Re: [-empyre-] The Hyper-Modern Condition

[G.H.Hovagimyan <ghh@thing.net>]

gh comments:

I guess that Eric was saving the best for last. Wow! there's so much  
in his post that it should generate a whole new month of posts.
I among many other posters on this list have said the same things but  
not quite as eloquently as Eric.  I tend to speak as an artist.  
Although I can quote theory, I like to make works that challenge  
theory or mess it up or don't fit into neat curatorial categories. I  
can't stand tidiness. I also dislike the smug self-congratulations of  
the in-crowd even if I'm part of the crowd. This is exactly the  
problem with the "trans-avant garde" they are reactionary. The  
problem is that Modernism at this point is reactionary. It's antique  
and charming. It can be used in a nostalgic manner to evoke another  
period. This allows people to negate the qualities of the present  
times. This is not however an anti-art negation. The emotion of  
nostalgia is similar to that of the Utopian impulse but it's a  
degraded impulse.  When Eric talks about a "...regression to closed  
cultural systems,..." I think of the contemporary art scene. Speaking  
of Walter Benjamin, his most important work was probably The Arcades  
Project.  I tend to think of contemporary art fairs such as The Basel  
Art Fair or The Documenta or the Venice Biennial as the  
quintessential arcade vis a vis Benjamin.

http://spaghetti.nujus.net/rantapod
http://nujus.net/gh/
http://post.thing.net/gh/


On Mar 27, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Eric Kluitenberg wrote:

> Another option would be a regression to closed cultural systems, a  
> reactionary move away from the modernist affinity with infinity, a  
> rejection of the desire to see all, know all, and to realise all,  
> and instead opt for deliberate restriction to a historically grown  
> and fortified cultural framework, in which difference is not so  
> much denied as it is evaded or ignored. That would indeed be a  
> completely regressive and reactionary move that might work for  
> somebody like Roger Scruton, but certainly not for me.