RIGHT ON: “Personally — and maybe arrogantly — I do not see myself in competition with Mark Zuckerberg’s computer. Despite stealing my work and turning it into data, there is nothing that man can do, not with all the servers in the world, to write on my level.”
Brilliant. An instance of what Wendell Berry meant when he referred to “the comfort of being told the truth” as one purpose of reading. Also reminds me of something true - and oddly comforting, which I think reinforces your point - that my father once said to me, decades ago when I was young and aspiring, and which has haunted me ever since: “Well-adjusted people don’t become writers.”
This is an excellent canvas for a unique critical position. A modern work of art ironically has more to work with when the idea of contemporary technologisation is pushed to its limit. Big Tech have shown that nothing within the realm of art is outside incorporation and yet nobody has applied this logic back on technology itself.
I’m sure there are ways to employ the bureaucratic style to subvert the authority or influence of specific bureaucracies - which would almost have to be works done on a massive and serial scale. The point I guess would be work that uses a kind of digital “warholian surrealism” to propose rather than undermine agency. Not impossible but def a tall order given the internet itself has become right wing technology. Haven’t taken the time to think of examples but I’m sure there are a few in art history where specific artworks undermined the institutions that showcased them.
Totally see that you pose it as a critique of tech driven slop I am just more indulging the radical elements of this approach. No respect for artist authority, the flattening of diffuse materials into a fragmented whole, pure relentless force of acquisition, reproduction, etc. I think your instincts are right but the creative implications are unexplored. As for artworks that undermine institutions that host them I think this comes anarchic self preservation. Think of how Miles Davis electric period embraced the very object that made his early jazz contemporaries obsolete or even the example you cite of literary modernism reacting against mass produced literature. I guess my takeaway from your piece is that through their work artists need to become, need to create, like the thing (technology) that’s ostensibly making them obsolete.
Beautiful and right on! When are you going to publish a book of essays about all of this?
As soon as I finish this other novel and can sell a two book deal, lol — thank you for reading!
RIGHT ON: “Personally — and maybe arrogantly — I do not see myself in competition with Mark Zuckerberg’s computer. Despite stealing my work and turning it into data, there is nothing that man can do, not with all the servers in the world, to write on my level.”
Brilliant. An instance of what Wendell Berry meant when he referred to “the comfort of being told the truth” as one purpose of reading. Also reminds me of something true - and oddly comforting, which I think reinforces your point - that my father once said to me, decades ago when I was young and aspiring, and which has haunted me ever since: “Well-adjusted people don’t become writers.”
This is an excellent canvas for a unique critical position. A modern work of art ironically has more to work with when the idea of contemporary technologisation is pushed to its limit. Big Tech have shown that nothing within the realm of art is outside incorporation and yet nobody has applied this logic back on technology itself.
I’m sure there are ways to employ the bureaucratic style to subvert the authority or influence of specific bureaucracies - which would almost have to be works done on a massive and serial scale. The point I guess would be work that uses a kind of digital “warholian surrealism” to propose rather than undermine agency. Not impossible but def a tall order given the internet itself has become right wing technology. Haven’t taken the time to think of examples but I’m sure there are a few in art history where specific artworks undermined the institutions that showcased them.
Totally see that you pose it as a critique of tech driven slop I am just more indulging the radical elements of this approach. No respect for artist authority, the flattening of diffuse materials into a fragmented whole, pure relentless force of acquisition, reproduction, etc. I think your instincts are right but the creative implications are unexplored. As for artworks that undermine institutions that host them I think this comes anarchic self preservation. Think of how Miles Davis electric period embraced the very object that made his early jazz contemporaries obsolete or even the example you cite of literary modernism reacting against mass produced literature. I guess my takeaway from your piece is that through their work artists need to become, need to create, like the thing (technology) that’s ostensibly making them obsolete.