I think this is unfair cris. It's not dumb - just because it might be
saying something you find problematic. It is simplistic, yes, but it
does point to something a lot of people think, and I for one think,
with regards to Baudrillard, that there is a point there to be
answered - and maybe those of us within poetry might be in a better
position to answer it than the art community -of which, as you know, I
don't have high opinions. I know we won't agree on this. Modern
artists who take the banal (their own concept of the 'everyday') and,
via shallow knowing and tracking processes that can be learnt in 5
minutes by 'good' students, turn it into their sacramental framed
property, to which we have to kneel, are not going to take kindly to
what Baudrillard says.
Tim A.
On 11 Apr 2010, at 16:53, cris cheek wrote:
> dumb piece
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Jeffrey Side wrote:
>
>> I thought this old blog post by Adam Fieled might start a
>> discussion here, so here it is:
>>
>> "baudrillard, the cospiracy of poetry, or how to put duchamp's
>> urinal back in the bathroom"
>>
>>
>> http://adamfieled.blogspot.com/2006/02/baudrillard-cospiracy-of-poetry-or-how.html
|