Ivan et al.
this a bit late because I've been up to my neck, but I
have been following the discussion.
I think in my heart of hearts I've probably always
wanted someone to describe something I wrote as
< both beautiful and pathetic
in the original sense> so I experienced a feeling of
deep joy on reading that.
(2) Ivan -you should consider the possibility that the
world is simpler than you think.
I'm quite happy to stick with the slogans from the
If anything they seem to me to becoming more
( I found myself chanting the sublime
"Unemployment and inflation are not caused by
immigration- bullshit, come off it, the enemy is
profit", a slogan of mid seventies vintage, only the
other week alongside a load of people who looked about
The truth is that capital cannot deliver a decent
life, never mind a rich culture, for the majority
citizens of even the wealthiest nation in the world.
Why? - because profit, the bottom line, is all. So of
course individual members of the bourgeoisie can
appreciate art ( and often because of their
educational privileges are well placed to do so) and
can often make or sponsor great art. Nevertheless
commerce ,which reduces everything down to 'Will it
sell? What's my slice?' and genuine art, which
celebrates what it is to be a human being in it's
broadest sense, are ultimately antithetical.
So at one end of the spectrum Curt gets hassled about
the nature image and at the other children in Africa
starve whilst shipments of grain rot on docksides.
It's not that there is not enough food in the world
but the world's poor don't have the cash to buy it at
the market determined rate.
As for existentialism ,well in its 1950's incarnation
it seems to me to have been a retreat into
individualism by people who once had believed that
collective action could change the world but who
lacked the political analysis to cope with the
beginnings of the long boom and the horrors of Hitler
and Stalin and got frightened.
( and it had an artistic analogue in the retreat from
politics of Pollock ,Guston, Rothko etc)
It depresses me a little when someone who obviously
and rightly is enraged big time by many of the things
that deface our world ends up muttering in a corner
'that's the way it is ...you can't change things
--- Ivan Pope <firstname.lastname@example.org
> > yes.
> > absolutely.
> > I think Curt's defence that it's a not for profit
> > piece is a sound one - if some money making
> > can't understand the difference between art and
> > commerce then that just illustrates beautifully
> > vacuum of feeling that is necessarily at the heart
> > capital.
> Well, not absolute at all actually. I mean, I know
> its lovely and easy
> response. All personal human activity is more or
> less not for profit. And we
> do want a world in which the give and take of human
> experience exists. But
> it does. My point is that there is more to it than
> 'you're a fat pig
> corporation and I'm not making any money out of
> this, therefore I'm right
> and you have no case'. I might have bought that line
> around 1977, but I have
> tried to bring a little, ahem, layering to my
> worldview since then.
> I find your line above both beautiful and pathetic
> in an original sense. I
> mean, surely a money making machine de facto exists
> to practise commerce, I
> don't see why you think this means it can't
> recognise art. Just that it
> doesn't practise it.
> Cor, its a bit tricky, innit? Cheers, Ivan
> + i am not my favorite person
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: email@example.com
> -> questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online athttp://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live betterhttp://health.yahoo.com