Post-semiotic dialectic and the site of the subjectivized 'Other' in hegemonic knowledge-regimes, or some shit that I wrote
I told Robot that I'd be doing some serious online periodical browsing this afternoon, and I did, and here's what I found.
First, you should check out Harold Pinter's Nobel Literature Prize acceptance speech. It does not even attempt to be anything other than a political tirade. However, other than some rather Chomskyan outrageousness (the US is the new Third Reich, Guantanamo Bay is a concentration camp, etc), I can't find much wrong here. I also got to thinking about artists making political statements in general. For example, we'd all presumably groan if a conservative artist (I'm totally at a loss for one, though--Tom Wolfe?) won the award instead and got up to deliver a complete justification of the war in Iraq. But would we prejudicially say that it wasn't their place or their right as an artist to make the speech?
Actually, I realized that usually I go by my esteem of the artist. Thus I would probably respect what Tom Wolfe had to say but just tune out a complete douche like Vincent Gallo (sorry Robot). Similarly, when the whole Vote for Change music crew got together for the Kerry campaign, it was somehow "okay" that Bruce Springsteen spoke out, but I find Conor Oberst of Bright Eyes to be an annoying twit. Unfair? Hey, what can I say, I suppose I'm more meritocratic than aristocratic.
But to examine this a bit further, I know nothing about Harold Pinter and have never read his work. Yet I found his speech acceptable. Furthermore, one never has the time to assess the character of every celebrity who utters a politically charged phrase before passing judgment on what they said. So how does your system work?
I'd also like to point out this article by Jonah Goldberg over at the National Review. It's quite possible that this is the worst piece of political opinion I've ever read, both in its method and its content. (But I do throw superlatives around freely.) So the American people cheer on torture in the movie theater, ergo it should be state policy? They also cheer on fucking Batman, but I'm not gonna don a rubber suit any time soon. (Austin 5000, your birthday present will be an exception.) Mr. Goldberg seems to forget that people go to the theater precisely so that they can enjoy scenarios they would never otherwise approve of or participate in. Freakin' dumbass.
Oh, and please note that today is the day that thousands upon thousands of theater-going conservatives and evangelical Christians collectively squirt their trousers over the return of their Lord and Savior in the form of a giant lion named Aslan. Jesus is truly in the seating up in hura! With the nachos and 50 oz. Coke combo deal!
First, you should check out Harold Pinter's Nobel Literature Prize acceptance speech. It does not even attempt to be anything other than a political tirade. However, other than some rather Chomskyan outrageousness (the US is the new Third Reich, Guantanamo Bay is a concentration camp, etc), I can't find much wrong here. I also got to thinking about artists making political statements in general. For example, we'd all presumably groan if a conservative artist (I'm totally at a loss for one, though--Tom Wolfe?) won the award instead and got up to deliver a complete justification of the war in Iraq. But would we prejudicially say that it wasn't their place or their right as an artist to make the speech?
Actually, I realized that usually I go by my esteem of the artist. Thus I would probably respect what Tom Wolfe had to say but just tune out a complete douche like Vincent Gallo (sorry Robot). Similarly, when the whole Vote for Change music crew got together for the Kerry campaign, it was somehow "okay" that Bruce Springsteen spoke out, but I find Conor Oberst of Bright Eyes to be an annoying twit. Unfair? Hey, what can I say, I suppose I'm more meritocratic than aristocratic.
But to examine this a bit further, I know nothing about Harold Pinter and have never read his work. Yet I found his speech acceptable. Furthermore, one never has the time to assess the character of every celebrity who utters a politically charged phrase before passing judgment on what they said. So how does your system work?
I'd also like to point out this article by Jonah Goldberg over at the National Review. It's quite possible that this is the worst piece of political opinion I've ever read, both in its method and its content. (But I do throw superlatives around freely.) So the American people cheer on torture in the movie theater, ergo it should be state policy? They also cheer on fucking Batman, but I'm not gonna don a rubber suit any time soon. (Austin 5000, your birthday present will be an exception.) Mr. Goldberg seems to forget that people go to the theater precisely so that they can enjoy scenarios they would never otherwise approve of or participate in. Freakin' dumbass.
Oh, and please note that today is the day that thousands upon thousands of theater-going conservatives and evangelical Christians collectively squirt their trousers over the return of their Lord and Savior in the form of a giant lion named Aslan. Jesus is truly in the seating up in hura! With the nachos and 50 oz. Coke combo deal!
posted by to scranton at 2:27 PM
1 Comments:
I'm happy you provided the link to the Pinter text, Scranton. My impression of the speech was considerably tainted from the news account I had read in the New York Times. The speech turns out to be far more reasonable than I suspected.
I have only see one Pintar play myself, "The Birthday Party," which I saw this past summer. It succeeded in being one of the more disturbing things I have ever experienced, and I recommend it vociferously. But, like other plays that fall under the rubric of the "theatre of the absurd," the play is profoundly apolitical. That is, it's power lies in the feeling it leaves the audience with, no with any overt message. One of the most amazing things about the "Birthday Party" is that at the same moment when it is the most frightening, and the most alienating, is when the audience laughed the most. Everyone in this theatre was cracking up at some of the most disturbing things I have ever seen. It was an amazing moment.
The speech of course is quite different. It is focused and historical -- almost exactly the opposite of the play. It's just somewhat interesting with these artists how they choose to represent their politics. You have Bertold Brecht on one hand--where his political views couldn't be MORE explicity-- and you have Pintar on the other. I will next semester no doubt investigate these questions in print, via the immense power I have now having interview the prominent feminist playwright, Eve Ensler. An interview with Pintar is surely right around the corner (his people have been begging me for coverage for weeks now), I just haven't thought it to be relavent.
Post a Comment
<< Home