"To live is to war with trolls." -- Ibsen
Despite this prohibition, sculptures by marketing con artist Jeff Koons landed on the moon yesterday in the NASA-funded moon lander Odysseus. Koons now crows that he created "the first authorized artwork on the moon."
As if this act of extraterrestrial vandalism wasn't enough, each of the sculptures on the moon has two counterparts on earth: a larger statue and a digital NFT (nonfungible token), thereby dispelling any ambiguity about the mercenary core of this art.
Just as the planets may align on rare occasions, this project represents a rare alignment of corporate greed, bad politics, self-aggrandizement and execrable taste.
Carolyn Russo, the credulous Museum Specialist at the Air and Space Museum in Washington DC, gushed: “Why wouldn’t artists look to the moon as a new place to offer a new cultural understanding of who we are as a civilization?”
Let us hope that space aliens never stumble across Koons' "understanding of who we are as a civilization," or they may feel compelled to retaliate for our littering their front lawn.
51 comments:
I don't see a problem with marooning a Koons piece off-world. Especially in the hope that this establishes a precedent for the remainder of his canon.
WTF? Who gave permission to use that shit?
This 2nd Gilded Age: Cyberpunk boogaloo isn´t for me.
I guess from this that weapons of deconstruction are exempt.
I see NASA got jealous of all the SpaceX coverage and decided to enter the "let's make the space exploration as vulgar and depressing as possible" race.
I don't see what's the big deal. It's just some steel balls with famous historical figures' names on them (Jesus, Alexander the Great, Aristotle, Churchill, Lincoln, Kant, Moses, Proust, Elizabeth I, etc.). At worst, some of the names are too trivial to warrant inclusion in the same list (Marilyn Monroe, Buster Keaton, Lucille Ball).
In 1971 we put the Memorial to Fallen Astronauts on the Moon, which is also just a steel monument with peoples names on it. In 1972 we blasted the Pioneer plaque and sounds of earth into deep space.
I don't see anything particularly vulgar about monuments in space. If anything, there's something nice about us putting a record of what we thought was important out where no one can easily censor it. The way things are going, in 10 years Koons's list would have caused moral panic because it's too "Eurocentric, patriarchal, cis, imperialistic, etc." I'm happy it's over there, where the political trolls can't tear it down without traveling 239,000 miles to do so.
You know, cuz over five hundred years white straight men raping, stealing and pillaging everything in their eyesight just isn’t enough… 🙄
"You know, cuz over five hundred years white straight men raping, stealing and pillaging everything in their eyesight just isn’t enough…"
Seek negative attention elsewhere, please.
Richard-- I'm old enough to remember when landing on the moon was a mark of excellence, courage, technological brilliance, and a pioneering spirit articulated by JFK in an era when presidents were capable of expressing complex thoughts in complete paragraphs. A proud, brave culture achieved that.
In answer to your question, for me the "big deal" is that 55 years later the franchise for the "first artwork on the moon" is parceled out by tasteless and gullible plutocrats to the living embodiment of cultural rot. For me, that's a big deal.
Anonymous-- I'm baffled by your comment. What would "straight white men raping, stealing and pillaging," even if such a thing were true, have to do with the art of Jeff Koons? Untalented? Sure. Self-promoting? Yup. A fraudster? No doubt. But I'd draw the line there.
An increasingly tightly woven dyson sphere of junk is encapsulating the earth, and a Tesla Roadster is currently drifting out there somewhere, in heliocentric orbit. In terms of human achievement, landing on the moon is today what summiting Mount Everest was yesterday. Eventually lines will form, and people with means will compete to be the first to play the saxophone up there. Koons on the moon seems symbolically relevant only as related to the fact of the lander's position on the surface: It's fallen and it can't get up.
As I understand it, the mere fact of sending an artifact into space is already destroying the treaty you mention, so, once this question is accepted, if you include a work by Koons within the device, then all you have done is throw a gigantic pollution container filled to the brim with garbage onto the lunar surface.
However, I believe that Koons' work has not traveled alone, and works by other artists have been included, perhaps with the intention of covering up that of the renowned "artist."
Extraordinary human acheivement always brings out the deriders and nay-sayers and Luddites who don't see the value in "useless" human activity like going to the moon or another planet, painting a high ceiling with fanciful figures, or busting up the atom to see what's in there. Its still a marvelous sight to see space travel and its unique competence, and the prospect of its commercialization is a positive trend smashing the monopoly of gov't entities. Let the adventuring begin!!
As far as our cultural dreck (philosophical, religious, artistic), it goes everywhere we go. I'm sure ALL the adventuring seafarers brought along the Holy Bible, but that was to be predicted, and they wouldn't have left home without it. Junk is always in the wake of our greatest adventures.
Wes, are you comparing the written corpus of the Christian religion with junk/cultural dreck?
No, I'm noting the dreck that goes along with or follows great but playful achievements, including great literature and mythology and philosophy. The seafaring argonauts didn't just bring the Bible (grand literature) with them, but the priestly religions and repression that follows it. The astronauts will undoubtedly do the same, as well as bring their commercial motives and territorial graspings. It's inescapable.
The space age still shows that we can achieve superlative skill and drive via play, and we need little motive to demonstrate "useless" purposes. The "uses" (mining, new frontiers, technological and cultural advances) will be rationalized later, when the adults get serious.
Eric Hoffer noted that some cultures never got around to invent the wheel for the serious work needed doing, but nevertheless had wheels on child toys. Play comes before seriousness, and the mother of invention is "uselessness", not necessity. The space age is pure play, and is a wonder, but dreck will be in it wake.
HA!
Thanks for the clarification Wes. The dynamic fruitful between play and work is a profound one and although I agree with the general thrust of your point I think a distinction is to be made between genuine play and the motives behind post modernist pretence at play.
" . . . I think a distinction is to be made between genuine play and the motives behind post modernist pretence at play."
Agree 100%. The difference between creative play and obnoxious boorishness is huge, yet both often attend the same party.
Agree 100%. The difference between creative play and obnoxious boorishness is huge, yet both often attend the same party.
Postmodernism is not 'boorish'.
The whole reason it attracts certain upper-crusty-but-still-cool types is because it seems high status and sophisticated on the one hand, and 'of, by, and for the people' on the other; performed in sniffy multisyllabic Academese yet adamantly cosmopolitian and catholic in its non-judgmentalism and dismissal of hierarchies.
The fact that beneath the surface the whole thing is guilt-ridden, suicidal New Age Fruitcake Gnosticism - socially, culturally, morally, ethically, economically, and psychologically destructive - does not make it any less alluring to Radical Chic Culturistas; who couldn't tell Luxury Beliefs, sophistry, and targeted propaganda from actual wisdom for all the political power in the world.
Agreed, thanks for the subtle correction; but you might be a little too tolerant. Po-Mo are killers, full stop. They are the killers of civilization, wisdom, and progress; they loathe human acheivement of any kind.
Have you ever met a true psychopath? They are the real charmers in the room.
Like it or not, you are swimming and breathing int he waters of postmodernity. The mediated communication happening in this non-space revolves around the blog’s mission to acknowledge the highs of low art and lows of high art - this blurring of all sacred lines lies at the heart of post-modernism, which is capitalism.
"Like it or not, you are swimming and breathing int he waters of postmodernity."
Like it or not, saying 'like it or not' isn't an argument.
The idea that Postmodernism invented 'grand narrative' criticism in the arts is laughable and mind-blowingly arrogant and stupid. It is obvious that postmodernists have read nothing that was said in the arts before 1950. These people are simply fake scholars; punks pretending to be intellectuals trying to arrogate as much status to themselves as they can in order to hold cozy proselytizing academic jobs.
What is going on here (on this comment section) is little different than the kind of arguments that went on in specialty art/aesthetics publications of the 20th century (or even group pen pal letter exchanges). I don't think anybody is here to construct/falsify an identity for themselves.
How we write and what we say in contest with others here tells some partial truths about each of us - in the act of explaining our positions - while the personal rest must remain a mystery; to the extent that we necessarily don't, can't, or won't reveal the rest of ourselves, readers might very well fill-in-the-blank and invent unreal versions of us. But writers have always had a virtual component to their output - from the authors of the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Bible onward to today's scribes - people have always partially invented the authors they read - and for obvious reasons.
All of Arts and Letters consists of creators sending out into the world surrogates selves to act as emissaries for their ideas and appreciations.
Lastly, we wouldn't be arguing if we didn't think there was more than just opinion or subjective perspective involved here.
"the heart of post-modernism, which is capitalism."
Anonymous,
What's the connection between post-modernism and capitalism? I would have thought they were at war, the latter being a system of creative and competent playfulness, the former being a system of scorn of creative and (especially) competent playfulness.
A Manichean world view can only get you so far. The alledged evil of «postmodernists» and the idea of capitalism being at war with …anything present, at best, a cartoonish take on the dialectics of history. Koons is not only a supremely market-orientated artist, his orientation is that of being a pastiche of an artist. He of course knows this, probably even more so than any of us in «here».
It wasn’t presented as an argument, much the same way that I wouldn’t present as an argument the fact of your body containing microplastics - however much you might hate Tupperware.
"What's the connection between post-modernism and capitalism? I would have thought they were at war, the latter being a system of creative and competent playfulness, the former being a system of scorn of creative and (especially) competent playfulness."
This is not the definition of either. 'Capitalism' is just a marxist slander-word for entrepreneurial investing. And Postmodernism is something like a chaotic and anxiety-ridden nihilism in the face of incompetent and compromised leaders, sensational content overload, and spiraling existential fear.
The arguments deserve their due: The self-serving and often incompetent governance of the powerful goes without saying. And it is certainly the case that the commercial world overloads the senses with intense, repetitive, and targeted reality distortions as it tries to sell its products and services to a mostly distinterested, distracted, and dumbfounded public... But that only applies, I would say, if one is heavily addicted to media.
Which is to say, "Postmodernism" is a grand narrative too.
There are indeed people in the west who are utterly consumed by media - utterly swayed by government, corporate, religious, professional, and ideological propaganda in newspapers, magazines, television, the internet, billboards, building façades, games, etc - such that whatever touchstones in reality - work, family, and friends - they once kept to as sure footing have been surmounted by constant rhetorical blather.
These dopamine-addicted, limbically-hijacked people, if you know them, don't have memories. They live in some eternal present - pace Orwell - where the party (the leviathan behind mass media indoctrination and mass consumption) tells them what to remember and what to forget, what to attack, what to love or hate, and what to ignore. If they go for a walk in nature without their phones they start to freak out.
But that is not everybody. Not nearly. The past is all around us, still. It's just quieter than modernity, so the insensitive and easily distracted don't notice it. But it suffuses everything. You can see the 80s still around us, the 60s, the 50s, World War II, the Depression, the roaring 20s, World War I, 1905, the Victorian era, and so on, all the way back to the Medieval. All the way back to antiquity. All the way back to the bronze age, then the stone age. Walk into the woods, and it is the Precambrian.
Most people live in a particular era with bits from the future and past selected a la carte as needed or preferred. Same as it ever was. This is not selecting one's own reality because reality is not what changes from era to era, but what stays the same from era to era. It is simply a matter of taste.
Kev,
The whole is great, but the last two paragraphs are gems of insight -- rarely said, and never so beautifully. Its a rare person that can feel the distant past in the present.
thanks
One thing I find funny in Kev's posts is how he systematically name-drops concepts in a horribly incorrect manner. In the precambrian there were no woods. Like, no plants at all.
Wes,
I agree wholeheartedly, for those who are prepared to appreciate fully the implication of Kev's last post it was both beautiful and deeply insightful.
A thank you to him indeed.
"In the precambrian there were no woods. Like, no plants at all."
Yes, I meant Paleozoic. Thanks for the correction.
Wes and chris bennett-- Rather than draw a distinction between "play" and "serious work," I think it would be more accurate to distinguish between basic and applied research. Basic research is the free experimentation that takes place at research universities guided by little more than human curiosity, while applied research takes the information gathered by basic research and applies it (often with a capitalist motive) to solving a particular problem of fulfilling a market need. I think it is a distinction worth drawing because I would not call the first space exploration "play" in any sense of the word. It was hugely expensive, deadly serious, and had to justify itself against other political priorities. The potential applications for the information gathered could not yet be dreamed.
Wes, Anonymous and Kev Ferrara-- Many of the proponents of postmodernism are so damn irksome, it's difficult to resist the temptation to jump up and slap them down before they finish talking. But let's keep in mind that postmodernism is a diverse concept, some of which raises serious questions (although it so far seems to be devoid of answers).
The world needed to label whatever came after modern art chronologically; otherwise an outdated mid-20th century art form would perpetually be "current" or "up to date" (the definition of "modern.") What else could you call it besides "postmodernism"? But in addition, there is a respectable theme at the birth of postmodernism: skepticism or even disenchantment with the enlightenment world view. The enlightenment was a magnificent, romantic and inspirational view of the world, but it seems there is no denying that it was wrong (or at least highly incomplete) in significant ways... ways that are either scientifically disproven or philosophically exhausted. So what are we to do? Ignore Enlightenment's flaws? That seems to be the height of anti-Enlightenment thinking.
It's not hard to understand why many people react to the existential void, or the likely destruction of all life on this planet, or the death of God or the dehumanization of life in modern society, with decadence, cynicism, despair and hedonism. Read Daniel Defoe's Journal of the Plague Years and you'll see that we've been here before when we believed the world was coming unglued.
So before we conclude, as Wes does, that "PoMo are killers, full stop" or we string together the long list of epithets in Kev's recipe for "New Age Fruitcake Gnosticism," I'd ask whether the despicable aspects of Koons' work are essential to the nature of postmodernism or whether they are a segregable result of decadence, tastelessness, greed and good old fashioned charlatanism.
If they are segregable, and there is something to be salvaged in whatever is "aftermodernism," I'd ask what you believe is an appropriate alternative artistic response to the modern condition (other than putting our heads in the sand)? As you might suspect, I do have my own views but I am interested in yours.
P.S.-- I just had to add that the moon lander tipped over on its side, cutting short most of its useful life. What a wonderful metaphor, if it was the weight of Jeff Koons' sculptures that imbalanced the lander and tipped it over. Whether it was the revenge of a wrathful God or just nature's comeuppance for taking our eye off the ball, this could be the first time that Koons' work played a role in a genuine artistic statement.
All this reminded me of how Joseph Wood Krutch wrote (in 1965) that the importance of going to the moon was so self-evident to us as re-conquering the Holy Sepulchre was in the past. And that at some moment the moon program will become as incomprehensible as the crusades are to us, because both the sepulcher and the moon are just symbols.
Anonymous wrote: "A Manichean world view can only get you so far."
Agreed, although it seems to be sufficient to motivate certain people for short term gain.
"Koons is not only a supremely market-orientated artist, his orientation is that of being a pastiche of an artist. He of course knows this, probably even more so than any of us in «here»."
I've often wondered about this, and even went to hear Koons lecture in person to see if I could detect what was flickering behind his eyes. You're clearly right, he was a marketing savant, but I'm not sure he has the self-awareness you suggest. I'm guessing he started out knowing that, but after the world rewarded him so richly and for so long, he began to believe the world must be right. How could he not?
"What else could you call it besides "postmodernism"? But in addition, there is a respectable theme at the birth of postmodernism: skepticism or even disenchantment with the enlightenment world view. The enlightenment was a magnificent, romantic and inspirational view of the world, but it seems there is no denying that it was wrong (or at least highly incomplete) in significant ways... ways that are either scientifically disproven or philosophically exhausted. So what are we to do? Ignore Enlightenment's flaws? That seems to be the height of anti-Enlightenment thinking."
It sounds like you are not getting something from "the enlightenment worldview" that you would like to have. What exactly?
What Enlightenment values would you wish to dispense with? And what values would replace them?
Kev Ferrara (and Wes and chris bennett)-- "The past is all around us, still. It's just quieter than modernity, so the insensitive and and easily distracted don't notice it."
Maybe it's not the noisiness of modernity, maybe it's just that the present-- meaning the primacy of NOW with its pressing urge for food and sex-- will always take priority over the past. I question whether people today are more historically ignorant than they were in the past. History is galloping backward and outward all the time, with so much more information available than we had even 50 years ago. In the short time that I've been writing this blog, the history of art has extended from 35,000 to 150,000 years, and the history and the facts of the universe have expanded far further and come into much sharper focus.
The things that people thought they knew about history 100 years ago, they didn't really know. Go back a hundred years before that and there were no photographic records to preserve images or duplicate documents. Go back a few hundred years before that and there were no mechanical clocks to regulate time and no compasses to regulate direction, and most people worked behind a plow; their history didn't extend beyond what their grandpa thought he remembered about their village before he died at age 50.
Maybe we seem more historically ignorant now because for the first time we have a sense for what we don't know. But in any event, it is a bold statement to say,"reality is not what changes from era to era, but what stays the same from era to era." The epistemology of history has taken a real beating in the past century, as people who study history seriously and the scientists who attempt to nail down an accurate and autonomous physical record of the past wrestled with the nature of historical inquiry. Carl Becker, R.G. Collingwood, Isaiah Berlin, E.H. Carr, Karl Popper, Ortega y Gasset and many others have struggled mightily on the subject of what constitutes a historical fact, and how to find what you describe as "what stays the same from era to era."
The enlightenment was a magnificent, romantic and inspirational view of the world, but it seems there is no denying that it was wrong (or at least highly incomplete) in significant ways... ways that are either scientifically disproven or philosophically exhausted. So what are we to do? Ignore Enlightenment's flaws? That seems to be the height of anti-Enlightenment thinking.
David, I don't think it is a case of the enlightenment having flaws per se. It's rather a question of the enlightenment's left-hemisphere-of-the-brain apprehension of the world, that's to say the reductive materialist account of phenomena having been taken outside and beyond its appropriate domain. Thus post modernism's critique of societal beliefs is in fact an outcome, a symptom, of of the excesses of the enlightenment's metaphysical view.
"It is a bold statement to say,"reality is not what changes from era to era, but what stays the same from era to era."
Why is it bold? After all, it is only an extension of the Philip K. Dick point that you have previously agreed with; “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
chris bennett-- I agree that's a major part of the problem, although it would've been inconsistent with the spirit of the Enlightenment not to press to see whether reason might be usefully employed in the service of morals, art and other subjective matters. Another significant part of the problem is that the scientific revolution, which showered the Enlightenment with glory when science helped to cure disease, feed humanity, improve transportation, etc. could yet turn out to be the most calamitous thing that ever happened to humanity as the means to destroy all life on the planet becomes increasingly more accessible, compact and inexpensive.
As things stand now, erratic, extremist individuals already have the ability to inflict unacceptable harm on society-- bring down buildings or airplanes, unleash diseases, sabotage reactors-- and it's a one way street from here, it can only get worse. It's too bad that Kant or other Enlightenment thinkers couldn't come up with an objective and reliable ethical code to make people behave. But in the absence of that, you can understand why some artists are flailing for a credible reason for making good art in penultimate times.
"I'd ask what you believe is an appropriate alternative artistic response to the modern condition (other than putting our heads in the sand)? As you might suspect, I do have my own views but I am interested in yours."
The only thing I'm less interested in than me being in charge of art, is the kind of people who actively seek to be in charge of art getting in charge of art; with their scabrous manifestos in hand.
The problem with Postmodernism is that it was astroturfed. It was installed in the culture as a handshake deal between ideology, punk sentiment, and money. An even worse case of astroturfing than Modernism was, because at least there was some graphic joy in modernism.
And I wouldn't even have a problem with the astroturfing if it wasn't that both Modernism and Postmodernism used politics and power and money to destroy rivals. And even worse, to destroy rival information, to destroy even the understanding of visual poetry itself that took 500 years to develop. In short, fuck those people. They're vandals and goons. And any road that leads away from them and their institutional backers is a good start.
It might help to think of post-modernism more as the afterbirth of modernism than its death. As Ferrara wrote, the past is still here, all around us. It’s just that it’s been made unpredictable. Time (and space) is out of joint, and the dislocations seem to have produced an immense waning of affect. Western «men in the middest» are prone to read see this as signs and symbols of a coming cataclysm, and maybe this time it’s finally happening, just as in all previous times. Is postmodernism just another metanarrative? Sure, and there’s no escaping it.
But in the absence of that, you can understand why some artists are flailing for a credible reason for making good art in penultimate times.
My own answer to this would be to look at the example of a bride accepting the ring from her groom, their hard work and struggle to afford a home and the bringing of a child into the world. For them there is no flailing for credible alternatives to making a good life, whatever the circumstances of society are. So I say to those desperate to make 'art relevant to the times'; instead of seeking what to do in order to garner the approval of others, simply be the good parent of what you produce. Your art, the offspring, must then take care of itself.
Kev Ferrara-- If I hold out a hammer, you're free to say it is a figment of my imagination. You're free to explain that my hammer is comprised of subatomic particles with a mass equivalent to a few speck of dust in an empty room. However, when I drop my hammer on your toe-- ah, that's the true test of "reality."
Similarly, you may choose to believe you're not in love with the girl who works in the drug store, but your belief has nothing to do with it.
But I'm not sure how that test of reality applies on the macro level. Maybe it's a quantum thing.
It’s very post-modernist to doubt reality exists, so it seems like someone is hosting themselves by their own petards, or something like that, I forget, and it doesn’t matter anyway.
"But I'm not sure how that test of reality applies on the macro level. Maybe it's a quantum thing."
Sorry David, I don't understand the application of this line. Can you rephrase and/or clue me in as to which quotes or thoughts of mine you are disputing or contradicting?
Or maybe you are considering macro-narratives as a form of reality? I know it is a postmodern shibboleth that words and thoughts and beliefs in some way construct reality. But I think that is obviously untrue; sophist at best, delusional and destructive at worst. Is that the idea you're evoking herein?
"Is postmodernism just another metanarrative? Sure, and there’s no escaping it."
Nonsense. Postmodernism is the thinnest veneer of an era ever. There's nothing to it but jumbled and concatenated surface symbols and carnival barking. It's as shallow as a Cristo wrap.
The exit is in every direction; simple as can be. Just lift the curtain, pull off the sheet, shut down the computer, stay away from telecommunications, stop being entertained for a half a second... and you go back to a more coherent time.
The limits on the degrees of freedom available to you in "postmodern" life - and the madcap juxtapositions, constant stimulation, fear mongering, and clickbait manipulations that make everything feel unstable - stem from habituation and addiction only. They aren't real. They are only mind-phantoms activated by your undisciplined attention.
Kev Ferrara-- Sorry, I was merely responding to your (lesser) point that “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” I was agreeing that was undeniable in some respects, as in doubting a hammer until it lands on your toe, but asserting that it's not helpful dealing with larger historical "truths." (In other words, it might be a two track reality, like quantum level truth vs. cosmic level truth.
The exit is in every direction; simple as can be.
Yes, because the centre is everywhere. No longer bipolar, unipolar or multipolar - the world is now omnipolar, as was accurately understood by the so-called postmodern thinkers. We are living in the world predicted and described by Debord and Baudrillard. Derrida's answer to Fukuyama's statement on the telos of history remains the most accurate. The totalizing systems of yesterday aren't gone, they cannot be ontologized away. Postmodernism didn't kill them, just like Nietzsche didn't kill God. He just found the corpse, which initiated a tradition of Columbo-like (written by the Absurdists) investigations.
I understand the Manichean need to ascribe antagonistic will to the postmodern framework - the devout need their Devil perhaps more than they need their God. But postmodernism isn't a normative ideology, like Marxism, Islam, Capitalism, Feminism, Liberalism, Conservatism etc...it's better understood as a descriptive approach, a mode of understanding. As such, Koons isn't a postmodern artist, he's a capitalist entrepreneur thriving under post-modern conditions, a hyperreal pastiche of an artist. Yes, I think he knows - or knew what he's doing. But this empty mimicry comes at a price, a loss of historicity and self. I absolutely agree that there's no play in his work. It is mere product, perfect product.
"Sorry, I was merely responding to your (lesser) point that “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” I was agreeing that was undeniable in some respects, as in doubting a hammer until it lands on your toe, but asserting that it's not helpful dealing with larger historical "truths." (In other words, it might be a two track reality, like quantum level truth vs. cosmic level truth."
I'm with the old en plein air artists who understood that what you saw in the world was a hodge podge of truths that were jumbled and disorganized. And that the only way you could make a good work of art out in nature was to select one main theme only, concentrate on it utterly, and dispense with everything that was irrelevant to it. So in the act of expressing well some suite of related truths, others had to be ignored - necessarily - even though they might be equal in value and validity, and equally present.
I see the historical landscape similarly; to make a coherent argument or narrative one needs to fulfill one main thematic idea only per essay or discussion. Or else the mind wanders, and time squanders. (If there is a second theme in the essay, it must be decidedly secondary to the main theme and somehow related - so the theory goes.)
But yet we should not confuse the narrative clarity we get from thought-models and crafted communication with actual narrative clarity in reality. Reality, again, isn't clear.
That's why I am only pro-narrative in The Arts, not in news, journalism, history, cultural studies, business, or politics. As soon as narrative manifests in that latter grouping, we have propaganda; self-serving manipulation that cretinizes en masse.
"No longer bipolar, unipolar or multipolar - the world is now omnipolar, as was accurately understood by the so-called postmodern thinkers. We are living in the world predicted and described by Debord and Baudrillard."
The very idea that the world was once bipolar, unipolar, or multipolar is an absurd metanarrative. There is no such thing as "the world". It's an empty word and reductive.
People, for the most part - from tribe to tribe, from location to location, from nation to nation - just live their lives as best they can, liking what they like catch as catch can.
Mostly people just salute the power and fashions of the day out of convenience. They wear today lightly. Clothes change with the weather, not the people underneath. People love and eat and sleep and worry and seek shelter and security pretty all the same underneath, but maybe with different rationales, rituals and disguises overtop. It is only in the rarest cases that fear grips and squeezes an entire nation (or state, or political party, or religion, or town) into an intense cultural one-ness. And that's when the scapegoat witches get burned. (And two years later when the fever breaks everybody tries to figure out what happened.)
Yes, historically, a church might hold a lot of sway in a community. The people sit in pews on Sunday and pray at night. They might find the play of light on the veranda miraculous in a slightly more religious way than I might. And that might seem like a lot. But in my view that's nothing compared to the media-led totalization of those who watch cable news four hours a day and get hot take updates 24-7 on their phones.
Which is to say, it is much more the case now that we are drowning in totalizing jive than in prior historical moments. It is no accident that the authoritarian war machines of the 19th and 20th centuries were also early adopters of mass media propaganda and technocracy.
War always comes first - from the machine gun camera to GPS and AI, technological advancement and propaganda always serves war (see Virilio). After millennia of warfare based on space and position, speed and time became the essential factors of war over the last few centuries. There was no such thing as the world back when Dunbar’s number had any relevance to the lives of us monkeys, but now there is, and it is everywhere all at once.
Post a Comment