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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment