BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


What's so bad about being a hack?

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
17:24 / 11.01.03
Do you read poetry just because it's beautiful, Jack, because it uses classy words you wouldn't see anywhere else?
 
 
Jack Fear
17:28 / 11.01.03
Sometimes. And sometimes I read poems with made-up words that really don't mean anything. And sometimes I listen to music with no words at all.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
18:29 / 11.01.03
Sometimes. And sometimes I read poems with made-up words that really don't mean anything.

Indeed? Been reading Alice Through The Looking Glass, have you?



'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrave.


"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jujub bird, and shun

The frumious Bandersnatch!"


He took his vorpal sword in hand:

Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,

And stood awhile in thought


And as in uffish thought he stood,

The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,

And burbled as it came!


One, two! One, two! and through and through

The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head

He went galumphing back.


"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?

Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"

He chortled in his joy.


'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrave.


Yeah, Carroll did know some thing about made-up words; of course, that was written for kids.



From Aristotle's Poetics:

The perfection of style is to be clear without being mean. The clearest style is that which uses only current or proper words; at the same time it is mean- witness the poetry of Cleophon and of Sthenelus. That diction, on the other hand, is lofty and raised above the commonplace which employs unusual words. By unusual, I mean strange (or rare) words, metaphorical, lengthened- anything, in short, that differs from the normal idiom. Yet a style wholly composed of such words is either a riddle or a jargon; a riddle, if it consists of metaphors; a jargon, if it consists of strange (or rare) words. For the essence of a riddle is to express true facts under impossible combinations. Now this cannot be done by any arrangement of ordinary words, but by the use of metaphor it can. Such is the riddle: 'A man I saw who on another man had glued the bronze by aid of fire,' and others of the same kind. A diction that is made up of strange (or rare) terms is a jargon. A certain infusion, therefore, of these elements is necessary to style; for the strange (or rare) word, the metaphorical, the ornamental, and the other kinds above mentioned, will raise it above the commonplace and mean, while the use of proper words will make it perspicuous. But nothing contributes more to produce a cleanness of diction that is remote from commonness than the lengthening, contraction, and alteration of words. For by deviating in exceptional cases from the normal idiom, the language will gain distinction; while, at the same time, the partial conformity with usage will give perspicuity. The critics, therefore, are in error who censure these licenses of speech, and hold the author up to ridicule. Thus Eucleides, the elder, declared that it would be an easy matter to be a poet if you might lengthen syllables at will. He caricatured the practice in the very form of his diction, as in the verse:

(...)

To employ such license at all obtrusively is, no doubt, grotesque; but in any mode of poetic diction there must be moderation. Even metaphors, strange (or rare) words, or any similar forms of speech, would produce the like effect if used without propriety and with the express purpose of being ludicrous. How great a difference is made by the appropriate use of lengthening, may be seen in Epic poetry by the insertion of ordinary forms in the verse. So, again, if we take a strange (or rare) word, a metaphor, or any similar mode of expression, and replace it by the current or proper term, the truth of our observation will be manifest. For example, Aeschylus and Euripides each composed the same iambic line. But the alteration of a single word by Euripides, who employed the rarer term instead of the ordinary one, makes one verse appear beautiful and the other trivial. Aeschylus in his Philoctetes says:

Again, Ariphrades ridiculed the tragedians for using phrases which no one would employ in ordinary speech: for example, domaton apo, 'from the house away,' instead of apo domaton, 'away from the house;' sethen, ego de nin, 'to thee, and I to him;' Achilleos peri, 'Achilles about,' instead of peri Achilleos, 'about Achilles;' and the like. It is precisely because such phrases are not part of the current idiom that they give distinction to the style. This, however, he failed to see.

(...)

It is a great matter to observe propriety in these several modes of expression, as also in compound words, strange (or rare) words, and so forth. But the greatest thing by far is to have a command of metaphor. This alone cannot be imparted by another; it is the mark of genius, for to make good metaphors implies an eye for resemblances.



Poetry shouldn't be great because it has made-up words without meaning, or uses ornamental words to look beautiful; poetry is great because the poet manipulates the word in a simple, clear way that nonetheless is still original and inspires awe in all that read poetry; it is the power to surprise without novelty.
 
 
lentil
18:40 / 11.01.03
Regarding the Picasso example: rereading my post I probably wasn't clear enough about what I felt that particular work could help us to understand. I didn't mean simply that having viewed it one has gained the knowledge that a bike saddle and handlebars can be made to look like a bull's head (which the first paragraph of your last post leads me to believe is your interpretation); I agree that that's not particularly earth-shattering. I am more concerned with the process of perception here, not the perception of a particular object. Understanding the process by which we are able to see the work as what it represents and as its constituent parts simultaneously can, and has, led to advances in the understanding of perceptual psychology, ie. how we perceive the entire world, not just how our interpretation of specific objects can be altered.

"aren't Hardy, Hemmingway, Steinbeck, or Saramago's, just to name a few, books visions of worlds you can identify yourself with, better than you could if looking at a Picasso?"

Well, no. If I look at Picasso's Guernica, I see an enraged, imapssioned response to the horrors of war, I see the destruction of a town, mothers crying, people screaming. Its impact is enormous and immediate, and says as much about its subject as would any tract from, say, "For Whom the Bell Tolls".

"Remember, to pass knowledge, the receiver must first understand what they're receiving."

Could you elaborate? When you say "receiver", are you talking about audience? And if so, are you thereby implying that I am more likely to understand what is communicated to me through writing than any other medium?

19th Century paintings are emphatically not "more historical documents than anything else". Leaving aside the fact that the historical function of art had shrunk in importance by the begining of the C19 (because I don't think this is what you're getting at - although it does raise the point that paintings had become used less as historical documents not through inadequacy but through their development as an artform), the sheer time taken to produce an image, as opposed to the instant recording of the camera, means that skill, craft etc are inherent - not only to its success as art/beauty, but also to its success as a transmitter of information. And yes, photography is used in journalism, but it is also used as beautiful art.

Oranges: Swings and roundabouts really. The canvas can obviously give a far better visual description of said object than can the book. But you say that taste, texture and weight are beyond its reach? Look at, for example, Caravaggio's "Still Life With A Basket of Fruit" and tell me that textures are not communicated in a way that words could not capture - the wicker, the smoothness of the fruit, the bittle dryness of the leaf poking out the basket on the right, etc. And weight - go browse the comics forum - it shouldn't take you long to find someone gushing about the solidity and sense of weight and presence in the work of Frank Quitely. Or look at some Jenny Saville or Lucien Freud. Those people are solid. You can feel the pressure on the chairs they sit on.

But I can feel this beginning to go round in circles. Let's not get into a situation where we start throwing examples and counter-examples at each other. "Yeah but check this passage from Steinbeck about the bitterness of an olive", "Yeah well you go and look at this Cezanne painting and feel the heat resonating off the mountain", &c. Perhaps we could say that all forms of language, verbal, visual, aural, are codifications of the true nature of experience and can thus never be entirely accurate, and that each one can re-present the world to you in a way that is beyond the reach of the others? We need them all, you know.

And I'd just like to thank Jack for this: "Isn't it enough that it be beautiful?"

It needed to be said.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
19:23 / 11.01.03
Okay, Lentil, fair enough, let me just clear this up before we start telling what a 'hack' is again.

I said:

Remember, to pass knowledge, the receiver must first understand what they're receiving.

and you said:

Could you elaborate? When you say "receiver", are you talking about audience? And if so, are you thereby implying that I am more likely to understand what is communicated to me through writing than any other medium?

I meant the main target of something: whether it's a reader, a listener, or a viewer. And, i think, writing transmits more information - which in itself will be more easily understood than in any other medium - than anything else.

But since i spend just too much time reading instead of delving in any of the other fine arts, perhaps my opinion is too subjective.

So:

Perhaps we could say that all forms of language, verbal, visual, aural, are codifications of the true nature of experience and can thus never be entirely accurate, and that each one can re-present the world to you in a way that is beyond the reach of the others?

Agreed.

But i still don't think poetry is 'enought that it be beautiful,' nor any other form of writing - although it helps in the latter case.
 
 
Jack Fear
21:30 / 11.01.03
(1) Aristotle was refrring to very specific sorts of writing, writing that served a ritual or didactic form to begin with: the idea of writing purely as entertainment didn't exist for him, in any meaningful way.

(2) We are the product of thousands of years of evolution after Aristotle's as went into the dirt.

(3) You, L.M. Rosa, are hereby officially branded a killjoy and a funwrecker.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
12:49 / 12.01.03
(3) You, L.M. Rosa, are hereby officially branded a killjoy and a funwrecker.

L.M. Rosa, just because Carroll may have written that poem for kids doesn't mean that adults can't enjoy it, too. It has great rhythm and great sound. In a way, it's kind of like listening to Jack Fear's "music with no words at all."
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:21 / 12.01.03
I'm just aghast by nearly everything LM Rosa has been saying in this thread, but the thing that floors me the most is the blanket dismissal of visual art, which could very well be the single most ignorant, anti-intellectual, thoughtless thing I've ever seen posted on Barbelith in the past two years.

Listen, LM - no art is passive. You get out of it what you put into it, and part of that is knowing things, learning things, understanding context. If you're looking at Picasso's work, being informed about history, context, and the art and craft of painting is key in getting something more than a shallow experience out of it. If you insist on being shallow about art of all kinds, you will continue to have these shallow experiences with all of it.

And for the love of god, please don't let the fact that there is a lot of pretentious bullshit out there masquerading as high art cloud your judgement, because there is a lot of wonderful, thoughtful, profound things out there that may only seem pretentious because of your perceived social contexts.

You need to grow up, you're being childish about all of this. I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of art and literature, and you seriously need to think about things, and learn a lot more before you start shooting your mouth about art and literature again.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
16:52 / 12.01.03
(1) Aristotle was referring to very specific sorts of writing, writing that served a ritual or didactic form to begin with: the idea of writing purely as entertainment didn't exist for him, in any meaningful way.

And look how well it worked fot centuries, writing for didactic purposes in lieu of mere entertainment - i've grown so tired of reading books that try to steal a smile from my lips ten times per page of a book containing a serious matter. Exactly what do you call entertainment?

2) We are the product of thousands of years of evolution after Aristotle's as went into the dirt.

I always thought revolutionaries like the barbelith members, who are so inspired by Morrison's anarchic work The Invisibles that preaches how a person can be free of external influences and all that, would be ashamed of calling themselves a 'product' - exactly what are you a product of, Jack? Because i'm not a product of anything.

You must be the sort of person who hears one hundred people saying Shakespeare is so good, and is the best playwright and poet of all times, and then actually starts believing that more from influence than from experience.

I heard that my entire life, and after finally reading Shakespeare myself, i felt relieved because i had my Oscar Wilde's book of poems right within my reach.

(3) You, L.M. Rosa, are hereby officially branded a killjoy and a funwrecker.

No, i'm simply not a conformist following everyone else's ideas about the world; and, again, isn't barbelith all about discussions? I'm sorry if i do not entertain you, though, perhaps i should say a few jokes in between the paragraphs.



L.M. Rosa, just because Carroll may have written that poem for kids doesn't mean that adults can't enjoy it, too. It has great rhythm and great sound. In a way, it's kind of like listening to Jack Fear's "music with no words at all."

A poem for kids? I thought people studied Jabberwocky at the University? Whether it's for kids or not is not the question, but whether it really has any significance, importance, meaning, literary worth, etc., and a poem doesn't have any value if it's not clear. This isn't something that died with Aristotle, why even T. S. Eliot knew the importance of clarity, and he's fairly recent.


Listen, LM - no art is passive. You get out of it what you put into it, and part of that is knowing things, learning things, understanding context. If you're looking at Picasso's work, being informed about history, context, and the art and craft of painting is key in getting something more than a shallow experience out of it. If you insist on being shallow about art of all kinds, you will continue to have these shallow experiences with all of it.

History, context and the art of craft of painting? The way you say you make it look like only a genius can understand a Picasso. Everything on a Picasso i can learn from just reading a book, but no one can learn from just a Picasso, so it will always be a shallow experience, because paintings are exactly that: shallow.


And for the love of god, please don't let the fact that there is a lot of pretentious bullshit out there masquerading as high art cloud your judgement, because there is a lot of wonderful, thoughtful, profound things out there that may only seem pretentious because of your perceived social contexts.

Why, Flux, but didn't Jack tell you? Art is the 'product of thousands of years of evolution after Aristotle's as went into the dirt.' Back in the good old days, there was a painter, a canvas, paint and skill; nowadays, anyone can buy a can of paint, splash it across a blank canvas, and it will come out as art, and this thing will be showed in art galleries. I know what pretentious art is: a piece of metal with a ribbon around it displayed for everyone; it's a human head made of cigarette butts; or it's just a white canvas with a red dot in the middle; it's all that crap that post-modernists like you turned it into, and it's everywhere.

Art used to be beautiful: landscapes, portraits, houses in the rain, uder the moonlight, on beaches; wonderful stuff, really. Now i only have the consolation that Dore and Grimshaw are available on the internet, for in the real world artists only care about making sculptures out of lego toys. It's not that some art nowadays is pretentious, it's that all art nowadays is so.
 
 
Jack Fear
17:58 / 12.01.03
Whatever, freak.

Enjoy your life of austerity and purity.

Me, I'll be out having fun with the cool kids.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
18:47 / 12.01.03
Don't fret yourself, Jack, i'll do my best to enjoy it so. As for you, Jack, i can only hope you find solace when you're buying you're next pair of nike shoes with the cool kids.

All of a sudden, it seems all that crap you preach about The Invisibles is really just crap: you people built barbelith pretending to see the world in a different, more enlightened way, and in the end you're just like everyone else with the same visions and ideas about the world; just kids turned on by science and magick, and pretending to be smart because you think some comic book opened your eyes: how sad can that be?

You get a life, weirdo. As for me, i'm off to the 19th century.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
20:42 / 12.01.03
Um, how about we ditch the bitching, kids? The sand from your pit is getting in my fez.

exactly what are you a product of, Jack? Because i'm not a product of anything.

Except Aristotle? Or the 19th century? Or are you claiming to be completely autochtonous? I don't believe that anyone can develop in a vacuum: your time and place will have some sort of influence on how you're formed or react to things - the fact that you're using the internet at all would mark you as being a particular type of person. It may not be the poppy or the lily in your medieval hand (so to speak) that you desire, but it is informing what you are.

And to be perfectly honest, labelling an entire board of people as crap merely because they think that there's some value to be gained from other forms of art and you don't is - well, disingenuous. Are you suggesting that, say, Wyeth's Christina's World can't tell you anything about loneliness? Or that Bacon's work can't say something about repressed rage, about societal conditioning, about the entrapment of modern life? Or that there can't be something about reproduction and authorship pulled outta Koons' work for even the most casual viewer?

But this is the books forum, and this is perhaps getting a little HeadShoppy - another thread, anyone?

I'd also take issue with your earlier assertion that for knowledge to be transferred, someone has to be aware of what they're receiving. While I'd like to think that this whole holy-fire-of-knowledge thing holds true, speaking as someone who has been an ignorant bastard in my life, I'd suggest that this is, patently, hooey. Teenagers - thinking of myself at the time - tend to heap shit on what people tell them, or ignore it, or think it's useless. There's not some kind of forelock-tugging awareness or acceptance; often, it's only with time and reflection that lessons get learnt - it's often only years later that you can take a lesson and suddenly have the flash of "my god, I get it!" - your construction seems wishful to me. To be honest: if I burn myself on a kettle, I'm learning not to touch it: I don't have to be aware of any great telepathic or otherwise exchange of information... it just happens. There's different types of learning for everything - just as, though you decry it, there's different modes of transportation for messages of import. I just happen to believe that books ain't the only one.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
20:56 / 12.01.03
L.M., let me explain to you why I think that you are being ignorant: because you PRESUME to know things which you are too lazy to fully think out or research or find out for yourself. Having a particular taste is one thing, but to make huge sweeping generalizations about things you know NOTHING at all about. Only a truly ignorant dullard would try to say that "all art nowadays is pretentious" or try to write off modernists and post-modernists so easily. There is a LOT of art in this world, and just because YOU know so very little of it, or have had some bad experiences with it, it does not mean that everything now is crap. That's just insane to say, can't you see that? Can't you see how lazy and dumb it is for you to say that?

I won't mince words: you seem to know almost nothing at all about what art is, and you know very little about the history of the arts and literature. What say about art is the dribblings of a very stupid person who is trying to pass off their ignorance as being the qualities of an 'everyman', and failing miserably.

I will say this one more time: visual art is not shallow, YOU ARE. YOU are shallow, because what a person gets out of art is everything to do with what they bring to it. Art is like a mirror that way. You say that all of this art is shallow, but it is because YOU refuse to think, because YOU refuse to do any work at all, and resent the notion that art should be anything more than a pretty picture, something that doesn't challenge you at all. Now isn't that shallow?

I think it is very obvious that your "pretending to be smart" comment is a classic case of projection - you, a person who seems to know so very little, and is rallying against people for "trying to be smart". Just because you are being ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is like you, or that any of us is faking intelligence.
 
 
The Falcon
21:25 / 12.01.03
Flux, I'd delete that.

L.M., can I ask how old you are?
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
22:12 / 12.01.03
Well, Flux, looks like in all your intelligence superior, you still need to master those argumentative skills of yours: unless you think it's with lots of swearing and rage and CAPITALIZED words (i'm not blind, i see just fine, thank you) that you're going to convince someone, anyone, or just me. So who's being the 'dim little piece of shit' now?

You immediately assume i know nothing about art, why? Could it just be that i have seen enough post-modernist art and feel disappointed with it for its trying to evoke a deeper feeling in men and revolving around politics, that i prefer the 19th century aesthetic theory 'art for art's sake' - and to answer your question, no, i don't think that's a shallow thought.

Flux, see it in this context: one hundred years ago people were without doubt more intelligent, and yet they maintained that art was in itself, its beauty, and nothing else; and now, in a time of mediocrity (as you find me to be a shining example of, and very true indeed) when people refuse to think, we have painters doing art that they pretentiously want people to think it higher than it really is by trying to evoke a meaning or thought, or set of ideas, or emotions.

And before i leave to Rothkoid's post, let me ask you: as an intelligent person, it was a comic book that made you change your perceptions of everything? It wasn't enought that you lived in the real world, where you live your problems, but you needed a comic book to actually teach you how to open your eyes? So, yes, you all are here talking about The Invisibles and anarchy and revolutions, but you can't stand a person like me that just thinks differently from your post-modernist ways, lest you think i have something wrong. Well, it wasn't a comic book that made what i am, i'm thankful for that.



Rothkoid, you said:

Except Aristotle? Or the 19th century? Or are you claiming to be completely autochtonous? I don't believe that anyone can develop

Aristole is someone i agree with, more than am influenced by; as for the 19th century, no point beating about the bush - it's my Nirvana, my place of peace, my Cave, if you ever watched Fight Club.

And to be perfectly honest, labelling an entire board of people as crap merely because they think that there's some value to be gained from other forms of art and you don't is - well, disingenuous.

I think that person would be a lot more, like a fucking dumb ass prick. But i never attacked Barbelith community for having a different opinion than mine; i never said everyone here was crap because of that, i didn't even call you crap. What i said was that you only created Barbelith because of a comic book: it's like you would never be here discussing and talking and sharing opinions and ideas, if it weren't for The Invisibles.

You all live in a real world, and it takes a comic book to open your eyes? All the wars, natural disasters, crimes against humanity, human rights being broken everywhere, people dying from hunger in half the world - nothing of that inspired you to create Barbelith, but a comic book did? Then i guess that if The Invisibles hadn't existed, you wouldn't even be here making your statement.

Think about that, Rothkoid - don't need telling me whether i'm right or wrong, whether you agree or not - but for God's sake, think about that.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
22:29 / 12.01.03
Just to keep things straight, i posted that last comment before i knew you were going to delete Flux's post - don't think i wrote it out of a petty feeling of revenge or mockery, but my post just took a long time writing, and meanwhile you posted yours first (you really don't have to delete it, Duncan)

About my age: eighteen and a month.

So now i guess you can all start saying: 'Oh, i knew it, he's just a stupid teenager that doesn't know crap about the world, and art, and literature, and let's just all ignore him.' I guess it's easier than writing lenghty posts (or maybe i'm just being too defensive)
 
 
The Falcon
22:37 / 12.01.03
The Invisibles is actually quite blinkered about (or rather ignores almost entirely) Third World politics, and the grotesque reality of life for the abjectly poor. But would it be patronising otherwise...? It certainly made a big difference to my perception, nonetheless. It's the epicenter for this place, and one I'm glad of, though there are folk here who don't like Morrison or who haven't read the comic. If it hadn't existed, I'm sure we'd have found other people to talk to and share our interests and concerns with, but, fortunately, it did.

L.M. - I'd suggest you calm down, really. one hundred years ago people were without doubt more intelligent All of them? Because I'm sure a lot less had any access to any great degree of education, which is where I learned to enjoy learning. You're coming off as an elitist with this stuff, and really that's not very pleasant (for me, at any rate) to read.

Culturally, I like a lot of the 19th Century, but am most interested in the latter part, and the first 20 or so years of the 20th. Though, I must admit I'm something of a philistine when it comes to the visual arts from any era.

Do you agree with Aristotle's views on women? I find a lot of his binary logic (naturally...) divisive and unhealthy.

Please bear in mind that a lot of this fighting is part of the process of integration, should you wish to stay here. Also, some people are winding you up, and the best way to encourage that is responding as you're doing.

Finally, if you don't wish to answer, I respect that, but - how old are you? Where are you from? I'm detecting either a generational or linguistic clash with others here.
 
 
Persephone
23:02 / 12.01.03
Hokay, hold on folks... listen to me for a sec, please. I should let you know that I very much hate to circumscribe discussions or conversations, which puts me a little at odds with the prevailing mode around here of staying on topic. And I think that this thread has taken an interesting and potentially productive turn. Obviously we're covering a lot of topics that would possibly go better in the other fora --I see stuff here for the Head Shop, Art & Design, Comics, and Policy, if one wants to start getting categorical. Which I don't necessarily.

I would just say that we ought to engage with each other's arguments and not point at each other's styles of argument or personal deficiencies. Seriously, if you think that there isn't anything to another poster's argument apart from his personal deficiencies... then perhaps you should think about walking away from this one.

I would also suggest that combatants could consider their own arguments, perhaps in light of the topic abstract --or indeed, in light of another thread that you might like to start-- and see if you can put into a few words what you are arguing for --not including the personal attacks-- and start again from there.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
23:37 / 12.01.03
as an intelligent person, it was a comic book that made you change your perceptions of everything? It wasn't enought that you lived in the real world, where you live your problems, but you needed a comic book to actually teach you how to open your eyes?

What are you talking about? Who the hell has said that about The Invisibles here? I surely did not. And even if they did, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with a piece of art having a profound effect on someone?

Please, do yourself a favor and spend some time learning before you start making up your mind and saying big, dumb, drastic things. You show some signs of being bright, but you show few signs of being very well informed. Why not drop the arrogance, eh? You're young, you haven't seen it all, and you really should give things the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sorry that I've been so harsh on you, and that last post was written in that tone because I was just enraged by the ignorance of what you've written in this thread, and I sometimes can lose my temper in embarassing ways. I shouldn't have called you names no matter how much you annoyed me. That was a mistake. But, we both can learn from this mistake - you should know that in the future, when you make huge overstatements and ignorant comments, people are likely to get very mad at you and treat you without respect.

I'll give you a piece of advice that's helped me in the past : avoid writing out generalizations as much as you possibly can. Generalizations make everyone look dumb. Generalizations reveal a lack of modesty and indepth understanding.

Now, I don't give a fuck if you don't agree with post-modernist thought, and I can't say that I'm always crazy with it either; but I do have a problem with you shooting your mouth off without knowing much of what you're talking about. I do have a problem with you saying things that are simply not true. I do have a problem with you throwing around the word 'pretentious' in a foolish way. I do have a problem with you putting down comics and visual art.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
23:44 / 12.01.03
L.M.: I think, if you poke around here - or asked, even - you'd find that I (and many people here) aren't here for (or because of) The Invisibles at all. Personally, I think Morrison is overrated, and I didn't even read the series until after I'd been kicking around here for well over a year. Thinking that that's the sole reason people here have adopted a questioning attitude - whether it actually is, or whether it appears to be - is a fairly big assumption to make.

It's also wrong, at least in my case. I do a fair amount of critical thinking on my own, and don't particularly need to be needled into it by books or other artforms. I'm just naturally nosy; always have been, always will be, regardless of cultural trend.

And just a tag: if someone has their life changed by a comic book, how is that any less valid than having it changed by reading a philosophical tract, or a religious one? Surely the personal change is exactly that: personal, and not necessarily dictated by fashion?

And now, as per P's lead, back to the topic at hand. I'll try to work out some new thread ideas when I have a break.
 
 
lentil
11:11 / 13.01.03
So what was so bad about being a hack again?

OK I'm as guilty of throwing this one off-track as anyone else, probably moreso (sorry Flowers!), but in an attempt at redress...

I'm going to pick up again by doing that despicable thing of quoting myself; this is from a moment when Rosa and I had managed to find some sort of middle ground:

"Perhaps we could say that all forms of language, verbal, visual, aural, are codifications of the true nature of experience and can thus never be entirely accurate, and that each one can re-present the world to you in a way that is beyond the reach of the others?"

Which could be taken as an equivalent view on the worth of media as KCC's "literature and other forms of art surely don't seek to show their audience the truth, but a truth - or perhaps part of the truth, would be a better way of putting it" is on the worth of individual artists.

This is a formulation I'm reasonably happy to go with. It seemed that earlier posters to this thread were in large parts dealing with the question of whether "hackdom" is constituted by being driven by money rather than the love of the artform or by being somehow creatively bankrupt in a way that is not dependent on worldly ambition - consistently using cliche, not attempting to expand practise. Now I quite like the idea that a "true" work of art, ie. one that is not "hacked out", is one that reveals the artist's personal idea of a truth about the world, or a particular aspect of it. This locates the crux purely in intention rather than quality; If I were to write a series of short stories about, say, a guy who doesn't really like his part-time day job and wishes he could just paint and make comics for money, this would certainly be an honest telling of one of my truths about the world, and would probably be dull as shit. But not hackwork. Similarly, this formulation makes success kinda irrelevant. I was pretty convinced by earlier posters' assertions that Stephen King does write for the love of the form. Assuming this, regardless of his relieance on tired plot structures and enormous financial success, he is not a hack.

My autobiographical example above doesn't meant that I think only intensely personal work reveals an artist's "truth" and is thereby spared from hackdom (as far as I know King's work generally isn't that personal). Actually, I'm leaning towards the idea that excellence can remove a work from hackdom regardless of intention. I can see two problems with this straight away: An artist can define their intentions in creating a work with far greater authority than a work can be classed "excellent" or "not excellent", and it may well be true that to create true excellence one must be working with a deep love of the chosen form. But (and I apologise for taking another example from the visual arts, but as I'm sure people have noticed by now, that's what I'm most into), to look for example at some of Velasquez' court portraits, created as part of a job, initiated at the request of his wealthy paymasters, is still to look at a work in which the depiction of form and light is so spectacularly executed that it could still be said to re-present its subject to us in a way that reveals a particular truth.

Thoughts? (and please, if you want to take issue with the above point, don't jump all over the Velasquez example - if my knowledge of literature was greater I'm sure I could have come up with a comparable example of a spectacular descriptive passage or whatever.)
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
15:00 / 13.01.03
Rosa: Invoking the Invisibles to back up your dogmatic insistence on the non-validity of certain art forms? I'm impressed, really.

Lentil: Nice save, thanks! I'm not sure that art is a particularly useful example to use here as practically every piece of art is by strict definition 'hackwork', even the Sistene Chapel or the Mona Lisa. A sister thread on that topic in the Art and Design thread might be worth setting up though?

If the 'New Virginia Andrews' could prove that ze was writing for the love of the craft and didn't mind that hir name is only going to be in little letters in the indicia, does that exempt them from hack-dom?
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
21:14 / 13.01.03
I'm glad you understood part of my point, Duncan - The Invisibles are the epicentre of this place - but i disagree when you say someone/something else would come along to create a Barbelith: but this is more a matter of opinions, so i'll drop this right now; if you say it would still exist nonetheless, then that's great. And if others came afterwards without any ideas about whom Grant Morrison was and had done, like Rothkoid, and are here talking, discussing and questioning, even better. Just to clear something, though: this must be a generational (and not linguistic) conflict without doubt, because my being portuguese has nothing to do with this - it should actually have the opposite effect on me.


Flux, no need apologizing for whatever you think may have offended me, for i'm taking this all in without resentments, and i'll take some of your advices from now on. And i'm the one who owes you all apologies.


Lentil, likewise; you're not guilty at all for anything here. For me, i'll just drop all this about literature vs. visual art and whether you're all here because of The Invisibles or not, so you can get back to the 'hack' topic again.
 
 
The Natural Way
10:44 / 14.01.03
The Invisibles is not the epicentre of this place. It used to be. Years and years ago. I was here then. You weren't.

Sorry, I know it's antagonistic, but I couldn't resist.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
20:17 / 15.01.03
Putting aside the idea that 'hacks' sell just for money, i don't think a "true" work of art is one that reveals the artist's personal idea of a truth about the world, or a particular aspect of it, either. At least not a truth that is the artists' 'truth' - as a vision shaped by their experience.

Think artistic skills make up for the lack of personal experiences. Why do i say this? I'm considering The Red Bage Of Courage and For Whom The Bells Toll. Hemingway drew from his personal experience in the Spanish Civil War the plot and set up for his novel: it's a bleak, realistic perspective of war, portraying both sides of the conflict as cruel as history knew they were.

On the other hand, Crane wrote The Red Badge Of Courage thirty years after the American Civil War without having any sort of war experience - he did become a war reporter afterwards, though - and only had as a basis for his novel what had been written about the civil war before and his power of imagination, and did a psychological study.

Now, i don't want to start a debate on which novel is better, i only choose them because both share the same theme: war is horrible; and to point that each author wrote them under different circumstances, and that a 'true work of art' is not just a question of the artist's truth about the world.

Still, that's not to say that Crane didn't care about the consequences of war because he didn't the experience; i mean only that in the age of electronic information, an artist has all the material available to work on any theme without needing firsthand experience, as long as they care (share concerns) about such theme and have the will to explore it.

But the artist with personal knowledge should use the experience rather to make the work only more emotional and real, and give instead a general interpretation of the theme so the public can have a broad and complete view of it, for informative purposes.

Opinions?
 
 
Jackie Susann
03:38 / 24.01.03
I love hackwork; money seems, to me, a better motivator for good writing than the desire for esteem from the literary establishment which appears to drive contemporary quality Literature. And since old books are obviously boring that leaves potboiler-genius as the most dynamic force in contemporary novels. I'm not saying all hacks are great, but most of my favourite writers - Jacqueline Susann, Judy Blume, Se Hinton, etc. - are at least arguably hacks.

Why not see hackwork as a rejection of traditional literary values, and in that sense somewhat subversive? i.e. if hacks are supposed to be "creatively bankrupt... consistently using cliche, not attempting to expand practise", what's wrong with consistent cliche if it drives the story, or sticking with what you're good at?
 
 
Enamon
06:47 / 24.01.03
Being a 'hack' sure as hell isn't a bad thing in my book. Hell if you want my definition, a 'hack' is someone who cranks out stories instead of meticulously putting them together. So in other words... um... Dumas was a hack. PKD was a hack. Grant Morisson is a hack. Stephen King is a hack. Jack London is a hack (or so I think. I mean he did write tons of novels). I'm probably leaving out others. Also, 'hacks' don't write solely for money. Come on people, dont you know anything about the publishing business? 'Hacks' write because that's what they can do. They dont do it simply for the money. What money? I mean come on, most of the time they barely have any cash to even pay the rent. I mean look at PKD cranking out novels, his typewriting hands hyperactivated by excessive doseages of meth amps. He barely got any money. Writing books is one of the harder things you can do to get cash. And there's no guarantee you'll be published. It's crapshoot all the way. Mind you hacks still write for money. But the reason they do it is because they love writing. If they didnt they'd probably do something more stable. Like work as a security guard. You've got a better guarantee of a paycheck coming in doing that. So in other words, they do it for the love of writing but they submit their work to publishers in order to get money. Otherwise, if they simply did it for the love of writing and for no other reason then we wouldn't have any published books. Just original copies.

And anyway, 'hack' writer to me is by no means an insult or anything of the sort. I mean come on, being a 'hack' doesnt necessarily mean you're a bad writer and not being a 'hack' doesnt necessarily mean you're a good writer. Hacks are cool.
 
 
The Natural Way
07:57 / 24.01.03
I fucking love the way Jackie shrugs out off-the-cuffers like

"...and since old books are obviously boring....."

Jackie, you would get on w/ glassonion SO well IRL, it absolutely hurts.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
13:40 / 24.01.03
L. M. Rosa Now, i don't want to start a debate on which novel is better, i only choose them because both share the same theme: war is horrible; and to point that each author wrote them under different circumstances, and that a 'true work of art' is not just a question of the artist's truth about the world.

I'm not sure if this is where confusion is arising on Rosa's part or whether it's just me. My understanding of what you are writing is that it doesn't matter as such that Hemingway went through a war and Crane didn't as to whether either of them are any good at writing about war. If so, then I totally agree with that. But I don't think anybody was arguing about that. We were talking about inner subjective 'truth', the viewpoint of the author or artist, not about whether they actually lived through the experiences they wrote about.

I think.

If I'm wrong then please tell me.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
17:39 / 28.01.03
Which could be taken as an equivalent view on the worth of media as KCC's "literature and other forms of art surely don't seek to show their audience the truth, but a truth - or perhaps part of the truth, would be a better way of putting it" is on the worth of individual artists.

Now I quite like the idea that a "true" work of art, ie. one that is not "hacked out", is one that reveals the artist's personal idea of a truth about the world, or a particular aspect of it.



My Izzardlike, you defend that a good work of art is that which reveals the artist's personal idea of a truth about the world - now, i assume that what you mean by the 'artist's personal idea' is something which depends upon their experience, which was the case of Hemingway when he wrote his novel on the Spanish Civil War.

But Crane, on the other hand, didn't have any experience of war when he wrote his novel on American Civil War, which was still a 'good work of art.'

So i was trying to imply that good art does not only depend upon the writer's vison of the world; i think interest for the theme one is writing about is also crucial and makes up for lack of experience.

Consider Hitler's Mein Kampf: it is his 'personal idea of a truth about the world' - well, i'm tempted to call it an interesting work of art, but are the ideas contained in the book any good just because they drive from personal experience? I wouldn's say so.

Now, in both cases - Crane's and Hemingway's - the writers are set to present the same idea about war: it's a horrible thing; in the end, the important in art, i think, is that it must provoke a change - you know, show society how it should be - and for that it musn't rely too much on the artist's vison of the world unless to draw thematic information, but must be rather objective and universal to affect all readers.

Thoughts?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:55 / 29.01.03
L.M. Rosa My Izzardlike, you defend that a good work of art is that which reveals the artist's personal idea of a truth about the world - now, i assume that what you mean by the 'artist's personal idea' is something which depends upon their experience, which was the case of Hemingway when he wrote his novel on the Spanish Civil War.

But Crane, on the other hand, didn't have any experience of war when he wrote his novel on American Civil War, which was still a 'good work of art.'


No, I do not contend that it is such a narrow thing as experience in the sense of what someone has done with their life that makes their art great. After all, J.R.R. Tolkien didn't have any experience of trecking across a pre-medieval landscape filled with mythological creatures to throw a small trinket into a firey mountain, yet he still wrote 'Lord of the Rings'. But he had the experience of his family dying when he was young and then his friends dying in the trenches of WW1 which gave a character to the work.

Consider Hitler's Mein Kampf: it is his 'personal idea of a truth about the world' - well, i'm tempted to call it an interesting work of art, but are the ideas contained in the book any good just because they drive from personal experience? I wouldn's say so.

Well, there you're mixing two different things to try and win your argument. A great work of art should be true, but something that is true won't necessarily be a great work of art. A leaflet with the opening times of your local library will be true, but it wouldn't automatically be a great work of art.

Now, in both cases - Crane's and Hemingway's - the writers are set to present the same idea about war: it's a horrible thing; in the end, the important in art, i think, is that it must provoke a change - you know, show society how it should be - and for that it musn't rely too much on the artist's vison of the world unless to draw thematic information, but must be rather objective and universal to affect all readers.

Which would rather suggest that you are against all forms of art that aren't 'naturalistic' landscapes or portraits. And being universal is rather a difficult standard to hold anyone to. If you take the Mona Lisa and show it to some Amazonian pygmies they won't see her as attractive, because they measure beauty in a completely different way. And of course, you're assuming there is only one 'real' way to view anything.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply