April 26th, 2010 / 1:25 pm
Excerpts

human nature has nothing to do with master-pieces

The tradition has always been that you may more or less describe the things that happen you imagine them of course but you more or less describe the things that happen but nowadays everybody all day long knows what is happening and so what is happening is not really interesting, one knows it by radios cinemas newspapers biographies autobiographies until what is happening does not really thrill any one, it excites them a little but it does not really thrill them.

It is awfully difficult, action is direct and effective but after all action is necessary and anything that is necessary has to do with human nature and not with the human mind. Therefore a master-piece has essentially not to be necessary, it has to be that is it has to exist but it does not have to be necessary it is not in response to necessity as action is because the minute it is necessary it has in it no possibility of going on.

And so always it is true that the master-piece has nothing to do with human nature or with identity, it has to do with the human mind and the entity that is with a thing in itself and not in relation. The moment it is in relation it is common knowledge and anybody can feel and know it and it is not a master-piece.

from “What Are Master-pieces and Why Are There So Few of Them
by Gertrude Stein

Tags: ,

74 Comments

  1. stephen

      “His writing is not about something. It is that something itself.” —Beckett on Joyce

  2. Blake Butler

      i fucking love this. thank you.

  3. stephen

      “His writing is not about something. It is that something itself.” —Beckett on Joyce

  4. Blake Butler

      i fucking love this. thank you.

  5. zusya

      from waking life: “Which is the most universal human characteristic: fear, or laziness?”

      methinks the answer lies in some-kind-of amalgamonstermation of the two, or: indecision.

  6. stephen

      “have you heard, the word is love” —Beatles

  7. stephen

      “have you heard, the word is love” —Beatles

  8. Lincoln

      “there’s some kinda love and there’s some kinda hate, but the maggots in the iron lung won’t copulate” – The Misfits

  9. Lincoln

      “there’s some kinda love and there’s some kinda hate, but the maggots in the iron lung won’t copulate” – The Misfits

  10. Janey Smith

      That was thrilling, as usual. Just when I thought master-pieces were dead, Stein (through Higgs) makes me stumble. Now, I realize that they are so dead, I might be breathing their dust.

      So, wait. What is human nature again? Doesn’t it belong to that group of antiquated and, somewhat, outmoded notions that include consciousness, thinking, universality, relativity, knowledge and, especially, thing-in-itself? And what is so philosophically and politically relevant about the question of master-pieces today? What is a master-piece? And doesn’t such a thing require a slave sonnet or something related to slavery to determine its condition? I mean there can’t be a master-something without a slave-something, right?

      Is this one of those days where are all you “southern” writers long for the “golden age” of plantations and cotton and stuff like that? Well, I’ve seen your pictures on facebook, Christopher Higgs (and Blake Butler) and I’ll gladly be your slave. But, you’re going to have to change your ways of thinking. Master-pieces, along with master narratives, belong to those who need them.

      The heavy leather dog-collar is in the bed-side table, to the left.

  11. Janey Smith

      That was thrilling, as usual. Just when I thought master-pieces were dead, Stein (through Higgs) makes me stumble. Now, I realize that they are so dead, I might be breathing their dust.

      So, wait. What is human nature again? Doesn’t it belong to that group of antiquated and, somewhat, outmoded notions that include consciousness, thinking, universality, relativity, knowledge and, especially, thing-in-itself? And what is so philosophically and politically relevant about the question of master-pieces today? What is a master-piece? And doesn’t such a thing require a slave sonnet or something related to slavery to determine its condition? I mean there can’t be a master-something without a slave-something, right?

      Is this one of those days where are all you “southern” writers long for the “golden age” of plantations and cotton and stuff like that? Well, I’ve seen your pictures on facebook, Christopher Higgs (and Blake Butler) and I’ll gladly be your slave. But, you’re going to have to change your ways of thinking. Master-pieces, along with master narratives, belong to those who need them.

      The heavy leather dog-collar is in the bed-side table, to the left.

  12. stephen

      hmmm… copulating maggots…

  13. stephen

      hmmm… copulating maggots…

  14. stephen
  15. stephen
  16. Janey Smith

      Actually, Stephen, I was thinking “slave” as in “being a slave” for somebody (i.e. Christopher Higgs) and not for some thing (i.e. the record industry, commercial culture). But, I understand if you have a difficult time differentiating between the two. I mean, you listen to Britney Spears.

  17. Janey Smith

      Actually, Stephen, I was thinking “slave” as in “being a slave” for somebody (i.e. Christopher Higgs) and not for some thing (i.e. the record industry, commercial culture). But, I understand if you have a difficult time differentiating between the two. I mean, you listen to Britney Spears.

  18. stephen

      oh damn… lol

  19. stephen

      oh damn… lol

  20. stephen

      are slaves “humorless drones”? sorry, pretty slow yall…

  21. stephen

      are slaves “humorless drones”? sorry, pretty slow yall…

  22. Janey Smith

      Now, I’m laughing! I don’t know, Stephen. Are you asking yourself that question?

  23. Janey Smith

      Now, I’m laughing! I don’t know, Stephen. Are you asking yourself that question?

  24. stephen

      so confused….

  25. stephen

      so confused….

  26. Janey Smith

      No you’re not. But, that’s cool. I still like you and the funny things you say on the GIANT. Anyway, back to my questions: What is human nature? What is a master-piece? To be honest, I don’t think anybody really cares. You included. But, it’s fun to try to guess at these things, to make-believe and stuff. I think human nature is this really bad story that people have made-up to explain things that are impossible to explain. And I think master-pieces are also really bad stories, too, that people believe-in because they need something to explain why not all writing can be great or something. Because if all writing was great, then there’d be anarchy. And people are afraid of anarchy.

      I’ll probably change my mind about all of this tomorrow. Or maybe even in five minutes.

  27. Janey Smith

      No you’re not. But, that’s cool. I still like you and the funny things you say on the GIANT. Anyway, back to my questions: What is human nature? What is a master-piece? To be honest, I don’t think anybody really cares. You included. But, it’s fun to try to guess at these things, to make-believe and stuff. I think human nature is this really bad story that people have made-up to explain things that are impossible to explain. And I think master-pieces are also really bad stories, too, that people believe-in because they need something to explain why not all writing can be great or something. Because if all writing was great, then there’d be anarchy. And people are afraid of anarchy.

      I’ll probably change my mind about all of this tomorrow. Or maybe even in five minutes.

  28. stephen

      i see where u r coming from here, janey. might agree re: human nature/master-pieces. altho, i think if all writing was “great,” i don’t think there’d be anarchy, i think, if it was “true,” if people “believed” it was so, what there’d be would be peace.

  29. stephen

      “radical” peace

  30. stephen

      i see where u r coming from here, janey. might agree re: human nature/master-pieces. altho, i think if all writing was “great,” i don’t think there’d be anarchy, i think, if it was “true,” if people “believed” it was so, what there’d be would be peace.

  31. stephen

      “radical” peace

  32. andy.riverbed

      genes and our peer group are human nature.

      the master-piece is the moment everyone has been convinced, or have convinced themselves, to agree on something about something.

  33. andy.riverbed

      genes and our peer group are human nature.

      the master-piece is the moment everyone has been convinced, or have convinced themselves, to agree on something about something.

  34. alan

      “What is human nature?”

      Well, Marx (polemicizing against an anarchist, as a matter of fact) wrote that “all history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature.”

      He also called “the war of the slaves against their oppressors” “the only just war in history.”

      I suppose I’m with Janey Smith and Artaud against masterpieces. I do like Gertrude Stein, though, in small doses (like this one).

  35. alan

      “What is human nature?”

      Well, Marx (polemicizing against an anarchist, as a matter of fact) wrote that “all history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature.”

      He also called “the war of the slaves against their oppressors” “the only just war in history.”

      I suppose I’m with Janey Smith and Artaud against masterpieces. I do like Gertrude Stein, though, in small doses (like this one).

  36. zusya

      “he’s a real nowhere man, siting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody”

  37. stephen

      “Baby, you can drive my car/Yes, I’m gonna be a star/Baby, you can drive my car/And maybe I’ll love you (Beep beep, beep beep yeah!)”

  38. stephen

      “Baby, you can drive my car/Yes, I’m gonna be a star/Baby, you can drive my car/And maybe I’ll love you (Beep beep, beep beep yeah!)”

  39. stephen

      better yet: “haters gonna hate/lovers gonna love/i don’t even want none of the above, i want to piss on you, yes i do, i piss on you, i pee on you”

  40. stephen

      better yet: “haters gonna hate/lovers gonna love/i don’t even want none of the above, i want to piss on you, yes i do, i piss on you, i pee on you”

  41. Lincoln

      Are these Lady Gaga lyrics?

  42. Lincoln

      Are these Lady Gaga lyrics?

  43. stephen

      just want to be authentic, yall, have meaningful, anonymous, intellectual conversations on the interwebs… wish i hated everything and used words like “methinks” and “amalgamonstermation”… then i’d be somewhere, man….

  44. stephen

      just want to be authentic, yall, have meaningful, anonymous, intellectual conversations on the interwebs… wish i hated everything and used words like “methinks” and “amalgamonstermation”… then i’d be somewhere, man….

  45. stephen

      zusya, if i ever meet you, i’ll punch your teeth in. is that a lady gaga thing to say?

  46. stephen

      zusya, if i ever meet you, i’ll punch your teeth in. is that a lady gaga thing to say?

  47. stephen

      wow… lol…. hmmm… well, if you met me right now, i’d punch your teeth in…. i’ll probably “cool off” by the time that happens, whoever you are, black hole of negativity…. hmmmm…. sigh…….. might need to quit htmlgiant indefinitely…. (good riddance)

  48. mimi
  49. stephen

      wow… lol…. hmmm… well, if you met me right now, i’d punch your teeth in…. i’ll probably “cool off” by the time that happens, whoever you are, black hole of negativity…. hmmmm…. sigh…….. might need to quit htmlgiant indefinitely…. (good riddance)

  50. mimi
  51. stephen

      yup, i’m revoking my commenting privileges. peace, zusya, sorry for losing my shit.

  52. stephen

      yup, i’m revoking my commenting privileges. peace, zusya, sorry for losing my shit.

  53. David

      I think Stein would probably say, approvingly, that if a master-piece is not necessary, it is obnoxious, which is why there are so few of them.

  54. David

      I think Stein would probably say, approvingly, that if a master-piece is not necessary, it is obnoxious, which is why there are so few of them.

  55. zusya

      um, hi? i thought my song quotelette was relevant to ““What Are Master-pieces and Why Are There So Few of Them” … wasn’t aiming at any nerves.

      got a couple fillings the other day. was this close to a root canal.

  56. stephen

      yea im a spaz… god bless yr teeth

  57. stephen

      yea im a spaz… god bless yr teeth

  58. Tom K

      I like both this excerpt and Janey Smiths reply.

  59. Tom K

      I like both this excerpt and Janey Smiths reply.

  60. zusya

      : D

  61. zusya

      : D

  62. Donald

      ‘amalgamonstermation’ is pretty dubious, but I think indecision might be pretty spot on. certainly, it’s my most frequent downfall, if nothing else.

  63. Donald

      ‘amalgamonstermation’ is pretty dubious, but I think indecision might be pretty spot on. certainly, it’s my most frequent downfall, if nothing else.

  64. zusya

      @donald aprosexia is my biggest achilles heel (in more ways than one).

  65. zusya

      @donald aprosexia is my biggest achilles heel (in more ways than one).

  66. keith n b

      chris, for being apolitical you are the epitome of polemical, a reactionary stance which springs not from the no-need to which stein elliptically alludes. from everything you’ve said this past year it seems that without mimesis to rail against, you have nothing to propel you, which is far from the so-called ‘freedom of the masterpiece’.

      can you not expand the conversation into a non-reactionary territory? if not, your position is as deterministic as newtonian mechanics.

      or would you not exist without mimesis? and as such, more than anything, are you not indebted to it, bound to it like a slave, for isn’t that by which you define yourself: the negation of something else?

      this is a vital and interesting discussion, but damn man, flip the record over or something. if all you’re trying to do is be provocative, then i have a pair of fishnet stockings you can borrow.

  67. keith n b

      chris, for being apolitical you are the epitome of polemical, a reactionary stance which springs not from the no-need to which stein elliptically alludes. from everything you’ve said this past year it seems that without mimesis to rail against, you have nothing to propel you, which is far from the so-called ‘freedom of the masterpiece’.

      can you not expand the conversation into a non-reactionary territory? if not, your position is as deterministic as newtonian mechanics.

      or would you not exist without mimesis? and as such, more than anything, are you not indebted to it, bound to it like a slave, for isn’t that by which you define yourself: the negation of something else?

      this is a vital and interesting discussion, but damn man, flip the record over or something. if all you’re trying to do is be provocative, then i have a pair of fishnet stockings you can borrow.

  68. Christopher Higgs

      Wow, tough talk Keith Brown….would not have expected such vitriol from someone whom I have in the past encouraged and corresponded with most kindly…in truth, I had thought you’d disappeared from planet earth, given that I never received a response to my praise-filled response to your Net-Sub essay way back when…how quickly and easily your knife slides into my back…oh well, fickle are the friends we think we keep. Good day to you.

  69. Christopher Higgs

      Wow, tough talk Keith Brown….would not have expected such vitriol from someone whom I have in the past encouraged and corresponded with most kindly…in truth, I had thought you’d disappeared from planet earth, given that I never received a response to my praise-filled response to your Net-Sub essay way back when…how quickly and easily your knife slides into my back…oh well, fickle are the friends we think we keep. Good day to you.

  70. anon

      just want to live my life yall

  71. anon

      just want to live my life yall

  72. keith n b

      my bad. re-reading my comment, it does appear hostile. perhaps, my mindset was tweaked toward such for unknown reasons, and allowed the language and line of logic to carry me away (i mean that seriously, the assonance of the ‘p’s in ‘apolitical/epitome/polemical’ became the driving force of the sentence; and was no longer thinking about the tone or literal meaning). i suspect i was trying to engage in an impassioned discussion and came across as attacking you. or simply came across as an asshole. which i take responsibility for.

      the outwardly directed aggression was most likely due to personal circumstances at the moment. among other things (cognitive, historical and physical) i was bored and thought i’d try to push a surface-level discussion, which has cropped up here before, into other areas by means of a hot trident. maybe take it into a historical survey of the human animal: from organism qua survival to conscious sentient, at once individuated from the biological imperative (while still inextricably bound up with it) and yet involved in a complex affair of freedom and determernism even at the psychological level; and the implications of such a condition with regard to aesthetics.

      apologies for the attack. as a core principle i only advocate violence against ideas, not other people. and apologies for not responding to your compliments regarding my essay, which i would certainly have done and thanked you for, but for some reason don’t recall receiving. perhaps we’ll have to chalk that one up to entropy. anyhow, yeah i’m still on the planet, albeit in a private biodome that sometimes fills up with fog and mist. hope you can see past the grievance as a flawed attempt at sparing.

  73. keith n b

      my bad. re-reading my comment, it does appear hostile. perhaps, my mindset was tweaked toward such for unknown reasons, and allowed the language and line of logic to carry me away (i mean that seriously, the assonance of the ‘p’s in ‘apolitical/epitome/polemical’ became the driving force of the sentence; and was no longer thinking about the tone or literal meaning). i suspect i was trying to engage in an impassioned discussion and came across as attacking you. or simply came across as an asshole. which i take responsibility for.

      the outwardly directed aggression was most likely due to personal circumstances at the moment. among other things (cognitive, historical and physical) i was bored and thought i’d try to push a surface-level discussion, which has cropped up here before, into other areas by means of a hot trident. maybe take it into a historical survey of the human animal: from organism qua survival to conscious sentient, at once individuated from the biological imperative (while still inextricably bound up with it) and yet involved in a complex affair of freedom and determernism even at the psychological level; and the implications of such a condition with regard to aesthetics.

      apologies for the attack. as a core principle i only advocate violence against ideas, not other people. and apologies for not responding to your compliments regarding my essay, which i would certainly have done and thanked you for, but for some reason don’t recall receiving. perhaps we’ll have to chalk that one up to entropy. anyhow, yeah i’m still on the planet, albeit in a private biodome that sometimes fills up with fog and mist. hope you can see past the grievance as a flawed attempt at sparing.

  74. The Ways Of Earning Money Online!

      […] HTMLGIANT / human nature has nothing to do with master-pieces […]