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.
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.
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.
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?)
For anyone baffled by our cultural decline, it's crucial to point out that creatives face not just the critique of their work, but of their own moral worth. Hard to take big, bold swings when doing so may not just get you called a bad artist, but a bad person. There were always prudes, but they've rarely had the power they've displayed over the last decade or so. And this has been the rare bipartisan consensus of late, that bad work is only made by bad people, and bad people only make bad work, which inflates the risk of making anything.
As a staunch modernist, it pains me to see, in some sense, the close of the modern era.
But there was a major flaw in the culture that assumed you could do politics through charts and infographics and debates alone, and in media, that assumed you could appeal to everyone.
The 21st century will see history come back, where preferences are made more explicit, and values are known to not be universal, and majoritarian concerns are what matters (instead of trying to re-orient majority values to care about minoritarian issues).
This likely means the return of direct conflict and war.
I dig it. Brendan Graham Dempsey's Substack speaks much to the metamodern approach to not-rejecting-but-synthesizing all that came before. The Great Oscillation, if you will. The recognition of the in-between. The Forever Fluctuation.
Your words about the (fingers crossed) post-celebrity/fame era reminds me of a quote from a mostly unknown poet named Evan Shipman, who Hemingway quotes in A Moveable Feast: "We need more true mystery to our lives, Hem,” he once said to me. “The completely unambitious writer and the really good unpublished poem are the things we lack most at this time. There is, of course, the problem of sustenance.”
“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.
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.
On their phones, their humanoid visages mimicking the hentai figures from their social media avatars. Neo-romantic!
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.
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
For anyone baffled by our cultural decline, it's crucial to point out that creatives face not just the critique of their work, but of their own moral worth. Hard to take big, bold swings when doing so may not just get you called a bad artist, but a bad person. There were always prudes, but they've rarely had the power they've displayed over the last decade or so. And this has been the rare bipartisan consensus of late, that bad work is only made by bad people, and bad people only make bad work, which inflates the risk of making anything.
As a staunch modernist, it pains me to see, in some sense, the close of the modern era.
But there was a major flaw in the culture that assumed you could do politics through charts and infographics and debates alone, and in media, that assumed you could appeal to everyone.
The 21st century will see history come back, where preferences are made more explicit, and values are known to not be universal, and majoritarian concerns are what matters (instead of trying to re-orient majority values to care about minoritarian issues).
This likely means the return of direct conflict and war.
I dig it. Brendan Graham Dempsey's Substack speaks much to the metamodern approach to not-rejecting-but-synthesizing all that came before. The Great Oscillation, if you will. The recognition of the in-between. The Forever Fluctuation.
Your words about the (fingers crossed) post-celebrity/fame era reminds me of a quote from a mostly unknown poet named Evan Shipman, who Hemingway quotes in A Moveable Feast: "We need more true mystery to our lives, Hem,” he once said to me. “The completely unambitious writer and the really good unpublished poem are the things we lack most at this time. There is, of course, the problem of sustenance.”
“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