“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…”
Summarily pragmatic, but also destructively intellectually coarse.
If you know it when you see it, and you’re as competent with language as a Supreme Court judge, artful writer, or, hell, interested citizen or reader should be, then, without defining “it” perfectly, you can put into words usefully what “it” is that you know you “know”.
(–“you” being, in the case Matt quotes, Stewart…)
I think it’s a mistake, not just epistemologically, but in practice, for subjectivity to be an excuse for ‘pragmatically’ smearing terms into a confidently judgmental blur.
i have a character in this thing i’m working on ask and then pursue the same question. he doesn’t get an answer, yet. or, at least one that’s in any way satisfying. and the question, especially asked in this way, feels facetious or even, yeah, absurd. but as silly as it sounds…i do think there’s an interesting nugget of…something…here…you should rephrase it into an essay that ‘explores the issue,’ and then see what people say. also you should just write my novel i don’t want to do it anymore.
did you know christopher guest is a lord in england? he’s a goddamn baron! recently a young possum was hanging out on my porch every night & i would yell at him, calling him an ‘ugly bastard’ & a ‘fucking freak’ & so on & one night the little shit came into my house & of course i chased him away but he wouldn’t leave so i stabbed him a couple of times with a kitchen knife & knocked him off the porch with a broom & he hit the domino table downstairs & i never saw him again — sometimes i wonder if i miss him, i remember the glazed, disinterested gaze of his beady eyes as i ran the blade thru his side & clenched my teeth, wishing i could feel his insides with my hand — anywho… hope you had an awesome day!
well am going to have to drop a link: http://www.terrorpeople.org (about to experience a redux and looking for contributors)
to dichotomize or compare art/terrorism at first glance feels arbitrary and/or nihilistic. there is no difference. in the present state all action is terrorism, and all art is action. the symbolic act with the most impact of the new millenium was… for me it is a frustrating question because it doesn’t offer much (yet) besides a reinforcement of my sadness and complete demoralization regarding the culture i was born into. fuck it. i’m going to drive around in my camaro
What’s the difference between “pickles” and “starvation.” Ask the Unabomber. This is a nonsense question, art & terrorism are so different. Only the narcissist artist seeking fake notoriety might think their art can have the effect of mass violence.