"Behold, I am New Aesthetic. I am not of your world. But fear me not, I will do you no harm. Loan me your New Aesthetic mind and I shall play with it. For nothing is good unless you play with it. And all that is good, is nasty." [paraphrasing]
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:43 PM, mez breeze <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Here's my knee-jerk reaction to a possible knee-jerk reaction. > > > ...chinese-whisper knee-jerk boxes, purrhaps?;) > >> >> I think >> we have this tendency to dislike the word "new" in any label (that's >> the other knee-jerk reaction). Having only skimmed Bruce Sterling's >> essays as well, I'm always skeptical when it comes to the term "new". > > > ..i started to conventionally absorb them, but ended up flitting. i do get > his enthusiasm for future/now capturing, i just wish he realised his role in > a chain-of-canonising-events... > >> Especially when combined with a term that I personally think is often >> misunderstood, like "aesthetic". If you look up "aesthetic" in the >> dictionary, it will probably tell you that it has something to do with >> "beauty". But in a philosophical context, it really has very little to >> do with beauty. It has more to do with tastes and interest. Being >> drawn to something regardless of whether a person is drawn due to a >> sense of beauty, revulsion or something in-between. > > > ..its not so much the terminology/wordage that concerns me, it's wot it's > trying to encapsulate? tho i do take ur point regarding definitions here... > >> >> >> So, let's think about this. "Aesthetic" refers to a "sensibility", so >> "New Aesthetic" would mean that we've developed a new sensibility(?). >> Is that really the case? Let's take the "glitch". When things don't >> perform as they should, is the notion that we might be aesthetically >> drawn to that really something new? I don't know about others but I >> always find it very curious when something "glitches". It peaks my >> curiosity. So, is the "New Aesthetic", as it pertains to the "glitch", >> really a "new" aesthetic or does it simply exploit an existing >> aesthetic? Art is not something that re-invents itself periodically. >> It's more like an evolving being. Nothing is "new" but rather a >> progression of the things that came before it. How about "Next >> Aesthetic"? > > > ...how about "Phrase That Will Not Be Named"? ;) > >> >> Keep in mind that I'm just entertaining a brain-drain here. Maybe I >> should read the Bruce Sterling essays. > > > indeed, wouldn't hurt....or would it? > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:28 PM, mez breeze <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Find below a modded version of part of the discussion raging on an >> > alternate >> > list regarding the "New Aesthetic". Enjoy [or don't]. >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- ***************************** Pall Thayer artist http://pallthayer.dyndns.org ***************************** _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
