a belated blog on marx

Economic theory as a whole means nothing to me, and is usually a vehicle serving my further baffledness (which never seems to end).  I am not the kind of person who can understand things from an objective and detached view, but insist on relating everything to my own experience and trying to mold it to fit my own mindset, or at least not break my mind by trying to conceptualize it.  However, looking back at Marx and having had the discussions we’ve had, I understand a bit more why Marx can be considered “modern”.

 My working definition of modernity at the moment is an awareness of the past, present and future; it is about the self and all its idiosyncrasies (it is about navel gazing, to be sure) but it’s also about others, being aware of external perceptions and motives the way you are aware of your own thoughts and your own movements.  It is about seeking (and sometimes finding) meaning in the parts of life that are found beyond the basic necessities.  It deals with a world whose existence is no longer about mere subsistence, no longer made up of the moment-to-moment struggle to find food and shelter.

The extraordinary thing about Marx is that he deals with one’s isolation from the work of one’s hands.  Others brought this up in discussion as I recall, but I am only just understanding it.  Say I work in a shoe factory and I make tongues for the shoes.  I can make a thousand tongues a day and never even see the shoe they’re attached to.  I will never wear any of those shoes, and I will never meet any of the people who are using the work of my hands.  In a sense the work becomes essential (you are helping to meet the shoe-needs of so many people, as well as helping out your employer and getting a paycheque to support yourself) and yet it becomes trivial.

And I think that’s part of what modernity is — that attempt of awareness of your place in the midst of things, figuring out where you are in “the system” and realizing there is so much more outside of that.  Realizing you are an integral part of that, and yet a miniscule part of it.  The sense of awareness and of resulting alienation seems to pervade all the works we’ve looked at so far.  

Although Marx manages to deconstruct a relatively recent phenomenon (industrialization) in terms that the layman can understand, he also makes one aware of one’s place within the “new” economic system.  Gone are the days of what are now called “cottage industries”, gone are the days of buying produce straight from a person’s farm or trading your goods for socks and mittens knitted by a real live person… buying hand-made shoes can still be done, of course, but usually at an astronomical price.  And gone is the consequence of self-absorption and of immersion in one’s work as one’s livelihood. 

To survive, you must be aware of the vast and varied world you live in, and be able to adapt to a number of different skill requirements.  You must also be aware of the fact that the global economy affects you, not just the economy of your village, or the failure of your own yam crop.  You must also be willing and able to take advantage of the variety of goods and services for sale.  Your morality depends on how well you are able to judge this and apply this to your own life.  Industrial economics have changed our way of life and, I would say, our self-perception.  No wonder Marx’s work is heralded as a modern text.  Perhaps he was the first one to make sense of that idea.

Aly

Your essay proposals…

…can be picked up from my office on Monday, 2-6:30 pm. If I’m not there, I’ll be back within 10 minutes ’cause I’m just getting more coffee.

– Prof Steer

Lessons from Gogol

Gogol, in his stories ‘The Overcoat’ and ‘The Nose’, offers a detailed description of life in Modernity. Gogol reveals a world where individualism is the norm. Everyone, like Platon Kovalyov, is obsessed with rank. What’s more “each man copies his superior” and lives solely to make it to the next level in society, since it is one’s station in society that brings meaning to life. Furthermore, there is much “inhumanity” in man.

Against this backdrop Gogol introduces two characters who are utterly different: the doctor, in ‘The Nose’, and Akakii Akakievich, in ‘The Overcoat’. What makes these men unique is that they are “content with [their] fate[s].” The doctor lives to help people and is completely content with his line of work and station. He says: “I never treat people out of self-interest. This is against my principles and my calling.” In fact, he would rather do his work for free if it wouldn’t offend his patients. Akakii Akakievich also loves his job, he lives to copy. The doctor, it appears, lives in peace, though this is not explicitly mentioned, but we do know that Akakii does not have the same fortune. Akakii is constantly insulted at work and berated for his life as a titular councilor. He is patronized because he is different from the others. However, one ‘young man’, through contact with Akakii, sees through the constructed meaning of his society when he realizes the timeless truth that Akakii is “thy brother.” He understands that all are connected and this insight causes him to observe how much “savage coarseness is concealed in delicate, refined worldliness.”

All of these characters have impacted me greatly. The doctor and Akakii have shown me my discontent and how I must learn to be content with my fate or calling. Also, I see myself in the man who had the epiphany of the brotherhood of all humanity. I don’t think anyone is beyond a condescending glance or thought and this ‘young man’ has taught me to “shudder” at my own inhumanity when I am tempted to have such thoughts.

Jason DeRoche

Next Week: the Surreal Beaver Ball

In preparation for next week’s class, March 5, which will be held at NAC, please read the following:

1. An English Translation of the Refus global.

2. The CBC archives of recordings about the Refus global and the Automatistes.

3. Andre Breton’s “Manifesto of Surrealism,” 1924. Focus on the part preceding the line of circles that look like this:

ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö

This is our introduction to the avant-garde, which some scholars argue is outside and separate from modernity, whereas others claim is integral to it. What do you think?

Check out the lovely poster for the event, as well as the press release, and remember, that, as Breton writes: “the marvelous is always beautiful, anything marvelous is beautiful, in fact only the marvelous is beautiful.”

– Prof Steer

Nikolai Gogol, Gogol Bordello?

See any similarities?

Nikolai Gogol (as compared to our other modernists, there are few photos of Gogol)

Eugene Hütz of Gogol Bordello, http://www.gogolbordello.com

– Prof Steer

The Modern Artist

“By ‘modernity’ I mean the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent, the half of art whose other half is the eternal and immutable”

I think Baudelaire is onto something with this idea of modernity being the part of art that is difficult to grasp and take hold of.  It makes me question wheither the modern artists success or failure is dependent on being able to capture the present.  For example, when I think of photographs that stay in my mind they tend to be images that capture the essence of a moment.  Its almost as though I can picture the scene taking place where the image is captured. 

I don’t think this idea of capturing the present is unique to photography or painting  though.  I think it relates to all modern artists.  Great songwriters like Paul Simon or Leonard Cohen, simply with their words are able to bring moments to life through their lyrics.  Much of modern actor training is based around the idea of ‘living in the moment’ and being present.  I think the difficulty in capturing these fleeting moments is that the world has become so fast paced that these ephemeral pieces of life are becoming increasingly difficult for artists and people to distinguish.  If its the artists role to capture the moment it seems to me that our 60 seconds are often characterized by a bombardment of the senses whereby a moment is gone before it is acknowledged. 

 I wonder how the beauty of these moments can be “distilled” in order to make them relevant.  I agree with Baudelaire when he exclaims “almost all our originality comes from the seal which time imprints on our sensations”  I think capturing this beauty is related to being open to the stumuli of life (new people, experiences, the world) and then being able to channel these experiences through the sensations.  When Baudelaire says “imprints on the sensations” it gives me the idea that they are always there with the obstacle being access to them.  I think the gateway to these imprints is through the subconcious into our past experiences.  Baudelaire calls genius the “ability to access childhood at will”.  I agree in that artistic genius is about capturing that childhood wonder, curiosity and sense of play and letting the outcome of that exploration be the art that is produced. Thus, the key skills to being a modern artist are openess and curiosity (both to people and the external world).

My own vision of Modernity is a highway of fusing energy’s and colours that exists in hyperspeed.  I think its a beautiful image but one that is difficult to get the essence of when you’re inside of it yourself. 

  

 Aaron Berger

A Dandy ain’t so Dandy to me

Enter my imagination with me for a moment. It is 1830 and we sit in a Paris café and watch from afar a dandy at play. Complete with a top hat and tailcoat he walks the streets conversing of nothing of importance with no one really important. His physical image and style is of far great weight. His occupation is to simply be noticed.  This dandy fails to see the budding flowers of springtime or the beggar on the street corner. He lives only within his own head, seeing only the surface of life. Though he may be aware of the “moral mechanisms of the world” according to Baudelaire, being insensitive is also another primary characteristic. This is a dandy’s everyday.

A lifestyle Baudelaire idealized, is to me, a life unsatisfying. Community and the intimacy of personal relationships are what I most cherish. To live this life caring more about the well-being of myself, and ignoring the numerous benefits that come with  personal connections, seems pointless and absurd. Perhaps it’s also the artist in me speaking. The most fulfilling moments are those I gain through artistic creation which requires a search deep down where emotions hide. This leads me to wonder how Monsieur G could be classified by Baudelaire as a dandy while also being able to capture the fine details of the world around him within his work. How would someone living life with their nose in the air simultaneously manage to see all of the beauty around them? While yes, an artist may have the tendency to live much of life within his or her head, he or she also demands a greater journey into the depth of the mind, something I imagine a dandy fails to do often, if ever.

Perhaps I have got this idea all wrong, so please correct me if this is the case. I may be failing to see Baudelaire’s point here. But as I see it tonight, a dandy ain’t so dandy to me.

Heather

Modernism as Change

You may notice a certain theme in my blogs which I assure you is unintentional. I’ve learned to be skeptical of change as quite often it delivers little of what it promises and so I was quite displeased when reading Baudelaire as it ascribes change as being his highest ideal and definition of modernism.

Of course it’s change, as was every movement before or since modernism.

More importantly than that, stating that artists should ignore the past also implies they should ignore the influences which are undeniably present. Art dosesn’t come from thin air, and saying that your art does is arrogant, and as I have a interest in classical and enlightenment thought, I was slightly offended by his assertion otherwise.

Until I started thinking about the classical and enlightenment figures themselves.

Rousseau and many other enlightenment thinkers trace their inalienable human rights to humanity in a state of nature. They claim that these rights should be protected, as they would in nature and in doing so, they have committed a worse offense than Baudelaire. Enlightenment thought has ignored those ideals that came from thousands of years of human progress, and thrown them out the window in favour of his ownperceived ideals. He is doubly offensive in that he not only ignores those that came before, but closes the door to those who see things differently.

It presupposes that the perfect society should exist in perpetuity, unphased by change of any kind. After all, the perfect society shouldn’t have to change, and it’s only a matter of time before we find it.

The Ancient Romans ached for the good old days, particularly as they were equally plagued by civil war. It is reasonable to desire stability when it is lacking.  They read of stories of heroes and modesty but lived in a state that was anything but. Who the hero was one day was a villain the next, and when Octavian emerged victorious, he swore to return those old time values. Instead, he established himself as unofficial dictator and dressed it up as though it were old timey, effectively bringing about stability and also closing the door to those who saw things differently.

Baudelaire’s view of modernity on the other hand, seeks to create a society where artistry is uninhibited by societal norms, so that it may inspire the people to find ideals of their own, and to select what they chose to follow themselves so that they may become dandies themselves. Rather than a ‘you’re either with us or against us’ attitude, he takes a relaxed view of mild detachment, to promote beauty not to ensure it is accepted by others but instead to offered be available to those who might happen to enjoy it. He seeks to see the beauty in the moment rather than forcibly return society to a different time that never really existed other than in fantasies, so that we do not overlook the more visceral beauty that exists here and now.

More than that, it encourages people to try new things, because the perfect society need not necessarily last forever. Indeed, as modernity brings constant change it needs society to change with it.  Most importantly it needs to accept that not all may wish to be a part of this change and may prefer to go different routes. This is why Baudelaire’s detachment is critical, because without it artists might be inclined to be self-conscious and afraid to share their beauty for fear of ridicule.

To say that society without change can function is insane. We as a people could never be satisfied by a single piece of artwork. We need our boundaries pushed wherever they emerge, because without these pushing boundaries there is nothing new and exciting to address. We cannot close the doors to those who may come after us, at least not completely, because to do so is arrogance in the highest degree. Perhaps more arrogant than than ignoring the influences of those who came before, is thinking that we have it right now and will ignore all those that come afterwards.

Not only is Baudelaire’s view more effective than I had considered it to be before, it is also pleasing to the heart and mind as well. He’s not really dismissing those that came before so much as he discourages others from being chained to older ideals.  I don’t know that I agree all that came before should be ignored; as sometimes going back to a simpler time can be a refreshing change, and the constant exposure to new ideas and race to break boundaries can become boring in itself, but I do believe it is less so boring than constantly looking to an idealistic past that never quite existed in our reality.

-Josh Long

I have always been intrigued with abstract work and the thoughts behind this style of art. I’ve considered it to be modern in the sense of having a unique and transitory existence but have never been able to really understand their purpose. Baudelaires ties between the abstract style of Constantin Guys and capturing the ‘momentary and dynamic character of urban phenomena’ has given an intriguing perspective to the term modern and the ability to capture and express this age of a fleeting and constant changing environment onto a still surface. As an artist Baudelaire makes me feel priviledged to be able to ‘distil the eternal from the transitory’ (Baudelaire p.12)

Baudelaire almost makes the ability to create something modern so easily just by inheriting the inspiration of the city and moving away from past artist deemed as ‘modern’ at their time, because we would be just repeating or copying (a sinful thing to do in art) a moment in the past. Who knew that being able to create modern art would be so easy to attain.

Besides the point, Baudelaire gives an appreciation to everyday activity and instead of deeming the constant change in society to be ugly he sees beauty within that change. Baudelaire removes beauty from the hand and places it within the object declaring that beauty is previously existent, there to take hold of and gives the inspiration to create, and to re-create that beauty.

-Jessica Hay

Someone put Charles in charge of Rolling Stone

i find it odd that “The Painter of Modern Life” sounds so contemporary, and so desperately relevant even now.  Instead of despairing the society around him that fosters falsity or alienation, Baudelaire is cheerily able to laud Monsieur G. and his work.

I appreciated, too, Baudelaire’s succintness; which has been a breath of fresh air after the somewhat stilted readings of Nietzche or Freud.  I find for all his enthusiasm, though, Baudelaire hits upon something extremely valuable to the discussion of modernism.  I found an expertly crafted passage on page 24 of the article:

“Once more to attempt a definition of the kind of subjects preferred by our artist, we would say that it is the outward show of life, such as it is to be seen in the capitals of the civilized world; the pageantry of military life, of fashion and of love. Wherever those deep, impetuous desires, war, love, and gaming, are in full flood, like Orinocos of the human heart; wherever are celebrated the festivals and fictions which embody these great elements of happiness and adversity, our observer is always punctually on the spot.” [emphasis mine]

I find this passage important because it attempts to pin down what we seem to have been coming around to – that immediacy of modernity that is at once deeply personal, but also visibly made plain by….what?  How can Monsieur G. communicate his own sense of beauty to the viewer?  Certainly Baudelaire has seen it, and agrees.  But does this mean that beauty is in-set, or is it still determined by our own circumstances and context?

I find this passage as meaningful as it is troubling.

 (as to the title of the post, I think honesty and enthusiasm such as Baudelaire’s would be a great service to some our current popular culture publications.  Take note, Rolling Stone Magazine.)

 - Steve Woodhead

The Conscientious Creator

Monsieur G., in Charles Baudelaire’s essay: The Painter of Modern Life, fascinates me and I have learned a vast amount about what it means to be an artist by reflecting on this character. He intrigues me because everything about him runs counter to who the media would have me believe an artist is. The first we hear of him is that “Monsieur G. is an old man” (pg 397). Already he is different from the majority of pop icons, the heroes of Muchmusic or Entertainment Tonight. While the world tells us to hurry up and be successful before we grow too old, Monsieur G. has waited until middle age, if not beyond that, to become an artist, and Baudelaire considers this a wonderful thing. His age has made him a “man of the world” instead of a “skilled brute” like the majority of artists (pg 397). He passionately desires to understand the world and all that occurs therein. In Baudelaire’s words: “curiosity may be the starting point of his genius” (pg 397).
Monsieur G. is a conscientious creator. He has prepared himself in all ways: spiritually, philosophically, politically, etc. for his role as a painter. The last thing he focused on was skill, as if it were an after thought: “oh yes, I need to know how to paint in order to draw a picture.” One would think that this type of person is extinct, but, in reality, people of this magnitude do still exist. He is the guitarist playing jazz in a small club to a crowd of 30, each hanging on his every note. She is an actor on a stage in a nearly forgotten theatre, performing for a tiny but enthusiastic crowd. Yes, this type of person does and always will exist it’s just that we have forced them to the perimeters of the world rather than embrace and encourage their unique visions.

Jason DeRoche

Blog posts & essay proposals

In light of missing last week’s class and some confusion regarding blog posting due dates, here is a revised schedule:

(wk 2)Jan 16 and (wk 4) Jan 30 — past due

(wk 5) Feb 6 moves to –> Feb 13 (if you already posted last week’s blog, that’s great; if you would like to edit your post, go ahead anytime before Wednesday at midnight; if you haven’t posted this one, do so before Wednesday at midnight)

(wk 6) Feb 13 moves to –> Feb 27

The rest of the blogs stay on the dates listed in the syllabus: weeks 8 (March 7), 10 (March 19), (April 2) 12.

** please note that I’ve extended the date for week 8 slightly so that you may write about the surrealist night at NAC.

Your proposal is due this week – February 13th — and we’ll have to stick to that date so we don’t fall behind. Please let me know if you have any questions about the format. This is taken from the syllabus:

Proposal: this is a two-page document in which you propose your object(s) of study (the texts and the ideas) and the course of action you plan to use in your paper. It should a paragraph or two that describes a topic, research/analysis question, tentative thesis, possible arguments and possible evidence. The second page will be a properly formatted bibliography, using Chicago or MLA style.

If you have questions, I’ll be in my office tomorrow (Feb 11th) afternoon and on MSN.

– Prof. Steer