy and reflection is not simple. Nor should it be.
The fruits of the discipline are only open to those who put out the effort
to gain them.
au revoir,
A.
Ariane
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, yogi R. Lund wrote:
> It doesn't much matter if one can read what a person is saying; because he is
> saying what he has thought to say. I asked what the feeling was. Meditation
> leads to more serious concerns (and reading) about people than what they
> think. Thought is in part a defense against people who would take the simple
> as the person because they are perpetually too busy to take a person as a
> person. Thought baits the callous enterpriser, which on the surface would
> appear to be you.
=== Thought is also a homage to beauty and wonder......(just a thought)
> The way you attack the fringes of my statement (and pose as my guru,
> implying that you are better as a disinterested amateur than I am as
> yogi who has devoted his life), steering well clear of its substance,
> its passion, adds to the weight of evidence of a congenital disregard
> for inspiration and relationship. Your artificial eloquence is your
> primary field of endeavor; you prefer people who are too affable to
> wish you could communicate; people you can impress; the superior
> status. You should try people who pay you to make them seem smart (or
> are you already doing that?).
=== Well, authenticity is rare and is worth more than gold in my
books....Here, in cyberland, most of what passes for debate are games and
one-upmanship. This is not the place to ask questions decisive for a
genuine humanity mon ami.....
> I am sure the state feels that the propaganda it is buying with its
> support of "artists" is art, inspired; and your "eloquent" support of
> its process on the one hand (while on the other you agree fervently
> with the opposite) must be very reassuring to it.
>
> You are caught up in how easy it is to be right as long as you only
> care if it looks right; you want to be superior in a world where no
> one but you wants it to be easy to be right (which you interpret as a
> world too stupid to do the easy artificial thing properly), where no
> one but you wants the delusion that artifice is passionate. If you
> "lower yourself" to confronting the actual scope of the problem you
> will find yourself ordinary again. I am prepared to bet that habit
> will find itself unchallenged in your case.
Meditation is to challenge
> habit.
=== Well said. I have a few I'd like to challenge......
a la prochaine, A.
Marilyn
Another 'truth' attack from N, another unedited scathing condemnation,
and yet, there are kernels of truth within.
To put it simply, an artist's colleagues,
peers are more important to the artist's development
than any so-called 'art-establishment'
any critics out there
any gallery owners
any curators.
(They fit into the picture after the fact.)
The next important thing in my mind is where the artists sees herself
in the context of art history, what are her influences, and are there
any links to contemporary artists.
It is the opinion of other artists I know which are important to me.
Also when I read someone attacking an established artist, for example
Mary Cassatt, I think of what her colleagues thought of her work.
She had excellent peer review in her time. That is evidence for me,
that she had something to contribute. While personally I thought of her
as a rich woman painting middle-class subjects, it would be a frosty day
in hell before I would condemn her work in a public forum.
The idea of a lone artist
against the world, poor martyr, no one understands him, but one
day, he will be discovered, is passe. Artists need human contact more than
the average person, because much of their work is accomplished in
isolation.
So thanks N. for your dose of grungy New York City reality, it has
a ring of authenticity. It challenges a lot of worn-out cliches.
"a sculptor to boot?" are you inviting a kick?
Marilyn
John Haber
>peers are more important to the artist's development
>than any so-called 'art-establishment'
>any critics out there
>any gallery owners
>any curators
Can I throw in another plug for the rest of us not being parasites?
<grin>
Traditionally, I always have imagined and been taught, artists thrived
in the company of people of like minds who stimulated each other.
That includes other artists, but surely also musicians, writers, and
fans willing to cultivate each other. Add just plain dilletantes,
like some Bloomsbury types I'd very much like to forget.
I gather this was the case with pretty much any famous avant-garde.
I'd have loved to be around when Picasso particpated in Parade or
Manet sketched poets. But look, I wasn't hanging out on the Left Bank
or the Cedar Tavern at the right time (although the latter has truly
great fries now). I'll tell a story instead from the experience of
yours truly.
When I was a college senior, I met artists because one, my best
friend, was in college radio with me. I hung out in shy confusion,
even when I tried so hard to listen. I could still see they got a lot
from their art teacher. But they got more from him because he was
also a writer and someone who loved ideas. In fact, ideas were in the
air everywhere. Who cares that, imho today, their teacher doesn't
paint so hot? (Actually, he doesn't write any too clearly either.
<grin>)
They got the most crucial thing of all for their lives, a real turning
on to contemporary art, which was then new to them, too, and not just
to me. They were so excited, and of all the things in the air, like
paint fumes and cigarette smoke, words were among them. One of my
classmates even ran press run on October issue 1 and claims to have
pulled the first copy off the press.
Do you honestly think they were just people who had always liked to
paint, who maybe were good at drawing in high school, and just all at
once watched a film of the late Smithson dancing on the Sprial Jetty
and it all changed for them, do you? I mean, I know artists have an
instinctive visual sense that I don't. But I know, too, that you and
Ariane don't mean to elevate this sense into an empryean realm
someplace, right?
I've left something out here, of course. Before (a) I've talked about
critics as enabling the imagination and receptiveness of a wider
public. And (b) we've all talked in this newgroup about an
individual's connection (including the connection of the personal
identity of an artist) to culture, economics, and history. I think if
you add (a) and (b) together you get some profound changes in an
artist's soul and expression in the end, too.
John.
John Haber
>disagree.
Yeah, he did as much as anyone ever to attack and undermine the notion
of immediate awareness. Being is the discourse of the other, isn't
that how it goes?
>Philosophy and reflection is not simple. Nor should it be. The fruits
>of the discipline are only open to those who put out the effort
>to gain them.
That's really lovely. One reason I admire artists so much because
even when they work fast, like van Gogh, is that there's a discipline,
effort, and care that I could never meet or experience. Something
that comes from working with things (or, if you're a conceptual
artist, with words AS things).
John (jha...@haberarts.com)
John Haber
artists who turned everyone else on to philosophy, moi aussi.
I was majoring in physics with a lot of French or English lit on the
side, but this was 1976 or 1977, and there was no trace of anything in
remotely doctrinal in lit class. It was free form, biographical, or
(if the teacher was of a theoretical leaning) the texts of New
Critics, Kenneth Burke, and that generation. Richard Rorty was
teaching in the philosophy department before he moved on to Virginia
and then elsewhere, but that was about it.
Meanwhile the art students were passing around Derrida, lining up for
tickets to the first Philip Glass opera, and wondering how they'd
understand Saussure if the linguistics program had already moved on to
Chomsky. Students from other departments actually went to the
visual-arts program to learn about their own discipline!
Hey, the first time I ever heard a Minimalist composer (LaMonte Young)
was sitting on the floor of Paula Cooper's gallery. First time I got
into early music and heard someone say "fortepiano," I joked it must
be 40 pianos, a new Steve Reich piece.
John
-N.
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> === Heidegger is not a PoMo philosopher but is a `modernist' and as such,
> has a very big influence on the PoMo theorists like Foucault and Derrida
> who came after him. Another reason why I see PoMo as just a continuation
> of Modernism, no big break, just over-dramatic prophesying at the
> millenium's end....
Of course, to say human civilization is a continuum is unarguable, but on
the other hand there isn't much to hang one's hat on.
There are profound differences between the era, sensibility, and paradigm
that is loosely refered to as 'modernism' and 'postmodernism', it is
replayed in the spaces where artists gather on a daily basis. Come to NYC
and you will have access to some real-world examples of the distinct
differences between the two. This is not to say that postmodernism comes
as a clean and total break with the past, with modernism...to suggest this
or to present such an expectation for postmodernism is to simply reiterate
the modernist paradigm, with its belief in orginality, newness, etc. Nor
is a simplistic golden age/collaspe of the golden age analysis adequate,
one which strives to identify the current trends as merely another
cyclical installment of gross historical movements. Each sequencing is
incarnated from an aggregate of cultural material making it incommensurate
with what preceded it, even past cultural trends which seem to be
motivated by similair historical dialectics.
Part of what interests me in addressing postmodernism and working in a
postmodern age, is the anti-humanist ideology, which runs counter to most
(but not all) of modernism. When one exists as an artist, yet is not
guided by the mythic modernist concepts of the artist (i.e., 'creator'
,'original', 'spontaneousness' , 'presentness' etc.)...making art then
involves different orientations, and part of this is a different mythic
orientation and conceptual model of the artist. It would be hard for a
modernist to embrace such a position, indeed, for the most part an artist
who identifies with a modernist paradigm cultivate an antogonistic hostile
to postmodernism or try to undermine its validity, as you are doing. That
in itself is nothing unusual or unexpected, indeed it represents a
commonplace expression of the divide between the orientations.
If you are finding difficulty witnessing the effects everyone is talking
about and refering to as 'Postmodernism', spend a little time in NYC with
different groups of artists....you will witness this general divide very
clearly...not merely in the abstract, but in daily operation. The
repercussions in the arts are vast. Interstingly, I do not think the
market has interiorized these shifts. It still functions in a modernist
model. Postmoden artists interfacing with the larger public (and art
based) sub-cultures are often sensitive to this ideological lag-time.
Despite what I consider to be wholly hysterical claims to the opposite,I
think that the effects and practices of a postmodern art are only barely
registering in the culture, both the general culture and the art culture.
I also think that this cultural shift is relatively young and has not come
close to maturation. No, I do not see that the postmodern will revert to a
mainstream high-modernist paradigm anytime soon. Art as we knew it under
modernism is eroding, but Slowly. Very slowly. Cultural practice is
however changing. It has definately changed in many artists studios, but
beyond that it little matters because once it connects with the flow of
the culture's in-situ structures it is re-packaged for different and more
predictable ends....business as usual.Slowly, the postmodern will spread
and generate its effect. I think it is already noticible, for example in
the discourse in the last couple of decades in the relationship and
difference, if any, between art and entertainment.
When you have a situation in contemporary western culture in which artists
(and critics) have formed a new role, whose modus operandi flows from the
belief that they are not involved in the diplay of magic, are not mediums
of communication with another world, reject religious reverence of
'artistic aura', dismiss claims of 'artistic transcendental essence'
floating in some imagined nether realm above contingencies of the here and
now and the social and the economic, who are not prophets, do not believe
in creativity but rather in making art where images are encoded rather
than created, where the notion of self-expression is no longer primary,
where the artist is not in communication with 'deeper' levels of reality,
where the 'primative' is no more 'natural' than the Wall Street broker and
from where 'hipness' no longer freely flows but is deconstructed, where
appropriation has altered our sequencing agendas, and where this can all
be enacted without excessive cynicism or incredulity but with full
engagement, sense of adventure, and contagious insiration and joy, you
will catch a glimpse of the cultral shift. If you can't, well, then you
can't.
As for the future of art, that information is unavailible to us. The most
one can do is keep very open eyes to what the most exciting of our
contemporaries are doing and be willing to betray alliegances in the quest
for an art more vital to one's needs.
Cheers,
-N.
Cheers,
-N.
CHeers,
-N.
yogi R. Lund
believed that little thought; what ***fun*** would it be otherwise.
I am hardly your ami while you are telling me to take my sobriety and passion
elsewhere, or to get into the mood of the celebration of futility you want
this forum devoted to (along with the tradition of art, one presumes).
In article <Pine.OSF.4.10.990329...@alcor.concordia.ca>,
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Ariane
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, yogi R. Lund wrote:
> I am sure that when you affect to think noble thoughts you wish people
> believed that little thought; what ***fun*** would it be otherwise.
=== Fun and consensus aside, you still are responsible for your own life
are you not.....?
> I am hardly your ami while you are telling me to take my sobriety and passion
> elsewhere, or to get into the mood of the celebration of futility you want
> this forum devoted to (along with the tradition of art, one presumes).
=== Who told you to go elsewhere? I'm afraid you're reading between the
lines and missing the words themselves. I enjoyed your post, and
benefitted from your perspective.
Celebration is never futile because it keeps us in the moment.....If life
were a celebration, we'd have no time for waging war. Nonetheless, life
is not this, but sobriety can infect as well as correct.
I have no plans for this forum, nor do I want it to go in any particular
direction. Do not presume to know my intentions as I don't presume to
know yours...
au revoir,
A.
John Haber
>direction.
We should have a multiple-choice survey for the group as a whole: up,
down, backward, in circles, in gently arcing spirals...
Ariane
LOL!!
John Haber
for all my admiration and areas of agreement, is that you're
attacking a straw man. No one's claiming that criticism encompasses a
work of art, any more than a painting encompasses reality. They both
simply add insight and enrich experience for others.
I don't know about you, but I've lived in my heart for years with
books and paintings, and yet been deeply satisfied by the experience
of seeing them differently after discussing them others or reading
about them. And that's aside from the evangelical and pedagogic
functions I've been describing elsewhere, maybe even more important.
When you meet friends after a day in a museum, do you refuse to talk
about what you saw? Take a vow of silence? For that matter, why are
you so well read?
John
Ariane
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, John Haber wrote:
> Ariane, I think my exasperation with you and Marilyn in these threads,
> for all my admiration and areas of agreement, is that you're
> attacking a straw man.
=== I didn't know you were exasperated! I apologize for being the cause
of this.....
> No one's claiming that criticism encompasses a
> work of art, any more than a painting encompasses reality. They both
> simply add insight and enrich experience for others.
=== I think we agree wholeheartedly on this. You echo my sentiments
exactly.
> I don't know about you, but I've lived in my heart for years with
> books and paintings, and yet been deeply satisfied by the experience
> of seeing them differently after discussing them others or reading
> about them. And that's aside from the evangelical and pedagogic
> functions I've been describing elsewhere, maybe even more important.
=== Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.
> When you meet friends after a day in a museum, do you refuse to talk
> about what you saw? Take a vow of silence? For that matter, why are
> you so well read?
>
> John
=== There you go. (And thanks for that by the way). I seem to agree with
everything you've written here, so don't be exasperated! Write on......
adieu,
A.
mdeli
<da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>=== Yeah, Heidegger's a pain for this, but the original is in German and
>so we should be consulting this text (if possible) and not the
>translations which only obscure understanding.....
>
degree what it is they are saying.
>> I Worked through it, anyway, and got an impression that
>> the main point was something like zen, immediate
>> awareness.
The illusion of immediate awareness is usualy vanity.
>
>=== Well, that's a common summarization of Heidegger but I would have to
>disagree. Only because of the fact that he was influenced by eastern
>philosophy, for sure, but his own work on Being, time, and language is
>much more occupied with Western thought than with eastern spirituality.
>Maybe because his work is, in a way, as deeply profound as Zen that we
>tend to consider Heidegger in this way. I see him as a lover of Greek
>philosophy, and a reformer of 20th century Western thought.
Heidegger is indeed like Zen. Nobody know what the hell it means.
Especially experts. Its like the langauge of Artspeak . Everyone makes
believe he knows the meaning.
>> There must be a decent way, too, to say it.
>
>> > - lauri > journeyman of sculpture. > lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
>
>=== But, to stay true to the nuances of what you're saying, you have to
>press language into the service of your needs. Simple conformity to the
>limitations of english, french, german, finnish or what have you only
>limits your thinking, when language can no longer capture your thinking,
>how do you choose to express yourself. Sometimes through music?
>Sometimes through poetry? Painting? Philosophy?
You left out bullshit which iwell serves the needs of Modern Art.
> Well if you choose
>poetry or philosophy, then be prepared to manipulate your language.
>That's part of the art. *Especially* when it is language and its
>ambiguity and limitations that you are exploring! This is the case with
>Heidegger.
I hear that the experts are still trying to translate Heidegger into
German.
Pour_Allastair
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:22:58 -0500, Ariane
> <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> ****** is indeed like Zen. Nobody know what the hell it means.
Zen predates Buddism. It was a word that refered to an empty blue sky
(no clouds, moon etc). Like spirit(respiration, aspiration etc.)which
means breath its religious connotations are dispiritous at best.
What differentiates Zen Buddism from most other religions is that
there is an emphasis on prayer and meditation +over+ scripture. Some
sects even assert that scripture is unenlightenment(pomo a prime
example)- which seems to mean in english weighing down. What
Zen means in meditation practice is a mostly(relatively) empty
state of mind, free of 'clutter'.(all meditation can not be summed
up as Zen) - + =
Perhaps all(meditation) can be summed up as a method of daydreaming,
-something of critical importants to anyone without imagination; but
clearly nothing final, and perhaps an enemy of the imagination(though
invented by it(karma)).
The value of this is of course self-referent. The word Zen has
evolved in neo-buddist practitioners to mean 'perfect'; whatever
that means -begging the question if asked. Coffee like what we
think of as oriental martial arts(orig. a moving meditation) were
a response to the monks finding their more perfect state of
enlightenment in the dream state.
Decay of Ideas
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make
Gods by the dozen!" -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-92).
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Pour_Allastair
Pour_Allastair <br...@wralaw.com> wrote:
> In article <3701809a...@news.interlog.com>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:22:58 -0500, Ariane
> > <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
Some
> sects even assert that scripture is unenlightenment(pomo a prime
> example)- which seems to mean in english weighing down
> Coffee like what we
> think of as oriental martial arts(orig. a moving meditation) were
> a response to the monks finding their more perfect state of
> enlightenment in the dream state.
I need to take this advice and perhaps give up on the scripture of
'Netspeak' and find my eternal and real enlightenment in the dream
state.
Buenos Noche!
<blink>
Some French for the Canadians
</blink>
Pour_Allastair
Pour_Allastair <br...@wralaw.com> wrote:
> In article <7dsnub$bfj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Pour_Allastair <br...@wralaw.com> wrote:
> > In article <3701809a...@news.interlog.com>,
> > hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> > > On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:22:58 -0500, Ariane
> > > <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> Buenos Noche!
> <blink>
> Some French for the Canadians
> </blink>
Sorry... Je suis desolaise(sp??) C'est espangnole! Pour les Canadians!
To Augment the now-wastefull dialogue, a textual DaDaism might at
every opportunity input a useless synonym(or one that has no meaning in
said context but through amphiboly is the same thing)Nurse my Richard!
Marilyn
>
> I am sure that when you affect to think noble thoughts you wish people
> believed that little thought; what ***fun*** would it be otherwise.
>
> elsewhere, or to get into the mood of the celebration of futility you want
> this forum devoted to (along with the tradition of art, one presumes).
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
"mon ami" can be said ironically, depending on the context and the
tone.
Marilyn
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, John Haber wrote:
>
> > >direction.
> >
> > We should have a multiple-choice survey for the group as a whole: up,
> > down, backward, in circles, in gently arcing spirals...
>
> LOL!!
Grinning.
I see a graph, like an electrocardiograph.
This patient is in intensive care and the prognosis ain't good.
Marilyn
Marilyn
>
> Ariane, I think my exasperation with you and Marilyn in these threads,
> for all my admiration and areas of agreement, is that you're
> work of art, any more than a painting encompasses reality. They both
> simply add insight and enrich experience for others.
>
> books and paintings, and yet been deeply satisfied by the experience
> of seeing them differently after discussing them others or reading
> about them. And that's aside from the evangelical and pedagogic
> functions I've been describing elsewhere, maybe even more important.
>
> about what you saw? Take a vow of silence? For that matter, why are
> you so well read?
>
> John
Who? What?
I said that I thought that an artist's colleagues were more important
to his/her progress as an artist than art theory, art criticism,
curators, gallery owners etc.
It is simply peer review. When reading about an artist in the past,
take Cezanne for example you see he did not get good press in the
beginning, but his peers admired him, and sustained him.
If you check out the Coagula site's "Rules for Artists" writen by
a curator, she states that when evaluating an artist's work, she
checks out what other artists say about it. She admonishes young
artists to cultivate these friendships with other artists; to
participate in group shows.
I'll go further than that to say that there are some posts on
this group that seem to come from isolates typing out their
bitterness. They have a tone of isolation about them.
Long live art books! I read the art section of the newspapers,
just like a stock broker, reads the stock market pages. But, I
don't live & die by what it written therein.
adieu,
Marilyn
John Haber
limitations of what I was saying are much appreciated. And don't
worry about "exasperation."
That's the sort of thing that comes out funny in print. I just meant
intellectually I got, how do you say ... you know, when you're hungry
for an argument? I carry these things around with me -- last night on
a nine-mile run. That kind of exasperation is even important to me,
as one who overintellectualizes anything, not a problem!
Personal digressions (apologies) aside, look at it this way: if we
couldn't find art through words, then we couldn't damage appreciation
of it either. That would be a comfort for those docents that get to
Kay and me!
BTW, another annoying aside. At Houston's MFA, I got trapped by a
tour and a rather clever docent. Seeing me in front a Matisse
painting of a woman, she put me on the spot for her audience: how
would I feel if that were MY mother? You don't know my mother, was
the only answer I could supply.
John
yogi R. Lund
dear perched precariously on high shoes!", is about what I read "between the
lines" on that one. Any new objections? Just when you were getting complacent
in a really jelled sense a yogi comes along and kicks your crutch.
War is the aftermath of festivities, and not the opposite. 'If we always had
low tide we could build so much more.'. Practicality has not been your lifes'
lesson or etude. I would say professional shopper/consumer, a bit more money
than most of us (people, not yogis) spend on themselves.
Nice that about benefiting from my perspective. You're a pro. But nothing I
say is an objection to you; only an effort to steer the encounter toward more
interesting spaces. One has to be deceived to really hate deception.
In article <Pine.OSF.4.10.99033...@alcor.concordia.ca>,
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, yogi R. Lund wrote:
>
> > I am sure that when you affect to think noble thoughts you wish people
> > believed that little thought; what ***fun*** would it be otherwise.
>
> === Fun and consensus aside, you still are responsible for your own life
> are you not.....?
>
> > I am hardly your ami while you are telling me to take my sobriety and
passion
> > elsewhere, or to get into the mood of the celebration of futility you want
> > this forum devoted to (along with the tradition of art, one presumes).
>
> === Who told you to go elsewhere? I'm afraid you're reading between the
> lines and missing the words themselves. I enjoyed your post, and
> benefitted from your perspective.
>
> Celebration is never futile because it keeps us in the moment.....If life
> were a celebration, we'd have no time for waging war. Nonetheless, life
> is not this, but sobriety can infect as well as correct.
>
> I have no plans for this forum, nor do I want it to go in any particular
> direction. Do not presume to know my intentions as I don't presume to
> know yours...
>
> au revoir,
>
Ariane
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Pour_Allastair wrote:
> I need to take this advice and perhaps give up on the scripture of
> 'Netspeak' and find my eternal and real enlightenment in the dream
> state.
>
> Buenos Noche!
>
> <blink>
> Some French for the Canadians
> </blink>
=== Don't give up on the `scriptures' of French lessons though!
a la prochaine
A.
Ariane
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, yogi R. Lund wrote:
> "See me as tall and slim when I have my heels on, and not as a short
> squat old dear perched precariously on high shoes!", is about what I
> read "between the lines" on that one. Any new objections?
=== Well, considering that I haven't hit 30 yet, I'd have to forward an
objection to incorrect assumptions like the one you're proposing here.
Your penchant for encapsulating interlocutors in some sort of
meta-perspectival architecture really only reflects a desire to condescend
mon ami. Reading between the lines only leads to empty spaces when the
words spoken stand for themselves.
> Just when
> you were getting complacent in a really jelled sense a yogi comes
> along and kicks your crutch.
=== And I thought yogis were a peaceful bunch. Maybe those
are only the bears. You can have the `crutch' though, I can stand on my
own two feet thanks.
> War is the aftermath of festivities, and not the opposite.
=== War is the absence of anything other than a celebration of power over.
Celebration without power can never lead to war, because it is life
affirming and not a direct challenge to the affirmation of life itself.
> 'If we
> always had low tide we could build so much more.'. Practicality has
> not been your lifes' lesson or etude.
=== It good that you're a yogi and not an artist. Because your attempts
at painting my portrait reveal more about yourself than they do to capture
the slightest aspect of my being. You've brought a baseball bat to a
hockey game and you're slip sliding on the ice......
> I would say professional
> shopper/consumer, a bit more money than most of us (people, not yogis)
> spend on themselves.
=== Yes, the cozy bourgeoise, outfitted in the latest, always `de la
mode,' never lacking the newest triviality to impress both friends and
lovers alike. I would say that `perceptiveness' has definitely not been
your etude mon ami.
> Nice that about benefiting from my perspective. You're a pro.
=== A pro? Certainly not a professional in the common sense of the term.
Neither in the sense that you're implying here. Your snares are loose and
are not well laid. It's unfortunate that I am your reflection, I've
benefitted again from your perspectives....there's always more to learn.
> But
> nothing I say is an objection to you;
=== No, not an objection, more like an attempt at portraiture. Of the
abstract expressionist kind.
> only an effort to steer the
> encounter toward more interesting spaces. One has to be deceived to
> really hate deception.
=== Assuming that we share the same interests......which I think we do.
Nonetheless, I drive my own car especially when engagements turn into
encounters. Deception is in itself neither good nor bad, `to really hate'
however is another thing altogether......
au revoir mon ami,
A.
mdeli
wrote:
>What differentiates Zen Buddism from most other religions is that
>there is an emphasis on prayer and meditation +over+ scripture. Some
>sects even assert that scripture is unenlightenment(pomo a prime
>example)- which seems to mean in english weighing down. What
>Zen means in meditation practice is a mostly(relatively) empty
>state of mind, free of 'clutter'.(all meditation can not be summed
>up as Zen) - + =
Anyone who needs an empty state of mind probably had very little there
in the first place.
>The value of this is of course self-referent. The word Zen has
>evolved in neo-buddist practitioners to mean 'perfect'; whatever
>that means -begging the question if asked. Coffee like what we
>think of as oriental martial arts(orig. a moving meditation) were
>a response to the monks finding their more perfect state of
>enlightenment in the dream state.
>
>Decay of Ideas
Another form of culty bullshit. The true Zen Boobist can walk on the
ceiling. I haven't seen one yet.
mdeli
>Long live art books!
Try looking at ones on Disney, Rockwell and Bouguereau.
>I read the art section of the newspapers,
>just like a stock broker, reads the stock market pages. But, I
>don't live & die by what it written therein.
You just try write the same sort of bullshit. You do it poorly. Stick
to schmiering.
gotts...@my-dejanews.com
> But what about this 'language' you speak of? A lot of it is fluff, in my
> opinion, but not all of it. I personally don't find it that difficult to
> understand. We can always discuss specific terms here on this news group.
I certainly have a problem with obscure langauge for its own sake - verbocrap
that is intended to impress by its very exclusivity of terminology,
phraseology, symbology, radiology, x-ray photography, and ... er, where
exactly was this going? Levity aside, I come here not to decry the
obscurantism present in PoMo language, but instead its very lack of
individuality and vitality.
One hears that such a work, "Is located within a certain space", "Transcends
boundaries", "Redefines our notions of art", "Establishes a dialogue between
artist and audience", "Challenges preconceptions" - ad nauseum.
What apalls me is the very dearth of literary genius. Where is the love of
rhythm, of colour, of metre, of internal rhymes, of inflection, connotation
in Post-Modernist criticism? Post-Modernist analysis is the rigor-mortis of
prose, the antithesis of vitality, originality. The concepts behind a given
work may, or may not, be original and ground-breaking, and possibly even
intelligent - but nevertheless, are they ever expressed passionately?
Has a Post-Modernist critique ever inflamed you with admiration for the
writer's mastery of prose - or have you instead had to learn to lower your
expectations, to be content with dead, academic tracts that speak about
potent issues in a robotic manner?
Let us face the facts, and ask ourselves honestly: How many Post-Modernist
critiques are truly well written? Were the authors goldsmiths of prose? Did
they irrigate their works with living blood - or could they spare only water,
and stale water at that?
When history comes to judge art criticism, which works will it prize more?
The neutral, neutered prose of Post-Modernism - or the potent creations of a
Ruskin, or a Pater?
Regards,
Seven Octaves
gotts...@my-dejanews.com
> It is simply peer review. When reading about an artist in the past,
> take Cezanne for example you see he did not get good press in the
> beginning, but his peers admired him, and sustained him.
If you mean by "peers" his fellow artists, then one can hardly say that
Cezanne was admired by a very wide, or very talented circle. Even his
supporters had reservations at times, although from our perspective today we
would say that they did not "appreciate" him. From another perspective,
Cezanne's peers who did not support him perhaps understood (and in this
sense, "appreciated") him all too well.
How was Paul Cezanne viewed by the leading painters of his time? What did
Pierre Puvis de Chavannes, Bouguereau, Gérôme, Leighton, Alma-Tadema,
Jean-Paul Laurens or Alexandre Cabanel think of him? Indeed, was Cezanne even
greatly "appreciated" by such Impressionists as Degas, Manet or Renoir? Emile
Zola seeme d to have a liking for him at times - but even he did not seem to
fully "appreciate his genius".
Why do I bring this up? Merely to remind you, now and then, that art history
isn't as concrete as you might have thought it was, that the road to Modernism
was by no means straight, holy, or even "progressive", to borrow a favourite
term our dear Post-Modernist critics dispense copiously.
Regards,
Seven Octaves.
dr.j.
=== Beaudelaire and Apollinaire, Mallarme and Zola are, and will be prized
above Ruskin, Pater, and PoMo's alike.
a bientot,
A.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
gotts...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
Hello Seven Octaves,
I like it. But I did consider that it's a good thing you're downunder with a
ready supply of eucalyptus oil to sooth your throat after singing through all
seven.
> Hello Erik,
>
> > But what about this 'language' you speak of? A lot of it is fluff, in my
> > opinion, but not all of it. I personally don't find it that difficult to
> > understand. We can always discuss specific terms here on this news group.
>
> I certainly have a problem with obscure langauge for its own sake - verbocrap
> that is intended to impress by its very exclusivity of terminology,
> phraseology, symbology, radiology, x-ray photography, and ... er, where
> exactly was this going? Levity aside, I come here not to decry the
> obscurantism present in PoMo language, but instead its very lack of
> individuality and vitality.
>
> One hears that such a work, "Is located within a certain space", "Transcends
> boundaries", "Redefines our notions of art", "Establishes a dialogue between
> artist and audience", "Challenges preconceptions" - ad nauseum.
I'll just raise one tiny objection that has to do with the difference between
'obscure language' and hyperbole. In my view the failure of a lot of art
criticism is in hyperbole, not necessirily obscurity. But it works out the
same in the end -- if the author is just iterating cliches the total output
comes across as obscre, or in other words, after the reading, you sit back
and say "what the hell was said, anyway."
On the other hand, art writing in general is as style driven as much of what
we have come to see as the 'avant garde,' 'in vogue,' 'high camp,' 'cutting
edge,' and so on. It is a fashion system in itself, and I think art making
is part of this fashion system, also. Fashion is a powerful force in society
(why else would so many pay $150 for a pair of tennis shoes that were made by
exploited children in Indonesia at a production cost of $2.95?) So there's a
proliferation of art writing by, if I may be inventive, Sabrina Artisticando
and Artimio Jones-Smith, that is, well, 'fashion statements' and nothing
more. In this I think you're exactly correct -- these forms will never spill
out over the restrictions of the time-space that they were created in (except
as a subject of obscure academia in the future) and they will be forgotten.
My own inclination, which is truely situated in 'obscure academia,' is to
regard this body of art criticism as fashion. By 'obscure' I mean that this
is something that will not be too interesting to the rank and file in AD
2050, for example. So, as it serves the interest of scholarship, even the
hyperbole and cliche and stereotype become objects of interest-- I mean, it
resembles mass media and the 'low-brow' so closely. How can that be? But
where you and I may differ, S.O., is that I regard this fashion system as an
intergal part of "Art" with a capital "A" in 1999. I think you take great
objection with this notion, i.e. by regarding Art as something 'other' than
the current manifestations of a fashion system.
>
> What apalls me is the very dearth of literary genius. Where is the love of
> rhythm, of colour, of metre, of internal rhymes, of inflection, connotation
> in Post-Modernist criticism? Post-Modernist analysis is the rigor-mortis of
> prose, the antithesis of vitality, originality. The concepts behind a given
> work may, or may not, be original and ground-breaking, and possibly even
> intelligent - but nevertheless, are they ever expressed passionately?
Agreed. Literary 'genius' is rare, and you can survey all fields of writing
and find the same 'dearth.' But consider this in regard to your paragraph:
Modern society has carved out a place for a 'thinker' and this place is
academia. In the last 200 years or so we have witnessed the growth of public
education systems, and these have been formulated around a concept of
education as a way of guraranteeing upward mobility, increased opportunity,
and, in a more abstract sense, the solution of social problems -- you know,
the idea of education being the panacea (or placibo) for the solution of the
problems of society. Against this, consider the old concept of the 'the
artist' as genius, gifted, able to access some intelligence or inspiration
that the rank and file can't access. Thjis flies in the face of a political
concept such as "All Men are Created Equal." So the teaching of art in
academia, on that basis, not only becomes problematical, it becomes illegal.
As an art instructor, for example, you can't give 99% of your class a 'D"
grade because they are not geniuses without the risk of lawsuit and the
destruction of your career.
So to me it isn't strange at all that much contemporary art writing is not
about the idea of 'genius' and it is more about "Is located within a certain
space" than it is about the individual achievement of an individual artist,
in the sense of 'artistic genius.'
>
> Has a Post-Modernist critique ever inflamed you with admiration for the
> writer's mastery of prose - or have you instead had to learn to lower your
> expectations, to be content with dead, academic tracts that speak about
> potent issues in a robotic manner?
Yes, more than often. This is why I don't read Art Journal and instead read
authors who I feel have passed the initial initiation of posterity. And this
is why I keep stating on this newsgroup that we should be talking about
specific authors and ideas rather than just bantering around labels like
'pomo' and whatever.
>
> Let us face the facts, and ask ourselves honestly: How many Post-Modernist
> critiques are truly well written? Were the authors goldsmiths of prose? Did
> they irrigate their works with living blood - or could they spare only water,
> and stale water at that?
>
> When history comes to judge art criticism, which works will it prize more?
> The neutral, neutered prose of Post-Modernism - or the potent creations of a
> Ruskin, or a Pater?
Again, I'll just settle back on my point -- when you say "The neutral,
neutrered prose of Post-Modernism" what are you talking about? Like artists,
meaning those who make works of art, in the end there are only a few who have
made significant contributions. So where's the beef? (It's like I see the
writing of Lucy Lippard, who is not a post-modernist, to be pretty flippant
-- fashion statements. But I do see Ruskin as a wonderful writer, with an
important contribution. I see Roland Barthes the same way, and many others.)
Regards,
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
> > that is intended to impress by its very exclusivity of terminology,
> > phraseology, symbology, radiology, x-ray photography, and ... er, where
> > exactly was this going? Levity aside, I come here not to decry the
> > obscurantism present in PoMo language, but instead its very lack of
> > individuality and vitality.
> >
> > One hears that such a work, "Is located within a certain space", "Transcends
> > boundaries", "Redefines our notions of art", "Establishes a dialogue between
> > artist and audience", "Challenges preconceptions" - ad nauseum.
> >
> > rhythm, of colour, of metre, of internal rhymes, of inflection, connotation
> > in Post-Modernist criticism? Post-Modernist analysis is the rigor-mortis of
> > prose, the antithesis of vitality, originality. The concepts behind a given
> > work may, or may not, be original and ground-breaking, and possibly even
> > intelligent - but nevertheless, are they ever expressed passionately?
> >
> > writer's mastery of prose - or have you instead had to learn to lower your
> > expectations, to be content with dead, academic tracts that speak about
> > potent issues in a robotic manner?
> >
> > critiques are truly well written? Were the authors goldsmiths of prose? Did
> > they irrigate their works with living blood - or could they spare only water,
> > and stale water at that?
> >
> > When history comes to judge art criticism, which works will it prize more?
> > The neutral, neutered prose of Post-Modernism - or the potent creations of a
> > Ruskin, or a Pater?
> >
> >
> > Seven Octaves
>
> === Beaudelaire and Apollinaire, Mallarme and Zola are, and will be prized
> above Ruskin, Pater, and PoMo's alike.
>
> a bientot,
>
> A.
>
Yes, and the French, I understand, are very intolerant of foreigners who
abuse their language. You know, Ariane, most of us here who are semi-aware
of the world around us are also aware of the heroic struggle of Arcadian
culture to establish and protect itself in Canada. I'm personally all for
it, I think it's great. But many of us also realize that it's possible to
become so ethnocentric that reason is sacrificed.
Do you imagine that French culture doesn't have two sides (like the rest of
us)? What about the regard for the French mentality that many Africans hold?
What about the French invention of the Death Squads in Central and South
America? I just can't imagine why someone would hold Zola up in Ruskin's
face. Apples and Oranges, pure and simple. The historicity of this act is
pure also, simple reactionary politics that have nothing to do with these two
great writers. How far can you play out this political agenda? I mean, most
of us here on this newsqgroup are fully supportive of the French cultural
component of Canada. But when you keep expressing this shallow ethnocentrism
it causes questions -- like maybe the Brits are legitimately plagued by
French irrationality.
gotts...@my-dejanews.com
> Hello Seven Octaves,
>
> I like it. But I did consider that it's a good thing you're downunder with a
> ready supply of eucalyptus oil to sooth your throat after singing through all
> seven.
Who needs to sing when one has a Chickering piano handy?
> > I certainly have a problem with obscure langauge for its own sake -
> > verbocrap
> > that is intended to impress by its very exclusivity of terminology,
> > phraseology, symbology, radiology, x-ray photography, and ... er, where
> > exactly was this going? Levity aside, I come here not to decry the
> > obscurantism present in PoMo language, but instead its very lack of
> > individuality and vitality.
> >
> > One hears that such a work, "Is located within a certain space", "Transcends
> > boundaries", "Redefines our notions of art", "Establishes a dialogue between
> > artist and audience", "Challenges preconceptions" - ad nauseum.
>
> I'll just raise one tiny objection that has to do with the difference between
> 'obscure language' and hyperbole. In my view the failure of a lot of art
> criticism is in hyperbole, not necessarily obscurity.
> But it works out the
> same in the end -- if the author is just iterating cliches the total output
> comes across as obscure, or in other words, after the reading, you sit back
> and say "what the hell was said, anyway."
This approaches my previouslt stated point, where I re-iterated a number of
the cliches one comes across in contemporary art criticism. It is not the
ideology behind the works in question that disgusts me, nor the occasional
smugness of the language, but rather the intellectual sloth that oozes
through every paragraph. Once it may have been original to declare that a
painting "transcends boundaries" or "challenges accepted notions" - and,
indeed, these phrases may be accurate enough when applied to a given work of
art. But to me it is the difference between dry, barely functional prose, and
prose that is dithyrambic, which beats the tambourine of poetry.
I do not ask for geniuses, and if you interpreted my post as a comment upon
this controversial concept, then I must apologize for my lack of clarity.
> On the other hand, art writing in general is as style driven as much of what
> we have come to see as the 'avant garde,' 'in vogue,' 'high camp,' 'cutting
> edge,' and so on. It is a fashion system in itself, and I think art making
> is part of this fashion system, also. Fashion is a powerful force in society
> (why else would so many pay $150 for a pair of tennis shoes that were made by
> exploited children in Indonesia at a production cost of $2.95?)
I do not refute any of that. I am merely suggesting that a large proportion
of Post-Modernist criticism I have encountered has not been written by
individuals of any notable literary talent. The style of their prose is one
which, superficially, affects an air of almost scientific precision; but it
is a pose that costs their articles dearly. The temptation to use
stock-standard phrases is almost an overwhelming one at times, which is why
one has to be vigorous, alert, on guard against intellectual sloth. My own
readings suggest that Post-Modernist criticism is often thoughtful (this is,
a lot of thought has gone into the concepts behind the work), with an almost
over-abundant vocabulary. But it is the use this vocabulary is put to that is
depressing in its sterility.
> So there's a
> proliferation of art writing by, if I may be inventive, Sabrina Artisticando
> and Artimio Jones-Smith, that is, well, 'fashion statements' and nothing
> more. In this I think you're exactly correct -- these forms will never spill
> out over the restrictions of the time-space that they were created in (except
> as a subject of obscure academia in the future) and they will be forgotten.
> My own inclination, which is truely situated in 'obscure academia,' is to
> regard this body of art criticism as fashion. By 'obscure' I mean that this
> is something that will not be too interesting to the rank and file in AD
> 2050, for example. So, as it serves the interest of scholarship, even the
> hyperbole and cliche and stereotype become objects of interest-- I mean, it
> resembles mass media and the 'low-brow' so closely. How can that be?
An interesting point.
> But
> where you and I may differ, S.O., is that I regard this fashion system as an
> intergal part of "Art" with a capital "A" in 1999. I think you take great
> objection with this notion, i.e. by regarding Art as something 'other' than
> the current manifestations of a fashion system.
Oh, I am not claiming that this fashion system is not a part of the
contemporary art scene. But just because it *is* a part of it does not mean
that I support it. My
> > What apalls me is the very dearth of literary genius. Where is the love of
> > rhythm, of colour, of metre, of internal rhymes, of inflection, connotation
> > in Post-Modernist criticism? Post-Modernist analysis is the rigor-mortis of
> > prose, the antithesis of vitality, originality. The concepts behind a given
> > work may, or may not, be original and ground-breaking, and possibly even
> > intelligent - but nevertheless, are they ever expressed passionately?
>
> Agreed. Literary 'genius' is rare, and you can survey all fields of writing
> and find the same 'dearth.' But consider this in regard to your paragraph:
I would not demand literary genius of these writers - I know not to ask the
impossible. But what I do deplore is the lack of crafstmanship in their
writings, and the predominant (so far as I can tell) slovenly attitude
towards literary style in criticism. It is not enough, in my view, to merely
propose a viable theory about an art-work or movement - one also needs to
write eloquently, with an appreciation for the sound-value of words, the
qualities of cadence, the soft, palpitating rhythms which lend beauty and
grace to literature.
I do not impinge the *intellectual* powers of these writers, in the strict
sense. I merely scorn their literary talent. And since literature is their
primary means of expression (as art critics), one should not dismiss these
concerns lightly.
> Modern society has carved out a place for a 'thinker' and this place is
> academia. In the last 200 years or so we have witnessed the growth of public
> education systems, and these have been formulated around a concept of
> education as a way of guraranteeing upward mobility, increased opportunity,
> and, in a more abstract sense, the solution of social problems -- you know,
> the idea of education being the panacea (or placibo) for the solution of the
> problems of society. Against this, consider the old concept of the 'the
> artist' as genius, gifted, able to access some intelligence or inspiration
> that the rank and file can't access. This flies in the face of a political
> concept such as "All Men are Created Equal." So the teaching of art in
> academia, on that basis, not only becomes problematical, it becomes illegal.
> As an art instructor, for example, you can't give 99% of your class a 'D"
> grade because they are not geniuses without the risk of lawsuit and the
> destruction of your career.
How much is the attack on the notion of "genius" motivated by an awareness of
our own mediocrity, I wonder?
> > Has a Post-Modernist critique ever inflamed you with admiration for the
> > writer's mastery of prose - or have you instead had to learn to lower your
> > expectations, to be content with dead, academic tracts that speak about
> > potent issues in a robotic manner?
>
> Yes, more than often. This is why I don't read Art Journal and instead read
> authors who I feel have passed the initial initiation of posterity. And this
> is why I keep stating on this newsgroup that we should be talking about
> specific authors and ideas rather than just bantering around labels like
> 'pomo' and whatever.
I agree, and will start researching some online articles immediately.
> > Let us face the facts, and ask ourselves honestly: How many Post-Modernist
> > critiques are truly well written? Were the authors goldsmiths of prose? Did
> > they irrigate their works with living blood - or could they spare only
> > water,
> > and stale water at that?
> >
> > When history comes to judge art criticism, which works will it prize more?
> > The neutral, neutered prose of Post-Modernism - or the potent creations of a
> > Ruskin, or a Pater?
>
> Again, I'll just settle back on my point -- when you say "The neutral,
> neutrered prose of Post-Modernism" what are you talking about?
Whilst responding to this letter I took a brief stroll through the reviews I
have been able to find in cyber-space, and must conclude that some of my own
comments do verge on hyperbole. A number of these critiques were indeed
readable and intelligently constructed - but I have not contended that in
this particular thread. It was also encouraging to discover that the articles
I chanced across were also not particularly obscurantist, although to be fair
I did not peruse them in any depth. Confronted with a dearth (there's that
word again!) of cannon fodder - at least temporarily -, I was forced to
consider more carefully what my real complaint is: the over-abundance of
cliches. By all means these are not cliches present in everyday discourse,
but nonetheless there are certain phrases that crop up often in criticisms;
and the presence of these cliches is a sure sign that the author has not
taken the time to thoroughly think through his article from a literary
standpoint.
Over the next few weeks I will examine a number of reviews on the internet,
and attempt to compile of list of what I consider to be especially stale
catch-phrases.
> Like artists,
> meaning those who make works of art, in the end there are only a few who have
> made significant contributions. So where's the beef?
I am dissatisfied with the pressure that tertiary institutions - and the
academia in general - exert on literary style in contemporary criticism.
Intellectual clarity is one thing, but creative impotence is another. I think
that art critics should be encouraged to study the art of literature as part
of their training - and not merely in the sense that they will become able to
competently structure an essay. I think that students in particular should be
discouraged from using well-worn phrases in their articles. I propose that
many are driven to this for a number of reasons: (1) insecurity regarding
their own personal "voice", (2) inexperience in the fundamentals of creative
writing, (3) the pressure they feel to conform to an academic peer group, and
(4) sheer laziness. The fact is that it is easier to use such terms as,
"transcending boundaries", "challenging preconceived notions", "redefining
the limits of", "locating it within a certain space", than it is to seriously
ponder what you want to say. There is also the fashion aspect that you spoke
of before - the use of the aforementioned terms signifies to one's reading
public that you are "in the know", or at least competent.
Regards,
Seven Octaves.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
gotts...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
Here's a clip which speaks some of these issues under discussion, I think.
Erik Mattila
Roland Barthes: Image, Music, Text--('Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers') p.
199.
"Usually the stereotype is a sad affair, since it is constituted by a
necrosis of language, a prosthesis brought in to fill a hole in writing. Yet
at the same time it cannot but occasion a huge burst of laughter: it takes
itself seriously, believes itself to be closer to the truth because
indifferent to its nature as language. It is at once corney and solemn.
Setting the stereotype at a distance is not a political task, for political
language is itself made up of stereotypes, but a critical task, one, that is,
which aims to call language into crises. Such an activity allows one first
and foremost to isolate the speck of ideology contained in every political
discourse and to attack it like an acid capable of dissolving the greasiness
of ‘natural’ language (that is to say of language which feigns ignorance of
the fact of its nature as language). It is a way too of breaking with the
mechanistic conception of language as mere response to stimuli of situation
or action, a way of opposing the production of language to its simple and
fallacious utilization. Then again, it jolts the discourse of the Other and
constitutes a permanent operation of pre- analysis. Lastly, the stereotype
is at bottom a form of opportunism: one conforms to the reigning language,
or rather to that in language which seems to govern (a situation, a right, a
struggle, an institution, a movement, a science, a theory, etc.): to speak in
stereotypes is to side with the power of language, an opportunism which must
(today) be refused."
Dik F Liu
>"Usually the stereotype is a sad affair, since it is constituted by a necrosis
of language, a prosthesis brought in to fill a hole in writing. Yet at the
same time it cannot but occasion a huge burst of laughter: it takes itself
seriously, believes itself to be closer to the truth because indifferent to its
nature as language. It is at once corney and solemn.<
... and so on and so forth.
Isn't that quote itself a stereotyping?
Dik
Pour_Allastair
> >Long live art books!
Which ones?
> >I read the art section of the newspapers,
> >just like a stock broker, reads the stock market pages. But, I
> >don't live & die by what it written therein.
The same thing? LOL/BTW I've not seen such a thing in my paper!
> You just try write the same sort of bullshit. You do it poorly. Stick
> to schmiering.
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
> A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
> check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
>
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make
Gods by the dozen!" -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-92).
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Pour_Allastair
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Pour_Allastair wrote:
> > I need to take this advice and perhaps give up on the scripture of
> > 'Netspeak' and find my eternal and real enlightenment in the dream
> > state.
> > Buenos Noche!
> > <blink>
> > Some French for the Canadians
> > </blink>
> === Don't give up on the `scriptures' of French lessons though!
Why? Pourqua(s?) tu me parle en francaise tout le temps? Tu est un peu
dithyrambique...
Ak! Is this Canada or what?
> a la prochaine
> A.
bryu,dryn,pryn,qryn,pryu,qryu,dryn,bryn Ayers
Ariane
On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> > > When history comes to judge art criticism, which works will it prize more?
> > > The neutral, neutered prose of Post-Modernism - or the potent creations of a
> > > Ruskin, or a Pater?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Seven Octaves
> >
> > Ariane === Beaudelaire and Apollinaire, Mallarme and Zola are, and
will be prized
> > above Ruskin, Pater, and PoMo's alike.
> >
> > a bientot,
> >
> > A.
> >
> Erik: Yes, and the French, I understand, are very intolerant of
foreigners who
> abuse their language. You know, Ariane, most of us here who are semi-aware
> of the world around us are also aware of the heroic struggle of Arcadian
> culture to establish and protect itself in Canada.
=== Acadian. From whence the word `cajun' is derived amongst Louisianans.
The struggle for cultural preservation/autonomy is primarily a Quebecois
phenomenon played out within the borders of the province of Quebec
vis-a-vis Ottawa. Acadians are a group of culturally/linguistically
peoples distinct from the Quebecois, and they can be found primarily in
the province of New Brunswick.
> I'm personally all for
> it, I think it's great. But many of us also realize that it's possible to
> become so ethnocentric that reason is sacrificed.
>
> Do you imagine that French culture doesn't have two sides (like the rest of
> us)? What about the regard for the French mentality that many Africans hold?
> What about the French invention of the Death Squads in Central and South
> America?
=== But when on the topic of French criticism, it is hardly reasonable to
bring up the vicissitudes of French colonial imperialism....Rather, the
reasonable course would be to remain on the topic of writing, literature,
and criticism.
> I just can't imagine why someone would hold Zola up in Ruskin's
> face. Apples and Oranges, pure and simple.
=== Because that is precisely what was being done originally. Ruskin and
Pater were being held up as examples of literary excellence in comparison
to contemporary PoMo criticism (left undefined). So then to follow along
this line of reasoning, Ruskin and Pater will similarly pale in comparison
to the poet/critics Beaudelaire, Apollinaire, Zola, Mallarme, Stendhal,
Reverdy, and even Diderot. In agreement with what you're implying, this
type of argumentation makes no point other than highlighting a
predispositional, partisan upholding of literary `bounty'. Subjective
taste is no substitute for argument.
> The historicity of this act is
> pure also, simple reactionary politics that have nothing to do with these two
> great writers.
=== Well, you've misunderstood the point of the posting.
> How far can you play out this political agenda? I mean, most
> of us here on this newsqgroup are fully supportive of the French cultural
> component of Canada.
=== Give me a break Erik. Because I don't tow the line with respect to
your cultural predispositions, then I must have a political agenda? I
have my own cultural background from which I speak, and it differs from
your own. Pure and simple. The fact that no one else mentions Rabelais,
Montaigne, Beaudelaire, Apollinaire, Bonnard, or even Goya for that matter
doesn't mean that I have to consider these people `off limits,' or that
comparison between them and anglo-American writers/artists are
`unacceptable,' `political,' and other such ethnocentric assertions.
Cultural viewpoints and tastes which differ from yours are the norm, not
the exception. Especially on the internet. And this point of view is not
just a political agenda from French North America.
> But when you keep expressing this shallow ethnocentrism
> it causes questions -- like maybe the Brits are legitimately plagued by
> French irrationality.
=== Who's expressing shallow ethnocentrism here? I was illustrating a
problem with a line of argument by comparing a handful of authors.
You're just looking for an excuse to write stupid prejudiced
generalizations about entire groups of people......Your words belie your
intentions I'm afraid. Only I'm not going to chalk this one up to the
`Bay Area' mentality, or any such mindless trash. It's probably just you.
Never mind Erik, don't take all this too personally, I'm off the net today
so you can get back to thinking those comforting thoughts that are nearest
and most familiar to you.....
> Erik Mattila
avec ennuie,
A.
Bryn_Ayers
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:55:43 GMT, Pour_Allastair <br...@wralaw.com> wrote:
> >What differentiates Zen Buddism from most other religions is that
> >there is an emphasis on prayer and meditation +over+ scripture. Some
> >sects even assert that scripture is unenlightenment(pomo a prime
> >example)- which seems to mean in english weighing down. What
> >Zen means in meditation practice is a mostly(relatively) empty
> >state of mind, free of 'clutter'.(all meditation can not be summed
> >up as Zen) - + =
> Anyone who needs an empty state of mind probably had very little there
> in the first place.
Maybe nothing of value... Meditation techniques are what they are. For
instance it has been demonstrated that there is some correlation
between doing some breathing excersizes and a reduction in blood pressure.
The projection of the mystique of enlightenment, and the erronious notion
that a practitioner 'knows' absolutely everything better than a non-
practitioner is Buddisms main(evolved) problem. If all things are the
same a Buddist, who practices certain meditation techniques in such and
such a way may have marginally better cardio-vascular health than a non-
buddist who doesn't do something else of equal value(perhaps something
like drinking tomato juice).
> >The value of this is of course self-referent. The word Zen has
> >evolved in neo-buddist practitioners to mean 'perfect'; whatever
0> >that means -begging the question if asked. Coffee like what we
> >think of as oriental martial arts(orig. a moving meditation) were
> >a response to the monks finding their more perfect state of
> >enlightenment in the dream state.
> ...no skill no art
>
> A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
> check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
>
Bbryn Ayerss
Bryn_Ayers
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:22:58 -0500, Ariane
> <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> >so we should be consulting this text (if possible) and not the
> >translations which only obscure understanding.....
But Heidegger's position(acc. DJ) is adorian obscurantism... Isn't it?
> >
> Baloney, most everyone reads the Greeks in English and knows to some
> degree what it is they are saying.
Heiddeggeerrs positions are highly speculative and also hard to read,
in (and probably out of) translation. paramoderns like to Quote H
because he makes lots of easily falsifiable comments, but no one who
isn't a true Masochist would bother to expose him. What I read on
H and Utilitarianism and Art was especially wrong(something to the
effect that there is a scale of usefullness vs. esthetics)...
I'm not just calling H's work speculative to falsify him, It was
clear from what I was force-read on H that he was speculating with
reckless abandon.
Profound ambiguity -all writing involves some speculation.
> >> I Worked through it, anyway, and got an impression that
> >> the main point was something like zen, immediate
> >> awareness.
Lucretius(sp?) the Greek said something about this, being focused on
the present. Zen literally originates as an adjective to describe
weather conditions(the condition of a sky without any clouds or
anything else except the sun) It is Zen so we can plant the crops
today because it won't rain.
> The illusion of immediate awareness is usualy vanity.
I think your just being reactionary. Immediate awareness means
exactly what it says. If you are reading this you are immediately
aware of it.
Focussing on an external philosophy that subjectifies this as an
external phenomenon(written in the past) seems to me to be on some
level a contradiction.
> >=== Well, that's a common summarization of Heidegger but I would have to
> >disagree. Only because of the fact that he was influenced by eastern
> >philosophy, for sure, but his own work on Being, time, and language is
> >much more occupied with Western thought than with eastern spirituality.
> >Maybe because his work is, in a way, as deeply profound as Zen that we
> >tend to consider Heidegger in this way. I see him as a lover of Greek
> >philosophy, and a reformer of 20th century Western thought.
> Heidegger is indeed like Zen. Nobody know what the hell it means.
Zen is an analogy, H is a normal infantile intellectual.
> Especially experts. Its like the langauge of Artspeak . Everyone makes
> believe he knows the meaning.
Bryn Ayers
A.A. Raimes
, Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> writes
>=== Heidegger is not a PoMo philosopher but is a `modernist' and as such,
>has a very big influence on the PoMo theorists like Foucault and Derrida
>who came after him. Another reason why I see PoMo as just a continuation
>of Modernism, no big break, just over-dramatic prophesying at the
>millenium's end....
I rarely see Jean Baudrillard being included in discussions like this -
which seems strange to me. Has anyone any thoughts on his works ? His
essays can be found at http://www.ctheory.com/ which is an electronic
journal covering a vast range of cultural issues. It might be of
interest to someone.
Regards.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
mdeli
bullshit happens to read like bullshit.
>Roland Barthes: Image, Music, Text--('Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers') p.
>199.
And he wonders why I don't read more of this sort of crap.
>
> "Usually the stereotype is a sad affair, since it is constituted by a
>necrosis of language, a prosthesis brought in to fill a hole in writing. Yet
>at the same time it cannot but occasion a huge burst of laughter: it takes
>itself seriously, believes itself to be closer to the truth because
>indifferent to its nature as language. It is at once corney and solemn.
>
>Setting the stereotype at a distance is not a political task, for political
>language is itself made up of stereotypes, but a critical task, one, that is,
>which aims to call language into crises. Such an activity allows one first
>and foremost to isolate the speck of ideology contained in every political
>discourse and to attack it like an acid capable of dissolving the greasiness
>of ‘natural’ language (that is to say of language which feigns ignorance of
>the fact of its nature as language). It is a way too of breaking with the
>mechanistic conception of language as mere response to stimuli of situation
>or action, a way of opposing the production of language to its simple and
>fallacious utilization. Then again, it jolts the discourse of the Other and
>constitutes a permanent operation of pre- analysis. Lastly, the stereotype
>is at bottom a form of opportunism: one conforms to the reigning language,
>or rather to that in language which seems to govern (a situation, a right, a
>struggle, an institution, a movement, a science, a theory, etc.): to speak in
>stereotypes is to side with the power of language, an opportunism which must
>(today) be refused."
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mani DeLi
mdeli
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>> Anyone who needs an empty state of mind probably had very little there
>> in the first place.
>
>Maybe nothing of value... Meditation techniques are what they are. For
>instance it has been demonstrated that there is some correlation
>between doing some breathing excersizes and a reduction in blood pressure.
One can meditate without any reference to mystical bullshit, zen or
otherwise.
Dik F Liu
>
>I have been learning slowly. Those who consider themselves to be
>postmodernists have a special language.
Over the years, I have compiled this Postmodernists' lingos list so to decipher
the art argot of the late 80's. Please contribute to this list if you can.
Contextualized appropriation: copy
Hyperreal: real
commodification: sell
deconstruct: think
Biomorphic: horny
Modernist teleology: the 50's
Postmodern heterogeneity: the 80's
And my favorite: polymorphously perverse. I think that I first heard this term
used as a joke in a Woody Allen film - Hannah and Her Sister. And I first read
it in an art magazine two years later in an article on Francesco Clemente. I am
still pondering its exact meaning. Please enlighten me if you can.
Dik
John Haber
perverse" in our old Fine Arts Forum two years ago. But meaning
aside, it wasn't jargon: it was a cute coinage for the nonce, like
"slings and arrows" in Shakespeare, say. Freud didn't mean it as part
of a system, any more than (I hope) you mean your witty post to become
a system.
Woody Allen quoted it because he could play with it, and that's a sign
of its working as witty language. Anyhow, Freud is about the clearest
writer and most elegant stylist I can name among the greats of this
century. That might even be the problem: it became too hard to
disbelieve him.
John
wen...@postoffice.swbell.net
Dik F Liu wrote:
Loved it! Can't contribute anything new but there are some interesting
combinations there- hyperrealistically biomorphic comes to mind :).
Wendy
emat...@tomatoweb.com
But 'biomorphic' is an old term -- much older than the social science
developments that are being continuously misconstrued under the rubric 'post
modernism.' "Biomorphic' is used to distunguish from "geomorphic' -- i.e.
geometric constructions from 'organic' constructions. Thus, one could define
US Plains Indian artwork since 1740 as 'geomorphic' and, say, Northeaster
Indian applique as 'biomorphic.' The term is now standard art history, as,
for example, Miro squiggly forms are generally described as part and parcel
of 'Biomorphic Surrealism" as distinct from the standard, "Surrealism."
One can copy something and not make the claim of ownership. However, the
term 'appropriation' implies just that sense of ownership (if not
authorship). In AD 1100, for example, the Tenochas (Aztecs) set up house in
the Valley of Mexico, and in the ensuing next couple of centuries
'appropriated' the Nahuatl culture and language. By the time Hernan Cortez
arrived, the Tenochas claimed the Nahuatl lineage as their own -- much more
profound than just copying it. The installation of a soup can in an Art
Gallery was an appropriation, in that Pop Art 'owned' the image. Since the
exact method of appropriation was by changing the context of the soupcan's
image (the supermarket to the gallery), you could say it's a 'contextual
appropriation.' A better term, in my opinion, is Guy Debord's 'detournement'
but that's likely to appear even more obtuse to those unfamiliar with art
terminology.
Hyperreal: real. This one is very problematical, since the term is used
differently by various authors. Whatever the gist of the usage, however, the
idea of distinguishing from the 'real' is implicit, so to define 'hyperreal'
as 'real' is inherently problematical. Without considering a specific
instance of the term in a specific text, however, the word is quite
meaningless, and is likely to be abused as much as we see the term 'surreal'
being abused. Since Baudrillard wrote a book called "Travels in
Hyperreality" his use of the term may be of interest. Simply put, in the
body of Baudrillard's writing he discusses in so many words the phenomena
that modern people are emmersed in media, and subsequently the 'world view'
we develop is aimed more at that emmersion than it is at experience of a
world that is other than media. The kind of reality that the individual
constructs, based on that experience, is what Baudrillard describes as
'hyperreal.' In the course of his writing, he needs a term that would make
this distinction in order to be intelligible.
commodification: sell. "Commodification' is a marxist term, of course, and
it doesn't mean 'to sell' at all. Many cultures worldwide, for example,
believed that something as basic as 'water' (which all need to survive) is
something that should be available to everyone, like air. Today we see
'access' to water being available only through our participation in an
economy, where water itself becomes and object in a market, and is thus
commodified. To sell water is simply to sell water (like the grocer who
sells bottled spring water). The commodification of water is that
historical/political/economic event where access to water was only provided
by our agreement to participate in a system of political/economic exchanges.
At any rate, I've already overstate the case. All these terms have
appropriate and inappropriate use. I'm still puzzled why this should be a
meaningful topic in the first place. Since the whole discourse of
obscurantism is heavily dependant of one party in the discourse being
ignorant of terms and definitions, we might just as well as argue for better
education as whether or not usage of these terms is an indicator of some sort
of subversive practice.
Erik Mattila
mark webber
Erik, shouldn't you try to take all this a little more seriously?
nudging,
Mark
Dik F Liu
I understand you zealous to at every turn prove how smart you are. But, keep a
sense of humor. You might come to enjoy it.
Dik
Dik F Liu
Haber) writes:
>Dik, not fair. I gave you a full explanation of "polymorphically perverse" in
our old Fine Arts Forum two years ago. But meaning aside, it wasn't jargon:
it was a cute coinage for the nonce, like "slings and arrows" in Shakespeare,
say. Freud didn't mean it as part of a system, any more than (I hope) you mean
your witty post to become a system.<
Sadly, the status of Freud's term has taken a down turn. Hence, The Journal of
Polymorphic Perversity, the title of a college satire on psychobabble. It
published such articles as "The Cereal Position Effect and other cases of
mistaken identity in psychology." Great magazine. Take a look at it if you can.
By the way, I just learned that the Woody Allen film in question is Celebrity.
In it, an entertainment journalist, played by Kenneth Branagh, met a sexy
runway model (Charlize Theron) whose "polymorphous perversity" rendered her
body as one giant erotic zone.
But it matters not what Freud or Woody Allen intended the term to mean, what
matters is what the Postmodernists mean when they use it.
You know, John, if you really want to help, you can add to my list of the
Postmodern lexicon. Once it is completed I want to have it widely posted so
that even the plebs can speak Postmodernism. Just as today's tourists use
"phrase book" to travel in foreign land, future commoners can, holding The
Postmodern Phrase book, walk freely on the streets of Chelsea and order decaf
expresso while browsing through the pages of October and Flash Art.
Dik, longing for those better days.
Bryn_Ayers
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> Erik Mattila quotes a long convoluted bullshit excuse for why some
> bullshit happens to read like bullshit.
> >Roland Barthes: Image, Music, Text--('Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers') p.
> >199.
> And he wonders why I don't read more of this sort of crap.
> > "Usually the stereotype is a sad affair, since it is constituted by a
> >necrosis of language, a prosthesis brought in to fill a hole in writing. Yet
Therefore a prosthetic necrophilia...
> >at the same time it cannot but occasion a huge burst of laughter: it takes
> >itself seriously, believes itself to be closer to the truth because
> >indifferent to its nature as language. It is at once corney and solemn.
> >
> >Setting the stereotype at a distance is not a political task, for political
> >language is itself made up of stereotypes,
Language is a hypostatinization or reification, Action at a distance is?
> >but a critical task, one, that is,
> >which aims to call language into crises.
As I have pointed out many times. The critical fault of critical theories
is that the segmentation errors in language, dumps the core of language(?)
It's icky. Proves nothing! except that iff we bring into question the
meaning of all words (say the meaning of 'dog' the word 'reidogicationism'
has a multiple of errors roughly equal to the number of core words-5.)
In this case the word dog has about 5 times the certainty of the word
reidogicationism. Iff we take this epistemological(knowledge basis)
problem seriously one ought to use only words that have single meanings,
mostly one syllable words. Unless the multiples are defining and limiting.
At the end the speculation is -'tu quoqua'"et tu"- an error commited on
both sides.. The guiltiest party being the accuser followed by the
accused.
The truth of other speculations contained in the accusitory text begs
the principal... A complex form(the original actually) of the fallacy
of begging the question' where a premise or (ad-hoc) axiom denies the
conclusions. (note that in these cases that the 'principal' may be
true that denies both sides - or conversly the conclusion reached
erroneously may be true(except when it is attached to a whole-like a
theory-))
We may in fact have serious problems with language/or whatever... the
hypostatinization of recontextual missappropriation may not save the
word 'dog' much less any reification of abstract heuristics.
> >Such an activity allows one first
> >and foremost to isolate the speck of ideology
What is Ideology, what is an Idea? what is 'ology'? what is then a speck
of Ideology? and is it possible to in a strong sense ever Isolate such
a thing... (got it???)
> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
> A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
> check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Bryn Ayers...
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make
Gods by the dozen!" -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-92).
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Sorry, Dik, I didn't mean to offend. I'm pretty much focused on the idea
that a lot of the complaint against social theory terms isn't that
legitimate, and even a bit snide. So I was a bit opportunistic with your
post.
Let the humor prevail! For starters, how can I defend myself from your first
sentence? How about - "You don't know what you're talking about--I am not
smart!"
Erik
Dik F Liu
>Sorry, Dik, I didn't mean to offend.<
Didn't mean to snap at you, Erik. I am just incapable of punctilio and mincing
words and often offend people - one of my many failings. (I have known John
Haber - a good critic, by the way - for some years, just ask him how many times
we have exchanged insults.)
>Let the humor prevail! For starters, how can I defend myself from your first
sentence? How about - "You don't know what you're talking about--I am not
smart!"<
You win. I concur. <g>
Dik
Bryn_Ayers
A retromodern appollo guise
In article <19990407231733...@ngol04.aol.com>,
dik...@aol.com (Dik F Liu) wrote:
> In article <36fc2669...@news.interport.net>, zi...@interport.net writes:
I noticed that no one challenged your definitions of these words...
Dik F Liu:
> Contextualized appropriation: copy
> Hyperreal: real
> commodification: sell
> deconstruct: think
> Biomorphic: horny
> Modernist teleology: the 50's
Teleology means end or purpose(teleos)... But 'they' only use big
words to appear intelligent not because they are either intelligent
or well enough educated to comprehend them(not that this would
validate anything)
> Postmodern heterogeneity: the 80's
> And my favorite: polymorphously perverse.
-Directly it means many shapes(polymorph) -opt-> perversion,... If it
isn't a pretentious term it probably means being perverted in many
different ways... Otherwise even 'they' won't know.
> I think that I first heard this term
> used as a joke in a Woody Allen film - Hannah and Her Sister. And I first read
> it in an art magazine two years later in an article on Francesco Clemente. I
am
> still pondering its exact meaning. Please enlighten me if you can.
I bet none of 'them' will know.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make
Gods by the dozen!" -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-92).
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
John Haber
it reminds one of the perversity we all feel part of! So how obscure
sounding can the term be?
I missed that film. Must be Branagh avoidance. If you rent his
Hamlet, try it on fast forward. His performance really improves. It
plays Hamlet brilliantly as a manic depressive, shifting between
brilliant high energy and depth of sadness. I wish it worked as well
at normal speed.
Catch you soon, I hope. BTW, got a nice picture in the mail from
Trish.
John
John Haber
editors are tracking for potential of entering the language. And to
me they're always phrases rather than words. It's as if the magazine
(if not the dictionary) is urging us to treat good phrase-making as
the origin of a formal school, with its own jargon. The magazine is
definitely not smiling enough.
John
Dik F Liu
Haber) writes:
>Hi, Dik! See, one can't help laughing at the journal title, because it
reminds one of the perversity we all feel part of!<
John, Speak for yourself. <g>!
>Catch you soon, I hope. BTW, got a nice picture in the mail from Trish.<
Very nice, you have to show it to me.
Dik
Bryn_Ayers
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 22:18:51 GMT, Bryn_Ayers <br...@wralaw.com> wrote:
> One can meditate without any reference to mystical bullshit, zen or
> otherwise.
More often one refers to Mystical BS. and never meditates...
Bryn (never ever phil) Ayers
Bryn_Ayers
On the subject of language- a linguisticist once told me that she
thought that currents spellings are derived from dyslexic spellings
and how the trade classes treated a language...
Be Anal!
>
> John
>
Po
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make
Gods by the dozen!" -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-92).
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
John Haber
print and electronic age, with typing errors.
You know, I must find someone who knows enough German to say what
Freud wrote in that passage after all. I love the term
"polymorphously perverse." It's an exceptionally evocative, witty
phrase for Freud's male infant playing playing with himself and
receptive to the touch of the outside world. But it's been pointed
out that most of our Freudian terminology, such as "cathexis," is the
translator's creation, where Freud was explaining himself in ordinary
German words. Who knows how these things evolve? Maybe dyslexic
translators.
John
mdeli
>Some people "get" Rothko's work.
>Some don't.
>Among those who "get" Rothko's work there is a description which can be
>simplified to state:
>
>Rothko's work is about Color (Colour for you Canadians). It is NOT about
>texture, shape, or narrative.
You can say that about any painting that is in color. However, tell us
about his color and what its ABOUT. Bet you can't.
> The color CAN provide an undulating movement
>for the viewer if stared at long.
Try staring down the toilet for long and notice the undulation.
> This CAN be a pleasurable experience for
>the viewer.
Then again it might not be worth the effort.
> Like stained-glass CAN contribute to a sense of spirituality
>for the worshipper in church,
It's like stain glass lying on the floor.
>Rothko's work CAN give the viewer the same
>experience. (End of explanation.)
>
>Of course, many people never experience these things.
---unlike mentally masturbating artzy fartzies like you.
>All art is not for
>all people, but Rothko's place in art history is firm and enough people have
>experienced the above viewing Rothko's work that the consensus seems to be
>that these are facts and not suppositions.
I presume you know of some sort of evidence that proves this fact. I
doubt it. Rothko has no place in history. He has a temporary space in
the Modern Section of museums and he will eventually be replaced by
other put-ons which future artzy fartzies will for a time find more
fashionable.
Rothko can't draw. His work is an exhibition of NOTHING in large
sizes. It says nothing and shows no talent at anything. The color is
juvinile and the technique, paint roller plus schmier. I have yet to
see a patch quilt less interesting than a Rothko.
bobig
see that style of arguments for a long time.i think you close your eyes
since the beginning of the century
so i go to your your website and i saw your work, it seems copy of bad
surrealistic paintings.
art isn't only beauty
Art is a territory of freedom where everybody can make art.
rothko is a great artist even if he can't draw (like you say)
free your mind and your art will follow
BOBIG
"l'art C n'importe quoi et C tant mieux"
Etienne CHOUBARD 1984
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/
oeuvres en ligne
bobig's webzone 1 "faîtes un collage de bobig sur votre moniteur"
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/webzone1.htm
bobig's webzone 2 'tuez l'art / kill art"
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/webzone2.htm
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> a écrit dans le message :
371c8667...@news.interlog.com...
Bryn_Ayers
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> "Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
FoAm