Point taken, Lawrence. If someone else had just said what I said I would
probably be describing it as 'uncluttered'!

But anyway I will try to be more cluttered by saying that it was interesting
to me to be reading Radon and watching the film in the same week because
they seemed to me to have things to say about each other. By
'self-regarding' I suppose I mean that the admirable desire in Sinclair's
prose to 'make it new' in every sentence seems to become an end in itself.
We are continually being asked to admire the attempt and the execution.

I found that this was the same with the way the film had been processed and
edited. I made the comment about past experience of film, super 8, etc
because I remember seeing a lot of work by a wide variety of film makers in
the early to mid 80s where these filmic techniques or similar were used more
sparingly and as a result seemed to be more challenging. My use of the term
'self-regarding' also expresses my irritation with Sinclair's self-appointed
role as our guide to hidden or secret knowledges. No-one ever seems to
question the idea that the psychic layers that are revealed in London are
just actually in his own head.

I also reject what I feel are some very dodgy things at the heart of what
might called the Sinclair aesthetic and which for me were/are most obvious
in the work of 'The Shamanism of Intent' artists - he curated this I think
or at any rate has praised them massively. I saw a lot of this work some
years ago in the Goldmark Gallery in Uppingham. What I got from it was that
special power is available to us by engaging with acts of violence on nature
and on women; but that luckily here are some artists who are going to go to
those very dark places for us and bring back trophies. Yuk! I'd question
whether cultural producers and products should be rushing to embrace
destructive forces in quite this way.

But that is only my take and I'd be glad to hear and explore opposing views.
I don't think this is any more elegant than my earlier posting but I hope it
gives Lawrence and others something more substantial to latch onto, disagree
with, chuckle over or whatever.

cheers
David

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 02 July 2000 22:46
Subject: Re: Sinclair/Dorn/Moorcock/Sallis film on C4


>dear me, dear me, dear me, David
>
>could you expand upon that? or would it spoil the elegance of your
argument?
>
>L
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Kennedy" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: "British Poets" <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: 02 July 2000 21:34
>Subject: Sinclair/Dorn/Moorcock/Sallis film on C4
>
>
>| the self-regarding,
>| pseudo intellectual tosh at the heart of the whole Sinclair
>| psycho-geographic project.
>
>
>




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%