Re: Re : (junk yard dog in) hidden place


Subject: Re: Re : (junk yard dog in) hidden place
From: Michael Gogins (gogins@pipeline.com)
Date: Wed Sep 14 2005 - 21:09:09 EDT


Thanks for the pointers.

As for the politics of canon, very generally, one can define a canon only for one's tribe/subculture/class and be indifferent to others; do that, but impose it on others; or... hope to define a canon that others would find attractive... that all others would find attractive, even. A categorical esthetic, along the lines of the categorical imperative.

When I say historical, scholarly criteria this categorical esthetic is what I am aiming at.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Green <o.t.green@ntlworld.com>
Sent: Sep 14, 2005 7:17 PM
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
Subject: Re: Re : (junk yard dog in) hidden place

Michael Gogins wrote:
> I don't think innovation has value in and of itself. But I do I think
> that when works of value are counted, more than not are found to be
> innovative by historical, scholarly criteria. Whatever it is that
> makes things good, innovation seems often to be part of its coming
> into being.

That is in the sense of the wider discourse I was talking about and, as
such, the political problems of what these works are, how they were
collectively denoted as valuable, in what context they were seen to be
innovating and what constitutes historical or scholarly criteria all
come up.

> As for technology, see Heidegger, who really blew the top off our
> thinking on that.

Thanks - I have, but it will take many more sightings, as it were, and a
fair whack of additional, supplementary reading before I actually /see/
all that he talks about :)

Correspondingly, I can recommend Timothy Taylor's 'Strange Sounds' and
R.L. Rutsky's (who draws heavily on Heidegger) 'High Techne' for some
interesting discussions of technology w/r/t music and art respectively.

Cheers,
Owen



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:10 EST