Modernism: where we need to return or what we need to leave behind?

[Agent]

Des Esseintes ( i think that's his name) is one of my favorite lit figures. He's kind of the first literary dandy, kind of like de Quincey or the French aristocrat who wrote the first book about dandyism (hard name to recall). That whole fin-de-siecle idea of destroying yourself with excess has disappeared i think. It's unfortunate. Maybe hip hop portrays capitalism in that way. I wanted to be des Esseintes for a long time. never guilded any turtles, but i do have an aquarium full of artwork, a live scorpion and various Star Wars figure, so there you go.

Some people count Holderlin (1770-1843) as a proto-modernist. His late poetry is allegedly the product of schizophrenia (he's also considered one of the first diagnosed schizophrenics - this was based on a kind of sketchy theory i read about in a book called Madness and Modernism).But to me the whole lineage gets tangled when you throw in people like Holderlin, Laurence Sterne, de Sade, or even something like Noh theatre (Pound's translations of Noh plays are excellent). No one talks about creating a new aesthetic, or experimenting with new forms, in the modernist sense until Rimbaud and his proteges (Mallarme and the Symbolists, the German Expressionists, the Surrealists).

 

[nomadthethird]

Hoelderlin is the one Heidegger was always talking about. I've never read anything outside of what Heidegger quoted.

I'd never have guessed he was schizophrenic, based on what I have read though.

 

[vimothy]

apologies if my wording was imprecise

Er...

Your logic works like this:

Nick is brazen in his support for the war. Mere support, the implication is, would perhaps be acceptable, but brazen and unapologetic support is somehow fascistic.

Nick denounces "anyone involved in culture" (including by implication himself and quite obviously not fucking true).​

Me: really? Is that what fascism is?

You: Well, no, but,

He was fired from Warwick.

He used to take drugs.

He writes for academic journals occasionally.​

And WTF are you on about -- Non-existent books about Deleuze? You recommend everything he's ever written? He promotes net-centric warfare in the ME? You feel that he focuses on the occult too much?

 

[vimothy]

"Landism" is like Deleuze as read by an earnest 11-year-old boy who has an autistically extensive collection of comics and all kinds of energy to burn.

Nomad, you are probably the most full of shit person I have ever come across.

Remember when -- on the basis of never having read him at all -- you were describing Nick "socialists should stick to what they know -- vapid cultural criticism and stuffing mass graves full of bodies" Land as a leftist?

 

[vimothy]

Poetix's post upthread is OTM. Revealing that in it he speaks a language redolent of Nick -- I don't think this subculture, maybe even this forum, is conceivable without him (and yeah, "that is his crime; it is also his punishment").

 

[luka]

well kpunk was very much an acolyte for some time and a lot of the theory people here come here through kpunk.

 

[nomadthethird]

Nomad, you are probably the most full of shit person I have ever come across.

Remember when -- on the basis of never having read him at all -- you were describing Nick "socialists should stick to what they know -- vapid cultural criticism and stuffing mass graves full of bodies" Land as a leftist?

Did I ever say Nick Land was a "fascist"? Nope.

And you're right, thankfully, I have not read much Land. Thank fucking Christ.

Once in a discussion of Deleuze you posted some completely shitty article that was exceptionally ill-written by Nick Land and it was about how capitalism is great at accelerating deterritorialization. Which is funny, because if capitalism is great, why would you want to deterritorialize anything, I wonder.

What is obvious is that Land *was* a leftist and then apparently decided that capitalism is good.

To be frank I couldn't care less.

Can we move all discussions of "fascism" to the "fascism" thread?

Thanks.

 

[nomadthethird]

poetix's post upthread is otm. Revealing that in it he speaks a language redolent of nick -- i don't think this subculture, maybe even this forum, is conceivable without him (and yeah, "that is his crime; it is also his punishment").

roffle.

 

[nomadthethird]

Nick "socialists should stick to what they know -- vapid cultural criticism and stuffing mass graves full of bodies" Land as a leftist?

Nick "my writing blows, I recycle ideas that have been around for years and years and pretend they're shocking and fresh, I have nothing to say so I try to be outre by, GASP, sticking up for capitalists, who have never, ever, not once, hurt, maimed, or killed anyone" Land

 

[nomadthethird]

The essay "Aesthetics and Anaesthetics" is especially good:

Agent, this was really good. I kept trying to download it then realized I no longer have access to Jstore

 

[nomadthethird]

Agent, this was really good. I kept trying to download it then realized I no longer have access to Jstore

I take that back, it downloaded fine on another computer.

Whereas surgeons earlier had to train themselves to repress empathic identification with the suffering patient, now they had only to confront an inert, insensate mass that they could tinker with without emotional involvement.

These developments entailed a cultural transformation of medicine-and of the discourse of the body generally-as is exemplified clearly in the case of limb amputations. In 1639, the British naval surgeon John Woodall advised prayer before the "lamentable" surgery of amputation: "For it is no small presumption to Dismember the Image of God."4 In 1806 (the era of Charles Bell), the surgeon's attitude evoked Enlightenment themes of Stoicism, the glorification of reason, and the sanctity of individual life. But with the introduction of general anaesthesia, the American Journal of Medical Sciences could report in 1852 that it was "very gratifying to the operator and to the spectators that the patient lies a tranquil, passive subject, instead of struggling and perhaps uttering piteous cries and moans, while the knife is at work."5 The control provided to the surgeon by a "tranquilly pliant" patient allowed the operation to proceed with unprecedented technical thoroughness and "all convenient deliberation."6

This parallel Buck-Morss draws between the original meaning of aisthitikos (as bodily enjoyment) and the advances in surgical techniques contemporary to Benjamin's writings on the subject is unexpected.

Part of the reason it's better to operate on a patient who is under anesthesia (U.S. spelling) is because it's less risky (easier to make precise incisions, lower heart rate and blood pressure make excessive bleeding less likely, etc), though, not because it's easier from the standpoint of squeamish surgeons.

 

[Tentative Andy]

Hmmm.... been wanting to comment on this one for a few days, but not been able to get the right words together. Basically, in terms of artistic production I'm a firm supporter of the 'changing same' model and think that's what we should be directing ourselves towards. Will try and flesh this out a bit tmr when I'm feeling less tired.

 

[sub-rosa]

much-mutated, variant of the Landian mind-virus, having failed to contract it in the antiseptic confines of the UCP Marjon library: it's all over the place now.

True.

I finished Ray Brassier's difficult book a few days ago and noticed Land's influence throughout the book. But I don't think that either Brassier or Negarastani's political and philosophical projects are Landian. The whole thing looks more like a mutual influence between writers with similar interests than a direct/authentic influence of one person over other writers, but nevertheless Land has been a key figure in luring these people and assembling a diverse movement (of course if you can call it a movement). For example, Brassier's Speculative Realism reads like Land's philosophy of libidinal materialism minus the pleasure principle, but when you read the speculative realist texts carefully, they are not really commensurable with Land's views. Also Negarastani's cyclonopedia has themes which sometimes look Landian or even speculative realist, but I think they are very different/mutated. I am not sure but I think Reza's works are more about a non-consensus reading of Deleuze, more or less like Peter Hallward but very very different in approach, style and conclusions.

Anyway, has anyone read Land's Shanghai book?

 

[Agent]

Er...

Your logic works like this:

Nick is brazen in his support for the war. Mere support, the implication is, would perhaps be acceptable, but brazen and unapologetic support is somehow fascistic.

Nick denounces "anyone involved in culture" (including by implication himself and quite obviously not fucking true).​

Me: really? Is that what fascism is?

You: Well, no, but,

He was fired from Warwick.

He used to take drugs.

He writes for academic journals occasionally.​

And WTF are you on about -- Non-existent books about Deleuze? You recommend everything he's ever written? He promotes net-centric warfare in the ME? You feel that he focuses on the occult too much?

the thrust of the second group of points you list there, which was in my response, was that Land's real motivation for his disparaging remarks about academia (which i believe you brought up) and art (and the left for that matter: anyone against the Iraq war, globalization, conservatism, etc.) had more to do with his pariah status than any real ideological, carefully thought-out position. But that is all speculation on my part. I'm not sure what Land has to do with modernism, or how we ended up in this cul-de-sac, and i'm not going back to retrace the steps. it's embarrasing. for me at least.

I know Land personally from a set of conversations that took place from 2004-07. I never said he took his fascism seriously. And Land was definitely a leftist before, say, 2005. If i have to i'll link the Hyperstition conversations he had with Reza and northanger about Fox News. Pretty funny stuff actually.

 

[nomadthethird]

The whole thing looks more like a mutual influence between writers with similar interests than a direct/authentic influence of one person over other writers, but nevertheless Land has been a key figure in luring these people and assembling a diverse movement (of course if you can call it a movement). For example, Brassier's Speculative Realism reads like Land's philosophy of libidinal materialism minus the pleasure principle, but when you read the speculative realist texts carefully, they are not really commensurable with Land's views. Also Negarastani's cyclonopedia has themes which sometimes look Landian or even speculative realist, but I think they are very different/mutated. I am not sure but I think Reza's works are more about a non-consensus reading of Deleuze, more or less like Peter Hallward but very very different in approach, style and conclusions.

Anyway, has anyone read Land's Shanghai book?

I agree...based on what I know of this, since I have not read Brassier. (Where should I start?)

Personally, I would look to Burroughs, and before him Bataille/Genet/Mirbeau/etc, and even Borges, or Calvino (Invisible Cities and Cosmicomics Calvino--I think we've been over this before) as the ultimate literary influences on Cyclonopedia.

It's more a case of a literary pantheon some writers have in common with Land than it is Landianism.

If someone crosses out about two-thirds of the adverbs for me, I'd read Land's Shanghai book.

 

[nomadthethird]

If i have to i'll link the Hyperstition conversations he had with Reza and northanger about Fox News. Pretty funny stuff actually.

Ha. Now this I'd like to read.

 

[Tentative Andy]

Hmmm.... been wanting to comment on this one for a few days, but not been able to get the right words together. Basically, in terms of artistic production I'm a firm supporter of the 'changing same' model and think that's what we should be directing ourselves towards. Will try and flesh this out a bit tmr when I'm feeling less tired.

Well ok, I suppose what I was getting at is something like this:
First of all, I can certainly empathise with what motivates the desire, expressed here and elsewhere, for a return to the principles of modernism - the feeling seems to be a deep sense of being fed up with the arts becoming a space of postmodern 'playing around', just putting together ironic montages of previously existing styles. (Even here though, I think it's worth remembering that as a philosophical position, postmodernism has more or less been discredited over the last few years, so I reckon Zizek's riff about "libidinal attachment to their adversaries" might well apply to the people still treating it like public enemy no. 1. But I take the point that artistic practice has lagged behind intellectual changes, and that esp in music, a lot of the stuff that's popular is very self-referential and lacking in real conviction).
But, when it comes to what we think should replace the current situation, I can't really agree that a return to the modernist guiding principles is what is require. Now of course, I love a great deal of art that was made during the modernist period, especially modernist literature. But I don't think that this is what is really at stake; people don't want a straightforward revival of modernism as artistic style (which would be a pretty paradoxical idea I guess), they want a return to the abstract 'modernist ethos'. And it's precisely this ethos that I have a lot of problems with - at least the element of modernist theory, very much in favour with those trying to revive it, which centres on notions of Year Zero/Make It New/The Past Does Not Exist etc etc. (If you need me to name names here btw, I'd say Mr K-Punk is one of the worst offenders I'm aware of, although also Reyonolds, much as I love him, certainly falls into the trap from time to time). I really cannot agree with this sort of idea, because it ultimately relies on views about the nature of artistic production that I just don't agree with; ignoring the ways in which any work of art always relies on the influence of previous works and the context of contemporous artistic practices, this view, whether it likes or not, perpetuates the idea of art as the spontaneous outpourings of isolated individual geniuses. It also seems to involve an oversimplified view of constitutes human progress, assuming that whatver is new deserves to be valued simply because it is new, and that conversly what is old must be bad because it is old. At the very least, I think such a view needs to be justified.

Hmmm, reading all that, it still feels clumsily phrase, and far too long. But hopefully the basic gist comes across.

 

[Slothrop]

The relationship between art/culture and an "elite" is obviously problematic and it's impossible to use these words as if it's not.

But doesn't it seem that modernism was not particularly conducive to blasting through false consciousness or institutional classism, especially in its emphasis on "high culture"?

Avant-gardism as an intrinsically political stance seems to be rather stuck in the 19th century. Radical art as an assault on bourgeois culture to relies rather on the fact that your radical art will tend to be hard for bourgeois cultural consumers to avoid because the means of distribution are limited and avant-gardists are in control of some of them. Given large scale consumer capitalism, though, it becomes too easy for people to just ignore anything that assaults their value system or whatever, and the radical modernists tend to end up stuck in a little self-congratulating clique that noone in the outside world pays much attention to.

I guess this is part of the reason that people are interested in public architecture as a venue for high-cultural modernism - it's one of the few areas that are actually unavoidable.

I suspect that this ties into a wider thread of elitism in leftism which could be interesting to develop at some point...

 

[Mr. Tea]

Most of the art theory chat in this thread has gone over my head, but I have to say that the idea of 'reviving modernism' has an unavoidably comic tinge to me.

 

[nomadthethird]

Avant-gardism as an intrinsically political stance seems to be rather stuck in the 19th century. Radical art as an assault on bourgeois culture to relies rather on the fact that your radical art will tend to be hard for bourgeois cultural consumers to avoid because the means of distribution are limited and avant-gardists are in control of some of them. Given large scale consumer capitalism, though, it becomes too easy for people to just ignore anything that assaults their value system or whatever, and the radical modernists tend to end up stuck in a little self-congratulating clique that noone in the outside world pays much attention to.

I guess this is part of the reason that people are interested in public architecture as a venue for high-cultural modernism - it's one of the few areas that are actually unavoidable.

I suspect that this ties into a wider thread of elitism in leftism which could be interesting to develop at some point...

Good points. I would only add that the Almighty State and its obligations to the poor seems to be a factor in the "public space" fetish.