Art theory? Ah crap, I thought it was a new band from Franz Ferdinand lead singer Alex Kapranos. No wonder I couldn't find it in the Amazon CD section.
*goes off to read James Elkins' Crisis in Art Criticism as an abstract psychogeo(textual)graphic rock band hagiography* M On 19 Apr 2012, at 01:56, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > "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 _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
