On Discontinuity in Arts and Culture from 2014 through 2024
Part I
In his [auto]biographical interview book with Bálint András Varga, Iannis Xenakis contends that it was the first time he’d “done something completely” by himself “in the field of architecture that hadn’t existed before[,]” when he was asked of the Philips Pavilion, and all the drama surrounding his professional relationship with Le Corbusier.
He goes on to add that he realized the basic ideas of Metastasis in it, and expresses that “as in the music,” there too, he was “interested in the question of whether it was possible to get one point to another without breaking the continuity.”
Xenakis, Varga, and Le Corbusier were all human, and they devoted their lives into the extensions of natures unto itself through anthropomorphic reasoning. They existed, and they had to earn basic means to subsidize their pursuits as in merely getting a life.
However, when I delve into the traces of their intelectual outputs, I rarely see what would be considered cringe in today’s terminology when it comes to truly networked linguistics of hypermemex—except the known fact that Le Corbusier tried to fade Xenakis, and eventually publicly affirmed that Iannis in fact was the genuine creator of certain works, and projects.
What do we have today?
All that jazz that the artists of the past had when it comes to drama persists but without decorum since enough populism that is directed at a given clueless audience, or similarly predatory tormenters of culture, can help you go without any impunity. It is important that critiques should often renew their method of writing about art—it goes without saying. George Constanza would agree: “You are a humanitarian!”
But. It is also a must that we shall be aware of the fact that the so-called ownership economies is not whatsoever about sovereignty of the artist today compared to the first sparkle of hopes around 2021 when people en masse started to realize the potential of decentralized idea and mechanism markets around blockchain-enabled art market protocols. Today, it is about people who will cannibalize one another for a bit of liquidity.
All the whilst, it is also true that the genuine artists and critiques who have silenced themselves on purpose at around 2014 have never participated in this culturally evolutionary potential and their places have been rented by rascals.
There is a sense of discontinuity today and if you were to rationalize the idea of continuity in the sense Xenakis reflects on, everyone would be running amock declaring that they are the first pre-Socratic “scientist” in crypto-art whilst others roast them that it’s weeb3 and not NFT art all the while anomalies in the contemporaneous lexicon such as phytigal abounds.
This free-style writing is about the discontuinity of critique in the contemporaneous arts by any media available and it is longer than you would want to read.
On Discontinuity in Arts and Culture from 2014 through 2024
Part I
In his [auto]biographical interview book with Bálint András Varga, Iannis Xenakis contends that it was the first time he’d “done something completely” by himself “in the field of architecture that hadn’t existed before[,]” when he was asked of the Philips Pavilion, and all the drama surrounding his professional relationship with Le Corbusier.
He goes on to add that he realized the basic ideas of Metastasis in it, and expresses that “as in the music,” there too, he was “interested in the question of whether it was possible to get one point to another without breaking the continuity.”
Xenakis, Varga, and Le Corbusier were all human, and they devoted their lives into the extensions of natures unto itself through anthropomorphic reasoning. They existed, and they had to earn basic means to subsidize their pursuits as in merely getting a life.
However, when I delve into the traces of their intelectual outputs, I rarely see what would be considered cringe in today’s terminology when it comes to truly networked linguistics of hypermemex—except the known fact that Le Corbusier tried to fade Xenakis, and eventually publicly affirmed that Iannis in fact was the genuine creator of certain works, and projects.
What do we have today?
All that jazz that the artists of the past had when it comes to drama persists but without decorum since enough populism that is directed at a given clueless audience, or similarly predatory tormenters of culture, can help you go without any impunity. It is important that critiques should often renew their method of writing about art—it goes without saying. George Constanza would agree: “You are a humanitarian!”
But. It is also a must that we shall be aware of the fact that the so-called ownership economies is not whatsoever about sovereignty of the artist today compared to the first sparkle of hopes around 2021 when people en masse started to realize the potential of decentralized idea and mechanism markets around blockchain-enabled art market protocols. Today, it is about people who will cannibalize one another for a bit of liquidity.
All the whilst, it is also true that the genuine artists and critiques who have silenced themselves on purpose at around 2014 have never participated in this culturally evolutionary potential and their places have been rented by rascals.
There is a sense of discontinuity today and if you were to rationalize the idea of continuity in the sense Xenakis reflects on, everyone would be running amock declaring that they are the first pre-Socratic “scientist” in crypto-art whilst others roast them that it’s weeb3 and not NFT art all the while anomalies in the contemporaneous lexicon such as phytigal abounds.
This free-style writing is about the discontuinity of critique in the contemporaneous arts by any media available and it is longer than you would want to read.