Structuralist live in a dream world

[BlackShanglan]

Superb post, Zoot, and very insightful. I've tended myself to agree that the explosion of spiritualism, aestheticism, fairies, the occult, the supernatural, Far East philosophies, and similar in the 19th century was a reaction to the intense rationalism and the "death of God" (he does that a lot) under Utilitarianism. There were a lot of "faith substitutes," I think because crave a thing greater than ourselves to believe in - even if it's something like Fact elevated to diety status. Your point on the increasing Boomer/aging population is most insightful. Gives one something to think upon.

Personally, I just hope that it leads where it led last time. I could so love another Decadence.

Shanglan

 

[Guest]

Mab., you hit on something real; good on you.

Me? I'm looking for a pre-Dada church (hopefully within walking distance).

Perdita

 

[rgraham666]

Hey, p.

Nice to see you posting again.

 

[rgraham666]

Shang, I would highly recommend the book Voltaire's Bastards - The Dictatorship of Reason in The West by John Ralston Saul.

A very sharp critique of the excessive use of Reason to the detriment of all the other human qualities.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shang, I would highly recommend the book Voltaire's Bastards - The Dictatorship of Reason in The West by John Ralston Saul.

A very sharp critique of the excessive use of Reason to the detriment of all the other human qualities.

I just put it onto my wish list so that I don't forget it. The reviews look interesting. I'm intrigued by the descriptions of some of his other books as well, particularly the implication that he's attempting to enunciate a humanism that doesn't degenerate into simplistic Utilitarianism. I confess that the negative reviews lured me as much as the positive ones (on Amazon); those railing against the book appeared to be such direct reincarnations of Thomas Gradgrind.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

i like lauren's and mab's postings above, but with this demurrer:

'postmodern' was never a time or period, but a thread. thus, as some posters have said, the modern continues in good health, more or less. though terrorists in the subways are pretty upsetting. there is some sort of decline of empire. evangelicofascists v. islamofascists.

had it been a time or period we would as L says, in effect, be post post modern.

it is interesting to look at the changes in narrative that have occurred; not that narrative is dead but I cannot read Saramago or that other recent novel ("Austerlitz?") without sentences.

who is the new Kathy Acker?

 

[SeaCat]

Bob,

I like your comment. Like you I just tell my story. Am I post modern? Am I Bar, whatever the hell that is? I don't have a clue nor do I really care.

As for the spiritualism creeping back into society, we can all see that it is. We can also all see how this is affecting our society. Unfortunately here in the Untied States this spiritualism is rarely for the good. It is used to subjugate not free people.

You want to learn the answer to the big question? Wait a while, you'll find it.

Cat

 

[simulacre]

Have we defined ourselves as an era?

Good question. Part of me agrees with those who have said that it is up to the next generations to find the common denominator that would unite us in one (or a few) movements whether literary or artistic. But then again I am reminded that through the ages movements have sometimes been not only created, but named and defined by establishing rules and goals together by the artists themselves (through events and gatherings that were often mostly mundane in purpose).

Which raises another question: Is there a need at this moment in time for artists to come together and to give themselves a common purpose? I mean, simply put, what brought them together in the past? What were they looking for in doing so? Support of their peers, understanding, approval? If that’s the case then with the internet, whatever one stands for is bound to find a group which will give them exactly that with very little effort. Everything and anything goes nowadays, no? Diversity and distinctiveness (an empty word in this age?), everything goes, everything co-exists. But then again, hasn’t it always been like that? I mean those artists we remember and hold as precursor or as having defined an era, they weren’t the only ones practising art were they? They were a small fraction only and it is time that has put them forward. Ok, ok, sometimes they were the very centre of attention in their own times, but at other times the very artists that were held in praise are the ones history forgot the quickest. I’ll go even further and add that the very authors and artists that are presently taught in classes throughout the world as having been corner stones might, fifty years from now, become secondary or be considered minor. The “Canon” whether literary or artistic is being constantly redefined, it also is in movement. Artists and writers are constantly being rediscovered, given a second life, a new appreciation. Get your hands on a literature anthology that was used to teach fifty years ago, take a look at who or what movement was being taught and what level of “importance” was being awarded to them. Compare with one that is used to teach today. Only fifty years but you’ll see differences, changes, the canon being slowly redefined. I’m tempted to state Victor Hugo as an example, he’s lost so much ground, so much importance although he was one of the very few who defined French romanticism as a movement. He’s hardly taught anymore, will he still be taught fifty years from now, will he gain a new wind and get back to first rank again?

I repeat my question: is there a need at this moment in time for artists to come together and to give themselves a common purpose? Is there a revolution to be had? What new statement are we looking to make? Is there anything “new” anymore? Well… there must be, we’re still writing, creating, painting, composing, aren’t we? Is it new or are we recycling? There is undeniably a cycle and every so often we go back to basics, are we there now?

Questions, questions, you say… yeah that’s all I got, no valid answer, but I’m definitely interested in reading your answers.

Let’s go back to the initial question:

Have we defined ourselves as an era?

Who exactly is we? Have we reached a point where the artists of the world can all be put under the same banner (through globalisation, access to information, the abolition of distance among other things through the internet, etc.) or are there still cultural differences and preoccupations in effect that would make movements specific to smaller groups (meaning countries or culture). A while back I was reading a review in French of one of Paul Auster’s novel in which it was stated that he was “the most French of the American writers” in reference to his use of narrative… what does that mean exactly? Is there any validity in such a statement? How many of us are currently exposed to only one culture? Everything is translated, available to anyone who bothers. Who’s “we”? Is there such a thing as a global “we”?

I like Dr. Mabeuse’s post, I like the quest for meaning, for spirituality…but I like it on a personal level. Is it something “new” enough to be defined as a movement? Isn’t that part of a cycle as well through the ages? And even in this day and age only, is it that new or is it already “passé”? Carlos Castenada and Paulo Coelho are not exactly new, are they?

Ok last question. Is there any validity in this search for defining ourselves as an era?

I'm impossible to have a discussion with, aren't I?

 

[didijune48]

Good question. Part of me agrees with those who have said that it is up to the next generations to find the common denominator that would unite us in one (or a few) movements whether literary or artistic. But then again I am reminded that through the ages movements have sometimes been not only created, but named and defined by establishing rules and goals together by the artists themselves (through events and gatherings that were often mostly mundane in purpose).

Which raises another question: Is there a need at this moment in time for artists to come together and to give themselves a common purpose? I mean, simply put, what brought them together in the past? What were they looking for in doing so? Support of their peers, understanding, approval? If that’s the case then with the internet, whatever one stands for is bound to find a group which will give them exactly that with very little effort. Everything and anything goes nowadays, no? Diversity and distinctiveness (an empty word in this age?), everything goes, everything co-exists. But then again, hasn’t it always been like that? I mean those artists we remember and hold as precursor or as having defined an era, they weren’t the only ones practising art were they? They were a small fraction only and it is time that has put them forward. Ok, ok, sometimes they were the very centre of attention in their own times, but at other times the very artists that were held in praise are the ones history forgot the quickest. I’ll go even further and add that the very authors and artists that are presently taught in classes throughout the world as having been corner stones might, fifty years from now, become secondary or be considered minor. The “Canon” whether literary or artistic is being constantly redefined, it also is in movement. Artists and writers are constantly being rediscovered, given a second life, a new appreciation. Get your hands on a literature anthology that was used to teach fifty years ago, take a look at who or what movement was being taught and what level of “importance” was being awarded to them. Compare with one that is used to teach today. Only fifty years but you’ll see differences, changes, the canon being slowly redefined. I’m tempted to state Victor Hugo as an example, he’s lost so much ground, so much importance although he was one of the very few who defined French romanticism as a movement. He’s hardly taught anymore, will he still be taught fifty years from now, will he gain a new wind and get back to first rank again?

I repeat my question: is there a need at this moment in time for artists to come together and to give themselves a common purpose? Is there a revolution to be had? What new statement are we looking to make? Is there anything “new” anymore? Well… there must be, we’re still writing, creating, painting, composing, aren’t we? Is it new or are we recycling? There is undeniably a cycle and every so often we go back to basics, are we there now?

Questions, questions, you say… yeah that’s all I got, no valid answer, but I’m definitely interested in reading your answers.

Let’s go back to the initial question:



Who exactly is we? Have we reached a point where the artists of the world can all be put under the same banner (through globalisation, access to information, the abolition of distance among other things through the internet, etc.) or are there still cultural differences and preoccupations in effect that would make movements specific to smaller groups (meaning countries or culture). A while back I was reading a review in French of one of Paul Auster’s novel in which it was stated that he was “the most French of the American writers” in reference to his use of narrative… what does that mean exactly? Is there any validity in such a statement? How many of us are currently exposed to only one culture? Everything is translated, available to anyone who bothers. Who’s “we”? Is there such a thing as a global “we”?

I like Dr. Mabeuse’s post, I like the quest for meaning, for spirituality…but I like it on a personal level. Is it something “new” enough to be defined as a movement? Isn’t that part of a cycle as well through the ages? And even in this day and age only, is it that new or is it already “passé”? Carlos Castenada and Paulo Coelho are not exactly new, are they?

Ok last question. Is there any validity in this search for defining ourselves as an era?

I'm impossible to have a discussion with, aren't I?

WOW simulacre! This is almost an existentionalist comment! I sure hope there is still place for differenciation in this world and recognition of what different cultures can give to the humanity. Isn't it what should bring us together at the end? Our differences? Globalisation finds me fearfull that we do not recognize that at last and it wil be lost for future generations. Our art should represent who we are and we can't be if we don't see our past in the future.
Didi

 

[CharleyH]

Charlus: I'm of a mind with Liar and Shang. "We" cannot define ourselves, however much we try.

At a Beethoven seminar once I listened to a fine musicologist discuss the last string quartets. He gave everyone pause for thought, and a grin, when he plainly stated, "Beethoven did not know this was his Late period."

As for a temporary term, to do with your query, I'd use meta-anything.

Bessos, P.

I am not asking to define the self, but ... the only memorable thing from culture to culture is typically a person who sums up the era.

People make up an era - sure ... but only if they change one, or one aspect of it, no? Otherwise people are forgotten. It's easy to forget.

Most eras in art and literature come from the avant-guardists or philosophers of the time who actually ask questions. I would disagree and say that Beethoven did know his culture ... which is why he must have been successful, he had PR agents. I would also argue the same thing of Shakespeare (although I know more of Shakespeare so am speaking through my nose on the music element of this thread.

(Always respectfully )

 

[Guest]

I am not asking to define the self, but ... the only memorable thing from culture to culture is typically a person who sums up the era.

People make up an era - sure ... but only if they change one, or one aspect of it, no? Otherwise people are forgotten. It's easy to forget.

Most eras in art and literature come from the avant-guardists or philosophers of the time who actually ask questions. I would disagree and say that Beethoven did know his culture ... which is why he must have been successful. I would also argue the same thing of Shakespeare (although I know more of Shakespeare so am speaking through my nose on the music element of this thread.

(Always respectfully )

Good grief, Ch., you've utterly misread me. I was not refering to the 'self' as in personal identity. I meant 'ourselves' as a time, era, whatever. It will be our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren who label "us". Or grand-nieces, whatever.

I meant only that Beethoven did not know he was going to die soon (and therefore have his last works labeled his "late" period), nowt to do with what he knew of the time he was actually living.

However, this misunderstanding is nowt for nowt, i.e., 'tis always a pleasure to stay in touch with la femme incomprise.

P.

 

[CharleyH]

Good grief, Ch., you've utterly misread me. I was not refering to the 'self' as in personal identity. I meant 'ourselves' as a time, era, whatever. It will be our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren who label "us". Or grand-nieces, whatever.

I meant only that Beethoven did not know he was going to die soon (and therefore have his last works labeled his "late" period), nowt to do with what he knew of the time he was actually living.

However, this misunderstanding is nowt for nowt, i.e., 'tis always a pleasure to stay in touch with la femme incomprise.

P.

Testy, testy. I still believe that the avant-guardists define a culture ... they always have and not after the fact, which is the reason for the term :|. Conventional artists are defined after the fact. and as part of a culture that "once" lived, which is why they are revered as "artists" but nothing more. Most of culture is conventional, 80% of ours is, so it's no surprise that pop artists of the 14th century, for example, live longer in the inappropriately, progress of history.

Experimentalists define culture, not conventionalists. Take that as you will, P. Its all up for debate.

As I previously said, I have no idea about musicians (specifically prior to the 20th century).

 

[BlackShanglan]

Testy, testy. I still believe that the avant-guardists define a culture ... they always have and not after the fact, which is the reason for the term :|. Conventional artists are defined after the fact. and as part of a culture that "once" lived, which is why they are revered as "artists" but nothing more. Most of culture is conventional, 80% of ours is, so it's no surprise that pop artists of the 14th century, for example, live longer in the inappropriately, progress of history.

Experimentalists define culture, not conventionalists. Take that as you will, P. Its all up for debate.

As I previously said, I have no idea about musicians (specifically prior to the 20th century).

Hmmm. I might be willing to buy this, but for this chief issue: most artists tend to think of themselves as unconventional. Even the ones who are most reactionary think that it is in this that they are unconventional. Therefore, the question is not who we ourselves think is unconventional, but who the future will perceive as such. And then we're neatly back to Perdita and the future's remarkable ability to control the past.

Shanglan

 

[CharleyH]

Hmmm. I might be willing to buy this, but for this chief issue: most artists tend to think of themselves as unconventional. Even the ones who are most reactionary think that it is in this that they are unconventional. Therefore, the question is not who we ourselves think is unconventional, but who the future will perceive as such. And then we're neatly back to Perdita and the future's remarkable ability to control the past.

Shanglan

Hm, scratching chin, LOL, isn't life circular? I am not sure that most artist do, Shang.

Most artists are poor and want to make a buck and are willing to make it by whatever means possible. I am not sure I see being commissioned as being an art for arts sake proposal, or even changing a future culture, but here we have the brilliance of say Michaelangelo or Mozart. I don't recall either of their great works as being works of passion? I am sure they were commissioned, but I could be wrong.

You have a very good point though and I missed that point by P, but at the same time I must argue that one can only be forward if something different happens and if the people of the era move culturally forward because of it. They generally are moved by art and not politics? For example, and I am more 20th century oriented and could talk of invention, but lets talk Madonna for a moment. LOL Not the first female break-through, but one that influenced a whole era of feminine and gay thought regarding sexuality.

Seriously. Take Madonna's music and art out of the 1980's and early 1990's (she pushed boundaries before culture was ready) let's say she did not exist. Can you say with certainty that gay aesthetics, for example, would have grown so rapidly?

GOOD GOD! I have way too many thoughts on this - I have soo many thoughts that all I can summarize without going into a totally misunderstood oblivion is this (because I'd love to just talk and go off about time)



There is only the present and all future is based on influences of the present, not the past. We progress from this point in time ... not the past era and not the past minute.

Jeez, hope that made sense Everything is debatable, though.