[NetBehaviour] Reflections on the _New Aesthetic_

Pall Thayer pallthay at gmail.com
Thu Apr 19 02:56:54 CEST 2012


"Behold, I am New Aesthetic. I am not of your world. But fear me not,
I will do you no harm. Loan me your New Aesthetic mind and I shall
play with it. For nothing is good unless you play with it. And all
that is good, is nasty." [paraphrasing]



On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:43 PM, mez breeze <netwurker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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].
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour



-- 
*****************************
Pall Thayer
artist
http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
*****************************



More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list