Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Featuring! Unkillable villains! Falsetto Focus Group! Geezaesthetics! Adorno bringing the realness! Stelios! Warped comic artists! Marks out of ten! (I think that's covered everything.)

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Ooh, the geezasthetics manifesto at last! But what is that animal on the front page?

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:39 (twenty-one years ago)

10. We are not concerned with historical accuracy. We are more interested in our reactions to art, and in your reactions.

ERM! What if our 'reactions' are informed by our knowledge of history? Sounds to me very like the 'don't intellectualize it, just feel it' approach. Valorizing lack of historical knowledge is not the way forward.

Don't let me bring out the r-word!

― Enrique 3000 (Enrique), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Well if our reactions are informed by our knowledge of history then great! Mine certainly are! But lack of historical (or other) knowledge isn't a good reason to dismiss someone's reactions, is what we're saying.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Look at the Focus Group No. 1!

\m/

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:45 (twenty-one years ago)

the sky is falling on our heads

― chris (chris), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Tom, where did my comments go ? did you not get them in time, cause i sent them on wednesday for a friday deadline, im kind of sad.

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Where did you send them Anthony? I never got them :(

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:50 (twenty-one years ago)

But lack of historical (or other) knowledge isn't a good reason to dismiss someone's reactions, is what we're saying.

Well fine (up to a point, I wd have thought)

but

We are not concerned with historical accuracy. We are more interested in our reactions to art, and in your reactions.

Sets in opposition reaction vs contextualized/informed/whatever reaction, surely? Saying 'we are not concerned with historical accuracy' is sorta carte blanche to ignore context.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:54 (twenty-one years ago)

to freaky trigger at hotmail.
i had a huge self esteem crash there.

could you do them as an addendum, or would that be a pain in the ass ?

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Hotmail must have fucked up then, that's really disappointing Anthony as your comments are always some of the best. I'm sorry about that. Post them on NYLPM by all means, or I could add them in, the sad thing is your marks won't be taken into account either.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the emphasis is on the reaction here and now and that wangling over historical "accuracy" - surely this could be as subjective as you want anyway (charles was right! charles was wrong! off with his head! argh WAMPYR) - isn't the point.

But I'm a Lady.

― Sarah (starry), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:58 (twenty-one years ago)

That point's getting at insistence on *accuracy*, Enrique, not dismissing knowledge.

xpost with Starry LeStatto

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:59 (twenty-one years ago)

We believe thrills should be got where they are available, within reason.

Why? They're a rubbish band. Send them to Santa bloody Cruz. I'll drive them to the airport personally.

― Iain St Claire, Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Antony, you can alway write and article for the next FT which talk about your responses to this Focus Group, intertwining your opinions. I like the idea of that.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I am amazed any of my comments made it in at all from the Day Of The Hangover.

― Sarah (starry), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:01 (twenty-one years ago)

'Accuracy' is tricky, it applies to *some* things (dates, certain facets of events) but not others (other facets of events, general sweep).

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, yes.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Which is why this is a document in flux.

I only wish we got to sign it at the bottom. Or carve it on our belly like Rich Tea Manic.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Lord knows it would fit.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:07 (twenty-one years ago)

What I mean is, some accuracy is useful, ie for the Focus Groop, 'Breathe' was based on a track off Dr Dre's 2000 LP. Other historical interpretation I can see isn't always necessary in reviewing.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:08 (twenty-one years ago)

But thats actually a good example Enrique - the people who knew it was based on a Dre beat just shrugged and went oh Dre beat, whereas the people who didn't were talking about eg French influences, i.e. were listening in more interesting ways (I reckon).

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:09 (twenty-one years ago)

i will post to nyplm then tom.

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:12 (twenty-one years ago)

There's the possibility that a historical fact could make something interesting but isn't it more interesting/neu! to "judge something on it's merits", so as to speak?

― Sarah (starry), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:12 (twenty-one years ago)

It seems to me that both are fine but I'm not interested in people* stomping all over something interesting / entertaining / enlightening with their pedantic accuracy.

*other than me, obv.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:15 (twenty-one years ago)

When I first heard it I shrugged it off, and it took time to realize it was a big improvement on the original. So I see what you mean; but actually when I was younger at least I liked being given some sense of context by reviewers, not just 'this sounds like...' but 'this takes further'.
I think that esp with old stuff you sometimes need to know why something was exciting -- ie if it's been ripped off a thousand times you won't see what's interesting about the original. Also if you actually enjoy, as I do, finding out about the past through music/books/movies, then the context is obviously useful -- to be fair I'm talking about movies, which I use in a partly sociological sense to find out about things (they speak in lots of voices, not just bare content of course).

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I think your responsibility as a critic is to your audience not the work though - if something was exciting and is so no longer then you should be honest about that, not try and dig around for the lost excitement.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:18 (twenty-one years ago)

B-b-but Enrique another point seems to be that geezaesthetics isn't the reserve of the "reviewer" - the points that apply to "A Review" aren't the points that apply in a pub conversation.

― Sarah (starry), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:19 (twenty-one years ago)

im sorry to keep derailing, but tom can you email me ?

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Just emailed.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, sticky one, that. Possibly writing about music is more like that -- I mean it's generally easier to get hold of. One of the things about movies is that they are hard to see, disappearing all the time, and for that reason I'm probably more likely to want to hold on to them. But I'm not necessarily holding up any kind of 'value', excitement or otherwise, in work that I watch -- as regards the public I want to communicate what it said to its time, which I reckon is as important as what it says now.

I hardly ever review, btw. But my pub conversation tends to be about different stuff.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:24 (twenty-one years ago)

i have not agreed with a mannifesto more, and i think that the problem w. history is we live it and have it under our skins, we have, every day people forming canons for/with/because of us.

note history as just another text.

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:30 (twenty-one years ago)

manifesto = just another text too, anthony!

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:31 (twenty-one years ago)

A manifesto is the first step towards my ultimate goal: EXPULSIONS!

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I have been waiting a long time for part 2 of 'In Search of Squirrel' and now I must go and have a good long cry.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Tim: try eating dried apricots. Works wonders for me.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Shit, better stop dissenting and toe the geezer line...

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:36 (twenty-one years ago)

You've been all about your toilet habits these past few days, haven't you Bazza?

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Unfortunately for part 2 to be written the squirrel needs to be found.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Have I? More recently than usual? Hmm, perhaps.

(don't feel the need to remind me if I've forgotten something, Hoppers)

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I note that in the book 'How to do almost everything' there are instructions for skinning a squirrel.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:38 (twenty-one years ago)

i grew up lds. i know the power of adding texts to the canon. it just happens that i like this text, it makes me feel x better then that text over there, so i will pocket this one.

(ie this one reflects more of how i feel about art then adorno, because it reflects the reality of my desk...which has on it now 3 arat forums, a bible, 8 compact discs, three books on nero and a post card of madonna ca true blue...that reality will change tomorrow (i'll take the nero books back, and mail the postcards)

cant we treat history like my desk ?

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:40 (twenty-one years ago)

also i have had squirrel stew, its rather good.

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Where did you get the squirrel?

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:41 (twenty-one years ago)

i didnt ask. it was served to me at a kitchen party in the south west corner of alberta

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Not sure I'm quite with you Anthony -- there's no ground-zero point of neutrality from which one 'feels better' about Adorno (if at all). You seem to discount the possibility of any grasp on history -- and no version of Adorno sanctions that.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:43 (twenty-one years ago)

sorry PJ, next time it'll be ready.... hopefully, if I can find some. maybe there'll be summat else though.

i do need squirrel though dammit

― chris (chris), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:44 (twenty-one years ago)

i grasp history where and when i need to, its salmon swimming upstream

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Trip to alberta it is!

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Chris you could always bite the bullet and pay £15 per squirrel, but it would hurt a lot to pay so much.

― Vicky (Vicky), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Skipping 42 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

So me and E. were walking towards my bus tonight and there was a bigoutKast display in the CD shop, w/a blownup review. It was by Marcello, from Uncut, obv. It was kinda freaky! THE END.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 14:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Tico was it YOU who played the Sisters of Mercy?

― Sarah (starry), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 14:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I was outed as a 80+h long ago alas.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 14:28 (twenty-one years ago)

the dominance of black in your recent attire was a big clue now i realise

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Hey now, hey now now.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

good effort

― Jimmy Saville Impersonation Contest Panel (blueski), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 15:27 (twenty-one years ago)

So - the geezer manifesto is finished? And available?

― the slowfox, Thursday, 11 December 2003 14:03 (twenty-one years ago)

No, it's unfinished and available via the link at the top of this thread.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 11 December 2003 14:06 (twenty-one years ago)

But I'd be interested to know what you think.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 11 December 2003 15:38 (twenty-one years ago)

1. Does it matter that the authors are unidentified?

I was going to say: who wrote this? But then I thought it might be more important or valuable not to know.

2. I think that I can possibly agree with some of what I have just skimmed.

Possibly this is ilx's influence on me, good or ill. Maybe ill!

3. I am not sure why you are not concerned with 'historical accuracy'. Presumably you mean *sometimes* you are not concerned with it - it depends what you're up to - etc // actually, I am not sure what you mean. Maybe I would just like to hear more on that point.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 11 December 2003 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

good or ill it doesn't exist

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 11 December 2003 15:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I must admit I preferred it when I thought Geezaesthetics was about deciding whether something had any bollocks or not (re: Dear Catastrophe Waitress - 'no bollocks whatsoever').

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Thursday, 11 December 2003 19:54 (twenty-one years ago)

The geezer manifesto is sharp genius....whoever wrote it. However, I am slightly shamed that I've not posted anything for a month.

I know....gotta remedy....

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Thursday, 11 December 2003 20:56 (twenty-one years ago)

that's me PJ - geezasthuggics

― chris (chris), Friday, 12 December 2003 10:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought Pete's two articles were very entertaining by the way.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 12 December 2003 10:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Let's talk more Geezaesthetics.

― Pete (Pete), Friday, 12 December 2003 10:25 (twenty-one years ago)

what if you find pubs daunting and scary?

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 12 December 2003 10:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Invent your own one which isnt!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 12 December 2003 10:35 (twenty-one years ago)

But not a bar, that would be poncaethestics.

― Pete (Pete), Friday, 12 December 2003 10:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Also I think Tanya's GREEK ALPHABET OF PISS-POOR POP is worth a mention

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Friday, 12 December 2003 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Greek Alphabet? Damn my work-filter. I take it Tanya has finished reading The Alphabet, then? Damn, what with The Biography of English, I'm still languishing somewhere around H and HSA wants to read it next.

― HRH Queen Kate (kate), Friday, 12 December 2003 11:27 (twenty-one years ago)

The geezers talk about 'pub conversation' as a forum or discussion. I am sympathetic. I like many pubs, conversations, and pub conversations.

Yet the geezers are in truth vague about 'pub conversation'. They do not officially recognize the variety of forms that this broad category could take.

For instance.

1. 6:30. London. People standing up with pints in their hands and shouting cheerful insults and swear words at each other, possibly with loud music in the background.

2. Early afternoon. A village in, perhaps, Gloucestershsire. Corner of a pub. A man and a woman try, awkwardly, politely, perhaps desperately, to talk about how they feel about each other, and how this has changed for the worse.

3. Another table in another corner of another pub, in London. 6:30 till 11:15. Two participants. Topics include: Pynchon, O'Hara, Amis, Thomson, Morley, Bracewell, Morrissey, geezers, Barthes, whether to go and get another round in (yes).

You can add your own further variants.

How many varieties of 'pub conversation' are the geezers interested in? In which kinds are they most interested, and in which are they less interested?

― the pubfox, Friday, 12 December 2003 13:45 (twenty-one years ago)

'Gloucestershire' here spelled almost as Mark and Lard pronounce it.

― the pubfox, Friday, 12 December 2003 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)

The Greek Alphabet will probably be turned into a separate article.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 12 December 2003 13:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I think 'pub conversation' is a metaphor for public conversation, i.e. conversation designed to include rather than exclude, conversation where anyone can join in. So your example #2, a private conversation that happens to take place in a pub, is not one the g-thete would be interested in: the man and woman would presumably not be too keen on an interruption from a passing geezaesthete.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 12 December 2003 13:52 (twenty-one years ago)

"Pub conversation" is also a metaphor for slightly drunken, flippant and shouty.

― HRH Queen Kate (kate), Friday, 12 December 2003 14:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Kate: yes, or at least allows the possibility of becoming flippant etc.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 12 December 2003 14:12 (twenty-one years ago)

But... many of the conversations in pubs that I have most enjoyed have not been 'shouty' in the least. Slightly drunken, OK.

I think there is more of a problem here - I mean, more of a discrepancy between our senses of 'pub conversation' - than I had thought.

― the pubfox, Friday, 12 December 2003 14:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes PF they need not be drunken, flippant or shouty. But they may be any of these things (in a way that some critical modes perhaps mayn't).

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 12 December 2003 14:18 (twenty-one years ago)

The implication that the other two types of conversation would be keen on an interruption from a passing geezaesthete is pretty alarming!

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 12 December 2003 14:22 (twenty-one years ago)

But a pub conversation 'may' be dozens of other things too - sensitive, tender, eloquent, sad, witty, intelligent? - so what status do these defining adjectives have?

Perhaps I am saying: you seem to have a *particular* vision of pub conversation in mind - it would be useful to see it specified for geezer clarity.

― the pubfox, Friday, 12 December 2003 14:24 (twenty-one years ago)

A conversation is something I am engaged in in the pub. I would not interrupt anyone elses conversation unless invited (or unless very pissed). Of the three examples given, the third is most conducive to the vagaries of the manifesto, nevertheless the other two are equally valid uses of the pub sphere and there is no reason why situation one could not very quickly become situation three, or indeed situation two could move from the realms of personal relationship to the television programmes they do not enjoy together.

As geezaesthetics is primarily an aesthtic outlook it makes most sense to discuss it within the realms of conversations with an aesthetic basis.

― Pete (Pete), Friday, 12 December 2003 14:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Or to put it another way, I don't know that we're trying to take any about the *kinds* of conversation, just suggesting that the conversations we're interested in are in a public space (of some sort) and inclusive rather than exclusive.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 12 December 2003 14:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think I see why 'inclusiveness' is a particularly desirable principle.

I don't want any passing Tim Dick or Terry joining in my debate on what's wrong with Gravity's Rainbow.

― the pubfox, Friday, 12 December 2003 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)

... also I think we're trying to place a high value on chat, on casual thoughts and throwaway comments. That's not to say we necessarily value those above other forms of discourse, but it is to say that we find them valuable and often inspiring and fun.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 12 December 2003 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Why not pubfox?

― Pete (Pete), Friday, 12 December 2003 14:50 (twenty-one years ago)

(he'd have to explain the plot to them, and then the bar would have closed) (for demolition)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 12 December 2003 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think I see why 'inclusiveness' is a particularly desirable principle.

it depends. I have been in the situation where I've arrived somewhere where the conversation is already in full flow and I've wanted to contribute but I don't know what the hell ppl are on about. Now this can be annoying. But it is equally annoying for those already engaged in the conversation to have to back-track and explain the points that have gone before, or alternatively, to define terms already understood by those who've been talking for a while for the benefit of the newcomer. In some ways a book is more inclusive than a conversation as conversations don't have glossaries and footnotes.

― MarkH (MarkH), Friday, 12 December 2003 15:01 (twenty-one years ago)

(I think most people underestimate how loud they actually are in pubs... but that could have something to do with the drunkenness!)

― HRH Queen Kate (kate), Friday, 12 December 2003 15:26 (twenty-one years ago)

that is true. I find that quite often the babble of multiple conversations merges into one indistinguishable whole so that I can't hear what anyone is saying - the number of times I must have missed pearls of wisdom and/or appeared rude by sitting and not saying anything really doesn't bear thinking about.

― MarkH (MarkH), Friday, 12 December 2003 15:32 (twenty-one years ago)

(It could also have something to do with my deafness, and the fact that I therfore find it incredibly difficult to almost impossible to follow pub conversations unless the person I'm talking to is shouting in my ear.)

― HRH Queen Kate (kate), Friday, 12 December 2003 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I think, with a pub conversation, the special thing is that it's theoretically open to external stimuli - not just strangers joining in, but atmospheric factors, what's on the jukebox, some comment overheard from another table. Which definitely affects the flow of conversation, of thought, maybe even the topics covered (um, no, wait, scratch that last, it really don't.)

[insert comment about pub being short form of 'public house' and it's like a conversation you'd have at home EXCEPT IN PUBLIC DO YOU SEE?]

― cis (cis), Friday, 12 December 2003 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, it's a conversation you'd have round a friend's house.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 12 December 2003 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Cis otm.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 12 December 2003 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)

how much do ppl think a pub conversation can be dominated by one person and still be a good pub conversation? Obv some ppl are natural leaders and natural followers, some are more lucid than others and some are more able to speak with authority on subjects that interest a lot of ppl like football and music. But there is a point when a conversation is dominated by one person to the extent that it becomes more like a lecture and the person dominating might be blissfully unaware of their dominance because they are blinded by their enthusiasm for their subject matter.

― MarkH (MarkH), Friday, 12 December 2003 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Being open to "people you know" != being open to "people you don't know"

― the pubfox, Friday, 12 December 2003 17:18 (twenty-one years ago)

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 12 December 2003 22:54 (twenty-one years ago)

mark H- I guess it depends. Most ppl (I'm guessing) go to pubs after work and if they've had a rough day it can be annoying to go back and explain an laready ongoing conversation to a newcomer but I think you should try to explain most of the time just bcz it's not their fault that they are late on it.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 13 December 2003 13:02 (twenty-one years ago)

The link to part two of "A user's guide to the culture industry" doesn't work, and I don't think it's in the archives.

― youn, Saturday, 13 December 2003 20:54 (twenty-one years ago)

three months pass...

http://www.imakenews.com/npowerny/npowerny_e_a000020483.JPG

― Dada, Monday, 5 April 2004 18:44 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

Freaky Trigger December Update

\m/