Yes, that's the paradox or the dialectical problem with modernism and the avant garde. It is both destructive, even nihilistic, and constructive and optimistic. It must destroy the status quo and offer a new future all at once. So the issue is can modernism reimagine beauty and the original even as it forsakes the commonplace and the continual novelty that sustains mass culture and the capitalist imperialism degrading everything to use value? I don't know of course, but I am very committed to art that reflects the renewed spiritualization of autonomous or individual identity. I would prefer visual art to be more like poetry, about particular human experience, and less about matching itself to mass culture and the commonplace. No one is paying 25 million for a poem these days. Serious poetry remains free from from stramroller banality.
WC --- Mike Mallory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "The meaning of things lies not in the > things themselves but in > ou r attitude towards them." > > > > > > One important step -- being to ignore that which > is "paralyzingly banal, > > empty, distressing, depressing, and deathly" -- > and identify that which > > is > > invigorating, encouraging, vital, comforting, > wholesome and enjoyable. > > > ___________________________________________________ > > There is often an identification of both the > attractive and the repulsive on > this list. I believe that such an indetification is > a worthwhile goal for > the individual seeking to understand the nature of > her taste. However, I > thought the question before this list was whether > such a claim to the " > invigorating, encouraging, vital, comforting, > wholesome and enjoyable" was > justifiable. > > Mike Mallory
