Old dogs, old tricks. Maybe new fleas?

Are the arts dead? Or, are they, at least, fairly moribund? Or are they more vibrant than ever?I tend to think the arts are pretty boring right now, in the main, and that the people are bored. The evidence is against me. More people are artmaking now than ever before. More art is getting sold than ever before. There is more kinds or art than ever before. There’s more ways to get attention than ever before.

But there is no compass.

Here’s a post about it on the blog, Intelligent Life. Check it out.

In short, the writer (responding to a story from the print magazine that sparked a lot of sound and fury) argues that culture has become a currency. You have to show a certain familiarity to be deemed worthy, but that’s where it stops. There’s an unwritten reading list out their in the collective memory of each class, and all one has to do is show the capacity to grasp the odd reference to a certain cultural artifact to prove one’s worthiness. In his words:

But there is a difference between cultivating the intellect and developing an appreciation for high culture. And by high culture, I don’t mean just the polite décor of the Louvre, but also outdoor murals, Ukrainian folksongs–really any human expression that provokes thought. Cultural acumen is not merely a matter of looking at and listening to prescribed pieces of art or music, or force-feeding yourself a menu of great books. No matter how many museum turnstiles we pass through, if we value our exchange with art only as a means to impress others, we mistake the chaff for the wheat.

Very well.

What I mean by saying that there is no compass is that there is no sense of something really compelling out there. There’s nothing to aspire to (other than money and renown and legacy, but that’s really nothing at all — society will always give money to someone to be the notable artist of the day — that doesn’t mean they’ve anything special to offer).

But what the fuck do you do about it?

I recently finished a book by Matthew Josephson called Life Among the Surrealists. The young dadaists and surrealists had been bored to restlessness by the creations of the old ways of writing. Do you know that at the time they were working people believed that long and laborious exposition was really good for a book?It does go to show that the arts really do progress.

Anyway — I’m digressing. What Josephson illuminates is that though the Dadaists pushed the boundaries of society and forced their art into public view with activism, they mainly concerned themselves with writing and artmaking for internal consumption. That is, their famous magazines and journals were really only read by other Dadaist and Surrealists or otherwise Avant-Garde writers. The Avant-Garde was, in effect, its own audience.

Until, one day, much later, it wasn’t anymore.Isn’t that interesting? Today we don’t really have an identifiable avant-garde, and we certainly don’t have any large and coherent cadre of writers whose members concern themselves as much with other members creations as their own.

There’s this guy Karl “King” Wenclas who I find interesting. He has a following. A reluctant following. He’s been de-throned from the Underground Literary Alliance, and I can’t help but think that’s a good thing. He seems better as a free agent. And he’s the only person who seems to be really seriously asking how the underground can work together.

But really he’s asking a more interesting question: how can we find a new way of writing that will really grab people again. Will there be another avant-garde? That will really stand out. Surrealism was a collective effort. It was a bunch of writers buying into an idea, and trying out their vision of that idea. It was an amoeba-like collaboration.

Artists and writers don’t seem to collaborate that well anymore. We’re all putting our work out there, but it’s so individualistic. It’s not often that you see a group of creators, like the guys at Fort Thunder, whose work seems to blend into each other. Even then, they’d resist the notion of trying to define it. Of trying to articulate some unifying vision.

I think we should. An interesting idea that’s starting to appeal to me, and one Wenclas is already playing around with, is using closed on-line spaces. Spaces where only a limited community can see what’s on offer and be part of it. A community that can really involve each other until it evolves into something coherent it can show the world.

Something that folks can really recognize and presents itself in a way that really explodes off the page.Is it possible? I don’t know.Is it worth looking for? Definitely.I find a lot of stuff I like but I seldom find anything that blows me away anymore. Am I looking in the wrong places? Am I just getting old? Or is everyone really just recycling old tricks?And if that is the case: what can be done about it?

Take up arms, yes. Of course.

But we need to form a phalanx too.