mmj: modernity equals rupture. we have always been modern.
bl: we have never been modern.
pe: we have never been modern, but now i’ll be modern. or rather, post-functionalist (c.1976).
rk: actually, you are being poststructuralist. or if you like, postmodern.
cg: but modernity is medium specificity!
ta: yes. and the only way to resist reification is to resist those culinary delights. only where the appearance of enjoyment is lacking is the faith in its possibility maintained.
mt: everybody is either reified or at a previous stage of nerve intensification. hence the dialectic of the avant-garde is between the sphere and the labyrinth, and both are stuck in the irrelevancy of the boudoir.
fn: manfredo. i believe you are ripping off my apollonian/dionysian impulses from the birth of tragedy.
mt: what if i am? we should forget about the avant-garde and think about the means of production anyway. and since we can’t, i’m going to go read some renaissance. buh-bye.
kmh: actually, we should think about the avant-garde as the critical, as a way of resistance [not form + not culture]
sw: but there is no reason for the critical to be negative. we should be projective. and the projective can be critical too.
mmj: discontinuous rupture happens throughout history. we have always been modern.
gwh: kids, could you keep it down? trying to sleep here.
Filed under: ., adorno, eisenman, greenberg, hays, imaginary conversations, jarzombek, krauss, latour, nietzsche, tafuri, whiting, .
