Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Thursday, December 24, 2015
How a Rebellious Scientist Uncovered the Surprising Truth About Stereotypes
At the back of a small room at Coogee Beach, Sydney, I sat watching as a psychologist I had never heard of paced the room gesticulating. His voice was loud. Over six feet tall, his presence was imposing. It was Lee Jussim. He had come to the Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology to talk about left-wing bias in social psychology.
Read more...
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Ladies & Gentlemen of A.D. 2088
Back in 1988, as part of an ad campaign to be printed in Time magazine, Volkswagen approached a number of notable thinkers and asked them to write a letter to the future—some words of advice to those living in 2088, to be precise. Many agreed, including novelist Kurt Vonnegut; his letter can be read below.
Read more...
Labels:
article,
history,
Kurt Vonnegut,
media,
social
Friday, July 24, 2015
In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected by Jonathan Rauch
In the past year, groups and factions that agree on nothing else have agreed that the public expression of any and all prejudices must be forbidden. This is dangerous.
Read more...
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Sunday, June 28, 2015
COIL - interviews, 1987/1991/1985
Labels:
Coil,
Jhonn Balance,
magick,
media,
online,
philosophy,
video
Monday, June 8, 2015
David Icke: Methods Of A Madman
Originally appeared here
Some people would call David Icke controversial. I would call him a brilliant psychotic.
His ability to speak for hours on an incomprehensible doctrine is stunning. But listen carefully and the methods of his madness become apparent.
He has a brilliant talent for the subtle interweaving of plausible with crazy, and packaging the in-between gray areas as thought-terminating clichés like “secret societies”, “brotherhood”, “free masons” and other slogans and catchphrases popular with modern conspiracy thinking.
The magic is in his ability to dispense seemingly innocuous tidbits of (allegedly true) earth history one moment, then slipping in talk of aliens crossbreeding with humans the next moment. Talk sane, touch on some crazy, go back to the safety of sane. Rinse and repeat until the listener can swallow the crazy with the sane.
This ability to subtly slide in and out of the realm of plausible is the same potent cocktail used by science fiction writers to blur the lines between the possible and the impossible to keep viewers coming back for more.
This 25 minute video has been distilled from a 217 minute video. I’ve removed the plausible to expose the rest. Enjoy the madness.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
The IQ Taboo and the Truth-Intolerant Left
Originally found here
The Left is dangerous for a number of reasons with its disregard for truth being high on the list. For the Left it is the 'narrative' that counts, the 'script,' the 'story,' whether true of false, that supports their agenda. An agenda is a list of things to do, and for an activist, Lenin's question, What is to be done? trumps the question, What is the case? Paraphrasing Karl Marx's 11th Thesis on Feuerbach, the point for a leftist is to change the world, not understand it. See here: "Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert, es kömmt drauf an, sie zu verändern." "The philosophers have only variously interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it." (my trans.)
The leftist's aim is the realization of 'progressive' ideals, and if the truth stands in the way, then so much the worse for it. Inconvenient truths are not confronted and subjected to examination; their messengers are attacked and denounced.
For concrete instances I refer you to Jason Richwine, Can We talk About IQ? Excerpt:
So when Larry Summers, then the president of Harvard University, speculated in 2005 that women might be naturally less gifted in math and science, the intense backlash contributed to his ouster.
Two years later, when famed scientist James Watson noted the low average IQ scores of sub-Saharan Africans, he was forced to resign from his lab, taking his Nobel Prize with him.
When a Harvard law student was discovered in 2010 to have suggested in a private email that the black-white IQ gap might have a genetic component, the dean publicly condemned her amid a campus-wide outcry. Only profuse apologies seem to have saved her career.
When
a leftist looks at the world, he does not see it as it is, but as he
wants it to be. He sees it through the distorting lenses of his
ideals. A central ideal for leftists is equality. And not in any such
merely formal sense as equality under the law or equality of
opportunity. The leftist aims at material equality: equality of outcome both socially and economically, equality in point of power and pelf.
But the leftist goes beyond even this. He thinks that no inequalities
are natural, and therefore that any inequalities that manifest
themselves must be due to some form of oppression or 'racism.' But
because this is demonstrably false, the leftist must demonize the
messengers of such politically incorrect messages or even suggestions as
that the black-white IQ gap might have a genetic component.
This truth-indifferent and reality-denying attitude of the leftist leaves the conservative dumbfounded. For he stands on the terra firma
of a reality logically and ontologically and epistemologically
antecedent to anyone's wishes and hopes and dreams. For the
conservative, it is self-evident that first we have to get the world
right, understand it, before any truly ameliorative praxis can
commence. It is not that the conservative lacks ideals; it is rather
that he believes, rightly, that they must be grounded in what is
possible, where the really possible, in turn, is grounded in what is
actual. And so the conservative might reply to the activist, parodying Marx, as follows:
You lefties have only variously screwed up the world; the point, however, is to understand it so that you don't screw it up any further.There is a paradox at the heart of the radically egalitarian position of the leftist. He wants equality, and will do anything to enforce it, including denying the truth (and in consequence reality) and violating the liberties of individuals. But to enforce equality he must possess and retain power vastly unequal to the power of those he would 'equalize.' He must go totalitarian. But then the quest for liberation ends in enslavement.
Monday, June 1, 2015
The West's "Ardent" Feminists Abandon Women to the Caliph
The hypocrisy of the left cannot possibly be more visible than when it comes to the treatment of women in much of the Islamic world.
Not a word has been uttered by feminists in the face of the horrible mistreatment of captured women by ISIS and other Islamist groups.
After attacking a village, the Islamic State splits women from men and executes boys and men aged 14 and over. The women and mothers are separated; girls are stripped, tested for virginity and examined for breast size and prettiness.
The youngest, and those considered the prettiest virgins fetch higher prices and are sent to Raqqa, the IS stronghold.
There is a hierarchy: sheikhs get first choice, then emirs, then fighters. They often take three or four girls each and keep them for a month or so, until they grow tired of a girl, when she goes back to market. At slave auctions, buyers haggle fiercely, driving down prices by disparaging girls as flat-chested or unattractive. We heard about one girl who was traded 22 times, and another, who had escaped, told us that the sheikh who had captured her wrote his name on the back of her hand to show that she was his "property.’”
This is an excerpt from the testimony of Zainab Bangura, the UN representative for sexual crimes in war, who denounced the atrocities of the Islamic state.
In the hands of Islamic State there are now 5,000 women, mostly belonging to the Yazidi syncretistic minority. If you change country and go to Nigeria, the situation is the same. Now it is the turn of “Chibok girls” who unleashed Twitter’s mobilization of the first lady, Michelle Obama. Most of these girls have been raped and are now pregnant.
Even the corrupt United Nations has spoken, while the Western feminists keep silent. This is the revolting double standard of Western feminists, who are always ready to denounce the “homophobic” Christians, sexism on the US campus or the Israeli Ahava beauty creams.
These feminists have been busy the past few months fighting for the Irish referendum which just approved gay marriage, while treating as heretics, criminals and sexual predators all who opposed it. Feminists are also very busy in Israel in demonizing the traditional Orthodox Jewish families. Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage the new McCarthyism imposed on all of society by the left states that no counter opinions are tolerable and certainly the fate of women at the hand of ISIS can just be ignored.
In the words of the feminist Rebecca Brink Vipond, “I won’t take the bait of a patronizing call for feminists to set aside their goals in America to address problems in Muslim theocracies”.
Many will remember how these feminists abandoned Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch-Somali dissident of Islam, to her own defenses. A lone voice in the wilderness has continued to be Professor Phyllis Chesler, who is courageous enough to speak out and decry the hypocrisy of her fellow liberal feminists.
For these so very liberal females, it is much more comfortable to focus on hymens in California. With their defeatist multicultural relativism, they have been unable to utter one word on behalf of the Yazidi young women, the unfortunate blonde girls in the hands of the genocidal Caliph.
Saturday, May 2, 2015
145 Intellectuals Agree: Dead Cartoonists Aren't Worthy of Free-Speech Award if Their Murderers Come From a Disadvantaged Minority
Sunday brought the story of six members of PEN America, citing impressively asinine and ill-informed arguments, protesting that a free-speech organization was giving a courage-in-free-speech award to Charlie Hebdo, the French cartoon newspaper that was massacred for its courageous free speech. Now comes the chaser: A full 145 members of PEN, including some of the original refuseniks (and some other names you might recognize, such as Joyce Carol Oates), have attached their name to a remarkable document that encapsulates as well as anything I have seen the sick cloud that hangs over the Enlightenment idea of free speech.
Read more...
Friday, May 1, 2015
Saturday, April 18, 2015
What the World Will Speak in 2115 by John H McWhorter
A century from now, expect fewer but simpler languages on every continent
In 1880 a Bavarian priest created a language that he hoped the whole world could use. He mixed words from French, German and English and gave his creation the name Volapük, which didn’t do it any favors. Worse, Volapük was hard to use, sprinkled with odd sounds and case endings like Latin.
It made a splash for a few years but was soon pushed aside by another invented language, Esperanto, which had a lyrical name and was much easier to master. A game learner could pick up its rules of usage in an afternoon.
But it didn’t matter. By the time Esperanto got out of the gate, another language was already emerging as an international medium: English. Two thousand years ago, English was the unwritten tongue of Iron Age tribes in Denmark. A thousand years after that, it was living in the shadow of French-speaking overlords on a dampish little island. No one then living could have dreamed that English would be spoken today, to some degree, by almost two billion people, on its way to being spoken by every third person on the planet.
Read more...
Friday, April 17, 2015
The Theory and Play of Duenda - Federico Garcia Loca
In his brilliant lecture entitled “The Theory and Play of Duende” Federico García Lorca attempts to shed some light on the haunting and inexplicable sadness that lives in the heart of certain works of art.
“All that has dark sound has duende”, he says, “that mysterious power that everyone feels but no philosopher can explain. […] All love songs must contain duende. For the love song is never truly happy. It must first embrace the potential for pain. Those songs that speak of love without having within in their lines an ache or a sigh are not love songs at all but rather Hate Songs disguised as love songs, and are not to be trusted. These songs deny us our humanness and our God-given right to be sad and the air-waves are littered with them. The love song must resonate with the susurration of sorrow, the tintinnabulation of grief. The writer who refuses to explore the darker regions of the heart will never be able to write convincingly about the wonder, the magic and the joy of love for just as goodness cannot be trusted unless it has breathed the same air as evil” – Nick Cave
See next post for full article.
Labels:
art,
article,
author,
history,
media,
philosophy,
poet,
radical theory
Theory and Play Of The Duende by García Lorca
Between 1918 when I entered the Residencia de Estudiantes in Madrid, and 1928 when I left, having completed my study of Philosophy and Letters, I listened to around a thousand lectures, in that elegant salon where the old Spanish aristocracy went to do penance for its frivolity on French beaches.
Longing for air and sunlight, I was so bored I used to feel as though I was covered in fine ash, on the point of changing into peppery sneezes.
So, no, I don’t want that terrible blowfly of boredom to enter this room, threading all your heads together on the slender necklace of sleep, and setting a tiny cluster of sharp needles in your, my listeners’, eyes.
In a simple way, in the register that, in my poetic voice, holds neither the gleams of wood, nor the angles of hemlock, nor those sheep that suddenly become knives of irony, I want to see if I can give you a simple lesson on the buried spirit of saddened Spain.
Whoever travels the bull’s hide that stretches between the Júcar, Guadalfeo, Sil and Pisuerga rivers (not to mention the tributaries that meet those waves, the colour of a lion’s mane, that stir the Plata) frequently hears people say: ‘This has much duende’. Manuel Torre, great artist of the Andalusian people, said to someone who sang for him: ‘You have a voice, you understand style, but you’ll never ever succeed because you have no duende.’
All through Andalusia, from the rock of Jaén to the snail’s-shell of Cadiz, people constantly talk about the duende and recognise it wherever it appears with a fine instinct. That wonderful singer El Lebrijano, creator of the Debla, said: ‘On days when I sing with duende no one can touch me.’: the old Gypsy dancer La Malena once heard Brailowsky play a fragment of Bach, and exclaimed: ‘Olé! That has duende!’ but was bored by Gluck, Brahms and Milhaud. And Manuel Torre, a man who had more culture in his veins than anyone I’ve known, on hearing Falla play his own Nocturno del Generalife spoke this splendid sentence: ‘All that has dark sounds has duende.’ And there’s no deeper truth than that.
Those dark sounds are the mystery, the roots that cling to the mire that we all know, that we all ignore, but from which comes the very substance of art. ‘Dark sounds’ said the man of the Spanish people, agreeing with Goethe, who in speaking of Paganini hit on a definition of the duende: ‘A mysterious force that everyone feels and no philosopher has explained.’
So, then, the duende is a force not a labour, a struggle not a thought. I heard an old maestro of the guitar say: ‘The duende is not in the throat: the duende surges up, inside, from the soles of the feet.’ Meaning, it’s not a question of skill, but of a style that’s truly alive: meaning, it’s in the veins: meaning, it’s of the most ancient culture of immediate creation.
This ‘mysterious force that everyone feels and no philosopher has explained’ is, in sum, the spirit of the earth, the same duende that scorched Nietzche’s heart as he searched for its outer form on the Rialto Bridge and in Bizet’s music, without finding it, and without seeing that the duende he pursued had leapt from the Greek mysteries to the dancers of Cadiz and the headless Dionysiac scream of Silverio’s siguiriya.
So, then, I don’t want anyone to confuse the duende with the theological demon of doubt at whom Luther, with Bacchic feeling, hurled a pot of ink in Eisenach, nor the Catholic devil, destructive and of low intelligence, who disguised himself as a bitch to enter convents, nor the talking monkey carried by Cervantes’ Malgesi in his comedy of jealousies in the Andalusian woods.
No. The duende I mean, secret and shuddering, is descended from that blithe daemon, all marble and salt, of Socrates, whom it scratched at indignantly on the day when he drank the hemlock, and that other melancholy demon of Descartes, diminutive as a green almond, that, tired of lines and circles, fled along the canals to listen to the singing of drunken sailors.
For every man, every artist called Nietzsche or Cézanne, every step that he climbs in the tower of his perfection is at the expense of the struggle that he undergoes with his duende, not with an angel, as is often said, nor with his Muse. This is a precise and fundamental distinction at the root of their work.
The angel guides and grants, like St. Raphael: defends and spares, like St. Michael: proclaims and forewarns, like St. Gabriel.
The angel dazzles, but flies over a man’s head, high above, shedding its grace, and the man realises his work, or his charm, or his dance effortlessly. The angel on the road to Damascus, and that which entered through the cracks in the little balcony at Assisi, or the one that followed in Heinrich Suso’s footsteps, create order, and there is no way to oppose their light, since they beat their wings of steel in an atmosphere of predestination.
The Muse dictates, and occasionally prompts. She can do relatively little since she’s distant and so tired (I’ve seen her twice) that you’d think her heart half marble. Muse poets hear voices and don’t know where they’re from, but they’re from the Muse who inspires them and sometimes makes her meal of them, as in the case of Apollinaire, a great poet destroyed by the terrifying Muse, next to whom the divine angelic Rousseau once painted him.
The Muse stirs the intellect, bringing a landscape of columns and an illusory taste of laurel, and intellect is often poetry’s enemy, since it limits too much, since it lifts the poet into the bondage of aristocratic fineness, where he forgets that he might be eaten, suddenly, by ants, or that a huge arsenical lobster might fall on his head – things against which the Muses who inhabit monocles, or the roses of lukewarm lacquer in a tiny salon, have no power.
Angel and Muse come from outside us: the angel brings light, the Muse form (Hesiod learnt from her). Golden bread or fold of tunic, it is her norm that the poet receives in his laurel grove. While the duende has to be roused from the furthest habitations of the blood.
Reject the angel, and give the Muse a kick, and forget our fear of the scent of violets that eighteenth century poetry breathes out, and of the great telescope in whose lenses the Muse, made ill by limitation, sleeps.
The true struggle is with the duende.
The roads where one searches for God are known, whether by the barbaric way of the hermit or the subtle one of the mystic: with a tower, like St. Teresa, or by the three paths of St. John of the Cross. And though we may have to cry out, in Isaiah’s voice: Truly you are a hidden God,’ finally, in the end, God sends his primal thorns of fire to those who seek Him.
Seeking the duende, there is neither map nor discipline. We only know it burns the blood like powdered glass, that it exhausts, rejects all the sweet geometry we understand, that it shatters styles and makes Goya, master of the greys, silvers and pinks of the finest English art, paint with his knees and fists in terrible bitumen blacks, or strips Mossèn Cinto Verdaguer stark naked in the cold of the Pyrenees, or sends Jorge Manrique to wait for death in the wastes of Ocaña, or clothes Rimbaud’s delicate body in a saltimbanque’s costume, or gives the Comte de Lautréamont the eyes of a dead fish, at dawn, on the boulevard.
The great artists of Southern Spain, Gypsy or flamenco, singers dancers, musicians, know that emotion is impossible without the arrival of the duende. They might deceive people into thinking they can communicate the sense of duende without possessing it, as authors, painters, and literary fashion-makers deceive us every day, without possessing duende: but we only have to attend a little, and not be full of indifference, to discover the fraud, and chase off that clumsy artifice.
Once, the Andalusian ‘Flamenco singer’ Pastora Pavon, La Niña de Los Peines, sombre Spanish genius, equal in power of fancy to Goya or Rafael el Gallo, was singing in a little tavern in Cadiz. She played with her voice of shadows, with her voice of beaten tin, with her mossy voice, she tangled it in her hair, or soaked it in manzanilla or abandoned it to dark distant briars. But, there was nothing there: it was useless. The audience remained silent.
In the room was Ignacio Espeleta, handsome as a Roman tortoise, who was once asked: ‘Why don’t you work?’ and who replied with a smile worthy of Argantonius: ‘How should I work, if I’m from Cadiz?’
In the room was Elvira, fiery aristocrat, whore from Seville, descended in line from Soledad Vargos, who in ’30 didn’t wish to marry with a Rothschild, because he wasn’t her equal in blood. In the room were the Floridas, whom people think are butchers, but who in reality are millennial priests who still sacrifice bulls to Geryon, and in the corner was that formidable breeder of bulls, Don Pablo Murube, with the look of a Cretan mask. Pastora Pavon finished her song in silence. Only, a little man, one of those dancing midgets who leap up suddenly from behind brandy bottles, sarcastically, in a very soft voice, said: ‘Viva, Paris!’ as if to say: ‘Here ability is not important, nor technique, nor skill. What matters here is something other.’
Then La Niña de Los Peines got up like a madwoman, trembling like a medieval mourner, and drank, in one gulp, a huge glass of fiery spirits, and began to sing with a scorched throat, without voice, breath, colour, but…with duende. She managed to tear down the scaffolding of the song, but allow through a furious, burning duende, friend to those winds heavy with sand, that make listeners tear at their clothes with the same rhythm as the Negroes of the Antilles in their rite, huddled before the statue of Santa Bárbara.
La Niña de Los Peines had to tear apart her voice, because she knew experts were listening, who demanded not form but the marrow of form, pure music with a body lean enough to float on air. She had to rob herself of skill and safety: that is to say, banish her Muse, and be helpless, so her duende might come, and deign to struggle with her at close quarters. And how she sang! Her voice no longer at play, her voice a jet of blood, worthy of her pain and her sincerity, opened like a ten-fingered hand as in the feet, nailed there but storm-filled, of a Christ by Juan de Juni.
The arrival of the duende presupposes a radical change to all the old kinds of form, brings totally unknown and fresh sensations, with the qualities of a newly created rose, miraculous, generating an almost religious enthusiasm.
In all Arab music, dance, song or elegy, the arrival of duende is greeted with vigorous cries of ‘Allah! Allah!’ so close to the ‘Olé!’ of the bullfight, and who knows whether they are not the same? And in all the songs of Southern Spain, the appearance of the duende is followed by sincere cries of: ‘Viva Dios!’ deep, human, tender cries of communication with God through the five senses, thanks to the duende that shakes the voice and body of the dancer, a real, poetic escape from this world, as pure as that achieved by that rarest poet of the seventeenth century Pedro Soto de Rojas with his seven gardens, or John Climacus with his trembling ladder of tears.
Naturally when this escape is perfected, everyone feels the effect: the initiate in seeing style defeat
All the arts are capable of duende, but where it naturally creates most space, as in music, dance and spoken poetry, the living flesh is needed to interpret them, since they have forms that are born and die, perpetually, and raise their contours above the precise present.
Often the composer’s duende fills the performers, and at other times, when a poet or composer is no such thing, the performer’s duende, interestingly, creates a new wonder that has the appearance of, but is not, primitive form. This was the case with the duende-haunted Eleonara Duse, who searched out failed plays to make triumphs of them through her inventiveness, and the case with Paganini, explained by Goethe, who made one hear profound melody in vulgar trifles, and the case of a delightful young girl in Port St. Marys, whom I saw singing and dancing that terrible Italian song ‘O Mari!’ with such rhythm, pauses and intensity that she turned Italian dross into a brave serpent of gold. What happened was that each effectively found something new that no one had seen before, that could give life and knowledge to bodies devoid of expression.
Every art and every country is capable of duende, angel and Muse: and just as Germany owns to the Muse, with a few exceptions, and Italy the perennial angel, Spain is, at all times, stirred by the duende, country of ancient music and dance, where the duende squeezes out those lemons of dawn, a country of death, a country open to death.
In every other country death is an ending. It appears and they close the curtains. Not in Spain. In Spain they open them. Many Spaniards live indoors till the day they die and are carried into the sun. A dead man in Spain is more alive when dead than anywhere else on earth: his profile cuts like the edge of a barber’s razor. Tales of death and the silent contemplation of it are familiar to Spaniards. From Quevedo’s dream of skulls, to Valdés Leal’s putrefying archbishop, and from Marbella in the seventeenth century, dying in childbirth, in the middle of the road, who says:
The blood of my womb
Covers the stallion.
The stallion’s hooves
Throw off sparks of black pitch…
to the youth of Salamanca, recently killed by a bull, who cried out:
Friends, I am dying:
Friends I am done for.
I’ve three scarves inside me,
And this one makes four…
stretches a rail of saltpetre flowers, where a nation goes to contemplate death, with on the side that’s more bitter, the verses of Jeremiah, and on the more lyrical side with fragrant cypress: but a country where what is most important of all finds its ultimate metallic value in death.
The hut, the wheel of a cart, the razor, and the prickly beards of shepherds, the barren moon, the flies, the damp cupboards, the rubble, the lace-covered saints, the wounding lines of eaves and balconies, in Spain grow tiny weeds of death, allusions and voices, perceptible to an alert spirit, that fill the memory with the stale air of our own passing. It’s no accident that all Spanish art is rooted in our soil, full of thistles and sharp stones: it’s no isolated example that lamentation of Pleberio’s, or the dances of that maestro Josef María de Valdivielso: it isn’t chance that among all the ballads of Europe this Spanish one stands out:
If you’re my pretty lover,
why don’t you gaze at me?
The eyes I gazed at you with
I’ve given to the dark.
If you’re my pretty lover
why aren’t you kissing me?
The lips I kissed you with
I’ve given to earth below.
If you’re my pretty lover,
why aren’t you hugging me?
The arms I hugged you with
Are covered with worms, you see.
Nor is it strange that this song is heard at the dawn of our lyrical tradition:
In the garden
I shall die,
in the rose-tree
they will kill me,
Mother I went
to gather roses,
looking for death
within the garden.
Mother I went
cutting roses,
looking for death
within the rose-tree.
In the garden
I shall die.
In the rose-tree
they’ll kill me.
Those moon-frozen heads that Zurbarán painted, the yellows of butter and lightning in El Greco, Father Sigüenza’s prose, the whole of Goya’s work, the apse of the Escorial church, all polychrome sculpture, the crypt in the Duke of Osuna’s house, the ‘death with a guitar’ in the Chapel of the Benaventes in Medina de Rioseco, equate culturally to the processions of San Andrés de Teixido, in which the dead take their places: to the dirges that the women of Asturias sing, with their flame-bright torches, in the November night: to the dance and chanting of the Sibyl in the cathedrals of Mallorca and Toledo: to the dark In recort of Tortosa: and to the endless Good Friday rituals which with the highly refined festival of the bulls, form the popular ‘triumph’ of death in Spain. In all the world only Mexico can grasp my country’s hand.
When the Muse sees death appear she closes the door, or builds a plinth, or displays an urn and writes an epitaph with her waxen hand, but afterwards she returns to tending her laurel in a silence that shivers between two breezes. Beneath the broken arch of the ode, she binds, in funereal harmony, the precise flowers painted by fifteenth century Italians and calls up Lucretius’ faithful cockerel, by whom unforeseen shadows are dispelled.
When the angel sees death appear he flies in slow circles, and with tears of ice and narcissi weaves the elegy we see trembling in the hands of Keats, Villasandino, Herrera, Bécquer, and Juan Ramón Jiménez. But how it horrifies the angel if he feels a spider, however tiny, on his tender rosy foot!
The duende, by contrast, won’t appear if he can’t see the possibility of death, if he doesn’t know he can haunt death’s house, if he’s not certain to shake those branches we all carry, that do not bring, can never bring, consolation.
With idea, sound, gesture, the duende delights in struggling freely with the creator on the edge of the pit. Angel and Muse flee, with violin and compasses, and the duende wounds, and in trying to heal that wound that never heals, lies the strangeness, the inventiveness of a man’s work.
The magic power of a poem consists in it always being filled with duende, in its baptising all who gaze at it with dark water, since with duende it is easier to love, to understand, and be certain of being loved, and being understood, and this struggle for expression and the communication of that expression in poetry sometimes acquires a fatal character.
Remember the example of the flamenca, duende-filled St. Teresa. Flamenca not for entangling an angry bull, and passing it magnificently three times, which she did: not because she thought herself pretty before Brother Juan de la Miseria: nor for slapping His Holiness’s Nuncio: but because she was one of those few creatures whose duende (not angel, for the angel never attacks anyone) pierced her with an arrow and wanted to kill her for having stolen his ultimate secret, the subtle link that joins the five senses to what is core to the living flesh, the living cloud, the living ocean of love liberated from time.
Most valiant vanquisher of the duende and the counter-example to Philip of Austria, who sought anxiously in Theology for Muse and angel, and was imprisoned by a duende of icy ardour in the Escorial Palace, where geometry borders on dream, and where the duende wears the mask of the Muse for the eternal punishment of that great king.
We have said that the duende loves the edge, the wound, and draws close to places where forms fuse in a yearning beyond visible expression.
In Spain (as among Oriental races, where the dance is religious expression) the duende has a limitless hold over the bodies of the dancers of Cadiz, praised by Martial, the breasts of those who sing, praised by Juvenal, and over all the liturgies of the bullring, an authentic religious drama, where in the same manner as in the Mass, a God is sacrificed to, and adored.
It seems as if all the duende of the Classical world is concentrated in this perfect festival, expounding the culture and the great sensibility of a nation that reveals the finest anger, bile and tears of mankind. Neither in Spanish dance nor in the bullfight does anyone enjoy himself: the duende charges itself with creating suffering by means of a drama of living forms, and clears the way for an escape from the reality that surrounds us.
The duende works on the dancer’s body like wind on sand. It changes a girl, by magic power, into a lunar paralytic, or covers the cheeks of a broken old man, begging for alms in the wine-shops, with adolescent blushes: gives a woman’s hair the odour of a midnight sea-port: and at every instant works the arms with gestures that are the mothers of the dances of all the ages.
But it’s impossible for it ever to repeat itself, and it’s important to underscore this. The duende never repeats itself, any more than the waves of the sea do in a storm.
Its most impressive effects appear in the bullring, since it must struggle on the one hand with death, which can destroy it, and on the other with geometry, measure, the fundamental basis of the festival.
The bull has its own orbit: the toreador his, and between orbit and orbit lies the point of danger, where the vertex of terrible play exists.
You can own to the Muse with the muleta, and to the angel with the banderillas, and pass for a good bullfighter, but in the work with the cape, while the bull is still free of wounds, and at the moment of the kill, the aid of the duende is required to drive home the nail of artistic truth.
The bullfighter who terrifies the public with his bravery in the ring is not fighting bulls, but has lowered himself to a ridiculous level, to doing what anyone can do, by playing with his life: but the toreador who is bitten by the duende gives a lesson in Pythagorean music and makes us forget that his is constantly throwing his heart at the horns.
Lagartijo, with his Roman duende, Joselito with his Jewish duende, Belmonte with his Baroque duende, and Cagancho with his Gypsy duende, showed, from the twilight of the bullring, poets, painters and composers the four great highways of Spanish tradition.
Spain is unique, a country where death is a national spectacle, where death sounds great bugle blasts on the arrival of Spring, and its art is always ruled by a shrewd duende which creates its different and inventive quality.
The duende who, for the first time in sculpture, stains with blood the cheeks of the saints of that master, Mateo de Compostela, is the same one who made St. John of the Cross groan, or burns naked nymphs in Lope’s religious sonnets.
The duende that raises the towers of Sahagún or bakes hot bricks in Calatayud, or Teruel, is the same as he who tears apart El Greco’s clouds, and kicks out at Quevedo’s bailiffs, and Goya’s chimeras, and drives them away.
When he rains he brings duende-haunted Velasquez, secretly, from behind his monarchic greys. When he snows he makes Herrera appear naked to show that cold does not kill: when he burns he pushes Berruguete into the flames and makes him invent new dimensions for sculpture.
Gongora’s Muse and Garcilaso’s angel must loose their laurel wreaths when St. John of the Cross’s duende passes by, when:
The wounded stag
appears, over the hill.
Gonzalo de Berceo’s Muse and the Archpriest of Hita’s angel must depart to give way to Jorge Manrique, wounded to death at the door of the castle of Belmonte. Gregorio Hernández’ Muse, and José de Mora’s angel must bow to the passage of de Mena’s duende weeping tears of blood, and Martínez Montañéz’ duende with the head of an Assyrian bull, just as the melancholic Muse of Catalonia, and the damp angel of Galicia, gaze in loving wonder at the duende of Castile, so far from their warm bread and gentle grazing cattle, with its norms of sweeping sky and dry sierra.
Quevedo’s duende and Cervantes’, the one with green anemones of phosphorus, the other with flowers of Ruidera gypsum, crown the altarpiece of Spain’s duende.
Each art, as is natural, has a distinct mode and form of duende, but their roots unite at the point from which flow the dark sounds of Manuel Torre, the ultimate matter, and uncontrollable mutual depth and extremity of wood, sound, canvas, word.
Dark sounds, behind which in tender intimacy exist volcanoes, ants, zephyrs, and the vast night pressing its waist against the Milky Way.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have raised three arches and with clumsy hands placed within them the Muse, the angel and the duende.
The Muse remains motionless: she can have a finely pleated tunic or cow eyes like those which gaze out in Pompeii, at the four-sided nose her great friend Picasso has painted her with. The angel can disturb Antonello da Messina’s heads of hair, Lippi’s tunics, or the violins of Masolino or Rousseau.
The duende….Where is the duende? Through the empty archway a wind of the spirit enters, blowing insistently over the heads of the dead, in search of new landscapes and unknown accents: a wind with the odour of a child’s saliva, crushed grass, and medusa’s veil, announcing the endless baptism of freshly created things. sweeping sky and dry sierra.
Labels:
art,
article,
history,
media,
philosophy,
poet,
radical theory
The Wisdom of Saint Marshall, the Holy Fool by Gary Wolf
Where in the waste is the wisdom?" - James Joyce
In 1971, Marshall McLuhan announced a new product.
With chemist Ross Hall, his nephew, McLuhan patented a formula for the removal of urine odor from underpants. The unique advantage of McLuhan's formula, for which he registered the trademark Prohtex, was that it removed the urine odor without masking other, more interesting smells - that of perspiration, for instance. In the aural and tactile environment of preliterate man, McLuhan explained, BO had been a valuable means of communication. When electronic technology turned the world into a global village, tribal odors would make a comeback, too.
This prediction has yet to come true, but if body odor has not yet made a comeback, its prophet surely has. Marshall McLuhan was born in 1911 and died in 1980. By the time of his death, he had been dismissed by respectable academicians, and he was known in the popular press as an eccentric intellectual whose day in the media spotlight had come and gone. By 1980, the transformation of human life catalyzed by television was taken for granted, and it no longer seemed interesting to ask where the electronic media were taking us. But in recent years, the explosion of new media - particularly the Web - has caused new anxieties. Or to put a more McLuhanesque spin on it, the advent of new digital media has brought the conditions of the old technologies into sharper relief, and made us suddenly conscious of our media environment. In the confusion of the digital revolution, McLuhan is relevant again.
Conservative Christian anarchist
McLuhan's slogans "The medium is the message" and "The global village" are recited like mantras in every digital atelier in the world, despite the fact that hardly anyone who quotes McLuhan reads his books. Some of them McLuhan hardly wrote in the first place, trusting assistants and collaborators to cobble them together out of recordings and notes. As his biographer Philip Marchand explains, with wry sympathy, "writing books was not McLuhan's forte."
Neither was McLuhan very influential as a scholar or teacher. From the beginning of his career, the Canadian professor with a doctorate from Cambridge stood outside the academic mainstream for which he had little patience.
The natural incompatibility of originality and academia was probably especially difficult to overcome for McLuhan, who had received his early education in North American public schools, which, then as now, offered few advantages to their most talented students. By the time he arrived at Cambridge, McLuhan had acquired what is perhaps the defining trait of autodidacts - a kernel of personal crankiness and a resistance to established authority.
In his role as social, political, and economic analyst, McLuhan was a clown. His speeches and public pronouncements helped give rise to a generation of affluent futurists and business consultants skilled at telling executives what they liked to hear, but McLuhan's own predictions and business ideas were often hilariously ill-conceived. If his urine-odor remover failed to stimulate the instincts of business executives, perhaps McLuhan could talk Tom Wolfe into collaborating on a Broadway production of a play in which the media appeared on stage as characters. This aborted script followed two other McLuhan attempts at musicals, including one in which Russian Elvis fans were given a shot at governing America.
Even in areas where McLuhan was expected to be more dependable - say, pop culture - his pronouncements were often incredible. In 1968, for instance, McLuhan attempted to explain to readers of Playboy why the miniskirt was not sexy.
With McLuhan, the accuracy of his commentary was beside the point. "What is truth?" asked McLuhan in 1974, and he answered with a quote he attributed to Agatha Christie's iconoclastic investigator Hercule Poirot: "Eet ees whatever upsets zee applecart."
"You have not studied Joyce or Baudelaire yet, or you would have no problems in understanding my procedure," McLuhan wrote to one detractor with whom he was especially irritated. "I have no theories whatever about anything. I make observations by way of discovering contours, lines of force, and pressures. I satirize at all times, and my hyperboles are as nothing compared to the events to which they refer."
McLuhan's strange scholarship and unprofitable business advice set him apart from such popular lecturers as Alvin Toffler, Peter Drucker, and even John Naisbitt, with whom he collaborated. McLuhan was stunningly oblivious to the question of how business executives would implement his suggestions and what results would be achieved. His presentations wandered far from their announced topics, and his audiences often ended up as baffled as his readers.
Also, McLuhan was never a cheerleader for the technological elite. "There are many people for whom 'thinking' necessarily means identifying with existing trends," he wrote in a 1974 missive to the The Toronto Star. In this letter, McLuhan warned that electronic civilization was creating conditions in which human life would be treated as an expendable fungus, and he passionately protested against it.
In his personal habits, McLuhan was entirely literary.
He read ceaselessly. He was not in favor of television but enjoyed the cleverness of it. At the movies, he often fell asleep. McLuhan was a political conservative and a convert to Catholicism, and his pronouncements on current events always had an element of loony dispassion and professorial absent-mindedness.
At heart, McLuhan was not a futurist at all but a critic and an academic rebel in the tradition of Henry Adams, another conservative Christian mystic who preferred analyzing large-scale trends to compiling sober catalogs of unenlightening facts.
On the other hand, McLuhan was not a Luddite. "Value judgments create smog in our culture and distract attention from processes," he wrote to another detractor. In place of moralistic hand-wringing, McLuhan urged his listeners to take a stance of awareness and responsibility.
"There is a deep-seated repugnance in the human breast against understanding the processes in which we are involved," he complained. "Such understanding involves far too much responsibility for our actions."
Faith in Christ
Marshall McLuhan was a skeptic, a joker, and an erudite maniac. He read too deeply from Finnegans Wake, had too great a fondness for puns, and never allowed his fun to be ruined by the adoption of a coherent point of view. He was dismayed by any attempt to pin him down to a consistent analysis and dismissive of criticism that his plans were impractical or absurd. His characteristic comment during one academic debate has taken on a mythic life of its own. In response to a renowned American sociologist, McLuhan countered: "You don't like those ideas? I got others."
In a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, with whom he had a long friendship, McLuhan argued that in the modern electronic environment, it is inadvisable to be coherent. "Any moment of arrest or stasis permits the public to shoot you down." McLuhan preferred to make his rebuttals in the form of a quip. As he explained to Trudeau: "I have yet to find a situation in which there is not great help in the phrase: 'You think my fallacy is all wrong?' It is literally disarming, pulling the ground out from under every situation! It can be said with a certain amount of poignancy and mock deliberation."
McLuhan's idea that media are extensions of man was influenced by the work of the Catholic philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who believed that the use of electricity extends the central nervous system. McLuhan's mysticism sometimes led him to hope, as had Teilhard, that electronic civilization would prove a spiritual leap forward and put humankind in closer contact with God.
But McLuhan did not hold on to this brief hope, and he later decided that the electronic unification of humanity was only a facsimile of the mystical body. As an unholy imposter, the electronic universe was "a blatant manifestation of the Anti-Christ." Satan, McLuhan remarked, "is a very great electric engineer."
Though he enjoyed observing the battles of the day as they were played out in the media, McLuhan was deeply attached to the church and suspicious enough of worldly goings-on to be immune to large-scale politics or reformation movements. He put his faith in Christ. When challenged by a British journalist about the deleterious effects of electronic culture, McLuhan responded that he had "no doubt at all that Christus vincit. That is why a Christian cannot but be amused at the antics of worldlings to 'put us on.'" The true Christian strategy, McLuhan believed, was "pragmatic and tentative."
Pragmatic and tentative hardly seem the right adjectives for one of our era's greatest provocateurs. But in light of his Catholicism, McLuhan's pragmatism makes sense. Mystics are attuned to the voice of the Holy Spirit coming in directly, and they are the great demolishers of doctrine. Pragmatic does not mean practical, but nonsystematic. Tentative does not mean weak, but provisional and willing to change course under the influence of new revelations.
Fear of the global village
McLuhan did not want to live in the global village. The prospect frightened him. Print culture had produced rational man, in whom vision was the dominant sense. Print man lived in a world that was secular rather than sacred, specialized rather than holistic.
But when information travels at electronic speeds, the linear clarity of the print age is replaced by a feeling of "all-at-onceness." Everything everywhere happens simultaneously. There is no clear order or sequence. This sudden collapse of space into a single unified field "dethrones the visual sense." This is what the global village means: we are all within reach of a single voice or the sound of tribal drums. For McLuhan, this future held a profound risk of mass terror and sudden panic.
The current idea of a global village as a place of universal harmony and industrious basket-weaving is a tourist's fantasy. McLuhan gave in to the intoxication of this hope for a few years in the early '60s, and it is evident throughout Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, his most optimistic work. In that book, McLuhan sings of the furthest reaches of electronic culture, when computer technology has replaced language with instant nonverbal communication. He compares this mystical unification of humanity to the Christian Pentecost. But McLuhan soon realized that before the Pentecost comes suffering and crucifixion, and while we are all waiting for the Holy Ghost to descend, Jerusalem is likely to be scary as hell.
The medium is a message ... from Satan
When McLuhan said that the medium is the message, he was trying to raise an alarm. Big debates over the content of media - such as the controversies over sex and violence on television - miss the point entirely, he argued, because the transformation of human life is carried on by the form of the medium rather than any specific program transmitted by it. Protesting the programs carried by the media is futile because the owners of the media are always happy to give the public exactly what it wants. Standing in opposition to any sort of programming is not only a lonely and isolating posture, it also serves to advance the popularity of the programming protested.
Of course the content of a medium is important, but according to McLuhan the content is not the programming. (This sort of content, McLuhan wrote, "is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.") The real content of any medium is the user of the medium. We are the content of our media. Each medium delivers a new form of human being, whose qualities are suited to it.
"All media exist to invest our lives with artificial perception and arbitrary values," wrote McLuhan, pointing out that electronic culture is no more corrupt in this sense than is print culture, or the preliterate culture of poetry, song, and myth. Language is a type of technology, too, McLuhan noted, anticipating and rejecting the moralism of modern-day Luddites.
From Samuel Butler's Erewhon, McLuhan got the idea that human beings are the sexual organs of the technological world. The user of any medium is its content, just as the content of genetic code is the individual member of the species that manifests and transmits it. When he used his most oracular tone, McLuhan's description of man's servitude to media was chilling.
"Electromagnetic technology requires utter human docility and quiescence of meditation such as befits an organism that now wears its brain outside its skull and its nerves outside its hide. Man must serve his electronic technology with the same servo-mechanistic fidelity with which he served his coracle, his canoe, his typography, and all other extensions of his physical organs. But there is this difference, that previous technologies were partial and fragmentary, and the electric is total and inclusive.... No further acceleration is possible this side of the light barrier."
McLuhan believed that the message of electronic media brought dangerous news for humanity: it brought news of the end of humanity as it has known itself in the 3,000 years since the invention of the phonetic alphabet. The literate-mechanical interlude between two great organic periods of culture is coming to an end as we watch and as we listen.
Moralistic resistance is futile, according to McLuhan, and serves only to make things worse. "On a moving highway, the vehicle that backs up is accelerating in relation to the highway situation," he wrote. "Such would be the ironical status of the cultural reactionary. When the trend is one way, his resistance insures a greater speed of change."
And yet McLuhan's answer to the neo-Luddites presumed that in fact there is something faster than the speed of electronic media: thinking. McLuhan urged us to think ahead. "Control over change would seem to consist in moving not with it but ahead of it. Anticipation gives the power to deflect and control force." By giving up our resistance and allowing our minds to travel ahead of the coming changes, McLuhan allowed some chance that we will rescue something of our humanity or invent something better to replace it.
So hot he's cool
Print is hot. Television is cool. Mechanical tools are hot. Hand-wrought tools and software are cool. Hot media encourage passive consumption. Cool media encourage active participation.
Sometimes.
Because McLuhan is a trickster and a holy fool, any attempt by "regularity chauvinists," as the hypermedia guru Ted Nelson calls them, to impose strict discipline on his terminology will come to no good.
Usually McLuhan used hot to describe media that are rich in information and require little participation on the part of the user. Radio is hot because the sound of the human voice is magnified and human speech is standardized and clarified, reducing the amount of interpretation required to understand it. The recipient of the radio broadcast receives a rich information stream that passes through the ears to the brain.
In contrast, the television watcher is highly involved, because the low-resolution TV monitor, with its mosaic screen, requires greater mental participation. TV encourages ironic commentary from viewers, who are constantly being challenged to pull the picture together in their mind's eye. Television produced the remote control and channel surfing, which make this sort of participation obvious. Few listeners use remote controls with radios, and channel surfing on the radio is associated only with the most low-fi radio environment - the automobile.
Hot media deliver more information because they have taken a single sense, such as sight, and magnified and abstracted it to a state of optimum efficiency. Printed books are hotter than illuminated manuscripts because printed books are uniform and repeatable; once a person has mastered the code and become an experienced reader, there is nothing in the book to distract from the direct and rapid transfer of data. In an illuminated manuscript, the text is presented in unique visual style which the reader must attentively contemplate.
McLuhan saw the world cooling down after a hot interval. The twist was cooler than the Charleston. Cool jazz replaced bebop. TV was cooler than radio, which was cooler than print, but much hotter than the songs and dances of tribal culture.
McLuhan's vocabulary is counterintuitive. A cool medium creates more participation, but more involvement also means more passivity. Complaints that today's young people have a short attention span are just acknowledgments of the increase in participation associated with a general cooling down of the media.
A conversation is very cool. A lecture is much hotter. In a conversation there are many repetitions, gaps, and delays, which the participants must filter, fill in, and interpret. A lecture has concentrated all the information in a steady flow, which can be absorbed with less involvement.
In a cool medium, repetition is desirable. The fact that much of the money from television dramas and comedies is earned from syndicated reruns, or that Broadway could support a successful play that exactly mimicked episodes from The Brady Bunch, would have amused and satisfied McLuhan. In a cool culture, media are mythic in form, and like myths, television programs are enhanced through repetition.
In our cool electronic culture, every message is repeated over and over, like spam in your e-mail box. "One can stop anywhere after the first few sentences and have the full message, if one is prepared to 'dig' it," wrote McLuhan, who was fond of repeating a slogan he claimed to have gotten from IBM: "Information overload = pattern recognition."
In academic language, this is metonymy: the part can stand in for the whole. McLuhan believed that metonymy, which can be represented graphically as a fractal design, or as a spiral, or as a web of concentric circles, is the natural mode of electronic communication. Attempting to force linear, logical, coherent plots and arguments into electronic dramas or discussions creates unintentional comedy.
McLuhan saw the preindustrial parts of the globe racing toward mechanization, while we in the First World sailed blithely back into the tribal unconscious. In one of his more technocratic visions, McLuhan imagined a central media-planning committee that could adjust the ratio of electronic and nonelectronic media, thus preventing catastrophe. At most other times, he saw humankind blundering toward a dismal future it didn't know how to control.
Harmony or panic? Cool participation or hot violence? McLuhan permitted himself both of these prophecies. "Among the people of the world," he wrote in 1964, "strange new vortices of power will appear unexpectedly."
But, like, what was he like?
McLuhan was a professor, and he smoked a pipe. Pipes were cool and involving - participatory - while cigarettes were abstract, uniform, and hot. The fact that cigarettes are useful as currency but pipe tobacco is not would have provided plenty of material for a McLuhan monolog, which would have continued as long as his listeners were willing to give him their ears.
McLuhan loved to talk. His natural medium was speech. He slept fitful hours, and when he awakened with something on his mind - at any hour - he would call a friend and start talking. Peter Drucker, who knew McLuhan in the 1940s when Drucker was teaching at Bennington College, remembers opening the door one rainy morning to find McLuhan standing soaked on his doorstep, ready for a chat. Hugh Kenner, a fellow Canadian who was pushed into a PhD program at Yale University by McLuhan and went on to become a brilliant scholar and essayist, knew McLuhan well in the '50s, and describes him as a fanatical talker who preferred to spend no more than 20 minutes at any movie - just long enough to fuel an evening-long lecture.
McLuhan knew how to keep a straight face. If he often laughed at his own jokes, it may have been as much to signal baffled listeners that a joke had occurred as to express spontaneous mirth - for when he wanted to "put on" his audience, he could do so without the trace of a smile.
Facts never bothered McLuhan, nor would he concede a point in argument. When caught using an example that could be proven incorrect and confronted by a student or colleague rude enough to heave this inconvenient detail into the works, McLuhan would press ahead, speak up louder, interrupt, and race off on a new tangent. If an opponent let slip a stray mispronunciation, McLuhan would be off on that. John Wain, a British poet and a friend of McLuhan's, described his method as "brain-teeming criticism." Objections fell into the superdense texture of his conversation like trivial meteoric debris into the substance of a star; if they mattered at all, it was only as additional fuel.
Not that he had bad manners, exactly. In social exchanges he was gentlemanly, but when the fire got burning, he refused to dampen it. Many of his intellectual friends were close to him for a number of years and then seemed to grow exhausted by the friendship. He had few fellow travelers over the long run.
Drucker describes McLuhan as a monomaniac, but this is unfair to a man who absorbed thousands of books and was interested in anything and everything. He was a polymaniac, and it was his mania that both buoyed him up and destroyed him.
I've never read McLuhan, but ...
Why don't we read Marshall McLuhan today? Although trained as a highly specialized bookman and supported by an academic sinecure, McLuhan did little to guarantee his influence as a writer and scholar. From his earliest career, he ignored his peers. He wrote few books, and the ones he did write grew progressively more difficult. He did not train many graduate students who might have sustained his legacy. McLuhan treated his teaching responsibilities casually, his publishing commitments with utter disregard.
In a fascinatingly self-destructive manner, McLuhan signed his name to material he never wrote. Even after death, this practice continues. The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st Century, "co-written" with Bruce Powers, was published in 1989 by the Oxford University Press, nine years after McLuhan's death. There are few clues in the introduction as to how this feat of post-mortem authorship was accomplished, but it appears that it was inspired by tapes of the authors talking with each other and sharing incomplete attempts at creating a manuscript. During his life, McLuhan published an unsuccessful newsletter, wrote confusing letters to business executives, made absurd pronouncements on television, and took little care to protect his dignity or enhance his reputation.
And yet we all know his name and his slogans. McLuhan's message has insinuated itself into the oral culture of the electronic age, and no amount of academic criticism or easy ridicule can remove it from circulation. McLuhan's slogans circulate because they are snappy but also because they have never been understood. Were they neatly wrapped up in a systematic sociology of media, they would be absorbed, superseded, and forgotten. His slogans are like lines of poems, or phrases from songs - capable of carrying powerful and ambiguous messages into new environments.
To some who venture from the slogans to the books, McLuhan will seem outdated, especially in his hope for a human engagement with media that goes beyond technological idiocy and numb submission. McLuhan's jokes and satirical put-ons were challenges to understand where our media were leading us, and there is no clear evidence that we have been able to respond to his challenge. It is comforting to think McLuhan is outdated, because it alleviates our shame at not living up to his demands. His pleas for understanding and his warnings of doom are like the quaint aphoristical exhortations and eschatological prophecies of the early church.
In the end, McLuhan's success stems from this failure, which was a form of martyrdom. He spread himself across too many media, he scattered his pearls before swine ("perils before our swains," as it says in Finnegans Wake), and he chopped up his promising scholarly career into hundreds of thousands of jokes, quips, bad puns, inane television commentaries, and letters to the editor. Respectable folk turned up their noses at his odor of sanctity, and the sage's reputation slowly died. But today McLuhan lives on, even composing books after his death, as electronic culture's immortal saint.
Labels:
article,
author,
history,
media,
philosophy,
radical theory,
social
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Palestinian rockets killed Gaza civilians during war: Amnesty
Jerusalem: In a damning report released today, Amnesty International said Palestinian rocket fire during the 2014 summer war in Gaza had killed more civilians inside the Gaza Strip than inside Israel.
Such deadly attacks on civilians were against international law and constituted "a war crime," it said.
Read more...
Friday, March 27, 2015
Alan Lomax's Massive Archive Goes Online
Folklorist Alan Lomax spent his career documenting folk music traditions from around the world. Now thousands of the songs and interviews he recorded are available for free online, many for the first time. It's part of what Lomax envisioned for the collection — long before the age of the Internet.
Read more...
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Why the ‘War on Piracy’ is just so much Bullshit by James Radcliffe
This article originally appeared here.
“There are unjust laws as there are unjust men…” – Mahatma Gandhi.
I pirate music, all the time. And I don’t think this is wrong. At ALL. (Buh buh BUH!!!) How can I say this? Well, let’s start by clearing up a prevalent misconception.
That whole ‘Piracy is stealing’ thing is bullshit.
Remember the old advert on the front of movies? (You know, this one). “You wouldn’t steal a car…You wouldn’t steal a handbag…you wouldn’t steal a television….Downloading is stealing…etc.”
This is what is known in the game, kids, as a reframe. It is a cunning trick designed to change the meaning that you attach to a certain action. But, if you look at it closely, the argument doesn’t quite hold up, does it?
Of course, in one way the advert is dead right. I wouldn’t steal a car, I wouldn’t steal a handbag, or a television. BUT, if I owned a magic raygun that could make a perfect copy of whatever I pointed it at, AND if a friend gave me a book and said he didn’t mind me copying it, and I made a copy (with my raygun) then read the book, (while he kept his copy) then what is that?
It’s SHARING, kids. And we were all taught that sharing is good, weren’t we?
‘Stealing’ by definition is: when you take something that isn’t yours from somebody else and therefore (and here is the important part) deprive them of it. Do you deprive someone of their property when you create a copy? No. So, at best, it is inaccurate to equate piracy with stealing, (at worst it’s just plain wrong); it’s actually closer to sharing.
Now, for all of you lovely, law abiding folk out there in internet land, reading this and being like: ‘I would NEVER steal music, for that is WRONG’, I would ask you…Have you ever lent anyone a book? Or a DVD? Have you ever burnt a CD for someone? Or (if you are old enough to remember) made a mixtape?
Then you have already broken this law. It is exactly the same copyright infringement law that applies to downloading music, but it’s not really discussed in these forms because that would highlight the fact that:
A) this law is stupid and unenforceable, and
B) everyone is breaking it anyway (even my Granny, who used to lend out books like a motherfucking library on fire).
Can you imagine a SWAT team kicking your door in and being all like: “Sir, did you lend someone this copy of Harry Potter? GET ON YOUR KNEES! You have the right to remain silent..etc.”
Of course not, because that would be ludicrous, and stupid….
I believe that there is something very vital and natural in the sharing of music and art. There is something in us that, when we hear or experience something amazing, instantly wants to share that with someone, and this is a good thing. Sharing things that we find of worth is an urge that comes from deep within us. Enforcing outdated, outmoded laws is not.
‘But you are an independent musician!’ I hear you cry. (In my mind). ‘How can you espouse sharing music and still expect to make a living?’. ‘Will your music not be covered by the same copyright laws? And will you not enforce them?’ ‘Will you not, in fact, be a big fat hypocrite when it comes to protecting your own Fat Stacks of Cash? How on earth do you plan to make a living doing what you are doing when you are talking up this brand of crazy?!’.
Good questions, one and all. And my answers are as follows: I espouse free sharing of music because I believe it’s vital and good, and I believe that it allows the permeation of good music and art into our culture, which ultimately benefits everyone. No, my music will not be covered under the same copyright laws, I will be releasing it under a seperate copyright (most likely, an Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives license) which means that you can share the music as much as you want, but if you want to use it for a commercial purpose you should ask me, and if you are making money off it then I should have some too.
I’ll answer the last question (how can you possibly hope to make a living, etc…) with a story.
About two years ago, I came across a lady called Zoe Keating. Zoe is a cellist, who makes beautiful, layered cello music using her instrument, a laptop and a footpedal. It is beyond beautiful, as is she. So, I ripped all of her albums off the net to listen to, and listened to them over, and over, and over again. I looked her up, and discovered that she is a fully independent musician, supported solely by her record sales and her touring income.
So, I did a little research about where she made the most money (physical CD sales thru her own site) and I went there and bought every album she had made. Then I bought extras to give to my friends. I have also talked her up to anyone who would listen, and now I am writing a blog about how awesome she is, and linking to her site (at the end of this article).
Now, why did I do this? Well, not to make a point. I did it for 2 reasons.
#1 Her music is amazing. It is kickass, beautiful, badass sexy and fantastic, I love it and it adds tremendous value to my life. And
#2: Her story. The fact that she is an independent musician and really receives the money I spend on her music. It is an exchange I feel good about being part of. Everybody wins.
I believe that, when music is good enough, when it really adds value to peoples lives, then those people will support it in some way. Reciprocity is a fundamental human impulse.
As is the need to share.
Sleep well, LawBreakers. (That means you too, Granny, I love you).
[If you are interested in checking out the awesome that is Zoe Keating, you can find her site, here.]
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
The Psychology and Economy of Conspiracy Theories by Frankie Mullin
Within hours of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, internet forums were buzzing with alternative explanations for the attack. "The official story doesn't add up," people typed furiously into their keyboards. "We're being lied to."
Over the next few days, the rumors spread. Apparent glitches in reporting—as well as the "suspicious" suicide of the detective in charge of the investigation—were taken as evidence of subterfuge.
Most doubters, however, focused on scrutinizing amateur video footage of the event, asking whether policeman Ahmed Merabet was really shot in the head.. The questioning makes for grim reading. "Where's the blood? Why no splatter?" asked Reddit users. Others offered rebuttals, posting videos of bloodless shootings and suggesting: "Heads don't explode like watermelons."
A long, imaginative list of alternative explanations was offered: It was a false flag attack, executed by Mossad to fuel anti-Muslim sentiment; it was carried out by the CIA for the same reason; it was French Jews; it was a "black-op power bloc operation" to back up the war on terror; Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that the West "playing games with the Islamic world."
Read more...
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Lost in translation: Charlie Hebdo, free speech and the unilingual left by Leigh Phillips
In the 48 hours after the Paris massacre, much of the anglophone activist and academic left were quick to sneer at public displays of solidarity with the murdered cartoonists and journalists of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and criticized the vigils, demonstrations and editorial cartoons from other artists as siding with racists.
Of course the killing of journalists is a bad thing, so the argument goes, but come on, Charlie Hebdo is “a racist publication.” So what do you expect? is the implicit, victim-blaming conclusion. Read more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)