Re: [Frameworks] Open letter to Jeff Kreines

From: Tony Conrad (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Jul 30 2010 - 09:32:15 PDT


On Fri 07/30/10 1:41 AM , Chuck Kleinhans email suppressed sent:
> On Jul 29, 2010, at 8:40 PM, Bernard Roddy wrote:
> "This is what distinguishes the artist from laymen (those susceptible
> to art): the latter reach the high point of their susceptibility when
> they receive; the former when they give - [. . .] The perspectives of
> these two states are opposite: to demand of the artist that he should
> practice the perspective of the audience (of the critic-) means to
> demand that he should impoverish himself and his creative power - "
> Nietzshe, entry 811 of Book III, Sect. IV, of "The Will to Power as
> Art."
> So Bernie, you're saying that Jeff Kreines would be impoverished as
> an artist if he paid any attention to the audience? How exactly
> would you then edit a documentary film while doing so?
> Or are you trying to say something else: like trashing critics in
> general? or Scott Macdonald in particular?
> IF you answer this, are you then responding to a critic and facing
> your own loss of artist creds (and perhaps vital fluids)?
> I'll raise your Neitzche with an Oscar Wilde. Still in the game or
> gonna fold?
> Chuck Kleinhans

Iā€™m not sure what Chuck is asking Bernie to do, but before they compare vital
fluids between Nietzsche and Wilde, letā€™s see. Here Chuck is receiving, so he is
thinking that Bernie isā€¦ wait; actually Bernie is receiving from Nietzsche. But
Nietzsche isnā€™t an artist, I suppose heā€™s a critic. Nietzsche goes on (in the
entry quoted) to say, ā€œIt is to the honor of an artist if he is unable to be a
criticā€“otherwise he is half and half, he is ā€˜modern.ā€™" Nietzsche doesnā€™t think
that heā€™s ā€œmodernā€ā€“but I think Nietzsche is modern, and so are Bernie and Chuck.
On the other hand, it doesnā€™t seem that Nietzsche is doing them any honor as
artists, if they are being critics. But Bernie isnā€™t really receiving; heā€™s
giving, and Chuck is receiving. Or Chuck was receiving at first, and now heā€™s
giving, like me. I guess all of them are hermaphroditic; at least Nietzsche also
says ā€œIt is the same here as with the difference between the sexes: one ought not
to demand of the artist, who gives, that he should become a womanā€“that he should
receive.ā€ So can anyone else untangle this?

--------------t0ny

_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks