Last night Capria and I had the singular experience of seeing Joanna Newsom at Benaroya Hall backed by the NW Symphony. Can someone give me a good reason why we should not consider Ms. N to be an incarnation of the muse herself? Because she is about as near perfect as they come (tho I hope she returns to writing more songs of esoterica and knick-knacks and not only love songs).
This is probably an example of Kant's point that while we know that not everyone will agree with our claim that something is beautiful, we act as if it elicited universal assent. That is, I say that you SHOULD fine JN's music beautiful, even if I know that you will not, and that my reasons for saying so are subjective.
But if you don't, then I say you are missing out.
The tenth issue of The Other Journal, that is. The special topic is psychopathology. Very sweet new design as well. Material will be added regularly, so keep checking in.
I'm a big critic of the predictability and general casualness of men's fashion. It's either yet one more version of the business suit or it's a jogging suit. Thus, the reemergence of the necktie as fashion is a move in the right direction.
Don't dress up because you have to--do it because you want to.
Slavoj Zizek has another confusing editorial in the NY Times, this one on a recent Chinese legislation regarding reincarnation. Zizek's perpetual critique is always provocative, but usually that's all it is. We more pragmatically minded may ask "but what, Slavoj, do you want?" To which he will likely respond "the very fact that you are asking that question shows that you are hopelessly embedded in the logic of Western pluralist capitalism." And so it goes.
But the article is still worth reading, and I think one paragraph in particular shows both the strength of SZ's criticism and its weakness:
“Culture” has commonly become the name for all those things we practice without really taking seriously. And this is why we dismiss fundamentalist believers as “barbarians” with a “medieval mindset”: they dare to take their beliefs seriously. Today, we seem to see the ultimate threat to culture as coming from those who live immediately in their culture, who lack the proper distance.
If "proper distance"=disbelief is one dialectical pole and fundamentalism as unadulterated belief is the other (the one Zizek seems to consistently defend, as long as it is within the proper Stalinist-Marxist framework), it strikes me that a synthesis is possible. Namely, the attitude that one takes one's beliefs so seriously that one is willing to question them. Every major religion, doctrine, or ideology has this crucial strain, often uncomfortably cohabiting with both the liberal pluralists and the fundamentalist dogmatists. The study of theology, for instance, always begins from a position of belief but is willing to put that belief into question so that one may attain a more complete, compelling, or authentic understanding. Slavoj may find that suspect, the slippery slope toward fast capitalism, but I believe it is the hard center worth pursuing.
I am almost entirely sympathetic with Kurt Anderson's promotion of really and truly free speech. I think a fellow by the name of John Stuart Mill said something similar once. The ascension of rhetoric over debate in this country (and elsewhere), in which we discuss language instead of using language to discuss things has numerous, and unfortunate consequences.
But almost entirely. Because while we may overapply the term "hate speech," it is clear to me that such a category has merit. Is it too broad to say, for instance, that the nooses hung on a schoolyard tree in Jena, LA were a type of speech act?
But that is the exception, not the rule. Anderson's point is that we are confusing the two.
Capria sent me this Slate article on a new documentary on Marla Olmstead, a little girl who was considered to be an artistic prodigy in the abstract expressionist vein and then dismissed when it looked like her father was possibly prompting her work.
I'm looking forward to the documentary, as this case raises all of the fascinating issues surrounding intention, ability, the definition of art, process, audience, etc. etc.
The article does a fairly good job of discussing that fine line between artistic products and art as a discipline. You rarely hear some one say "yes, in one respect, your four year old could make that canvas. But to reduce a Pollock to finger painting is to miss the point that your four-year-old actually gets." At the same time, she doesn't fully explain why the "way of seeing and thinking" that is art demands a certain form of coaching, ie, discipline. The reason no one questions Mozart's youthful compositions is that Mozart simply could not produce a symphony without undergoing the necessary training. In other words, a symphony as such requires a tradition, while paint on a canvas, as such, does not necessarily. Much more, obviously, could be said in this vein.
Marla's case also raises the distinction between potential and actual talent. Some people are born with an innate understanding and sensitivity to color and line. But that ability will only remain innate until it is cultivated by technique.
Again, lots to talk about. Thoughts, dear friends?
Fall quarter is spinning forward. My new course is . . . working. We'll see. My friend Andy referred me to some quip about the truth that in every new class you learn how to teach all over again. The sensation probably has something to do with the fact that a) your thinking is constantly changing, even if you are dealing with material that you "know," and b) the minds making up the classroom are always new.
In other news, our fantasy football team had a rough start, but we are coming off our first win. 1-3, baby. You gotta start somewhere.
I shall now return to reading Henry James.