divagational THREE THESES ON DAMIEN Tabarovsky (LEFT AND LITERATURE).
Monday, January 31, 2011
Linda Goodman Horoscope 2010
Leo bunk Ture left Damian Tabarovsky published in Spain by the editorial Peripheral . In fact, the very act of reading makes me a strange sensation. On the one hand, but I do not like such statements "is a book that every aspiring writer or this should be read before writing a single line, before writing a single line. A book that should be on the bench of the writer in the making. It is a book that should prescribes writing in schools, but actually is a book that these schools would burst into a great conflagration of the literary system. On the other hand, is a fascinating book. Fascinating to agree, but mostly fascinating to disagree. What we can find in literature left ? If we look here and there about this book, if asked, the first thing we read and tell us is that it is a tirade against some literature literature or Argentina in the last thirty years. That does not leave puppet head. If Borges, that if you copy, if this itself, it does not, etc. And it is true. Is all that. But really stay on that surface is to stay in the book. Actually, what I think is important for this essay is not so, ie the reading of the Argentine as a mark literary but what supports this thinking. And that's the point at which we can enter into dialogue with the ever Tabarovsky dialoguing. Contradiálogo dialogue or where there are many issues put on hold. But again, what is left Literature? It's actually hard to leave locked in a this or that, in a simple gesture of acceptance or denial. We can, and get to where I wanted to describe or write down three theses of the book that I find suggestive for discussion today.
Thesis 1: The literature of left stands for the language, as a place of tension and conflict for the writer to the market and the academy, subject both to what he calls "the will of capitalism." He writes: "Do not search [literature left] open a new paradigm, but to question the very idea of \u200b\u200bparadigm [...] is a literature that writes always thinking about the outside, but an outside that is not real , the outside is the public criticism [...] other books. " So where to place that literature skewed, eccentric? This left literature "is written by the writer without an audience, by the writer who writes for anyone. [...] This literature does not address the public: addresses the language. " This is the strong thesis. Defend the figure of the writer from the figure of the publisher of books, "inoperative community advocates, the search for other areas of discourse, something beyond what actually exists, against the omnipotence of the market and academia. Is it the unpardonable exist for a writer? Answer: Yes.
Thesis 2: In reality this thesis is connected with the previous. Despite insisting that the fundamental problem is not the classic confrontation argument against language (p. 21), said time and again that literature, literature from left, defends and proposes, is the suspect and tries off literature as an argument in this literature as an argument is based on the idea that language is communication and therefore is a reversal of the proposed radical literature. Faced with the literature of the beautiful and pleasant, characteristic of the marketing literature proposes the output through the sublime.
Thesis 3: Tabarovsky the problem is in the market and the academy, under the faith of capitalism, defused the potential of language to the forefront, making useless experimentation. To Tabarovsky the possibilities of literature today undergo a kind of return (impossible) to avant-garde.
Here are some of the ideas contained in the book. Let's go over them.
Tabarovsky considers the public word designates a piece of the market and therefore it is perfectly dispensable for literature, but especially for the writer. But this thesis, which involves collecting a previous thesis on the language of Deleuze included in the text "Literature and Life" - runs the risk of fighting a ghost of smoke: public as a single object, as a one-dimensional character, recognizable in a snapshot, malleable, marketable. It is not a writer without an audience as possible and see it. Or put another way: go to language-like destination-does not mean that there is no other does not mean the exclusion or sacrifice the other . Yours looks like a Romantic position while as "postulates a sacrifice romanticism" (Adorno). I think the figure of another be the correct image. Against the commodification of public word indeterminate ambiguity of the other. Be possible in this sense create what Deleuze called the same "neighborhood" where the writer, the language and the other is creating or inventing a people missing. " Ignore this other literature is to obviate the effect and stay with literature as a cause, something unreal, unhealthy, neurotic. On the other hand, I repeat, do not believe in the existence of a language absent -absorbed, as literary territory, or that this language is discursive output against the market. On the contrary, the language needs to fulfill its viral character-disrupting words of Plato, to establish themselves in the world. I mean the language as literature only exists as another recipient. This is viewable in poetry. There is poetic language of a independently and separately, but through acceptance, covenant between the language, the poet and the other. Recently, a poet spoke of the impossibility of seeing poetry as a product, but is it possible? Is there something that is not product? According Tabarovsky itself: writing radical left-wing literature: "That this call literature a range of products does not affect most radical forms of expression, simply increases their isolation." Tabarovsky these ideas inimical to a text of Marx: "consumption is also an immediate and a mode of production and consumption in the nature of elements and chemicals is the production of the plant." He adds, "a dress becomes a real dress rather than the act of wearing it, a real home is not a real house remade ( Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy , 1857). Read a novel not a novel is not real. Read a poem a poem is not real.
At another point insists that if the writer writes for anyone ("It happens that literature is opposed to the book. It's true: you write to be read. But read by anyone"), and if the language is your community (inoperative) without an audience, it is clear that the argument, given its communicative market is another form of capitalist desire. He may be right. The argument as ballast from Poetics of Aristotle, would be subject to question. (Digression: is not the same argument that communication is impossible not to "communicate, according to Paul Watzlawick). The marketing literature has focused its possibilities to a novel type of communication, well written, with a beautiful and enjoyable argument. Yes It's true. The novel as a means, not an end. The novel even as a possibility for ethics. writes, "all novels are beautiful, nice, do not bother anyone." Beautiful. How nice. And if we follow Kant-as-Tabarovsky ago just as sublime. Did sublime? "There was more romantic and more conservative? Do not said at some point you want to escape the romantic? Now, ably defends a different sublime under a sublime of tiny things, which were in Emerson, and before the sublime ridiculousness of Jean Paul, but much, much earlier in Edmund Burke, who spoke in 1757 of the sublime in the microscopic and words can affect images without causing argumentative. That would be the sublime. However, what surprises, a lot is to resort exclusively to the Kantian sublime to exit the wager M. Nussbaum, for example, when in fact, both say the same. For Kant the sublime only serves to suggest moral ideas. Kant is the one who introduces the heroic moral sublime. Kant wrote: "without the development of moral ideas, which we prepared for the culture, we call sublime, appears only as scary tough guy. [...] Can not think a feeling for the sublime in nature without linking to it a provision of similar spirit to the provision to morality ". It is Kant, it is Burke who is now acceptable as were able to see Lyotard Zagajewki and before and before Barnett Newman ( The sublime is now, 1948).
And thirdly, the idea of \u200b\u200ba return to the forefront. He writes: "It is unbearable for our time is not only the vanguard, in its dialectic, has led to market, but the almost impossibility of art today." This is one of the trouble spots. What edge? The bet here is Tabarovsky strange abstraction. Introjective abstraction as language, without an audience. Interestingly, and as short, the question is why abstraction? Abstraction as improvement of communicative language, such as destruction representational sense, he says, but beyond that "abstraction is a radical way of understanding the art and its effects." "Remove the real, call it abstraction." And what artists think? Surprise: Frank Stella, Rothko, Barnett Newman ... How? Why this delay? Why this return to artists as Tabarovsky "create the possibility [...] for a critique of humanist values \u200b\u200b[...] without succumbing to domination technique, or the market? These are some of the criteria the author. But Stella, Rothko, Newman? Is there a clear temporal imbalance (and space) between our present and yours? And on the other hand, does not succumb to the market? Let this path. However, we do have to point out that the choice of abstraction is actually a rather conservative choice, and he is conscious. Benjamin H. Buchloh demonstrated perfectly: the avant-garde were the first off the lead. That is, the art as experimentation, such as fracture, there is abstraction. The abstraction was the departure of the painters to reach the market, curiously. And this is very aware Tabarovsky: abstraction is now decoration. Now he tries to rescue the radical sense of reality discard of abstraction. Is it? Is not that even more conservative trying to recover the purity of abstraction? Do not forget that Rothko and company come from the realism of post-depression New Deal and only went to abstraction, mid-forties after the U.S. entry in World War II when they were told to be realistic it was like being communists (S . Gilbaut), and that if they succeed and sell, realism was not the way that the road was a kind of spiritual mystery and return the solipsist (well paid), such non-figurative romanticism. Moreover, both Newman and Rothko declared romantic in selling your product. Moreover Tabarovsky writes: "The abstraction does not work for elimination (of reality). On the contrary, abstraction is produced as an excess [...] (the real). " So what does this have to do with Rothko, for example? Saturation. Excess. Discard. Suspending. With these words, we define the abstraction as the overcoming of the figurative and representational. But is it? As Hal Foster suggests the return real representation is surpassed only by the exercise of representation itself. Only an excess, yes, but of representation, than the plot and figurative representation, not through discard. The incessant repetition of overcoming representation: that is, from my point of view, the output representation. Warhol as the overcoming of representation. The appropriation of the figure to empty. A word loses meaning when repeated thousands of times when we cease not to pronounce it. Why choose Tabarovsky a return of the new in the way of abstraction and discard (by Klein, for example, a fascist care) and not by Marcel Duchamp or Warhol? Simple: Duchamp needs the other. Remember these words in The creative act: "In fact, creative act is not carried out by the artist alone, the viewer also helps because it is he who puts the work in contact with the external world by deciphering its internal characteristics. " Years later, in 1968, Roland Barthes would take, making classic, as follows: "A reader is the space in which to enroll without exception all appointments that make a statement, the text unit is not in its origin, but in its destination. "
... As I leave here, and as before Tabarovsky Gombrowicz-believe in the unfinished, as is suspended. Only one thing, one request: read this book. Do not leave indifferent. Read it if you think devote himself to writing, read it if they have written forty books, or two or twenty. Read it if you have ten years in a school of writing or about to enroll or are teachers ... Read it, pray. I begin my second reading now.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Dubai Sports 2 Smackdown
THE ART OF THE EFFECTS. WORDS, IMAGES. (FROM AN ARTICLE OF PATRICK PRONE)
In 1939, a few years after the Dada and pop when the universe was still far in the horizon wrote Clement Greenberg his famous work "Avant-Garde and Kitsch." In that article, Greenberg was asked a question before us blush for its ingenuity: how can the same civilization produces "two things as different as a poem by TS Eliot and a Tin Pan Alley song, or a painting by Braque and a cover Saturday Evening Post . " To summarize: what surprised him the good Greenberg is how it was that something that came directly from the world of capitalism, ie visual production (bourgeoisie) of mass culture, is beginning to intrude on everyday life and acquire a larger role than the true culture (the avant-garde). Yes our eyes may seem elitist vision of Greenberg, but what happens is starting to display the following: if the mass culture, under the faith of the image, like the aesthetic and expressive effects of art (but not their processes) may occur in the future wish to acquire the art effects of mass culture, ie the capitalist uses distribution, merchandising and promotion of what other philosophers of the time they started calling the "Hollywoodization of art. And it was. But that would be another story. Artists have need of these distribution mechanisms I or management of the artistic subject. The list is too long. However, with few exceptions, it seemed that literature (especially poetry) remained outside this process of visualization. And so, perhaps, Greenberg cited a greater number of visual artists writers in the text. Can literature "sold" the same way? Interestingly, more than seventy years later, the question is reversed, can be a writer without the effects of mass culture? Literature needs urgently the image, but not just any image. The age of the world picture , Heidegger would say, requires an efficient and effective image, where the technology they support. Patrick spoke precisely this Pron in a recent article in the "cultural ABC" entitled "Promotion, renew or die." An article, no doubt, required reading. In the article in question are two distinct parts. The first, somewhat superficial in the way of narrating a recount as many artists seem to have discovered to do things beyond cool books, and a second part where deep and very suggestive reflects more concern about the problems that entails. To summarize this first part can be understood as a catalog of ways to compare these two texts:
a) " In tavern scene of a striking, colorful things and crowded there are several fantastic figures and quirky read their poems and shout. People around us are shouting, laughing and gesticulating. Our replies are sighs of love, strings of hiccups, poems, moos, meows. While someone reads his poems others paint. And others with masks background music and shouting their texts "
b) " Someone calls on stage, someone moans, two people read their texts while on their Face images are projected road, someone ordered the heads of pork and cook another person pretending to perform surgery. "
Apparently similar texts. The problem (if a problem, I do not think) is that the text to written in 1916 by Hugo Ball and b Pron by Patricio in 2011. Nearly a hundred years separate text from another. But as stated before this does not diminish the interest or suggestion of the text of Pron, on the contrary. The radical difference between to and the text b text is in the commercial effect of the visual , which is what Greenberg and talked about what we put on notice about Pron . In the second part of the text goes into this dispute. In Dada captained nihilism as any action as there was a specific purpose, while at present, as well visualized Greenberg, the author seeks to effect the effect the specific purpose of becoming visible. And it portrays him perfectly Pron "in a context in which the writers seem to be interested in things other than literature, and writing is seen in some cases as an obstacle to obtaining public visibility [...] the writers have diversified their activities not only result the perception that literature has lost his fight against audiovisual culture imagery, but also because they have internalized the rules of late capitalism. " Promotional videos, performances, events, etc., Like a hurricane go through the agenda of many writers in need of this parallel universe. As pointed out Pron, "is not the book that allows the existence of the writer, but this is what makes possible the books, the writer has begun to operate in the manner of some factories that periodically need to market a new appliance or a new car for not devaluing its "brand value". " And finally, proposes a question Pron key: if it be that this web of actions is not clear demonstration of the capitulation of the literature, "the uncritical acceptance by some of the supposed triumph of the footage on the legal culture." The question, in any case, is in the air, and perhaps insoluble. However, the obvious, to this flood of visual actions of promotion by the writer, not an answer that says this is good or this is bad. It is actually far more complex. But ... I really like and give the answer back in the eighties Lyotard: "the secret of artistic success, like that of a commercial success lies in a dosage between surprising and "well known" among the information and code. This is innovation in the arts, takes up formulas confirmed by previous successes, they are unbalanced through combinations with other formulas in principle and inconsistent amalgam of appointments, decorations, pastiches. [...] Thus, it is believed to express the spirit of the time, when not only reflects the market. The sublime is no longer art, but on speculation about art. "
[CODA]
Good. It may be true. But this has the paradoxical problem seen from the other side, the side of the visual arts. Curiously, in the visual arts the problem lies in the excessive literaturización artists. That is, now all want to be artists or writers also use the word. There are juicy and interesting examples such as the ubiquitous Peter G. Romero and many others. Without going any further in the same supplement in which Pron marked the victory of the footage on the legal culture, a few pages later in the section on art, we read what was happening on the other side of the pitch. And there we found what Ernest B. Gilman called "imperialism of language" that are subject to the visual arts. Take examples. Pron If the text occupies pages 18 and 19 of the supplement, on page 27 we can approach the interview with Bledsoe and Rosa for their participation in the Biennale of Arts of Cairo. Here we encounter phrases like "But here we have sought that reading times are evident. We can read the images. [...] We want the viewer use their imagination to read the image. " Read. Read. Read. On page 31, Fernando Castro Flórez talks about the work of Ivan Navarro currently outlined in the Madrid gallery District 4. Are in first place influence of a philosopher of language, Wittgenstein, and cites as critical, Ivan Navarro says this about his work: "My purpose in working with texts written in neon is to investigate an aspect of language that is often not consciously perceived by those who read . This is also to understand the text as image. " And Castro Florez said, "Well done with bricks also bewitch us with their simple words:" Ear, "" ELBOW "," FINGER "." Wittgenstein, text, reading, words.
Yes, it's funny, but paradox is irresolvable as good. Or not.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Funny Marriage Invitation Wordings For Friends
2010 OTHER THREE THREE THREE
instituted vision-strangely-de Marcel Duchamp hegemonic invites hate each other until the end and to mythologize as a hero in continuous struggle. The two positions, the Luciferian destroyer of art on the one hand, and the savior through things on the other, represent a shutter, a basic inability to establish a genuine dialogue with the subject Marcel Duchamp. On one side are buckled like Donald Kuspit Marc Fumarolli or who consider the same destructive that called art. At the other extreme are people like Nicolas Bourriaud (a guy who seems to have much prestige in the cool world of philosophy and aesthetics but their texts, read in depth, without much sense and are full of inconsistencies of argument). To Bourriaud, the father of ready-made is everything, and even worse, take the ready-made as a form of expression . In short, there must be to force a mid Duchamp. And this is the Duchamp writes. The Duchamp speaks of art and is almost always ignored by both factions. This year has produced a "very short" summary of his letters on the Letters art. 1916-1956 (Elba editorial). They discovered the Duchamp concerned about the development of art and Duchamp directing their attacks not against the art itself, or against the bourgeoisie, but against the artists. In a letter to Katherine Dreier writes: "The longer I live among artists, the more I am convinced they are impostors as have the least success. This means also that all dogs are around artist about scammers. If you see the association between fraudsters and scammers, how can you be able to retain some kind of faith (and why)? ". This brief shows of his letters gives us a Duchamp concerned about art and the fact that they are the artists, the painters themselves "cool" with their fantasies of success and money that are destroying this thing called art, not him with ready-made . No wonder who coined the famous phrase "dumb as a painter." The book includes as an appendix to a text entitled "The creative act, where Duchamp pinpoints what he calls" art coefficient ", a key element there is a work of art. This ratio is calculated, he says, as follows: what he meant by the artist and said + he said finally, and not meant. To this we must add two factors: the viewer of the work and history to the work. is, in short, a very short but full text of findings.
Another text on art published in 2010 is that of Victor River: factography. Vanguard and mass communication (Abada). This text provides an interesting double reading ranging from historical revision of many of the elements of the vanguard to its link to a topic such as strategies for mass communication. The issue, as a heading, contains the following question: how to tell the reality? The factography born in the Soviet context the curious to narrate the facts as aseptic as possible, the least intrusive manner possible, but finally, the Stalinist regime as instrumentalized, eclipsing its full meaning. Rosa Beneitez in Afterpost , described it perfectly: "The route traced by Victor Rio begins with the historical context, social policy and artistic and cultural framework in which the factography was formulated as a rejection of art bourgeois as the different movements were developing avant-garde and intervention strategy in the prevailing aesthetic of the Stalin regime. The transition from the politics of permanent revolution of Trotsky to the "socialism of a single country" set up by Stalin marked the development of the LEF (Left Front of the Arts, bonded by Mayakovsky in 1922) and its attempt to position itself as counterpart tote program advocated by the new leader. This group of artists represented the ideological reorientation and formal constructivist movements present in the fabric art of the moment, with a shift to a clear p ositioning direct action on social life defended by the productivist and recovered somewhat this policy of "permanent revolution" alluded to above. "In short, a book indispensable as a tool for historical revision of the mechanisms through which" we have the movie. "
crap ( The seaman ) of Raúl Quinto. Vale. A chemical I did the prologue, but that has nothing to sustain it is one of the best in 2010. I mean, of the ones I liked 2010. Where to begin? This is an amazing book and amazed, but in the sense that he liked to José Hierro, ie as interference of opposing elements in a recognized university. What universe can share Sonic Youth and Francisco de Goya? That takes the ghostly museum offers Raúl Quinto. Leave a fragment of the prologue: "ONCE. enter this crap, the reader now has in his hands, is like stepping into a hallucinatory journey in a fascinating combination of stroke, in a museum without walls, in a van full of past and present, in a Coyote cinema where the movie stars with Brueghel gore, where someone sends a message in a bottle, where Newton and William Blake are perfectly braided appearance on a football stadium, where Nick Cave waiting in a border, where his nightmare Fuseli drawing on the table in which a woman tries to sleep surrounded by electrodes, where ... I could read in many ways this book, and returned again and again to him as he returns to a museum to see the same picture again, one who has seen so many times, and realize it is never the same, or like seeing an old movie again-that he has seen several times, but before which always has the feeling of being otherwise. And yet, which mutates the object is not-always the same: the picture, the film, the image-but the story that we create and in which we look. This is the crap : a story seen as a way of looking and living pictures. "A book that will not leave indifferent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)