[NetBehaviour] Reflections on the _New Aesthetic_

mez breeze netwurker at gmail.com
Thu Apr 19 02:43:28 CEST 2012

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here's my knee-jerk reaction to a possible knee-jerk reaction.

...chinese-whisper knee-jerk boxes, purrhaps?;)

> I think
> we have this tendency to dislike the word "new" in any label (that's
> the other knee-jerk reaction). Having only skimmed Bruce Sterling's
> essays as well, I'm always skeptical when it comes to the term "new".

..i started to conventionally absorb them, but ended up flitting. i do get
his enthusiasm for future/now capturing, i just wish he realised his role
in a chain-of-canonising-events...

Especially when combined with a term that I personally think is often
> misunderstood, like "aesthetic". If you look up "aesthetic" in the
> dictionary, it will probably tell you that it has something to do with
> "beauty". But in a philosophical context, it really has very little to
> do with beauty. It has more to do with tastes and interest. Being
> drawn to something regardless of whether a person is drawn due to a
> sense of beauty, revulsion or something in-between.

..its not so much the terminology/wordage that concerns me, it's wot it's
trying to encapsulate? tho i do take ur point regarding definitions here...

> So, let's think about this. "Aesthetic" refers to a "sensibility", so
> "New Aesthetic" would mean that we've developed a new sensibility(?).
> Is that really the case? Let's take the "glitch". When things don't
> perform as they should, is the notion that we might be aesthetically
> drawn to that really something new? I don't know about others but I
> always find it very curious when something "glitches". It peaks my
> curiosity. So, is the "New Aesthetic", as it pertains to the "glitch",
> really a "new" aesthetic or does it simply exploit an existing
> aesthetic? Art is not something that re-invents itself periodically.
> It's more like an evolving being. Nothing is "new" but rather a
> progression of the things that came before it. How about "Next
> Aesthetic"?

...how about "Phrase That Will Not Be Named"? ;)

> Keep in mind that I'm just entertaining a brain-drain here. Maybe I
> should read the Bruce Sterling essays.

indeed, wouldn't hurt....or would it?

> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:28 PM, mez breeze <netwurker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Find below a modded version of part of the discussion raging on an
> alternate
> > list regarding the "New Aesthetic". Enjoy [or don't].
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20120419/5fc3f366/attachment.html>

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list