On 16 October 2010 15:45, Curt Cloninger <[email protected]> wrote: > If modernism says, "Here's your flying car," then post-modernism > complains, "Dude, where's my flying car?" But to oppose something > (anti-art), or to purposefully attempt to move beyond something > (post-modernism) is just a way of getting all entangled with that > something (like Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby). If post-modernism is > all weepy, disappointed, angsty, despondent (and pragmatically > impotent) because the claims of modernism turned out to be a sham, an > a-modernist like Latour might respond, "Why did you believe those > claims in the first place? What did you expect? Let's look at what > actually did get accomplished and figure out where to go from here."
Who would respond (other than myself of course (after a length pause and mumbling to oneself)) to Latour with "I was too young to know better" ? > Capitalism is indeed a thorny, wily, persistent force/system/virus. Aye. > My guess is that it won't be "overcome" by a manifesto of resistant > practices, for the same reason that anti-spectacularism is always > eventually re-commodified as the new and expanding edge of the > overall spectacle. Capitalism may have to be modulated from within by > a kind of (earnest/rigorous) "play" that looks like something other > than overt resistance. Is there a place for this kind of off-topic, > useless, manifesto-indifferent, "wildcard" play in the manyfesto? here. > Best, > Curt _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
