We learning to compile what they learn from Internet . not from the web, but the network itself, while presence and functionality. Everyone has their ranking.
At the top of mine, in my top 5, it remains certain that nothing is ever enough.
What attracts me to the web, rather than its immediacy or revolution in communication is the most expansive ever availability. It the'm just linking yes (Wiring continuity and the redefinition of what we mean by homogeneous and heterogeneous ), but above all the certainty that it is always better to know another of what we were looking .
Eduardo Rey told me days ago, a story rescued by Pascal Quignard on a famine in the Roman Empire .
.jpg)
On how the lack of food had made an entire population cannibals. I felt I was reliving the movie The Road , "the latest film by Viggo Mortensen "Directed by John Hillcoat (so close to Nick Cave ) based on a novel by Cormac McCarthy . What sense does the search for originality? builds its new reality of what we already knew.
The end (the end as an entity ) perimenopausal certainly not for its progressive but expansive (to the sides). Whenever understand better than all the poems in the world are not enough, all the songs in the world are not all films the world will never reach us .
Internet continues to teach us that so close to everything you look for another one or find another one and another one that precedes or is simultaneous with it.
I talked about my ranking . Internet keeps alive the feeling that this ranking can change and change and change . I think that's a big difference with modern thought, even with modern taste, with the idiotic claim to be (culturally) the first at something, to wield some sort of origin. Did you hear
version of The Dark Side of The Moon of Flaming Lips? We were not even enough to version of Pink Floyd !
Or do a good cover does not reinvent a song? Undoubtedly, it is
possible that everything has been said, but can still go back to say everything and be just as fabulous as before or better! course, it is imperative to re-invent other ways of saying the same thing. Put it this way: new is just saying what we already know but otherwise .
We thought someone had invented a sound. On the Internet find so many others who were in the same before or at the same time. A few months ago Paul Schanton quoted Stephin Merritt, of Magnetics Fields when he confessed: "For some reason I am completely incapable of doing something new with the pop song. How depressing. "
In the same column Excess composition, also highlighted the statement made by Andrés Calamaro in Eme Efe site: "We are not in the twentieth century and not stop feeling that the model of rock song could be completed. Conclude as did the tango song that has a beginning and an end. (...) And recordings of the Beatles at Abbey Road end. "
need to change the foreshortening and ask how much it take to tire a spectator or a composer or an operator of any of a way to observe a cultural form?
Why temporality of historical context should exhaust a form?
How many times have we heard that the novel is dead ? What movies died? What blogs died! I still believe that there is something very stupid in the parricide, even if it is installed in the genetic memory of our culture.
quick So we got tired of reading, seeing, listening? I mean, not knowing invent other ways of reading, seeing and hearing the same thing. If not for the boys of Cahiers du Cinéma , Hitchcock perhaps today would be dead.
The same happens to me with the belief that wealth goes against quality. I can only remember mocking Anthony Burgess's group Bloomsbury group (which belonged among other Virginia Woolf and Strachey Hilton) and his criticism of militant prolificacy. "Enough openings! "I used to cry.
We do not have to worry about. We can all write a good verse. Even a great verse. But very few are able to write ten good poems.
0 comments:
Post a Comment