Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 39

Thread: The Artistic Temperament

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corpsey View Post
    It'll be more fun if you try and guess.
    Oh is it DeLillo? cos i saw another thread some reference to Luke not liking DeLillo.

    Personally I love White Noise and liked a few other things, but it does get a bit turgid later on - and it gets into this thing where every character sounds like Don DeLillo, and they are pontificating in these long quasi-dialogues about contemporary life in vague Umberto Eco / Baudrillard everythings-hyperreal-these-days kind of way, and it's just Don talking to himself.

    If I hadn't seen that in t'other thread, i'd probably guess David Foster Wallace or somebody of that ilk. In the Great American Novel, or postmodern latterday variants on it, lineage.

    Or perhaps Brett Easton Ellis.

    But this is just me guessing what someone else might be feeling, not my opinion

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    4,056

    Default

    It's David Foster Wallace, but he had some choice words for DeLillo too.

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    I don't think it's unfair to say de lillo is one of the worst writers ever to use the english language. Dumb in such a typically american male way.
    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    Underworld is by far and away the worst novel I've ever read.
    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    See if you can find the opening page online. It's staggering. Nothing will ever be that bad again. It's a kind of degree zero.
    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    I group it with Terrence Malick. A specifically American stupidity. impotent dry humping. Bathetic.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to version For This Useful Post:


  4. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    889

    Default

    But yeah you are right in your thread-thesis I think

    And one thing is that the Artist, and the Critic-Artist too - when they behave like that in real life, they are absolutely unbearable and monstrous.

    On the page or the art-context, they have to be tyrannical, single-minded, brutally decisive etc etc

    But when they think they need to live that out in real life, or they can't switch it off - it's pretty unbearable.

    I was thinking about this recently cos i did a masterclass in journalism / criticism, and it occurred to me that what makes for good criticism is not something that would translate well to everyday life - if someone behaved like they did on the page, in conversation in a pub or a party - pontificating forcefully for an uninterrupted 1000 words or more, smashing down opposing arguments, rising to a high pitch of exaltation or derision, etc it wouldn't go down well at all. this is someone you would avoid, whereas it is something you actively seek out in the context of a book or a magazine. Or at least I do.

  5. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    4,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blissblogger View Post
    ... if someone behaved like they did on the page, in conversation in a pub or a party - pontificating forcefully for an uninterrupted 1000 words or more, smashing down opposing arguments, rising to a high pitch of exaltation or derision, etc it wouldn't go down well at all. this is someone you would avoid, whereas it is something you actively seek out in the context of a book or a magazine. Or at least I do.
    I know one person like this irl, it's awful and he doesn't even write.

  6. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    On the bus
    Posts
    1,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blissblogger View Post
    On the page or the art-context, they have to be tyrannical, single-minded, brutally decisive etc etc

    But when they think they need to live that out in real life, or they can't switch it off - it's pretty unbearable.
    And yet it was people who fit this description who delivered us so many high reaching art works throughout history. The more society pushes out these pathologies the more boring and tame the world of art becomes. Talk about catch 22.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pattycakes_ For This Useful Post:


  8. #21

    Default

    the autistic temperament
    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    It says bless the lads and it means bless the lads.
    Quote Originally Posted by sadmanbarty View Post
    i don't know, probably some marxist cultural theory or something
    Quote Originally Posted by thirdform View Post
    gabber terrorism is fun but not all the time, sometimes you gotta be sophisticated or sulky for the ladies.
    https://manifestacionesoterica.bandcamp.com/

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to other_life For This Useful Post:


  10. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pattycakes_ View Post
    And yet it was people who fit this description who delivered us so many high reaching art works throughout history. The more society pushes out these pathologies the more boring and tame the world of art becomes. Talk about catch 22.
    At the start of the thread I had an 'artistic temperament', two pages in and it's a pathology. I don't like the direction this thread is headed in...

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to luka For This Useful Post:


  12. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    At the start of the thread I had an 'artistic temperament', two pages in and it's a pathology. I don't like the direction this thread is headed in...
    But you're not like that in real life - you're not a monologist. At least not the times we have hung out!

    I was just thinking that what works well in a book, an article, and to an extent online - blogs certainly; forums like this to a degree - doesn't actually work so well in everyday socializing.

    It's that sort of Richard Rorty idea of incommensurate discourses. Different language-games I think is how he puts. The language of art is illiberal, powered by energies that would actually be too disruptive or too dominating in everyday life. He thinks that it's daft and unrealistic to imagine you could have a value-set that operated the same in the world of art as in the world of politics or everyday socialisation. You have different rules, different norms. That's the way he gets around the problem of liking art or writing that is tyrannical, anti-social etc (Nietzche, Bataille, Celine etc) but actually being a wishy-washy liberal and moderate in life itself. Nasty and uncompromising in one realm; nice and considerate in the other.
    Last edited by blissblogger; 10-04-2019 at 09:32 PM.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to blissblogger For This Useful Post:


  14. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    4,056

    Default

    Art as a relief valve.

  15. #25
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    370

    Default

    funny, I'd have put it completely the other way around. critics are the ones obsessed with setting aside doubt and branding things as THE GREATEST or WORST. Artists might do that as far as it helps them narrow down a path for their own work (hence the Nabokov quote?), but just look at where each group expends energy: artists don't spend their time telling the world which art should and shouldn't be appreciated.

    I know he's not exactly the most, uh, authoritative critic, but Piero Scaruffi has a quote that describes what seems like a common belief of critics (even if they wouldn't say it outright):
    The value of art depends on the values of the art critic.
    Most art is born as imitation, not innovation.
    The critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it.
    The artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
    The critic is the real artist.
    but of course now no one is a fundamentalist in this sense anyways, so it's hard to compare. idk, maybe I'm missing your point by focusing on judgments of other people's works instead of self-belief. but to me there's a difference between discarding things that don't interest you and being a fundamentalist.
    Last edited by mvuent; 10-04-2019 at 10:26 PM.

  16. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    On the bus
    Posts
    1,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    At the start of the thread I had an 'artistic temperament', two pages in and it's a pathology. I don't like the direction this thread is headed in...
    None of this in my eyes is pathology. Its eccentricity. I'm pretty lenient. It was more from the perspective of the neutered modern perspective. Meant to put the word in italics.

    I'd take James Brown and all his shenanigans over any well behaved modern musician in a heartbeat. Sjw/pc culture is the end.

  17. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvuent View Post
    funny, I'd have put it completely the other way around. critics are the ones obsessed with setting aside doubt and branding things as THE GREATEST or WORST. Artists might do that as far as it helps them narrow down a path for their own work (hence the Nabokov quote?), but just look at where each group expends energy: artists don't spend their time telling the world which art should and shouldn't be appreciated.

    I know he's not exactly the most, uh, authoritative critic, but Piero Scaruffi has a quote that describes what seems like a common belief of critics (even if they wouldn't say it outright):

    but of course now no one is a fundamentalist in this sense anyways, so it's hard to compare. idk, maybe I'm missing your point by focusing on judgments of other people's works instead of self-belief. but to me there's a difference between discarding things that don't interest you and being a fundamentalist.
    i dunno about that

    Lot of artists / musicians / novelists have also been theorists, critics, pushers of a particular way of doing things

    Eno has expressed strong views of what's good and what's not, or what is a forward path and what's not

    Green from Scritti ditto

    Nick Cave in the Birthday Party

    Mark E Smith

    They've all been scathing about what they think is wrongheaded or worthless or feebleminded music.

    And I really like this quote from the improviser John Butcher, from the Wire, 2008

    “This music is here in opposition to other music. It doesn't all co-exist together nicely. The fact that I have chosen to do this implies that I don't value what you're doing over there. My activity calls into questions the value of your activity. This is what informs our musical thinking and decision making."

    Certainly not the case with all practitioners but many - certainly the 'militant modernist' / nihilation crew to use K-punk's term - have been pugnacious, 'this is the way to do it' types, rather than genial 'each to their own'

  18. #28
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blissblogger View Post
    i dunno about that

    Lot of artists / musicians / novelists have also been theorists, critics, pushers of a particular way of doing things
    seems pretty consistent with what I was saying that artists who take fundamentalist stances would tend to do so as critics/theorists. I was more thinking of them as roles—not really with specific people in mind.

    was going to elaborate but fuck it, the Butcher quote is more interesting than anywhere I was going. would you (or does anyone else) agree with Butcher? even if only partially?
    Last edited by mvuent; 11-04-2019 at 02:47 AM.

  19. #29
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    370

    Default

    ...kind of figured that no one would want to answer that directly. I’ll say what I think it might mean and maybe someone can correct me if they get more out of it

    “This music is here in opposition to other music. It doesn't all co-exist together nicely. The fact that I have chosen to do this implies that I don't value what you're doing over there. My activity calls into questions the value of your activity. This is what informs our musical thinking and decision making."
    if you make music through free improvisation, your music completely disregards any conventional pre-arranged structure, but obviously there are other forms where that sort of structure is of the upmost importance—so free improvisation is in some sense a ‘fuck you’ to sonata form, fugues, pop songs etc., an enactment of the belief that their valued games of expectation are worthless. maybe a more obvious example is DIY punk type stuff: that you would do things that way implies that you think conventional production value is a waste of time, or even actively musically bad. maybe making IDM implies that you don’t care about collective experiences, a broader subculture, etc.

  20. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    4,056

    Default

    I was going to make a point along those lines last night, that artists tell the world what is and isn't good by what they choose to create themselves and that plenty of art is at least partly a rebuttal to or rejection of something else.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •