This man, he sometimes talks a lot of sense...
"The internet provides space for criticism and analysis of niche interests, which, because of space limitations, conventional publications do not. But this atomises cultural discussion, to the detriment of the wider public sphere. Those who want to join the arena for, say, performance poetry or the work of minor film-makers or installation artists may well be drawn to relevant websites, but this will disperse the arenas for debate and evaluation. Non-initiates are unlikely to stumble on the relevant sites, which may become, instead, hermetic discussion circles for those already won over to the cause. The danger, again, is that while everybody's interests are catered for, nobody's are challenged or expanded."
(p.15-16, "The Value Of Criticism", The Death of the Critic, McDonald, Ronan, Continuum, 2007)
Last night, following on from a lecture given by Gu Xin in Critical Enquiry Research (using her own model of cultural studies in the UK), we had a discussion about the fact that, although the 'opportunity' (and I use this word advisedly, because personally I believe this to be illusional) is now present for everyone to be equally creative, equal cultural entrepeneurs - clearly, not everyone is. Everyone has equal access to culture, according to some thinkers: but the over-supply of cultural goods causes homogenisation AND diversity. It's a bit like walking into your local Woolworth's or Cole's and railing at the lack of choice, despite the seemingly endless aisles. (Why don't you shop at the Saturday food markets, one masters student wanted to know. You try shopping at Saturday food markets with a three-year-old complaining every dragged step of the way, I retorted.)
The commercialisation of Western society has led academics to start equating creativity with profit, almost to the degree that art cannot be art unless it makes money. But wait! Who is deciding this? Who is funding the universities?
Title: Daowngurl says 'Fuk Everything but Keep on Working Behind Closed Doors Where GoogleFukkenEarth Can't Capture You Dribbling...'
ReplyDelete-------
...yeh! totally - fake idol time. Who is deciding this? I fukken wonder - seems like even indie mags/labels/sites/webradio shows etc n who works for them can't write support etc about anything fully and deeply and with curious interest that shouts 'RESPECT!' unless it has 'sumone familiarimportant' behind it. Like that 'Other Important-Already-Sold-Something,See?Manblokeguydude' who says that it's worth it and real.
The paradox is the same - the fat guys in suits burping sushi w sweaty crotches and expensive socks are still ruling. And their structure is just getting taken on my wankers who call themselves outsiders but exclude those who r actually real outsiders. Those bizziness mendrippos r all complaining about the 'industry crumbling' but lets keep it in perspective! They are more powerful now that everyone is falling for the 'freedom' of the internet -duh- it's Aquarius - communities yeh maybe, but once addicted and dependant/tapped into this crap virtual reality they got the masses by the throat. DUH. Emo myfukkenfoot. It's fertile soil for the powers that be to tax you more and restrict you in other ways -for totalitarianism to take root. Distribution was always the big hurdle in the old days ofrealliferealtime materialworld realproductinmyhands indi underground/art/ music....and now distribution seems sorted w dwnloading- but really it's not - you still have to get thru the hoops - all that has happened is that that issue has been repressed and replaced with a far yukkier set of new ones.
It's truth and relativity. Words are losing their meaning. When 'fokes' (god i h8 that soooo much)r calling Thrusting More (or his music -wotevaa it woz- i don't care, you know what i mean) enlightened, you know we're on our way in!
""""If you wanna use any of this please quote me but keep me in context.""""
Re: everybody is equally creative.
ReplyDeletePartly of course this comes from a dominant cultural idea that venerates the individual, with the individual being understood as a fixed point (rather than as, say, a becoming, which I'd broadly subscribe too after say Deleuze or maybe Blanchot on Nietzsche). With individual identity seen as fixed and essential to question somebody's mode of expression - or worse still their supposed right to create - is to challenge their status as individual beings.
...and yet our status as individual beings is the right we have "won" in a democratic society - or at least the right to express it via choosing what products to buy or bitch about the lack of choice when compared to even ten years ago we have arguably more choice (of relatively the same things. According to the Adam Curtis doco "The Trap" - Individualism is a "negative revolution" that keeps us competing with each other and stops us joining forces to behead our fatcat rulers.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of individualism vs collectivism (i.e the joining of forces) works on the principle that we are still individuals who can choose to operate as a group. But what if you think beyond that space? My point was less about individuals as consumers or as a collective and more about the individual as being understood conceptually as simple a fixed certainty (rather than as a process of multiple becomings). If we understand becomings rather than beings then perhaps other options open up. The individual as collective vs fatcats is an old idea, but works on the principle that power flows down and oppresses us, but what if (pace Foucault and Nietzsche) power flows in multiple directions?
ReplyDeleteTrue, I think power does flow in multiple directions. To bring this back to the blog post "over supply of cultural goods brings homogenisation AND diversity". I'm sure there is some good research on this somewhere but I'm guessing if most people had a choice between a safe homogenity and a risky diversity they would go with the safe. W/regards to music i've always gone for the risky (even deliberately listening to things my peers disparage) but when it comes to toilet paper i'm gonna buy the earthSAFE brand everytime because it's cheap and i don't really want to think about it. The role of the critic in my experience is as an arbiter of taste or an AUTHORity. I appreciate and actively look for Authorial opinions on the things that interest me. In fact a goodly percentage of my engagement with a cultural object is also engagement with current and historic opinion on said object. I haven't read Barthes yet but if the author really is dead then I think we need a resurrection. With an internet bursting with critical opinion we see a kind of homogenised balance where neither side really seems to provide a believable authorial voice. As far as i'm concerned that voice is the voice of the critic - telling us what they think with authority not just what we want or expect to hear.
ReplyDeleteOn my post lower down, where I asked whether anyone felt I held 'authority' one of my supervisors pithily replied, 'not authority: influence'. People accept that certain scientists or deep-sea divers have authority: why not social commentators or critics?
ReplyDelete