BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Head Shop >

The unintentional role of Art as a social primer?

  
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
19:26 / 15.04.05
Hello:

As the name suggests, as well as many other things, I'm trying to be a writer. I've been doing it for quite a while now and I'm gradually learning what I'm trying to achieve. For example, my aim with my short stories is to write simple, subtle, engaging, and meaningful modern parables. I'll probably never know how good I am, and though I am hampered by a left brain with undefinable standards, and suffer from the usual crippling bouts of self-doubt, sometimes I know I'm getting better. (sob, sob, poor me...)

Off late, however, I've began to worry about the effectiveness of what I'm trying to achieve in an altogether different way.... Bear with me a little longer and I'll try to explain.....

Understanding that art is communication, that it conveys information which has a varying effect on society, is a familiar concept to many of us in this Age of Information. I've often shared conversations about an interesting book, film, or theory (etc), and what it means. Indeed, by reading this "rant", you and I are virtually having such a conversation right now.

I'm sure many of us have shared a special cigarette and had similar conversations. However, I find what is seldom discussed is art's sometimes unintended impact on society as a kind of social primer for All That's Bad in the World. Zen teaches us that naming something helps us to discuss and understand it, but in doing so we inevitably remove some of the "thing's" original wonder:

"What's that?" we cry beholding a wondrous thing for the first time.
"It's a tree" say our parents as we continue a walk through the park.
"What's...........Oh..."
"What's what?" ask our parents.
"Oh nothing," we say, "It was just another tree.."

Similarly, Art can allow a previously repulsive thing/concept to become more palatable, less absurd, and shocking to our senses. Art help's prepare us for the inevitable.

Consider Mr Orwell's classic '1984'. Of late, I've actually heard people talking about the alarming CCTV pandemic, sucking through their teeth, nodding their heads knowingly, and half-jokingly uttering in a resigned chorus: "Big Brother is watching you."

Because they were expecting Big Brother technology and are now familiar with it, it's as though they've had time to get used to the idea and then the reality. What would George Orwell think about this? Would he be pleased that his warning to us all had become bastardised into a convenient way to help us understand and accept the inevitable?

Semioticians (I'm not one, so this is a stab in the dark) might explain this phenomena as a third tier, above or maybe adjacent to Roland Barthes' "Metalangue": it is the mythologising of myth itself. It's one concentric step away from a word meaning one thing in one age and another in the next:

e.g. Noam Chomsky's example about the etymological root of the word "Terrorism"

So what can we do? By writing stories am I doing the work of the Devil him/herself? Is this another reason to stop writing and get a real job?...... Of course, my ego will have none of it. It's flattered that my work could be considered so important (ahem) but quitting is not an option. Although it leaves a bitter taste in my mind, I remind myself that there's "no such thing as originality", there are "x number of basic plots"; it's always "something versus something", and so on and so forth. Any text, even '1984', is just a modern reworking of an age old concept. One might argue, therefore, that all we can do is continue to keep the message alive, to revise and infuse it with fresh vigour for each generation. Hmmm....

I take heart from Grant Morrison, and 'The Invisibles':

"Big Brother is Watching," scrawls Mr Morrison across a blackboard,
"Learn to Become Invisible."

What do you think?

Excelsior!

p.w
 
 
alterity
20:20 / 15.04.05
p.w.

It seems to me that part of the dilemma you are discussing herein is not a function of the art in question per se. IMHO, rarely is anything good or bad except through its use. (Did you hear the sound of a can of worms being opened?) What I mean is that art will do nothing but exist by itself, so it cannot be considered at fault if it, say, prepares us for subjugation. The problem with, say, Orwell and the issue you raise in regards to 1984 is, again IMHO, that we often lose the ability to think critically about texts of a certain age (if we can be said to think critically at all anymore). If we take 1984 to represent an impossibility because it was written about and therefore forestalled if not prevented, or if we fail to understand the socio-political milieu in which it was written (what caused Orwell to be frightened in the first place) then the art becomes (perhaps) "bad art" because we fail to find in it something useful for our becoming. Without thought, we cannot evolve, and art is but one of the ways that we can think (science and philosophy are others; I'm stealing from Deleuze and Guattari's What is Philosophy? here).

One point you make that I would like to briefly take up is your claim that art is communication. I am not sure that I agree with you. I can't fully articulate why. I certainly don't have enough of a communications background to argue about senders, receivers, and messages. However, I will say that art can communicate, but that I would not go so far as to say that communication is its goal, primary or otherwise. I will also say that I agree with D+G that art is about the creation of percepts, which exist independently of those who perceive them. If art is communication, then it does depend on a receiver and is bound to a sender. D+G convince me, however, that art is preserved in itself and is therefore (at least eventually) freed from its model and its moment of creation (even if there always remains a historicity to the moment of production). I quote:

Percepts are no longer perceptions; they are independent of a state of those who experience them. Affects are no longer feelings or affections; they go beyond the strength of those who undergo them. Sensations, percepts, and affects are beings whose validity lies in themselves and exceeds any lived. They could be said to exist in the absence of man because man, as he is caught in stone, on the canvas, or by words, is himself composed of percepts and affects. The work of art is a being of sensation and nothing else: it exists in itself.

If D+G are right (and feel free to tell exactly why you think they are not), then there can be no intrinsic value to the art work. It can only "mean" through its use. In this context you as a writer cannot be understood to be doing the devil's work. You are creating percepts (if you consider what you're doing to be art; concepts if your doing philosophy), but you cannot be responsible for the art once it is out there in the world. It will do what it does quite independently of what you "meant" and without regard to what you do after the fact. I hope that this is in fact a response to your post, which I found quite intriguing.

Other texts that bear on your post: Althusser's work on Ideological State Aparatuses (ISAs), which are the means through which the state indoctrinates the polity and thereby oppresses it (eg schools, religion, and, yes, sometimes writing/art). Also, Niklas Luhmann's Art as a Social System, which I don't quite have a handle on. Call it more of a hunch.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
01:25 / 16.04.05
Thanks for responding alterity. Just to let you know I've read your post and am/will be mulling it over. I'll respond again in detail when I've got more time.

"Precepts"? Nice term, and one I wasn't familiar with. I'll be sure to delve further into Deleuze and familiarise myself with the concept....

Hmm.....

My initial response to your post is one of almost total agreement, together with a gasp of "Of Course!'; but there's something still niggling me. The idea of 'precepts' existing separately from the viewer or the artist is one I cannot dispute, but I'm still not 100% convinced. Of course, unless we want to stray into metaphysics and dispute everything, a book (say) is a physical object that doesn't cease to be when we turn away from it.

I was reminded of Berkeley's tree falling in a wood, and Derrida's (or was that Barthes') "Role of the Reader Versus the Author as God".

Then, for some reason the following analogy popped into my head:

The leader of a fascistic and racist political part is charged by the police, in accordance with the laws of the land, for inciting religious hatred. The aforementioned leader had been caught on videotape committing the "offences". It's big enough news for a (decent) TV journalist to decide to cover it, and he heads down to the courts with a cameraman. Outside the building, a mob of abundantly white supporters hold placards flaunting with the party's logo, and an array of predictable slogans. The journalist gets what he needs, and goes off to secure an interview with various people involved in the case.... Later that evening, he sits in a pub and watches his bulletin being broadcast from the big screen. He's proud of what he's done, the public should know that racism is an arrestable offence, etc, etc. He can't hear his voice-over; the TV's turned down. But he watches nonetheless as the scenes outside the court fill the screen: the defiant and proud party polital leader leaving the court to meet his loyal fans. Just then, the journalist over-hears a barman talking to another punter.

"They shouldn't give him the airtime," says the barman. "It's like free advertising. With all those people around him, he looks almost popular. I bet some people out there are thinking, 'he can't be that bad, right?' Now all the closet racists know their time is coming..."

You've given me lots to think about. I'll be back......

p.w
 
 
alterity
13:57 / 16.04.05
p.w.

You've hit at least one of the nails right on the head. The question that must be raised in the context I was trying to describe is that of objective reality. I firmly believe in it (although access to it is tricky). Others don't (notably Derrideans, often Lacanians, very likely Heideggerians, although perhaps I am being reductive). I can't claim any credit for the ideas I was laying out before, and I don't normally go around just spouting Deleuze and Guattari verbatim as if it were objective fact. It seemed relevant to your questions, and I have to admit to often being unduly under their influence. Anyway, the idea of the percept is secondary to the idea that there exists in art works (or human bodies) forces that are outside of our control, so-called "lines of flight" that resist inscription, stratification, capture. That's what percepts are. They don't exist in a vacuum, but operate almost as if they do. So I guess my point would be that, while you can attempt to take responsibility for your art after it leaves your desk/office/jail cell, you can't control how others use it, precisely because you can't control it itself. Perhaps even awarding the art work the coherency of a singular pronoun like "it" is going to far, as there are multiple aspects to any art work (indeed, any rock) that are not assimilable to a singular consciousness. But now I'm rambling.

As for your example. . . tough call. I would like to blame the media at times like that, but I'm not sure I can. The chicken or the egg argument is whether or not the public wants it it and the media provides it or if the public wants it because the media provides it. In either case I believe that media simply does what it does: goes after stories. My hope would be that we can educate people to understand the distinction between representing racists and racist representations. The former could be used in a school educational film teaching tolerance. The latter is a burning cross on a Jewish person's front lawn. If I, as a journalist, take a picture of said cross and put it in the paper in an attempt to tell a story (whether it be for ratings [the cynical take] or to spread the word that the there are racists out there [the optimistic take]) then I should not be accused of racism (unless I write something about how it's a good idea to burn crosses like that one). SO I guess my point is that we have to let the media do what it does, while encouraging it to be responsible for not only transmitting messages "objectively", but also for providing the tools necessary (historical background, related stories, relevant stats/facts) for understanding those messages. In turn, the larger public must take responsibility itself to learn to read/interpret the messages that surround us. After all, we learn to read books at an early age (whether we do that well or not is itself up for grabs), but we usually need to go to college/university to take our first class in reading visual images, whether they be art, tv, or film. If children were taught how to understand and interpret news stories like the one you mention in your example, perhaps there would be no need to worry about its possible negative effects on the world.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
15:07 / 16.04.05
This is frustrating: I've borrowed a digital 8xtrack and a nice microphone from two friends; I've got today and tomorrow to finish my demo; the guitars on two of the tracks aren't sounding right, so I'm probably going to have to re-record them... All of which means I haven't got the time I want to keep this discussion flowing at an acceptable rate. Will you be patient with me, if I promise to come back later and do this properly?

The points you've raised deserve a more detailed response, and I'll go back to them later. For now let me say that you're right, that like virtually everything in existence, Art is like a tool which may fall into the right or the wrong hands. The cultural references of today which allow my reader to "understand" my work may change so much over the next hundred years, that my future readers might not "get it" at all. However, I believe that (for example) a book sits on a shelf and waits, so to speak. As much as the unsuspecting reader brings the description to life with their own imagination, they are being guided by the words on the page. A tool is a tool, a gun is a gun. I know this all sounds very dramatic, but I'm pushed for time...

Let me draw a fantastical analogy to sum up my question: there's a magic shovel that is imbued with unimaginable power. However it is said that only those who are "ready" to use it may actually use it to dig holes. Those who aren't ready get a nasty electric shock up their arms and end up walking around like gorillas for the rest of the day......

It's a clichéd concept, I know. I suppose my question is: is there anything an artist can do within their work to try to protect it from being misunderstood or used inappropriately? And I don't mean legally, or by using cryptic language which only an "initiate' would understand..... You know the more I think about all this, the more I realise how futile my question may be......

By the way, when I typed 'Art is communication" earlier in this thread, it was a little clumsy. What I meant to type was "Art is a form of communication". A piece of art is like a word, or a smile: it communicates a message.

Damn it! This post is taking far too long. Grr...... I'll be back.....

p.w

P.S. I apologise for some of my spelling. I keep spotting mistakes, and asking the moderators to allow edits to go through, but I don't want to annoy them unnecessarily. For example: when I thought about it, I couldn't remember if "The Role of the Reader Versus the Author as God" was Derrida's or Barthes' theory; and I asked for it to be changed.

P.P.S. I didn't realise you were a journalist. The example earlier was a coincidence,... I think. So no offence meant.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:54 / 18.04.05
Speaking as a moderator, I'd rather have correct spelling and grammar, as it makes comprehension easier, and am happy to deal with requests for corrections.

On the magic shovel... well, to an extent we have limitations on access to art already - some of these are governmental - restrictions placed on material considered to be in some way not permissible for public consumption. Others are market-related - essentially down to who will make funds available for the propagation of works of art. So, you have a number of impositions on the availability of the shovel, and in each case the decision about what is available to a larger number of people is made by a smaller number of people. Does that have significance?

The "Big Brother" thing is quite an interesting example. PW, you have taken 1984 as the conceptual jumping-in point for the idea of a culture of surveillance. Orwell is often described as eerily prescient. This always seems a bit incomplete to me - arguably he was simply comprehensibly descriptive. The culture of surveillance he was dexcribing has its roots in Bentham's panopticon - a device where, even if nobody is watching, the possibility of being watched compels a certain form of behaviour. As it happens, more people are familiar with the idea of Big Brother now than with the panopticon. But when people use the conceptual terminology of Big Brother to describe, say, burgeoning CCTV installations, what are they actually doing? Are they demonstrating that they have been conditioned to find the idea of being watched more acceptable through precedence, or sharing a common conceptual vocabulary to communicate an emotional response to the idea of surveillance? That is, if somebody describes the UK as a "Big Brother state", one can assume that something is being communicated beyond the simple linkage of the concept of surveillance.

Of course, this gets further complicated by the use of "Big Brother" as the title of a reality TV game show, where the term originally seemed intended to add menace and gravitas to what was supposed to be a social experiment. Big Brother was then personified, given a voice (but not a face), turned into an arbiter of disputes, a victim of aggression, a force to be resisted or complied with, but crucially one with almost no _reach_. Big Brother in 1984 was ubiquitous - he, not the videscreens, was ultimately the lens of the panopticon. Endemol Big Brother has power only to observe a miniscule world of its own creation. What, in turn, does that do to the use of the concept.

So, when one asks:

is there anything an artist can do within their work to try to protect it from being misunderstood or used inappropriately?

It assumes, for starters, that the artist has a clear idea of what an "appropriate" use for their work might be, and then whether the artist has any right (beyond the legal) to limit its usage, or indeed its understanding. Last week I saw a production of Hecuba which made a series of decisions in staging and translation that sought to tie the story in to recent events in Iraq. That specific aim was clearly not Euripides'. Does it matter whether or not he would approve or disapprove?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:21 / 18.04.05
art is communication, that it conveys information which has a varying effect on society... what is seldom discussed is art's sometimes unintended impact on society as a kind of social primer for All That's Bad in the World... Similarly, Art can allow a previously repulsive thing/concept to become more palatable... Art help's prepare us for the inevitable.

Art is certainly a form of communication because it deals with our senses and we then interpret the meaning of the art. Certain pieces do have an effect on society- particularly when they're part of a larger movement. I think that William Morris' work was fundamentally important to his time, that the Red House was significant and the meanings that he gave to it effected British society and have continued to do so. Paintings like Guernica really resound through events like the Iraq war to the extent that they need to be covered. However I think you're applying a type of direct influence that can really only be applied by people and not objects. Orwell predicted *something* but he didn't predict what has happened since. It is one element of 1984 that has been recognised in society today and not the significant moments of his story.

CCTV is not a government structure, the CCTV coverage in this country is privately and individually funded.

When Hirst put a bunch of formaldehyde animals in a museum people found it repulsive, yet the vast majority of those people had been eating those animals for years. Hieronymous Bosch remains the author of paintings with a profoundly distasteful composition but those paintings are extremely old. Aldous Huxley described the danger of growing babies in tubes and the disconnection of children from older human beings but we continue with the modification of genes and IVF is a widely used technology. Practically the idea that art prepares us for worse things to come just doesn't work.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
14:51 / 19.04.05
Hello All:

I was up till 5.30 a.m with the borrowed 8xtrack trying to make my demented warbling fit my passable guitar playing. I have since slept a little, and spent over two hours trying to carve a detailed response to your replies. Nina, Haus, and alterity, I hope the following makes sense and does not offend.

First, let me clarify a few points.

When I used '1984' as my example earlier, I was using it because I assumed most readers on this site will not only have heard of it, the majority of these will have probably also read it; an assumption I couldn't have made with Bentham's panopticon, as I myself had only a feint memory that such a text existed -- thanks, Haus, for the heads up on the Title (etc).

Also, although it's clear Mr Orwell didn't invent the concept of an omnipotent state, I was intentionally using only one aspect of his narrative to illustrate my point. If we look at our world in more detail, it's not hard to see that there are many aspects of "Big Brother" which still resonate today (if not more so). For example, in England:

We have lost the right to silence (Criminal Justice Act, Sections 34 - 37)

We have lost the right to protest. (Criminal Justice Act, Sections 68 - 71)

We are detaining people illegally, without charge or trial: e.g. "Terrorists".

Television and the Internet is always getting bigger, more powerful, and more integral to our daily existence. Ever get lazy and neglect to turn off your television or computer when you're not using it (note: I'm no angel here myself). Sometimes we might turn the volume down if we want to listen to our HiFi, but actually turn off the bright square window?... I mean think about it: most bar's, clubs, and even shops and cafes have a screen somewhere glaring at you.

CCTV /Digital Video/the Internet is an eye half open and everyone is secretly paranoid about it. Those "Stop! Police Action! Programmes" don't help. Trust me, it's only a matter of time until saplings are routinely planted with camera symbiots (...joke...). By the way, Nina, I take your point here about private companies owning CCTV. But remember, they are sanctioned by Government, and the fact that they are owned by the private sector still scares the shit out of me. We're being watched and I don't like it; it could be my dear, sweat Mother, or my best friend watching, but I still don't like it.*

The science and scope of Marketing and PR is always progressing. One day, "they" may know more about you than you know about yourself. What are you going to eat tomorrow? What are you really scared of? Rat's?

I could go on... further (sorry); but I want to get back '"on topic".

Haus, you typed:

"So, when one asks:

is there anything an artist can do within their work to try to protect it from being misunderstood or used inappropriately?

It assumes, for starters, that the artist has a clear idea of what an "appropriate" use for their work might be, and then whether the artist has any right (beyond the legal) to limit its usage, or indeed its understanding. Last week I saw a production of Hecuba which made a series of decisions in staging and translation that sought to tie the story in to recent events in Iraq. That specific aim was clearly not Euripides'. Does it matter whether or not he would approve or disapprove?"

I believe an artist knows exactly what the appropriate uses are for their work and they alone have full rights to this usage, legal or otherwise. If I ever get published, these are the rules: "You can buy my book, you can read my book, you can use it as a doorstop if you like; you can tear my book, lose my book; you can lend it to your mates and slag it off till the cows come home. But that's about it. You try editing it, passing it off as your own, or assimilating what's inside to help you oppress people, and (so help me) I'll find you.....Grr......"

Incidentally, I wonder who (if anyone) was paid by Endemol for the use of the phrase/term/title "Big Brother"? Is it covered by copyright? It's probably impossible to know for sure whether or not Mr Orwell would have approved of this but I think we can hazard a guess. "Does it matter?" Definitely.

Haus, you also typed:

"...when people use the conceptual terminology of Big Brother to describe, say, burgeoning CCTV installations, what are they actually doing? Are they demonstrating that they have been conditioned to find the idea of being watched more acceptable through precedence, or sharing a common conceptual vocabulary to communicate an emotional response to the idea of surveillance?"

Are they not two sides of the same coin: condition and response? If I may, I'd like to come back to this later, as I'm still thinking about it. By the way, I liked how you described the possible access to, and the use of the magic shovel. It shimmered with Marxism. Nice.

Typing of the magic shovel...

*speaks with old sea-faring voice*

"When the shovel was forged, the magician was careful with his magic. To insure it could only be used 'properly', when he cast his spell he planned against every conceivable misuse of the shovel with the following phrase: 'It's for digging only... and not for stupid or evil digging either. I don't want to see any mass graves being dug with my magic shovel, you hear me?'..."

To paraphrase Barthes' (again), a text is a balance between the "readerly" and the "writerly". Some texts (like a simple Hypertext poem) are more readerly in that they can be navigated and interpreted in many different ways by the reader. Other texts are more writerly in that the writer has more control over the boundaries of the reader's experience. e.g. a very blunt and definitive description, encrypted by a form of code.

An artist, much like the aforementioned magician, has variable control on what affects their work has on the world. As much as the magician knows his shovel can't be used by anybody for slicing off heads, a writer knows that when s/he writes the word "white", their reader sees and understands "whiteness". What is "whiteness"? Now there's a question for another day...

To use another example, earlier in this post I intended to type:

"... thanks, Haus, for the heads up on the Title, Author, (etc)."

I realised, however, that I'd actually typed:

"... thanks for the heads up on the Title, Haus, (etc)."

The error gave me the tone of a bored C.E.O dictating to an ugly and unfriendly secretary. Whereas, the intended statement (hopefully) sounds as though I didn't know the specific details about Bentham's panopticon, and simply wanted to keep my thank-you brief. I therefore edited the sentence and hoped it would work. For all I know it might have failed, but the odds are more in my favour because my decision to edit my mistake has made this post more "writerly".

Nina, in your reply you typed:

"Aldous Huxley described the danger of growing babies in tubes and the disconnection of children from older human beings but we continue with the modification of genes and IVF is a widely used technology. Practically the idea that art prepares us for worse things to come just doesn't work."

I'm not sure I agree (unless by "work" you mean "prevent"). Brave New World has (like Frankenstein and many others have done before and since) provided us with a way to understand the science of genetics (etc) and it's consequences. Therefore, Aldous Huxley has contributed to our understanding of science fact and fiction and (in my opinion) by doing so, he has helped prepare us to assimilate what is happening and could happen in the future. I would guess that when he wrote the book, (amongst other things) Mr Huxley was hoping we'd take heed of his many warnings; maybe on occasion he even allowed himself to believe his work would help humanity. Maybe he was right and it will? Who knows? I'm sure his book has helped us all in some way to construct our (as Robert Anton Wilson calls them) "Reality Tunnels" onto the world. There are probably even many geneticists who have read the book. They may have been inspired by it, or they might refute the author's diagnosis; either way when it comes to their own scientific practice "Brave New World" will have some influence (big or small) on how far they and the rest of society are prepared to go.


"Imagine a new TV programme called Brave New World. It's a 'Truman Show'-like set-up, with live 24-hr footage of (say) fifty clone babies who we watch growing up, being educated, and competing in trials, etc. However, these clones are not identical, they are clones of DNA donors (maybe from a National database?) who live outside in the real world. These "real" adults are of all classes, I.Q's (etc), and are also videotaped 24-hr's a day for your digital viewing pleasure (knowingly, or unknowingly?). For this is the game: when the clones do well, their original gets a bonus prize; if they do badly, they get a forfeit... etc...etc...."


The fact that I read Brave New World helped me come up with this mock TV pitch. The fact that I've put it "out there" on the internet actually increases the likelihood that it might become a real TV programme one day. Indeed, in a miniscule way, by posting this reply I've have had an impact on how society understands the issue of genetics (ahem).

Nina, you also typed:

"I think you're applying a type of direct influence that can really only be applied by people and not objects."

Surely a piece of art is an object through which a person might have influence. When I read '1984' I was 15 years old, and my teachers and peers tried to lead me to believe that the book was primarily about the U.S.S.R. However, as with a lot of their logic, I didn't follow. But it wasn't until years later, when I happened to read an old interview with the legend himself, that my instinct was confirmed as being correct. '1984' is about Totalitarianism of any political persuasion, then, now, or in the future. It's worth remembering that although our world isn't exactly like that in the book, unlike the dystopian future of (say) Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale', change doesn't have to happen in a matter of days, weeks, or even years. Orwell may have got the date wrong, but ironically only time will tell... One thing is for sure, despite what my peers told me, Orwell's message got through. How did he do this? By simply being a great writer? Even if that is true, I can't help thinking he'd be stamping his foot in the afterlife if he were to catch wind of what's happening today.

Sorry, I'm waffling.... Let me try and round this rambling rant off for now,

All this has started me thinking about Magick and how my question can be viewed from its perspective. Have you read Genesis P-Orridge's theory of "Splintering"? If not, check out Disinformation's Book Of Lies? Within its pages you'll find, amongst other pearls, an essay s/he's written about it -- I've lent my copy to a friend of a friend, so unfortunately I can't quote from it. In the essay, Genesis P-Orridge draws our attention to Holograms, that if they are shattered each shard still contains all the information of the original. S/he goes on to compare 'sampling' in music to this phenomena: if you sample one word of a Lennon vocal, you are unknowingly drawing from every text that has (or will) exist by or about John Lennon. You are invoking "Lennon-ness" (what is Lennon-ness?... Now there's a question...). For what purpose you choose to invoke this "spirit" of John Lennon is, of course, up to you.

Hmm..... Lots still to think about....

OK, I've typed far too much already, I'm knackered, and I can only hope I've spotted all my typos.


I'll type again soon.

p.w

P.S. alterity, I haven't had time to read more about 'precepts', but when I do, I'll be sure to want to discuss this aspect more thoroughly.


____________________________________________________________

*May I refer you to an earlier attempt by the then Conservative Home Secretary, Michael Howard, which was thankfully thwarted by the House of Lords: "The Police Bill". In it there was a section which would have allowed a Government to tap the phones (etc) of organisations who were deemed contrary to the country's interests without the permission of a Judge (I can't recall the exact, spine chilling terminology). This basically meant that any organisation (trade unions, Amnesty International, etc) could be routinely tapped at the Government's will. The then Shadow Home secretary, Labour's Jack Straw, supported the Bill, as well as other similar plans since put forward by the current Labour Government. Of course, whether we are all routinely tapped and monitored anyway, is open to debate, but if listen closely I'm sure I can hear Echelon....humming......
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:40 / 19.04.05
I believe an artist knows exactly what an appropriate use is for their work and they alone have full rights to its usage, legal or otherwise. If I ever get published, these are the rules: "You can buy my book, you can read my book, you can use it as a doorstop if you like; you can tear my book, lose my book; you can lend it to your mates and slag it off till the cows come home. But that's about it. You try editing it, passing it off as your own, or assimilating what's inside to help you oppress people, and (so help me) I'll find you.....Grr......"

That's basically just copyright law, apart from the final part - or assimilating what's inside to help you oppress people. I'm not sure what that means. Do you mean quoting it in other texts produced with the ultimate aim of facilitating oppression, or reading it and thinking it is telling them to oppress people, or what? I don't see how that could be enforced legally or practically. In short, what does "assimilate" mean here, along, for that matter, with "usage"? If you mean that if somebody gets from your book a meaning you did not intend for them to get, you will track them down somehow and bite them, I would very strongly suggest either being a very clear writer or one with very good lawyers.

More generally, I'm still not sure I'm getting the connection between "George Orwell's 1984 identified trends that he saw as proliferating in his day which have proliferated further since" and "the existence of George Orwell's 1984 makes acceptance of those trends easier". I simply don't see a logical correlation. To go back to Chomsky, does this mean that he is actually advancing the cause of global capitalism by making people more likely to accept its depredations?

On a wider tip, why should we concern ourselves with what George Orwell would have thought of a reality TV programme called "Big Brother"? He's dead. He does not have an opinion. He created a phrase which became a common usage, was attached to a TV show and was then copyrighted. It sucks, but it's the law, and although it may be an inapt or undesirable use, it's hardly an inappropriate one.

To go for a less charged example, Big Brother often being held up as a sign of everything that is wrong with society, in the 70s David Bowie wanted to make a stage show based on 1984. The Orwell estate, quite reasonably, exercised their right not to have this damaging (as they saw it) the value of the 1984 brand. They had at that point a right over the work and they exercised it. So, instead he released and toured an album called "Diamond Dogs", which featured fair use of such phrases as "Big Brother" and "we are the dead". If I now chose to use the song "Big Brother" by David Bowie as the entrance music for my career as a right-wing demagogue, I don't think Bowie has a legal right to prevent me. However, the content of the song, the context of the song and what Bowie can do - distance himself vocally from me and my policies - provides a balance to that.

Of course, the phrase "big brother" had plenty of associations before George Orwell as well - it was and is a way of expressing the idea of an older brother. Orwell was taking that phrase and using it for his own artistic ends. He happened to do that very successfully, not least by creating a work of art the concerns of which - privacy, control, who controls history et cetera - seem eerily prophetic and/or descriptive to successive generations.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
22:53 / 19.04.05
Haus wrote:

More generally, I'm still not sure I'm getting the connection between "George Orwell's 1984 identified trends that he saw as proliferating in his day which have proliferated further since" and "the existence of George Orwell's 1984 makes acceptance of those trends easier". I simply don't see a logical correlation.

Hmmm....

*Taps fingers on table, looks out the window for a different point of view, then settles for a new take on the old view; the best one can do, for now.*

Compare the following version of the Zen-inspired example about "naming a tree" which I typed earlier:

"What's that?" we cry beholding a wondrous thing for the first time.
"It's just a f**king tree..." mumble our parents as we continue a walk through the park.
"What's...........Oh..."
"What's what?" sigh our parents.
"Oh nothing," we say, "It was just another f**king tree..."

And again, with this slightly different version,

"What's that?" we cry beholding a wondrous thing for the first time.
"It's a tree," smile our parents as we continue a walk through the park, "Isn't it beautiful?"
"What's...........Oh..."
"What's what?" chuckle our parents.
"Oh nothing," we say, "It was another tree... It was beautiful..."

The concept is the same, although (I hope you can forgive me but) I'm guilty of deliberately exploiting the language to illustrate my point. However, as Zen teaches us, by naming the tree we have defined it and therefore lost some of its original wonder. What was once a primarily sensual experience has since become superseded by a linguistic experience.

If we take the latter example, the child may grow up loving trees and thinking they're "beautiful". This may be so until the day they die. However, it's also likely that different qualifiers might be added to the word tree during the child's lifetime (like some kind of a parasite with it's own meaning/reason to be). Depending on the emotional charge of each imprinted qualifier, over time "beautiful" may or may not lose its dominance in the structural hierarchy.

e.g a large branch might fall on one of their parents in a storm before the now adolescent child's horrified eyes.

"I love you kid," gasps the parent with their dying breath, "...argh...bastard tree..."

In my opinion, as the event takes place in "reality", a kind of virtual linguistic system within the youngsters brain tries to translate and understand the information flooding through his/her senses, by reproducing it as linguistic representation/recording. As in "reality" the linguistic branch "beautiful" is severed from the "tree" in the teenager's linguistic network and virtually kills his father. In "beautiful's" place a new branch, "bastard", attaches itself to "tree" and begins to thrive.

I've probably described this too crudely. Put it this way, after so many "f**king trees" they all start to look the same and you don't notice them so much. Also, if anybody still has doubts that language can be used to manipulate thought and, therefore, action, think N.L.P, Hypnosis, Derren Brown, Sygils, Bob Marley, Taboos, etc, etc...

On a slight tangent: having many friends from different parts of the world, I have always been fascinated by the shift their brains make as they switch between different languages. I had a lover who is fluent in English but dreams in French, etc. Does the fact that sound of the word "tree" differs from the word "arbre" affect the recording? Of course, the image conjured in my mind by the word "tree" is bound to be different from anybody else's "tree", but we both make use similar music when we communicate/conjure it: we both hear "tree" and think "tree". However, when the French say "arbre" it's like a different chord is being struck. Do any bi-linguists out there agree or diagree? I'm curious to find out. What a task it must be to translate poetry from even more widely different languages such as Hebrew to Mandarin? Have you ever heard something that sounds poetic in a foreign language but which, when translated, actually means something quite boring and commonplace?...

To get back to my original concern: I suppose I realise that all I can do as a writer is (like now) try my best to illustrate my ideas in a simple, intelligible, accurate, and (hopefully) stimulating fashion. I mean, if this phenomena of "the unintended subversion of art" I've tried to describe is happening to a masterpiece like '1984', what hope has my work got? Mercifully, I have a feeling alterity's introduction to "precepts" will pay off and provide some comfort in the near future. All I can do in the meantime is what Mr Chekhov once advised an aspiring writer :

"Write as much as you can!! Write, write, write till your fingers break!"

I just hope it all doesn't end up sounding like complete gobbledegook.

For now I'm off to try and "Learn to Become Invisible." See you around.

p.w
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:18 / 20.04.05
"What's that?" we cry beholding a wondrous thing for the first time.
"It's just a f**king tree..." mumble our parents as we continue a walk through the park.
"What's...........Oh..."
"What's what?" sigh our parents.
"Oh nothing," we say, "It was just another f**king tree..."

And again, with this slightly different version,

"What's that?" we cry beholding a wondrous thing for the first time.
"It's a tree," smile our parents as we continue a walk through the park, "Isn't it beautiful?"
"What's...........Oh..."
"What's what?" chuckle our parents.
"Oh nothing," we say, "It was another tree... It was beautiful..."

The concept is the same, although (I hope you can forgive me but) I'm guilty of deliberately exploiting the language to illustrate my point.

But again, how does that relate? George Orwell wasn't saying "video surveillance - it's just one of those things. Better get used to it". If anything, the popularity of 1984 means people shoudl be more wary of a culture of surveillance, according to your example. Therefore, there is still no sensible connection, for me, between the existence of 1984 and the acceptance of surveillance.

Essentially, your conclusion is presupposing that the "unintended subversion of art" is happening, is happening in a specific way and is happening contrary to some intention that George Orwell had about how his writing would behave and what it would achieve. I remain unsure how that can be established, and indeed how it functions as subversion. See the Bowie example above.

If the fear is that one day, when it is beyond your powers to prevent it, something is done with your work that you did not want done with your work, then the only safe answer is to stop writing. There's nothing ignoble in that decision. It's perfectly possible that, were Janis Joplin told through some prophecy that "Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz" would ultimately be used to advertise Mercedes-Benz, she might have burned her guitar in despair. Or she might have gone for a more "writerly" construction, instead recording "Mercedes-Benz cars are shit and the obsession with demonstrating status by having a posh car is not a productive use of your energy (whoah whoah)" - taking away that potential usage at the cost of the work. Or she might have shrugged her shoulders and said "well, several hundred million people will hear that song who might otherwise not have, and some of those will think 'hang on - asking God to give you a Mercedes-Benz? Isn't that a damning indictment of shallow, status-obsessed consumer capitalism?' And the ones who think 'shit, yeah, a Mercedes-Benz is just what I want and deserve' wouldn't have given their posh car money to UNICEF if they hadn't seen that advert, so what the hey? If it's not me it'll only be the Dandy Warhols". If I ever master the art of time travel, this question will be absolutely the second ting I ask her, after "don't you think Karen Carpenter might appreciate that ham sandwich more than you would?"

(Percepts, btw, not "precepts". A percept is an entity that is perceived, as a concept is an entity that is conceived.)
 
 
alterity
13:51 / 20.04.05
I believe an artist knows exactly what an appropriate use is for their work and they alone have full rights to its usage, legal or otherwise. If I ever get published, these are the rules: "You can buy my book, you can read my book, you can use it as a doorstop if you like; you can tear my book, lose my book; you can lend it to your mates and slag it off till the cows come home. But that's about it. You try editing it, passing it off as your own, or assimilating what's inside to help you oppress people, and (so help me) I'll find you.....Grr......"

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Although it comes from the New Criticism, which I generally despise, the idea that a writer/artist knows more about what's going on in he/r own work is wrong. To assume that the artist has an intent is referred to, of course, as "intentional fallacy." To assume that artist has any more insight into the final "meaning" of the text destroys the purpose of the text itself. After all, if a novelist could just tell us what s/he meant by writing a novel, then the novel itself would be superfluous. It is because there is more in the novel than there is in the explanation (or in the explanations of a million literary critics, assuming the novel is worth a damn) means that there will always be something that escapes from the novelist's interpretation. It is this remainder that means that the artist is not only not necessarily the best reader of he/r own work, but that guarantees that s/he cannot do anything about those who would misread he/r work. Putting the text out there in the world requires a certain degree of relinquishing control. In the US copyright law is not meant to return control to the producer, but to allow the reader/interpreter to know what exactly s/he is allowed to do with a text. Although a reader is not allowed (usually) to do anything s/he wants with a text, fair use will guarantee plenty of room misinterpretations and misuse. It's imply unavoidable. Remember, the Puritans all believed that there was just one true meaning of the Bible. They just couldn't agree which one. However, given the choice between having a Bible that could be misinterpreted and not having one at all, they would almost certainly choose the former. Misinterpretation is just the risk you have to take.

So when p.w. writes, "Surely a piece of art is an object through which a person might have influence," ze is no doubt correct. But the type of influence, "good" or "bad" cannot be guaranteed before the fact or necessarily accounted for after.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
15:00 / 20.04.05
Is the confusion over percepts and precepts deliberate in this thread or am i missing something here ?

Is Haus's comment accepted by PW ?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:17 / 20.04.05
Neither, I think. Alterity said "percept", PW read "precept". That seems to be all.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
16:15 / 20.04.05
Nag-damn-it! I'm supposed to be re-recording vocals today (there goes another shiver slithering down my spine), and this discussion is a far too enjoyable and convenient way to avoid doing it. I hope you'll forgive me then if I keep this very brief for now.

The confusion over precepts and percepts was all mine: a consistent spelling mistake; although I assure you I got the gist of the concept. I can only apologise. It's my fingers (as well as other parts of my anatomy), they like making me look foolish.

For now, here's a few quick responses:

Haus typed:

George Orwell wasn't saying "video surveillance - it's just one of those things. Better get used to it". If anything, the popularity of 1984 means people shoudl be more wary of a culture of surveillance, according to your example.

I wasn't blaming the poor man. All I was typing was that his work has offered us a frame of reference to understand the "omnipotent state and the resulting dangers" (etc). Unfortunately, by doing so he has also helped this concept become more palatable precisely because we have understood it..... I'll try to think of a better way of explaining this at a later date.

Haus also typed:

Essentially, your conclusion is presupposing that the "unintended subversion of art" is happening, is happening in a specific way and is happening contrary to some intention that George Orwell had about how his writing would behave and what it would achieve. I remain unsure how that can be established, and indeed how it functions as subversion.

I'm not absolutely sure this phenomena is happening (which was was I was asking you all), but I can't help thinking it is. Again, I'll try to illustrate this more succinctly at a later date, but for now think about how Mr Orwell's text/ideas have been incorporated into TV's Big Brother. To take the specific aspect of CCTV, doesn't the programme's very existence contribute to our familiarity and acceptance with the idea of being watched? (note: how all the contestants say they forget the cameras are even there). You're probably right though, there is nothing one can do but stop creating if your worried about one's work being subverted. But does that mean one shouldn't try and stop it? Many things could be said to be inevitable, but does that mean one should resign oneself to whatever comes along?

alterity typed:

To assume that artist has any more insight into the final "meaning" of the text destroys the purpose of the text itself. After all, if a novelist could just tell us what s/he meant by writing a novel, then the novel itself would be superfluous. It is because there is more in the novel than there is in the explanation (or in the explanations of a million literary critics, assuming the novel is worth a damn) means that there will always be something that escapes from the novelist's interpretation.

Hmm..... Reminds me of Althusser's "Problematic", and I'm in two minds over this. On the one hand, I agree: e.g. there is definitely more in/or evoked by a novel than the writer is aware of (revelations about their personality, the readers' own associations, etc). But on the other hand, a good artist knows they are bearing their soul (so to speak), that they are communicating with people who have their own experiences, and that there is always more being discussed than all of us could ever know. Despite the many associations which link to any text through the rhizome-like structure that is any language-system, most writers could probably tell you (even if only after the text is written) what their text was intended to mean in, say, a paragraph or even (if pushed) a sentence. For me, the point of writing a story in the first place is to use narrative to better illustrate "something"; whether it be a "tree" or a "concept".

If long after my death someone puts one of my stories with other texts in (say) a fascist magazine, my aim is try and insure that my work would "stick out like a sore thumb"; and not, maybe by the use of juxtaposition or montage, appear to be supporting their cause. As I said, such concerns may be futile. They might hold up my story as an example of logic from the loony left instead: e.g. "Don't trust these guys, they're mad." I wanted to know what other ways there may be to limit how much one's work can be subverted by assimilation. Hmmm...

More later...

p.w
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:45 / 20.04.05
How about "Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz"? It strikes me that we've got a comparatively simple and closed system there, which lends itself better to examination.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
20:12 / 20.04.05
Haus, I forgot to type that your imaginary conversation with Janis Joplin made me laugh. ; )

And you're right about using the "Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz" as a more fitting example for discussion; I'll try and reformulate my thoughts accordingly.

By the way, I also apologise to you all for whenever I've been subjective and talked about my own work (as I'm doing now, kind of). I've just realised this may have made it more difficult to respond to my comments without sounding insulting. Forgive me, I'm new to this.

I'll be back...
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
00:11 / 23.04.05
I must admit that over the last couple of days, I felt I'd run out of steam in relation to this discussion (I said as much in the Barbannoy thread earlier tonight). But I'm no quitter, so I just wanted you to know, that I am thinking...

Until then, I found this earlier whilst trawling the archives: a thread posted by Salamander relating an essay by Hakim Bey. On first reading, I think it might have relevancy to this discussion. What do you think?
 
  
Add Your Reply