Sorry to raise this spectre once more.
Been away (incidentally last week
performing as Chorque and Chieze no less
appropriately in Burton-on-Trent, then with
Garamasala in the Chard Festival) and
only returned to this desk a couple of days
ago.
Writing with a prickle in some haste.
Irritated by this ongoing assertions of
an absolute hierarchy of value.
Again, value to whom? Who is being prescriptive
on who's behalf?
Surely value is inscribed into each and every act
of assemblage (putting any word next to any other)?
Next question, but what value and if purposeful to what purpose
in whose interests?
I'd ask questions about what survives and how and why
that begin to unravel the downgrading of the transient
and the ephemeral.
For such imperatives i tend towards Ira's assertion
of the socially dispersive qualities of a gathering,
in particular of sonic occasion.
Writing that attempts to reveal the complexities of such
thorny issues is what i, personally, enjoy reading. But to
suggest that writing which does not engage me is 'worse'
or even 'could be better' buys back into opinion forming
that leaves this conversant cold and solidifies towards
stance.
Walking, moving, shifting weight, engages, the stance
quickly becomes uncomfortable. But it is said that a
'pose' must be sustained long enough to be impressed
on the minds of the spectators. Tawdry ain't it
love and love
cris
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|