[NetBehaviour] Reflections on the _New Aesthetic_

[Mark Hancock]

Art theory?

Ah crap, I thought it was a new band from Franz Ferdinand lead singer Alex Kapranos. No wonder I couldn't find it in the Amazon CD section.

*goes off to read James Elkins'  Crisis in Art Criticism as an abstract psychogeo(textual)graphic rock band hagiography*

M

On 19 Apr 2012, at 01:56, Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com> wrote:

> "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
> *****************************
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour