If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

Name a contemporary artist who you feel is intervening in politics in a distracting way.

There's far too much subjectivity and dilution and obfuscation through various degrees of participation to even begin to charge any artist, particularly contemporarily, with intervention. This is the same problem with democratic politics. No one vote is to blame, all the way up to any particular Senator.

More blame lays at the foundation in such a dispersed environment of responsibility, as they are the appeal for authority for those that come after. Another problem for artists is they have no actual skin in the game; that is, responsibility for the consequences of the outcomes they advocate for do not fall back on them. Sure, artists are persecuted when they present work against a tyrannical regime, but that is not skin in the game in the same manner. They are held responsible for pissing off power, not for outcomes they advocated for. An important difference. This is not a problem limited to artists. It is a cancer on/of modernity.

This isn't true at all. In fact, I'd argue that some of the best works of art resist any appeal to pathos. Some readers (or viewers) might have emotional reactions, but the works that stand the test of time are those that return their audiences to uncertainty over their convictions.

This doesn't mean that art doesn't contain truths, but that it encourages its readers to participate in a conversation that privileges no one side. I tell my students this every semester, because they insist on saying things like "Pynchon argues": authors don't argue anything, they don't preach a view or an ideal or a political stance (good ones, anyway--which is why Ayn Rand is a shit writer). Authors present a multitude of views, they present a dialogue, and challenge their readers to navigate that dialogue.

Art is only unsuited for argumentation to the extent that art shouldn't promote any single argument; it should promote a multitude of arguments.

Fiction is narrative, and the target of the narrative is emotion. Otherwise you write non-polemical non-fiction. I haven't read Pynchon, but he does argue. Even if he doesn't have an answer, he wants people to question the things he questions, and he introduces uncertainties as per his dislikes and uncertainties. And bears no consequence for anyone he ruins in doing so. Zeno did this, and would still take an arrow to the knee (or supposedly lost his head).

PS: Ayn probably was a shit writer. I have yet to waste my time reading her. I can/could get the necessary information without weeding through the obfuscation of her narratives.

I'm not anti-emotion by the way in any way, but it has no direct connection to fact, and does at least as much harm as good - which persons like myself have to play cleanup for. I consider narratives playing with fire, and generally by figurative pyromaniacs, even if by accident of ignorance in however many cases.

The following isn't even remotely my wife's most technical piece, nor one of the ones which she won an award for, but it is my favorite piece. What is the narrative or the dialogue in this:

 

[Einherjar86]

Fiction is narrative, and the target of the narrative is emotion.

No, it's not. Why do you think this?

Narrative isn't subjective, despite being composed by an author. Expression isn't automatically phenomenal perception or representation. Narrative isn't a record of experience or a presentation of personal beliefs, and it doesn't by definition plumb emotional depth. Emotion isn't its target. I don't know why this is your impression.

Otherwise you write non-polemical non-fiction. I haven't read Pynchon, but he does argue. Even if he doesn't have an answer, he wants people to question the things he questions, and he introduces uncertainties as per his dislikes and uncertainties. And bears no consequence for anyone he ruins in doing so. Zeno did this, and would still take an arrow to the knee (or supposedly lost his head).

Zeno wasn't a fiction writer, and Pynchon doesn't argue. There's no argument in V., or Gravity's Rainbow, or The Crying of Lot 49, or Bleeding Edge... I don't know how to convince you of this beyond telling you to read Pynchon, but if you do I would defy you to figure out what the hell he wants anyone to question. It's not a polemical book and it isn't advocating any one mode of questioning. I'm serious, this line of thinking is entirely off-base.

The following isn't even remotely my wife's most technical piece, nor one of the ones which she won an award for, but it is my favorite piece. What is the narrative or the dialogue in this:

I mean, there's something there, and I'd be happy to go off on a tangent. I'm no proponent of authorial/artistic intention, but I'm sure your wife has a sense of structure that informs the imagery.

 

[Dak]

No, it's not. Why do you think this?

Narrative isn't subjective, despite being composed by an author. Expression isn't automatically phenomenal perception or representation. Narrative isn't a record of experience or a presentation of personal beliefs, and it doesn't by definition plumb emotional depth. Emotion isn't its target. I don't know why this is your impression.

Zeno wasn't a fiction writer, and Pynchon doesn't argue. There's no argument in V., or Gravity's Rainbow, or The Crying of Lot 49, or Bleeding Edge... I don't know how to convince you of this beyond telling you to read Pynchon, but if you do I would defy you to figure out what the hell he wants anyone to question. It's not a polemical book and it isn't advocating any one mode of questioning. I'm serious, this line of thinking is entirely off-base.

Zeno was presenting a narrative, and asking questions is eliciting the same questioning in others. The implicit argument is to not accept whatever is questioned. Just based on the wiki I can identify some such argument by Pynchon but you would probably argue the wiki is wrong and I need to read it for myself and I'd be wrong anyway if I did read it because he isn't doing whatever I'd say he's doing.

I mean, there's something there, and I'd be happy to go off on a tangent. I'm no proponent of authorial/artistic intention, but I'm sure your wife has a sense of structure that informs the imagery.

It represented a felt emotion. A felt emotion by itself is not an argument or a dialogue. It's singular, subjective, and doesn't purport to hold some position which must be accepted or rejected. This sort of work is not considered worthy of graduation, even if remastered on a technical level. My wife has been explicitly required to generate work that contributes to "the conversation" on some bullshit, and this isn't some provincial wish.

 

[Einherjar86]

Zeno was presenting a narrative, and asking questions is eliciting the same questioning in others. The implicit argument is to not accept whatever is questioned. Just based on the wiki I can identify some such argument by Pynchon but you would probably argue the wiki is wrong and I need to read it for myself and I'd be wrong anyway if I did read it because he isn't doing whatever I'd say he's doing.

Zeno wasn't presenting a narrative, he was presenting a series of logical thought experiments. Not only do these two things entail different modes and conventions, they're entirely different genres. Zeno's writing doesn't have a narrator, which is a necessary component of narrative.

Maybe you're thinking of narrative not in the literary sense, i.e. a specific mode of fictional storytelling, but in the more psychological sense, i.e. a process of connecting events in a logical and coherent manner. That's fine, but it's not an aesthetic operation. It's a cognitive function of phenomenal perception. When I talk about narrative art, it's very different from narrative as an effect of cognition.

Speaking of wiki articles, here's the wiki on narrative in literature:

But novels, lending a number of voices to several characters in addition to narrator's, created a possibility of narrator's views differing significantly from the author's views. With the rise of the novel in the 18th century, the concept of the narrator (as opposed to "author") made the question of narrator a prominent one for literary theory. It has been proposed that perspective and interpretive knowledge are the essential characteristics, while focalization and structure are lateral characteristics of the narrator.

It represented a felt emotion.

I'm sure it did. It's a nice piece.

 

[Dak]

Zeno wasn't presenting a narrative, he was presenting a series of logical thought experiments. Not only do these two things entail different modes and conventions, they're entirely different genres. Zeno's writing doesn't have a narrator, which is a necessary component of narrative.

Maybe you're thinking of narrative .....in the more psychological sense, i.e. a process of connecting events in a logical and coherent manner. That's fine, but it's not an aesthetic operation. It's a cognitive function of phenomenal perception. When I talk about narrative art, it's very different from narrative as an effect of cognition.

Well certainly you are right about that. But this isn't a defense, imo, not only because the psychological sense is my discipline, but because the psychological sense is the understanding for anyone lacking the combination of your IQ and level of advancement in your discipline, which is 99.99(repeating)% of humans.

I'm sure it did. It's a nice piece.

Well I thank you for her. Obviously I agree.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well certainly you are right about that. But this isn't a defense, imo, not only because the psychological sense is my discipline, but because the psychological sense is the understanding for anyone lacking the combination of your IQ and level of advancement in your discipline, which is 99.99(repeating)% of humans.

Actually, based on this, it is a defense:

a) I've been talking about narrative art, and how it doesn't promote a subjective argument; I've been saying that narrative art, i.e. narrative in an aesthetic sense, is not subjective. Fictional narrative is not an argument or singularly motivated form of writing.

b) I'm pretty sure that if you ask most people, they'd say that "narrative" refers to fiction. Most people prefer not to think that they compose their everyday experience into an internal narrative.

Well I thank you for her. Obviously I agree.

You're welcome.

EDIT:

In other news, Cornell West publishes a savage yet simultaneously collegiate takedown of Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Guardian:

It is clear that [Coates's] narrow racial tribalism and myopic political neoliberalism has no place for keeping track of Wall Street greed, US imperial crimes or black elite indifference to poverty. For example, there is no serious attention to the plight of the most vulnerable in our community, the LGBT people who are disproportionately affected by violence, poverty, neglect and disrespect.

The disagreements between Coates and I are substantive and serious. It would be wrong to construe my quest for truth and justice as motivated by pettiness. Must every serious critique be reduced to a vicious takedown or an ugly act of hatred? Can we not acknowledge that there are deep disagreements among us with our very lives and destinies at stake? Is it even possible to downplay career moves and personal insecurities in order to highlight our clashing and conflicting ways of viewing the cold and cruel world we inhabit?

I stand with those like Robin DG Kelley, Gerald Horne, Imani Perry and Barbara Ransby who represent the radical wing of the black freedom struggle. We refuse to disconnect white supremacy from the realities of class, empire, and other forms of domination – be it ecological, sexual, or others.

The same cannot be said for Ta-Nehisi Coates.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-coates-neoliberal-black-struggle-cornel-west

 

[viewerfromnihil]

In other news, Cornell West publishes a savage yet simultaneously collegiate takedown of Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-coates-neoliberal-black-struggle-cornel-west

Read it yesterday. I was surprised at how scathing it was. Coates may be no revolutionary on the front lines like West, but calling Coates a fetishist of white supremacy is a bit much. West's critique was also rather narrow in its scope. He seems to base this op-ed primarily on Coates's most recent book and neglects the contradictions to his assertions found in Coates's previous writings (Personally, I don't find the contradictions entirely problematic. Attitudes and reasoning are contextual). Coates is a pessimist, sure. Fetishist? Ouch. The first thing that popped into my mind when I read that though was Coates's self-reflection in Paris when, in the midst of following a stranger around the city, he realized he didn't have to be on edge as if he were putting himself into danger, with the parallel being the streets of Baltimore on which the book begins.

Here's Coates's rebuttal on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tanehisicoates/status/942524465346310144

I agree with West's argument on some points, but not every black thinker should have to be a black radical without being utterly shamed by the revolutionaries. Practically speaking, I don't get it, but then it's also not intended to be practical.

Also, for the record, I haven't read We were Eight Years in Power, save the excerpt published in the Atlantic as "The First White President."

 

[Dak]

Actually, based on this, it is a defense:

a) I've been talking about narrative art, and how it doesn't promote a subjective argument; I've been saying that narrative art, i.e. narrative in an aesthetic sense, is not subjective. Fictional narrative is not an argument or singularly motivated form of writing.

b) I'm pretty sure that if you ask most people, they'd say that "narrative" refers to fiction. Most people prefer not to think that they compose their everyday experience into an internal narrative.

I mean that it's not a defense because the relationship between the work and some lit departments isn't representative of the relationship between a work and basically anyone else, never mind the relationship between the author and the work.

In other news, Cornell West publishes a savage yet simultaneously collegiate takedown of Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-coates-neoliberal-black-struggle-cornel-west

The whole "fetishist" attack is kind of cringe-ish to me, but if it applies, Coates is a fine target as it relates to "whitey". Cornell is doing the same thing though, just "intersectionally".

 

[Einherjar86]

I mean that it's not a defense because the relationship between the work and some lit departments isn't representative of the relationship between a work and basically anyone else, never mind the relationship between the author and the work.

What difference does this make if we're talking about the ideals, values, qualities, etc. of the works themselves? Who's more qualified to speak about that--me, or a generally uninformed public?

I don't even know where we are at this point in the argument; all I know is that you still haven't admitted you're wrong about twentieth-century artistic movements and probably aren't going to.

Read it yesterday. I was surprised at how scathing it was. Coates may be no revolutionary on the front lines like West, but calling Coates a fetishist of white supremacy is a bit much. West's critique was also rather narrow in its scope. He seems to base this op-ed primarily on Coates's most recent book and neglects the contradictions to his assertions found in Coates's previous writings (Personally, I don't find the contradictions entirely problematic. Attitudes and reasoning are contextual). Coates is a pessimist, sure. Fetishist? Ouch. The first thing that popped into my mind when I read that though was Coates's self-reflection in Paris when, in the midst of following a stranger around the city, he realized he didn't have to be on edge as if he were putting himself into danger, with the parallel being the streets of Baltimore on which the book begins.

Here's Coates's rebuttal on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tanehisicoates/status/942524465346310144

I agree with West's argument on some points, but not every black thinker should have to be a black radical without being utterly shamed by the revolutionaries. Practically speaking, I don't get it, but then it's also not intended to be practical.

Not sure I get it either, but I thought there were some effective critiques strewn throughout. I do happen to think that Coates walks a fine line between nuanced critique and fetishism, so I found the argument timely; but I'm not sure it's fair to judge him on only his most recent work, as you note.

 

[Dak]

What difference does this make if we're talking about the ideals, values, qualities, etc. of the works themselves? Who's more qualified to speak about that--me, or a generally uninformed public?

I don't even know where we are at this point in the argument; all I know is that you still haven't admitted you're wrong about twentieth-century artistic movements and probably aren't going to.

I'm talking about their popular effects, and artist intent. You don't acknowledge artist intent as mattering and don't care about the effects because they are not informed by high critique. I guess we are at an impasse.

 

[Einherjar86]

But even considering artistic intent... do you really think writers like Eliot, Joyce, and Woolf--or painters like Picasso and Matisse--or composers like Stravinsky--do you really think these figures promoted a philosophy of rejection, nihilism, and misanthropy? Or even that the majority of writers, painters, and composers promoted such a philosophy? I'm struggling to figure out why the hell you believe this.

 

[rms]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-coates-neoliberal-black-struggle-cornel-west

after this comp science shit ends ill catch up to this 'drama,' but it seems to have the effect I expected..

https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/943122135681323009

 

[Dak]

But even considering artistic intent... do you really think writers like Eliot, Joyce, and Woolf--or painters like Picasso and Matisse--or composers like Stravinsky--do you really think these figures promoted a philosophy of rejection, nihilism, and misanthropy? Or even that the majority of writers, painters, and composers promoted such a philosophy? I'm struggling to figure out why the hell you believe this.

Lol poets. But I did say modernists and post-modernists, and I guess you are focusing on modernists because that's less the less obvious claim? Music typically isn't considered in terms of modern and post-modern though, to my knowledge. Kind of hard to attach ideology to music without words to accompany in some fashion.

 

[Einherjar86]

Lol poets. But I did say modernists and post-modernists, and I guess you are focusing on modernists because that's less the less obvious claim? Music typically isn't considered in terms of modern and post-modern though, to my knowledge. Kind of hard to attach ideology to music without words to accompany in some fashion.

Way to not answer the question. Also, for the record, Eliot is a poet--Woolf and Joyce wrote prose. I focused on modernists because I was trying to keep the list short. I could also include Pynchon, DeLillo, Percy, Bellow, Beckett, Barth, Atwood, etc. etc. Are you really dodging the question because I only included the names of modernists?

But of course, your knowledge in this area is predictably lacking...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_(music)

 

[Dak]

Way to not answer the question. Also, for the record, Eliot is a poet--Woolf and Joyce wrote prose. I focused on modernists because I was trying to keep the list short. I could also include Pynchon, DeLillo, Percy, Bellow, Beckett, Barth, Atwood, etc. etc. Are you really dodging the question because I only included the names of modernists?

I could point out that merely on wiki perusal, Pynchon wrote material that flirted with the same SJW themes we see constantly now but in a more hamfisted manner. So he maybe pushed some technical boundaries of his time. Between Gravity's Rainbow, Vineland, and Against The Day the angle is there even if (maybe) not hamfisted. Are each one of these names you list so obvious? Fiction is already mostly a waste. I feel like I've lost valuable time even reading the cliff notes on these books.

But of course, your knowledge in this area is predictably lacking...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_(music)

The wiki says there is significant disagreement over this. Of course we can slap a label on something, but the reasons appear tenuous a priori in this case for the reasons already mentioned. What's the connection between an arrangement of notes and any of the modernists you listed, much less the post-modernists? Maybe they talked? You've talked to me, yet you aren't writing anything related to what I produce.

 

[Einherjar86]

I could point out that merely on wiki perusal, Pynchon wrote material that flirted with the same SJW themes we see constantly now but in a more hamfisted manner.

You could say that, and you'd be wrong.

Look, if all you care to do is peruse Wikipedia, then fine. But don't claim that gives you some deep insight into the fiction you're reading about. To say that Pynchon "flirted" with SJW themes is obvious, as he was a counterculture writer. To say he did so "in a more hamfisted manner" is confidently stupid, especially given that you haven't actually read him. How could you even claim to know whether his prose is hamfisted? Sounds stupid to me.

Are each one of these names you list so obvious?

Yes. Because those names represent central figures around whom other artists convened.

Fiction is already mostly a waste. I feel like I've lost valuable time even reading the cliff notes on these books.

Fair enough. I've lost valuable time responding to your posts. The fact that you lack the imagination to see the value in fiction makes all of your comments suspect, in my opinion.

And personally, I'd say that fiction probably tells us more about humanity than psychology does.

I'm done talking with you.

 

[Dak]

Fiction tells us more about humanity than psychology does.

Well there's your conceit. We argue about psychological impact because you fancy yourself a psychologist as well.

 

[Einherjar86]

Humanity isn’t all about psychology Dak.

 

[CiG]

Humanity is about cheeseburgers.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

*Hamburgers

Fuck cheese