An 'aesthetic' references both ideology and connoisseurship and the 'new aesthetic' has constantly occurred in transformation, given the dubious notion of 'progress' in art which dominated at least until the splatter of postmodernism. Glitches have always been part of things - that's clear from Nam June Paik or the three measurements of Duchamp, but glitches today reference cohering systems and their cracks. IRC's maybe the best parent example here w/ netsplits.
If pomo did anything it opened up a kind of plurality (outside the post- Fordist economics and pomo geographies etc.) and the fissuring of any totalizing ideology (bad bad Badiou). So why _this_ new aesthetic as opposed to for example, On Kawara, Jodi, mez, Duchamp, Mozart, Potocki, Sterne; you can go diachronic/synchronic on just about anything anywhere. Maybe I just hate the straitjacket of definitions which is also a kind of branding, with all the theoretic-corporate panache that implies. - Alan == blog: http://nikuko.blogspot.com/ email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552 music: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/ current text http://www.alansondheim.org/rk.txt == _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
