the most promising young american author is TAO LIN

i think we (non-royal we) allow for a much more personalized experience of art than we do say murder, but maybe art crimes should be prosecuted closer to other kinds of crimes (i.e. by community standards).

What is an art crime

xpost

Yes, art is a subjective experience and there's no right/wrong way to experience it, I agree. I was making an empirical point about the way people seem to experience art. And generally they find it impossible to divorce the object from its surrounds. You can say that once an artist's done with his/her art, it's out there in the world, separate from the artist, but in practice, those beholders of art tend to want to know about the artist etc.

Ah ah ah

People, they, beholders

Am I not allowed to talk about anyone but myself?

if even that tbh

Course you are!

But for the purposes of this discussion it completely begs the question, surely?

i thought the general anxiety around reading tao lin is whether it's communally offensive (an art crime)?
*BANGS GAVEL* Law and Order theme begins.

xpost

I guess my starting point was this from you: "An object is an object once complete it is not the history of its creation". That strikes me as a bit naive. There's no "object" out there per se. There's an experience had by the person who encounters an artist's intervention. That is an entirely subjective experience that may well include "the history of its creation". And, it seems, it very often does. Read any review of any book, or indeed this thread, and you'll see ample inclusion of "the history of its creation" in any experience of "the object".

With you 100% until "and it seems" at which stage you are doing it again

i thought the general anxiety around reading tao lin is whether it's communally offensive (an art crime)?

i know orwell comparisons are played out and overused but seriously?

if deuce bigelow: european gigolo can inspire "I hate hate hate hated" this movie, we can at least spare 2 mins hate for tao lin

xpost

Well no, I'm making an empirical point! Go read any review of a book by Tao Lin. You'll almost invariably find discussion of how the characters relate to Tao Lin himself. In their engagement with Lin's art, the reviewers are thinking about the history of its creation, more often than not. Fact!

Because a I don't think we can work from 'this happens a lot' even if that were the same thing as 'a lot of people describe this as being the case for them' and b even to accept this as true for more than one other person's experience (how can you know your experience mirrors that of another btw that seems... presumptuous) is not at all to say that it is any way 'more true' for me and this would hold even were I the only person to not claim to share that experience

That's long-winded and messy because I'm enjoying it that way, but we're I to clearly state the argument- it doesn't matter how many people say that they feel it is the case that the intent or biography or method of the artist affects their perception of the work they only believe that it does. Of course, their belief makes it so. But the inputs don't.

isn't this also about the inextricable way art production is linked to commercial interests (distribution, publicity)? In this way enjoyment if art by terrible (abuser, anti-Semite, etc) producer involves feeding those interests and furthering the commercial validity of the artists projects.

i suspect given the minimal monetary stakes, it's more about giving cultural capital to a scoundrel for a work of dubious (consensus) value.

Tax involves giving money to some awful ppl too

deems shut the fuck up

better great art by a terrible person than terrible art by a wonderful person

― Mordy, Tuesday, November 28, 2017 5:57 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i luv binaries bc they are always true

if deuce bigelow: european gigolo can inspire "I hate hate hate hated" this movie, we can at least spare 2 mins hate for tao lin

That was North. Deuce Bigelow: European Gigalo inspired “your movie sucks.”

dammit now i owe rob schneider an apology.

exile all morally suspect artists to siberia and make them suffer so we can enjoy their art knowing that they are not benefiting

isn't this also about the inextricable way art production is linked to commercial interests (distribution, publicity)? In this way enjoyment if art by terrible (abuser, anti-Semite, etc) producer involves feeding those interests and furthering the commercial validity of the artists projects.

― plax (ico), Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:09 PM (thirty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is the only argument against reading books by “bad” people that makes sense to me. It’s a serious argument, especiallt for someone who takes ethical consumption seriously in all spheres of their lives.

But I don’t understand not wanting to read novels or poems by “bad” people. I don’t look to literature for moral instruction, I look to it for enjoyment and maybe to encounter unfamiliar experiences and perspectives. I guess one could say that they are uninterested in things a truly depreved person would create — that such a person is likely devoid of insight or wisdom — but sadly I don’t think that’s the case. Anne Sexton molested her daughter. Carl Jung claimed that James Joyce did the same thing to his daughter. Shelley was a massive hypocrite, preaching grnder equality and treating the women in his life with cruel indifference, arguably leading his first wife to suicide. And on and on

Do you feel like their works are a reflection or endorsement of their morally reprehensible selves?

Also, and maybe this is an old Catholic thing, but I am uncomfortable separating people into “the good” and “the bad.” There is lurking darkness in every person. Not the same amount. Someone who does awful things and is awful still might, I think, have interesting things to say, even things that could be relevant to me.

Xp Philip, sort of! Sometimes! But literary works are open to multiple interpretations. Good ones contain contradictions and point beyond themselves. If an authot wanted to say somethig simple, or knew precisely what they wanted to express, they wouldn’t choose the form of the poem or novel. They’d write an ILX post.

Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle

Do you feel like their works are a reflection or endorsement of their morally reprehensible selves?

it's easy to spot a racist artist, listed or not, because he has brined his art in pickle juice, i.e. liquid racism

So is Tao Lin's work that of a fake, a fraud, a charlatan? Those are as much value judgments of the work as it is the author.

you're the one talking about Tao Lin being a "bad person" keeping you from enjoying or even being comfortable reading his work. I was talking about work in general. you can enjoy something and see how it's full of shit at the same time. cf. the movie Network.

Taipei has one of my favorite descriptions of time ever: "where it seemed like the seasons, connecting in right angles for some misguided reason, had formed a square, sarcastically framing nothing."

I don't think it was me that said that? Maybe the racist BBQ chef thing wasn't as clear as I thought

What about that season square description resonates with you?

the human absurdity of trying to structure time, literally the fourth dimension, how fragile our perception & our society's perception is, & "a square sarcastically framing nothing" is such a great phrase & great way of describing the vast indifference of the universe imo

Do you feel like the value of that phrase stands in isolation from the rest of the book or is it thematically bound to it?

Both. a beautiful image & sentiment on its own & something that's of a piece with the rest of the book. the former is obviously more valuable

also many seasoned squares available in the correct aisle of Whole Foods

deems shut the fuck up

― ToddBonzalez (BradNelson), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 02:32 (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The actual fuck?

so this is , what, the fifth time on this board where people who have read tao lin but concede he is a horrible person argue about the value of his work with people who have not read him

well ain't dry yet

you can enjoy something and see how it's full of shit at the same time. cf. the movie Network.

imo the movie Network is poorly misunderstood

Ned Beatty really underrated in that one.

i don't want to derail the thread at all but i'm curious why horseshoe singled out melville as someone who did bad things to other ppl (unless that was just an example of a dead writer?), i'm not an expert on his life but i've never heard him referred to as an abuser or anything. i'm also pretty stunned by treeship's suggestion that joyce may have molested his daughter. i have to admit that would probably affect my view of his work quite a bit, but i've read a few books about him and haven't heard anyone suggest that.

one biographer claims that same daughter dictated finnegans wake to him via the medium of dance

I think Melville beat his wife. The reason I mentioned him is that I discovered that waist deep into a grad school class where I read basically all his work. And had been really loving him and imagining this empathic connection across time. Granted that is really silly and sentimental of me. I still read his work, and I think it helps not feel so ooky about it that he is dead, and per plax’s post I am not supporting his career by reading him.

I don’t read literature for moral instruction, and I don’t appreciate the way people who are troubled by shitty behavior by artists are being caricatured on this thread. I do not think I read “wrong” and often when I read I feel like I am getting to know a writer. It is not obviously crazy to be affected by what that writer has done in that process.

I realize Mordy will cringe at my weaponizing my identity in this way, but it’s hard not to look at the sweep of literature and think about the effects of looking the other way about bad behavior in terms of whose work we read and whose we don’t and whose never makes it into publication and whose never gets written in the first place.

isn't this also about the inextricable way art production is linked to commercial interests (distribution, publicity)? In this way enjoyment if art by terrible (abuser, anti-Semite, etc) producer involves feeding those interests and furthering the commercial validity of the artists projects.

― plax (ico), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 02:09 (seven hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i suspect given the minimal monetary stakes, it's more about giving cultural capital to a scoundrel for a work of dubious (consensus) value.

― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 02:16 (seven hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well yes, I guess I did mean to say capital in general. As we are all constantly reminded, we are all now working all the time producing value not only at work but in social media and in generating social and cultural capital through all kinds of endeavours. Whether or not this value is directly monetisable *by us* is basically beside the point. The question of value is in our culture a rather debased and consumerist concept. Its not irrelevant that the artist is the sort of vanguard figure in this, the person for whom everything is work, everything is making culture, everything an artist does is art etc. This is now true in a way for all of us. Thus we are always contributing to the appreciation of value and everything we do seems reduced to this consumer logic. In this way I often feel bad even *knowing* about some airbag trustfund writer or artist or w/e, contributing some tiny piece of real-estate in my head, free of charge. In a flattened landscape of cultural valuation, whether or not people are getting paid is irrelevant maybe. I mean who gets paid for anything.

it’s hard not to look at the sweep of literature and think about the effects of looking the other way about bad behavior in terms of whose work we read and whose we don’t and whose never makes it into publication and whose never gets written in the first place.

idk how this is weaponizing your identity? weaponizing your identity is more like, "i'm a woman and you're a man so you should shut up and listen to me," which i appreciate that afaik you've never done on ilx.

any subjective criteria you use to evaluate/relate to books is obv 100% fine (not like you need my permission) but there's something kinda underhanded going on here? you say that you "don’t appreciate the way people who are troubled by shitty behavior by artists are being caricatured on this thread," but in the current cultural zeitgeist ime ppl who are willing to engage w/ shitty artists are far more aligned than ppl who are not. we're in a moment of moral concern, not a moment of nihilism. i've had to weigh whether i should shut my mouth about certain artistic artifacts that mean something to me in order to keep from getting chastised in the public forum. maybe it's just one big lol misunderstanding and we all just want to enjoy the things we want but that's not been my experience.

like this is a moment where ppl with moral transgressions are losing their careers and being publicly shamed, ridiculed, held up as evil, and banned from the public forum - having their work shelved. not a moment when ppl are being forced to read those works and celebrate those people. so it's kinda silly i feel to be worrying about the latter? no one is arguing on this thread really about whether tao lin is good or not (maybe a little bit that's the argument) but about whether you should read him bc of his failings. the fault lines that are being fought over are not where you're suggesting they are.

ime ppl who are not* willing to engage w/ shitty artists are far more aligned [w/ the zeitgiest] (clarification)