Or the pathos of it, perhaps; or the dull and uninspired, but courageous persistence of the scientific: everything seemingly found out is doomed to be subverted—by more powerful microscopes and telescopes; by more refined, precise, searching means and methods—the new pronouncements irrepressibly bobbing up; their reception always as Truth as last; always the illusion of the final; very little of the Intermediatist spirit—
That the new that has displaced the old will itself some day be displaced; that is, too, will be recognized as myth-stuff—
But that if phantoms climb, spooks of ladders are good enough for them.
Charles Fort, Book of the Damned.
myth stuff clutters up civilisation like fat clogs up sewers (see here) but i s’pose as long as you can see it for what it is
What I like about Balthus is his naive side.’ Alberto observed. ‘I wouldn’t have said he was naive. I’d have said on the contrary that he’s very sophisticated.’ ‘It’s the same thing.’ Alberto said flatly.
A Giacometti Portrait. James Lord.
giacometti’s studio, i’d have loved to have visited. how he refers back to his work, isolated they cannot match the deep profundity they possess as he knocks them out, and he’s constantly scrutinising them.
the recognition that learning by wrote was simply preventing free and independent thought, and that mass education was designed to speed the acceptance of the workers to their total dependence on industry…
[notes on the foundations of our assumptions about culture and education.]
James Lord in ‘A Giacometti Portrait’, as Giacometti destroys some drawings.
i’ve been reading the ‘genius of shakespeare’ by jonathon bate (in a simplified version of one of his conclusions) he argues that shakespeare functions so successfully because his work is full of contradictory (or apparently contradictory) ‘truths’. and that it is the performing of shakespeare’s words that gives these truths profundity, that the words need to be lived and can only come alive in action and experience. the performance need not be theatrical, the words have trickled through into the micro and the macro, becoming a part of our mundane performances.
i can see how this can be applied to cezanne (& giacometti) – detail, and the cosmic are conjured in one movement, looking becoming an act (in the context of a life times work)
Shakespeare and dreams. A dream is wrong, absurd, composite, and yet at the same time it is completely right: put together in this strange way makes an impression. Why? I don’t know. And if Shakespeare is great, as he is said to be, then it must be possible to say of him: things aren’t like that – and yet at the same time it’s quite right according to a law of its own.
critical discourse has struggled in consumerism. the grotesqueries of consumerism make for a beautiful pose so even critique becomes a gorgeous aesthetic, and slowly swings around to it’s own fetishistic fantasy. academia soaks it up…
iconoclasm is reached fighting for / fighting against. and iconoclasm is the ultimate carrot on a stick: alpha male or female
The Mafia is not an outsider in this world; it is perfectly at home. Indeed, in the integrated spectacle it stands as the model of all advanced commercial enterprises.
Guy Debord. Comments on the Society of the Spectacle.
been listening & reading around a little debord and the wretched ‘actuality’ of he spectacle. it seems the urge to extract the politics from his arguments & deify spectacle are based on two notions. that he had an ambiguous relationship with his own expositions (how do you separate man from idea – love one; must love the other, even in criticism) and that a consumer society cannot function without love of the spectacle, with out building every experience or idea into spectacle till every action must function as spectacle. sturm und drang. tis apocalyptic, neurotic-apocalyptic, petty drama