Subject: Re: the H&H manifesto
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 20:44:19 PDT


 
back in the the old Greek days , Archilochus (widely regarded as the 
first subjective artist) was condemned as being too unobjective, being 
too "wild" because he did not adhere to the pure contemplation of myths 
. well there is a statement of nietszche's which i agree with .. its 
about the destruction of myths .."..for this is the way in which 
religions are wont to die out :under the starn, intelligent eyes of an 
orthodox dogmatism, the mythical premises of a religion are systematized 
as a sum total of historical events, one begins apprehensively to 
defeind the credibility of the myths, whilea at the same time one 
opposes any continuation of their natural vitality and growth.. the 
feeling for myth perishes and its place is taken by the claim of 
religion to historical foundations" 

dadaism being obviously against the rigid idealism of modern german 
"heroic" art .. mainly the Hegelian standard of true art, the Wagnerian 
sense of heroic redemption. that was the dogmatism they strived to 
attack, the aspects of art of overapplying its content of seriousness. 
but NOT the inner structure of art .art exists and has always been in a 
conflict of so-called subjective objective states as stated by modern 
aesthetics.. and i think it is better if we don't further dogmatise it 
with the distinction of art/life, political/artistic, i suggest what 
dadaism was trying to do with the h and h manifesto was to make art an 
experience and a lack at the same time . no complete mambo-jambo 
masterpiece-over-the-centuries, no artistic-yes-no . only a purely 
schizoprehnic lack . 


life is simulated, and art is the lack of that simulation .



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---