tintin would put it down in disgust
so much anger in that last post. what to do? fuck pigs dick shit? go beat someone up? eyes closed, how tight and uncomfortable the stomach feels. as if braced against the wind, or crying. some tremor or tremble to guard against. to rage. tie me to the fucking post.
what a way to squander good will. i came close to deleting the whole post, but, old school ethics, and stubborn investment, out it came. comes. taurus sun, taurus moon. now the remorse and sourness (bittersweet actually) before bed. to carry poisons, to daub them on the arrows, to knowingly load the darts and ppth! fire.
a practice i learned in tintin, c.1986. goodnight, herge, you possible collaborator and brilliant illustrator. for me, you made color live, and narrative was always there to outwit plot. i bounced around as i bounce now. to bed.
what a way to squander good will. i came close to deleting the whole post, but, old school ethics, and stubborn investment, out it came. comes. taurus sun, taurus moon. now the remorse and sourness (bittersweet actually) before bed. to carry poisons, to daub them on the arrows, to knowingly load the darts and ppth! fire.
a practice i learned in tintin, c.1986. goodnight, herge, you possible collaborator and brilliant illustrator. for me, you made color live, and narrative was always there to outwit plot. i bounced around as i bounce now. to bed.
posted by Kyle at 11:09 PM
19 Comments:
For me, it was a vibrant acceleration of fiery words (my reading tumbled down screen as my engagement rose against the ribs), which I loved for the scathe and release, whirling magnifico and vulnerable guts...can't say enough in response. But good show! (--not so much rated entertainment as brave exposure.) I like it raw and intelligent, messy and unwinding. Yow!
Thanks for "tupac versus biggie or 50cent versus mos def or mos def versus tupac versus me?"
Thanks for tintin would put it down in disgust."
Everything in the pot overturned and filled. I like it all. I like to dislike any of it and so in a way like it even more. All the zigzagging restraints of the literary war taken down then used as jungle gym. There is liberation in web’s sticky capture full of windows.
I'm sorry it hurt to let the poison out. But good will has come from it. I feel excited and thoughtful. It is all fodder for widing awake. At least that is how I feel. There can be so much room to just be in the mix and flux. Angry or not. Holy neurons bless you.
I thought it was intersting watching the inner battle between , well this isn't talking about me, to, wait this is talking about me. Not so much particularly, but in a general sense at least.
I think this falls in line with somethings you are often tlaking about: accessibility and "understanding." With regards to that, my interest lies in Bruce Andrews' call for a "wild reading," where the reader is asked to participate on his/her terms. It takes the focus off of they should do this or they're so this way etc... and puts it back on the reader (ourselves) and asks us to engage in new and complexing ways. Not so much what is this performance trying to do, but what am I trying to do to this performance.
Trying to affront the oppressor is a losing battle cause we are implicit in the oppression. It's DOWN-pressor man remember. The direction and receiver is us. So we push UP. I think there has to be a little more dance, or in homage to Situationism: take them literally (i.e. seriously). If Coke tells you it's the best. Make them prove it. Call them out.
It sounds Kyle (or at least I read it as) you take issue with people's bunker stance. This is a war mentality. I can see how that is dangerous and often self-defeating, however, I think it is more a cause to notice that in a away we are at war. Maybe people are expressing their war-tendencies because subconciously they are recognizing their/our own funding of wars through taxes etc...
But I suggest again. Live the world to whatever you can they way you'd like to see. Massage the edges. because they really aren;t there. And don't expect it to be clear cut. Even bunkering is blurry.
It's like a constantly unfolding something. (insert lotus or origami or whatever your slant takes you). Constantly unfolding and we are given a perspective, one that immediately changes. And this is occurring to everyone at all times.
Is this floating somewhere. Have I been inhaling too much Nag Champa?
i think what youre referring to is the "thing-ing of things."
I sympathize.
its talking about me most particularly, in the sense i woke this morning knowing that i had arrows in me skin. these are the two comments which could have deflected my mornign intention to edit last nights post, ie blur them DOWN a bit. safety in scissors and soft focus. was i really thinking that?
in a way, its a great post to write. or have written. and yes, there is war, there is war in every corner of the day, even on the most elliptic and winsome and beer-happy writing blogs (and this scene is in no way privleged int hat respect).
at work, for example, when peopel commiserate with me, i am noticing it is usaullyu because they are allying with me against some third party - another architect they're not down with, so obviously it sucks that x asked me to do this y (pointless task). and then others don't return my asides because they are dangerous, ie weaponry, and there position is a tenuous neutrality or even leaning the other way.
which makes me realize for all the hot air of litry warfare, at least it keeps thigns out in the open, not clean, often nasty, but visible. and there IS a vulnerability there welcome after the hothouse intrigue of the corporate world. (oh but i know, get tenured (or aim for it), right?)
wild reading strikes me as intriguing, necessary, and strangely at war too (with the tame, no?). or maybe i have simply not read that essay. i like the refuting of the direct up/down contest of being stepped on and fighting that stepping. instead: a sideways. and to stress the active and implicit role of the reader in aiding the making. at the moment that sense of what am I MAKING out of this text - be it my lover rising out of bed, or a blog post, seems a nec. reminder of where agency lies. "here i am sweetie pie"
when i was 7 or 8, i had a sit down discussion with my mom where we negotiated a discrete fade-out and rollback of certain names the young man was coming into finding offensive: pumpkin pie was the first targeted for obsolescence.
an airy end: floating and blessed and needing breakfast.
Poop stains from the stomach mouth. When I read so much searching and questioning it throws me at the keyboard. I feel like, gee, my wonderful friends sound so lost sometimes, searching for answers--am i doing this? how? why? for who? etc.--and I think, if only they knew it was all bullshit anyway and just kept writing, more and more writing. I guess I'd be in the bunker. But nothing is so absolutist as it sounds. No stance is so rigid and final. But I do think staking out my personal asthetic is vital to my perspective and work as an artist. I need to know who and what I dig to move from there and expand, but that doesn't mean I don't follow all the other shit as much as I can--to go with the metaphor, you've always got to keep your eye on the enemy--and let's face it, there are those who write for sales and hopeful profit, and there are those who work for more of an "art" sake, meaning, to me, they try to stay truer to their own asthetic vision, and the individual piece they are working on at whatever time. What am I saying here? Ah, but what I think is that we are all both right and wrong, so what's it matter in the end? For example, I'm drawing some lines in the sand, but as Pirooz I think would agree, that's me, that's what I feel, and that's what I do, so I do it, and that's good for me, etc. See? It's all the same. Negative capability, baby. Everything is true, and its opposite. Blah blah. It's all hot air. So, I'm a writer, so, in the mean time, between the hot puffs, I write, and I try to write my ass off. Dammit if I don't! Yeah, I think there's shit out there and I think it's important to recognize that fact. Isn't finding everything wonderful the same as finding everything banal? I feel like saying everything is great is being terribly dishonest with myself. The fact of the matter is, some things set me on fire, make me want to weep, tear my clothes off and run mad with joy, and other things leave me totally indifferent. I never get mad at a piece. I either dig it or I don't, period. Nothing wrong with that. I'm an individual with individual taste, so, I'm beginning to draw the lines and connect the dots to figure out what that is and moving from there. But I don't let these questions get in the way, they are the "in the way" as Kyle mentioned, and certainly old. Sure, they are there, in my head somewhere, but I squash them, just like I squash any doubts the moment the spring up. Because there is a war. This one being, I think, an internal one. Because, what is losing? letting the voices get to you and squash the writing, the work. I'll be damned if I don't win this one in the end and write my life away. Otherwise, I'm a loss (to me.) In my heart, writing is what I need to do (with or without "success" to live a full, worthwhile life and that's the short of it.) Anything less, I squandered my time.
Dylan, my thoughts were both what you are speaking of and more political - ie how what you are saying changes the minute others view it. Maybe i didnt say it with enough accuracy.
Specifically, how things change when writers slam each other, when we spout off. When we get called on spouting off. In this, there is meat. If we dont mind the politics - their possibilities, practices, and teachings, i'd say that is reckless and even stupid - and its the stupidity of some of the name-calling, our generalizing about "others" - theory, the academy, hollywood, etc, which keeps us in intellectual and spiritual diapers. and i want a change.
its about the insight that behind almost every "i hate" is an "i dont understand/can't relate to/refuse to accomodate". a hidden scarring the hatred veils - defends, a barking rottweiler.
but yes the traditional response to (yin) vulnerability is (yang) definition. in this case though i am not asking for an umbrella but asking for the umbrella holders to note how they are also using them as weapons and kindly dislodge it from my and other peoples flesh.
that we are all people. and to walk softly on the bodies of others. leave no trace.
have you ever seen an acupuncturist? i'd say yours is the fire element.
and i hope i am not letting the critical voices drain away the work, it has happened before, i know it well. i like my criticism soft, ie, sprung out of love, love's wisdom and penetrating insight, not the rancor of ego-aggrandizing war/opposition/tumolt.
While I agree with Dylan in that a person should use their abilities to discern to in fact discern, I think in a very real way there is a flaw with the good & bad. It's not that everything is wonderful, or that all pieces are essentially "good" it's just that that approach takes the responsibility off of the observer, who is no doubt waiting to be entertained, which I feel is a very passive and "safe" place to be in. What strikes me as a better approach (discernment in use here) is to rather experience a piece on whatever terms you can percieve of its own. IE What i shtis piece doing to me? But in a way that says: I am going to take this literally. "I thought these actors were characatures of human beings. it was so nice to see a movie with such characatures of people being potrayed on screen. It was like watching a cartoon made of human beings" in reference to say... Titanic. Practicing this approach may lead to more conversation rather than assaulting. Though retainging a certain level of criticism and discernment. Maybe getting us out of the war jargon and into the community jargon.
And as far as "staying true to an ascetic vision" I just can;t accept that as something that actually occurs ever. This assumes that artists are not motivated by circumstances present of future. People are always motivated, and if not for money than for accomplishment. Desiring accomplishment is not a metaphor but a very tangible motivation. Both motivations are for me very similar. So whether a person is doing it for money, I just say Great how much did you make and did you price it out of your own communities price range. Like Maureen Foley at Trident selling paintings for $500 or something. I remember telling her, well youve priced these out of your immediate's price range, so these are just not for us. When she assurred me that "friends" get friend prices I backed off.
yes? maybe?
Sure, Kyle, I hear you. And once again, it is not so hard as I am making it sound. What happens when the work leaves our hands is out of our hands. Different interpretations are unavoidable and, I find, very rewarding. I tend to use "shortspeak" a lot to cut to the chase (hoping I'm followed) but it can leave holes I'm hoping folks jump with me.
As far as spouting off, it's a mere opinion. Period. That's all. And I never say my opinion is the end all be all. I dig other people's opinions too and respect them, find them interesting and always try to see a bit of what they see, even if in the end, I'm still spouting how Pamela Lu (let's get nasty and use a name) doesn't rattle me in any direction. So what. Maybe her next piece will. I'll certainly read it. The world doesn't stop and I'd say if Pamela stopped because of my spouting she has some insecurity issues and I would consider her very foolish--John Lennon hated his singing voice (as others out there may have) but just think if he had stopped singing altogether because of some hecklers. We'd be out a lot of great music. Obla... And I have been called on it, publicly and off guard by Laird, and I thought what he did was despicable. I almost called him a fascist in one of the letters I wrote him because he publicly affronted me and didn't even let me respond. But, so what, I still dig Laird. I still respect him, his work, his mind. No hard feelings. I'll fuck up many times myself. (But, let me say, and this is partly the point, I'm sure Laird still feels very different from me. He may still think I'm "bilious." O well. Hope we meet again someday. Anyway, I'm not about to go around blowing sweet gentle smoke up everyone's ass. I'm going to speak my damn mind and tell it like I see it. Just because I didn't dig Pamela doesn't mean others don't and I'm very much aware of that. I'm not saying Pamela blows, I'm saying simply, she is not for me. However, that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye either--I've got a link to her on my blog. And, I've never met her, she may be a wonderful person, and, I've only read one book, maybe others will change my life. You see what I mean? I see it as too many too sensitive people trying desperately not to step on each others toes and that leads to self-censorship and paranoia. I don't mean any harm, but if, in the process of living my life, I offend the occasional person, I am sorry, but I let it stand (unless correction is called for) and move on down the road. This is getting windy and I feel I'm leaving something important out. But...
Bob, I like what the both of you are saying, and I understand, I just feel slightly different. Which is cool because you are you and I am I. Here's the question, if where I'm at at the end of a piece (where it's left me) is in a feeling of indifference why can't that then be followed up with simply saying it out loud. Acknowledging that. What I'm saying is that is only one reaction out of a myriad. For some reason people get hung up on the negative, when it has just as much validity as any of the others. And I do think there is writing without financial motivation and more for artistic vision, simple joy of beautiful sounds together. What about Dickinson? What about the ancient poets who wrote on trees and rock walls? Were those for money? For fame? For history? They were meant to be lost, like Kerouac burning his writings after he was done with them. Sure, it's out there. It's what makes me tick. When I sit down to write, I'm empty. I'm not thinking about money, posterity, history, hell, I'm not even thinking about aesthetic, I'm just opening to the words that surface and I write them down. It's only later that I realize what I've got. What, of my own work, because I am not immune from my own spoutings, is shit, and what makes me feel part of the world and its energy--what makes me hum and vibrate.
Addendum:
If we are critical of our own work, why can't we be of others'? Also, if we simply say, where does this leave me, how does that translate into editing our own work. If nothing sucks, only leaves us in different places, then it seems everything we write is of use and somewhat of importance. I think that's bologna. I write a ton of shit. Picasso painted thousands of shitty paintings. He'dve said that too. He did, in fact. So, in light of those questions, what do you choose to put out into the world and why? (especially when you know your choice is futile because it will definitely be interpreted differently--words are only symbols of exclusion and all that jazz.)
Hey Dylan, I can check this, but I wouldn't see Laird's comment as out-of-the-blue, ie., i kind of expect that the type of criticism you are writing (and perhaps speaking) would strike people as angry. it has that tone, for me - a lot of frustration coming out. mine no doubt has its own tone or tones too.
I think people are both tough and fragile. If you are spewing bullets, by all mean spew them, but know they are bullets. And its one thig to say "i read it and it doesnt stick..." i know we've talked about this before but its easy to go further and say "it sucked - its a total piece of worthless shit, i hate that Dylan Hock crap, its just billious garbage". when we - and it is a we - its all over the blog world, all i KEEP aying about this is that if that is PUBLIC speech, like this is, however limited, there is the chance you sour a relation with others, you create, literally scar tissue, such talk is cancerous, yes it blows off steam, sometimes its a tiny cancer (i'd say the nice talk, the soft-smoke up the ass talk, creates a sort of numbness and disacossiative tissue- with diff. effects, generally negative) but either consider when and how we do this dismissing or not - and take the lumps. I can totally understand how Laird scarred you with htis, and your sensitivity to it, but when you're hot, you're hot, and people are likely to get burned. that aint fascist, thats just plain physics.
to be nice: and of course i know there is far more to you than this. as there's more to me than this blog.
It seems we have, as I mentioned, one of these mistranslations between what is written, and the reader. This is why I prefer to sit in the same room and talk with people. There is no anger here. These aren't bullets. I'm just stating my opinion. I still don't get why its taboo to mention the negative. Why pretend? Are you telling me you don't believe there is poor work? Are you saying, maybe there is but it is beside the point? I'd argue it is exactly the point. But, this is all gentle tone (must I give stage directions?)
(Softly)
Don't you see the paranoia you put yourself through worrying about stepping on someone's toes. Let it be written here in public now that I Dylan Hock am for all artists everywhere, whatever their groove, whether our grooves jive or not. But, can we not talk about negative feelings as well as the rest? Why leave such a possible huge omission in the dialogue? Sure, someone's feelings could get hurt, but there is a positive to be had there as well; either the person who's feelings were hurt sees something in the comment and grows from it, or maybe the spewer learns that he/she feels differntly and has grown as well. All I'm saying is, it is not evil to talk about, to mention. It's part of our experiences. I never meant to hurt Laird's integrity, or Pamela's, but I was very vocal about books I liked and equally so about ones that left me dead. But I didn't just say, "This sucks." I gave reason, backed up my perspective. The trouble I found was that because I largely speak in a relaxed manner and especially if I compared something--I believe I compared Pamela Lu's novel to an episode of Scoob Doo, just what Pirooz and a few are talking about, a total merging with Hollywood, Pop, and the art world--and I found my comments glanced over or unacknowledged because I dared compare "literature" to a cartoon, but, if folks didn't get caught up in that, they would have seen what I was saying. They were blinded by the thought that there could actually be a connection between the two because they looked down their nose at a cartoon. Phooey! Ah, patoot. I'm just kindly saying, folks, lets do a favor to each other and be honest, open, and understanding. It goes without saying that everyone will write bad work, and it also goes without saying, I had hoped, that I am always championing others on to continue their work, and to do the best they can. I believe in everyone's potential, which is, I believe, only a mindset. Well, I wasn't quite there yet with this one, but I've got to go see about a storage unit. Good talk.
Anyway, back from storage, thinking of this a good deal of the time. Could it amount to the distinction between talking about "writers" and their work, as in talking about baseball cards. I'm not saying I dislike so and so for so and so reason. I'm saying I didn't fall in love with so and so's certain piece. Isn't it understood that artists don't want/need everyone to love them and their work? I think it's naive to assume that artists want everyone to love them. On the contrary, I take it with the territory. It goes without saying people will dislike you, but what you hope for is a few who will listen. Pamela knows she has people listening, and she deserves it. If you put something, a creation, a car, whatever, into the public domain, the public will speak, and the public, I being part of, has no reason to hold its tongue as this car, or creation is being thrust upon their world or domain. You see? I do follow you. There is a distinction. I talk about artists and their work, using their names as a tag of reference to a certain body of work, or specific work, and so I say Billy is not my favorite, whereas, Sally drives me wild. All nice words for, I don't like Billy's work, or Billy's poem. So why not cut to the chase and just say, I don't dig it. And if the creator (Billy) even so much as cares, let him ask why if he chooses, and then it is up to me to help him understand what I don't dig. It's all part of a dialogue that would go on between me and that person, the creator to whom I'm directing my comments. It doesn't have to be that I just don't get it, etc. There are simply different aesthetics for different people. Like fingerprints. Anyway, of course I'm prepared to hear people tell me they dislike this or that piece of my own as well. All part of being a writer. I wouldn't put an artist down to put them down. I'm talking about the work, not them. I say, hey Joe, I don't dig this piece, but I love that one, keep it up. In Pamela's case, we were not face to face, because this was a classroom setting and she was not a guest teacher, just a book we were given to read, and my feeling is, if you're not prepared for the spectrum of opinion, maybe the public domain is not for you. Maybe that book should not have been assigned. What I do not think, under any circumstances is that I need to hold my tongue. To do so would compromise my honesty with Pamela, Laird, and the rest of the class then, or whomever I address in the future. I can only be me, baby. And this is part of it. Burn me on the stake if you like. Anyway, why paint me to be so negative? Does asking the question, Why can't we share our negative feelings as well, make me a negative person, or just curious? That being said, I think we simply have some misunderstanding here that would iron itself out quickly if we were in a room talking together. And I'd love if Pamela and Laird would join us. I wish them and all of us the best in our endeavours and I'm here to help in any way I can, even if it is pointing out what I dislike as well as like. Cheers.
Dylan
Dylan, perhaps here we are in one of the difficult areas of writing, and of the internet, and of blogging in particular. This conversation would no doubt be very different in person.
Writing is a troublesome act.
I don't have any desire to censor you. I think if you go back to my comments, you will see I am talking about responsibility, about ethics, about the (sometimes unacknowledged)power of our speech and writing acts, about how they effect our relations as a community, between eachother - in a phrase, this is what the Buddhists call Right Speech.
I am not sure why you keep reading my concerns here as censorious. They ae more advisory in nature. (I was pretty emotional during the first post- I was feeling it.And able to word only a fraction.). If you are doing something potentially dangerous or hurtful, and I mention that, its not censoring - its not saying stop. Its calling it what it is, acknowledging the (witnessed) risk here. Expressing anger is risky, and, yes, it is often worth it. But it needs a safe container. I dont want to start a bunch of street (or email) fights with strangers. There are some crazy fuckers out there who do.
I still see a lot of sloppy thought out on the blogs, lazy equations, suspect groupings, and an oppositional stance of writers against these shadowy Others. Not unlike "our" troops sniping at these shadowy Others in Iraq. Nw those fuckers ARE paranoid. And sometimes there is a life-preserving reason in that paranoia.
Much less so here. But my own anti-commercial and left and buddhist biases often catch me in the same dumb thinking. So I note it: dumb. Oppositional. OFten: warmongering. Righteous. These are troubling for me. I can accept I do this, yet my aim is not to.
When we move into - and it is necesary to do this - discussing what doesnt work, what we are critical of, I like to do so with an open mind and heart, with the possibility that the block that makes Lu (say) a turn-off is not in the text per se (which is awlays mute until the reader activates it), but perhaps some block that predates the text and hijacks my reading of it - I aim in reading to note that, and then note the text is really not engaged here, but my block is. In therapy, we would call thsi "woning" the judgement -ts not Lu, its me. Maybe its both, but it starts at home.
(as to whether there is "bad" work, I experience badness, but thats a lumpen term, and yes a lot of it doesnt do it for me and I can and do rage against it. OK, fine. But what exactly is the source of this rage? That judgement? 9 out of 10, me. My ego. My likes and dislikes. again, the text and poet is a bystander mowed down by my pejudice irregardles of their actual designs. One i tag them, they are out. I totally do this, but its not something I am proud of, or care to stand by. It feels like a profound limit to me, on me.
I enjoy Bob's comments here: a reader can always read constructively. This is not to avoid the negative and critial but to seek a new context for it. we could sit outside a bar and watch people pass and critique them (arrogant, fat, stupid, lost, rich bastard, sexy babe), or we can give our honest feedback of them after we have met them, after we have seen them - she has a game leg, he seems afraid of something, i find the way she moves arousing, what a strange mustache - he seems proud of it! that shirt hurts my eyes.
The second, based on having some non-judgmental contact and intimacy with the object, a moment of "pure sight" is to me a more lively criticism - or insight. From "pure sight" we return to the text, to the read, and enter language. The other route is reducing the world to a series of mirrors, and all i see outside is what i see in me, and i praise or disdain it accordingly.
This all moves into a post on the critical that i have been wanting to write. But no - this up close personal stuff, I am not sure how we got into this - I didnt write the oiginal post about your work, or with you in mind. But I dont think I am paranoid here, I feel lucid - I can be paranoid, I recognize that fear. That paranoia has hindered me, reduced my ability to speak freely. And it also informs my desire to speak with care, which i value. Do you recognize the intensity of frustration, a certain volcanism which makes what to you are trivil utterances seem (to this reader) like a high voltage rant (and full of great, cascading, sometimes scathing, power)- like some pent up force is being released? Its very powerful, and if directed at you, a little disconcerting, like, this is really all cuz of somethign i wrote? I find that hard to believe.
from the abode of pontific wisdom,
its back to the cube.
I come to a place of rest in your last comment, which I hadnt read when mine was posted.
I am sure we still have our misunderstandings, and our differences, but I think they are growing more clear. as we continually iterate mapping them (overlays).
It is a good discussion. Thanks for staying in it.
I think it has a lot to do with subject/object lines, and how when we make a person into an object we then discuss, and then the person walks in, awkwardness ensues. Not so different for discussing a public figure. subtly differnet for a text, and yes, we should encourage a distance between reaidng of text and reading of author. But the two connect, and the ancient confusion will continue unabated, thus these often confused and awkward and strident (and also hopeful and diligent) notes.
still, for the linguistic and phenomenological reasons listed above, i dont dig "i dont dig it" as a comment on work, unless it is as a starting place. but its a starting place which looks like an ending, and the stakes are high.
it is perfectly appropriate as a way of not having a conversation though. if i want to kill some conversation, i dont get it is effective bug spray.
but no, i dont mind if you are not considerate all the time. or if i dont understand your consideration.
like you, i just want to say my piece, get into it, and trust what comes, and learn from it.
I come to a place of rest in your last comment, which I hadnt read when mine was posted.
I am sure we still have our misunderstandings, and our differences, but I think they are growing more clear. as we continually iterate mapping them (overlays).
It is a good discussion. Thanks for staying in it.
I think it has a lot to do with subject/object lines, and how when we make a person into an object we then discuss, and then the person walks in, awkwardness ensues. Not so different for discussing a public figure. subtly differnet for a text, and yes, we should encourage a distance between reaidng of text and reading of author. But the two connect, and the ancient confusion will continue unabated, thus these often confused and awkward and strident (and also hopeful and diligent) notes.
still, for the linguistic and phenomenological reasons listed above, i dont dig "i dont dig it" as a comment on work, unless it is as a starting place. but its a starting place which looks like an ending, and the stakes are high.
it is perfectly appropriate as a way of not having a conversation though. if i want to kill some conversation, i dont get it is effective bug spray.
but no, i dont mind if you are not considerate all the time. or if i dont understand your consideration.
like you, i just want to say my piece, get into it, and trust what comes, and learn from it.
Hi Kyle,
I like a lot of what you've said after my last post. I think you're right, it does start at home, and that goes just as much for what we value and appreciate. Let me say here that I never took any of this as directed at me. Just liked what you wrote, sparked some thoughts and wanted to share my angle. Part of the problem in a blog, esp. with comments is not knowing whether I should direct my comments to you, because yr post, yr blog, or to an open non-person, leaving the discussion open for the rest of blogger world. I acknowledge I skate back and forth and can make it confusing. And I think you're right, I'm always amazed at the power of my words when they come back to me, because I am just offering another angle with a smile from my little home and they come back sounding bitter from you sometimes, but that is not the intent. Just shooting ideas around with the rest of you, not starting personal wars. Like I said, all the best to all.
Also, agree it is sticky when public persona becomes personal friend etc. Hard coming from a sterile undergrad where writers dealt with were for the most part dead and dealt with brutally because no saving fave needed with a dead person, and then moving to Naropa and not just dealing with the work but the writers themselves. I loved it. But definitely some stumbles involved. I remember saying something stupid when I found out Kathy Acker was dead and realized Robert Gluck, the source of the news, was actually a friend of hers and it dawned on me that, for once, I'm not talking about some distant icon, but a real person, with friends and family. It's sticky. How to relate to work when the artist has feelings. How to be honest without harm. Anyway, I never just say, I don't get it and drop it. Never. And if I do say I don't dig it, it is very much so only a starting place. I love to hear why people like and dislike things. Gives me more understanding for where they're coming from. I love talking about the work, the pros and cons. I no doubt found things of value in Lu, and will cotinue to seek her out and test the waters. Didn't mean to get caugh up in the censorship bit, but I think part of the problem is I'm assuming through our association you know a few things about me and how I feel and maybe I've been taking that for granted and need to slow down, not cut to the chase, and map out my thoughts a little better for you. Also, many assumptions I make about you, because I value your mind and know that we do see I to eye on many things. So, problems ensue, but we are still friends, still struggling artists together in the whole milk and I am honored to be in the same bowl as so many wonderful people. O, but I just thought too, what about functional art in all this, the latest Coke can, school desks, those are types of art as well and yet they are bashed all over the place without second thought. But someone designed that chair, etc. So I say, I feel you. I understand and I think we are standing on more of the same ground than we think, but if I'm giving that much, and I do, I think it needs to be everything. Ah, reading that last line, I have to admit I have a built in problem with that notion. Where does a poorly designed chair leave me? Sitting on the floor. Hope I haven't ruffled your feathers Kyle. Not directing any of my comments solely on your pillow. Wish this were in person.
D
At work I had written this all-out bad-ass response and now it's not on here. Seriously. non-attachment.
Well,
you got me gunslinger. Right in the heart. I have to admit, inspite of my points, and I stick by some of them, I've got to say, in thinking and turning all this over in my head, both sides make sense to me, but for the majority, I'd have to say I am with you and Bob. After much typing and discussion, I went over to Pamela's blog and she has a nice piece she's typed up and I thought, wouldn't it be weird, by some twist of fate, if I suddenly saw on clicking her link "I don't dig Dylan Hock's work." How strange that would be. It wouldn't bother me from any standpoint from the ego, as I said, you roll with the good and the bad, but mainly from a "what's the point" place. I could see. Instead of wasting time saying something of little importance such as "I don't dig it" she wrote a good piece shedding some light on her recent encounter with another's work. Good for her. While I maintain that the negative shouldn't be swept under the carpet, I agree and believe it is probably the smallest bit of significance that could come out of a discussion started in such a way. My angle came out of a reaction to the way others handle negative comments. I don't see them as any different from other comments; it's all just part of an overall, much larger umbrella of thought(s) and exchanges. Starting to recognize the bullets. Want to say too, thanks for looking out Kyle and Bob. Good friends. Maybe I should extend apologies to Pamela and Laird? But it's all water uner the bridge as Ellen said on another blog.
I think part of this problem recognizig the power of the language I use comes from the fact that much of the time I write from a dissassociative position with language. It's very hard to let it sink in and consequently, I have a bad habit of writing in hyperbole. It drives me nuts. I think a lot of my writing is actually a communion of sorts, me trying to get in touch with something as abstract as language when there are trees and flowers out my window. I think I'm tapped on this one. Megwetch.
Dylan
Well, now, from doubting the trouble of written language,I am moving over to praise it. This has been an immensely fruitful and passionate and tough discussion for me to, and has shed so much light on how I write, how i project, my own wobble betwene personal and impersonal, and how my openess and vulerability can become needy to, a needyness to convert someone when really al writing is at first to me, even what i address also to others. Hi there.
Virtues of writing - thats a subject for somewhere else. Who cares to name a few? (More absorbant of heat than most ocnversations? better shocks?).
Bob - it happens all the time. The smart type it all in word and paste it over, but I usually think "I trust blogger - no need to be smart" and then "blogger is eating a sandwich - go fuck yourself" my post is lost.
and backup those harddrives too, no?
i think i win the typo award for that one.
Post a Comment
<< Home