This is among the most sane, level-headed, objective Substacks I follow. Boilerplate Dem talking points a la MSNBC are not part of the repertoire -- and IF Dem-oriented opinions and observations are put forward, it's done thoughtfully in reasoned, fact-based fashion. And the writing? First-rate. Kudos... Will def be buying the book. Good ongoing luck with it.
Overall I agree and applaud your analysis here, especially when it comes to art and politics. But as to the death of mass culture, I do worry that a polity without *any* cultural touchstones is one that lacks a gravitational center holding it together.
Genuinely don’t know what to think about these zeitgeist-hunting pieces anymore. Is the youth still part of setting the zeitgeist? Cause they’re on youtube and tiktok. Neo-romantic age? Walk down the street and track the proportion of people who are on their phones.
Seems as if you're calling for a contemporary version of the "Return to Order" post-WWI Classicism movement in France, which yielded fairly anodyne art (think of Matisse's dreamy, de-radicalized work of the period).
But most good art comes from politics or some political-like ferment, such as that of: Edouard Manet (Execution of Emperor Maximilian, Battle of the Kearsarge & Alabama); Picasso (Guernica); Jane Austen (Mansfield Park), Elizabeth Coles Taylor (who was a communist member), Elizabeth Gaskell, Norman Mailer, James Baldwin (Another Country), Don DeLillo, Patrick Modiano; Alexei Ratmansky's Shostakovich Trilogy and his recent Solitude for City Ballet. (very random, top of head list)
There really is no neutral middle nor non-woke in art. (And aren't we all just waking to a nightmare jolt of history?)
“The perceived moral failings of the creator are irrelevant because the art, once created, exists beyond the creator.” — I’m not sure I really get this sentiment. I think it’s wise not to pre-judge a work of art in this fashion, but once you’ve given it a fair shot why wouldn’t you want to understand the motivations and values that informed the creation of the art? I would hope this isn’t a suggestion that a reader should simply accept the truth of the world the artist has created; a critical reader should question the premises underlying the work and sometimes, understanding where the artist is coming from can help facilitate that.
Things have certainly changed post-Covid, but I'm not sure I would agree that "woke has dissipated." It is certainly no longer hegemonic in the culture the way it was 2012-2022, say. But certain spheres like academia/education are still super-woke. NPR and other similar outfits are still super woke.
I think the death of Twitter plays a huge part in the dissipation of Woke power. Social media mobs can't be formed in the same way.
This is among the most sane, level-headed, objective Substacks I follow. Boilerplate Dem talking points a la MSNBC are not part of the repertoire -- and IF Dem-oriented opinions and observations are put forward, it's done thoughtfully in reasoned, fact-based fashion. And the writing? First-rate. Kudos... Will def be buying the book. Good ongoing luck with it.
Thank you Gordon!
RE: tennis.
I loved reading Hemingway's description of trout fishing.
Overall I agree and applaud your analysis here, especially when it comes to art and politics. But as to the death of mass culture, I do worry that a polity without *any* cultural touchstones is one that lacks a gravitational center holding it together.
Genuinely don’t know what to think about these zeitgeist-hunting pieces anymore. Is the youth still part of setting the zeitgeist? Cause they’re on youtube and tiktok. Neo-romantic age? Walk down the street and track the proportion of people who are on their phones.
Seems as if you're calling for a contemporary version of the "Return to Order" post-WWI Classicism movement in France, which yielded fairly anodyne art (think of Matisse's dreamy, de-radicalized work of the period).
But most good art comes from politics or some political-like ferment, such as that of: Edouard Manet (Execution of Emperor Maximilian, Battle of the Kearsarge & Alabama); Picasso (Guernica); Jane Austen (Mansfield Park), Elizabeth Coles Taylor (who was a communist member), Elizabeth Gaskell, Norman Mailer, James Baldwin (Another Country), Don DeLillo, Patrick Modiano; Alexei Ratmansky's Shostakovich Trilogy and his recent Solitude for City Ballet. (very random, top of head list)
There really is no neutral middle nor non-woke in art. (And aren't we all just waking to a nightmare jolt of history?)
Woke was the product of these virtual signaling rich white people who saw themselves as saviors. 👋
Truth. The woke debate is pointless and exhausting
“The perceived moral failings of the creator are irrelevant because the art, once created, exists beyond the creator.” — I’m not sure I really get this sentiment. I think it’s wise not to pre-judge a work of art in this fashion, but once you’ve given it a fair shot why wouldn’t you want to understand the motivations and values that informed the creation of the art? I would hope this isn’t a suggestion that a reader should simply accept the truth of the world the artist has created; a critical reader should question the premises underlying the work and sometimes, understanding where the artist is coming from can help facilitate that.
From your pen to god's ears
Things have certainly changed post-Covid, but I'm not sure I would agree that "woke has dissipated." It is certainly no longer hegemonic in the culture the way it was 2012-2022, say. But certain spheres like academia/education are still super-woke. NPR and other similar outfits are still super woke.
Swift has talent but not artistry