Gangster of Love
“Charlie Parker and Benny Goodman hung out with him. Philip Glass lived with him, Steve Reich and Jon Gibson performed with him and all three musical greats recorded with him. Janis Joplin covered his music, Ginsberg stuck it on his fridge and Andy Warhol’s mum designed one of his album covers. In the 60s he was a counter culture hero, today he’s been dubbed the father of minimalism […]”
How ‘bout Marlboro Moondogs?
DFW and Spivak disseminating gracefully
“Irony and cynicism were just what the U.S. hypocrisy of the fifties and sixties called for. That’s what made the early postmodernists great artists. The great thing about irony is that it splits things apart, gets up above them so we can see the flaws and hypocrisies and duplicates. The virtuous always triumph? Ward Cleaver is the prototypical fifties father? ‘Sure.’
Sarcasm, parody, absurdism and irony are great ways to strip off stuff’s mask and show the unpleasant reality behind it. The problem is that once the rules of art are debunked, and once the unpleasant realities the irony diagnoses are revealed and diagnosed, ‘then’ what do we do? Irony’s useful for debunking illusions, but most of the illusion-debunking in the U.S. has now been done and redone. Once everybody knows that equality of opportunity is bunk and Mike Brady’s bunk and Just Say No is bunk, now what do we do?
All we seem to want to do is keep ridiculing the stuff. Postmodern irony and cynicism’s become an end in itself, a measure of hip sophistication and literary savvy. Few artists dare to try to talk about ways of working toward redeeming what’s wrong, because they’ll look sentimental and naive to all the weary ironists.
Irony’s gone from liberating to enslaving. There’s some great essay somewhere that has a line about irony being the song of the prisoner who’s come to love his cage.”
“Reading the work of Subaltern Studies from within but against the grain, I would suggest that elements in their text would warrant a reading of the project to retrieve the subaltern consciousness as the attempts to undo a massive historiographic metalepsis and ‘situate’ the effect of the subject as subaltern. I would read it, then, as a strategic use of positivist essentialism in a scrupulously visible political interest. This would put them in line with the Marx who locates fetishization, the ideological determination of the ‘concrete,’ and spins the narrative of the development of the money-form; with the Nietzsche who offers us genealogy in place of historiography, the Foucault who plots the construction of a ‘counter-memory,’ the Barthes of semiotropy and the Derrida of ‘affirmative deconstruction.’ This would allow them to use the critical force of anti-humanism, in other words, even as they share its constitutive paradox: that the essentializing moment, the object of their criticism, is irreducible.”
Sky Art by Thomas Lamadieu / Roots Art
Eno and Spivak disseminating gracefully
“Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them.”
”Formulating an answer to [the question of what to do with Marx and Gramsci’s notions of self-awareness/determination] might lead to far-reaching practical effects if the risks of the irreducibility of cognitive ‘failure’ and of ‘alienation’ are accepted. The group’s own practice can then be graphed on this grid of ‘failures,’ with the concept of failure generalized and re-inscribed as I have suggested [elsewhere]. This subverts the inevitable vanguardism of a theory that otherwise criticizes the vanguardism of theory. This is why I hope to align them with deconstruction: ‘Operating necessarily from the inside, borrowing all the strategic and economic resources of subversion from the old structure, borrowing them structurally, that is to say without being able to isolate their elements and atoms, the enterprise of deconstruction always in a certain way falls prey to its own work.’”
David Foster Wallace on German Television, 2003.
I have never seen someone as uncomfortable in interviews as this dude.
Someone painted Derrida and de Man dancing on the edge of a cliff
Funny story: I once submitted a thesis proposal interfacing neuroscience, philosophy-of-mind/eliminative materialism, and dynamical systems theory.
Stuff like this’s fascinating as hell, “dun care hoo yar.”
We are deprived through words of an authentic intimacy with what we are, or with what the Other is. We need poetry, not to regain this intimacy, which is impossible, but to remember that we miss it and to prove to ourselves the value of those moments when we are able to encounter other people, or trees, or anything, beyond words, in silence.Yves Bonnefoy, interview, The Paris Review