I believe in the project of participatory politics. Without collective social power things won’t change. But I also believe in—I’m fanatical, frankly, about what art means for the future. And I see them as oppositional forces. Collective social power needs the language of politics, which means, among other things, that people need to consolidate identities, to provide answers, to create a social cohesion that would give them the power and the responsibility of a bloc of people to move things, destroy things, to make things happen. Whereas my art is nothing if not the dispersion of power. To never consolidate. To always disperse. And so, in a way, the political project and the art project are sometimes in opposition.
“ For the simple reason that there is no longer one big society which you can encounter as a group or individual. Due to globalization and technologization, society has become complex and indefinite, and due to the absence of prescriptive Grand Narratives is without direction as well. ”
Was rereading Michael Hawkins’ Frosnall Graaf trilogy the other day, it really started to vibe with me. Loved the transitions from faded black and white art to vibrant, psychedelic colours, as well as the surreal mysticism and fantasy.
Simon Hanselmann also does the intro in A Night Out in Frosnall Graaf, the second in the series. which really nails a creepy, bleak vibe as a group of vikings bury away an unseen horror in Australia.
I’m gonna edit a topical, yet really fucking long quote from Infinite Jest about sports onto this reblog when I get home.
This reminded me of a page from David Foster Wallace’s book Infinite Jest, a doorstopper of a book I’m making my way through right now.
"The thing with Schtitt: like most Europeans of his generation, anchored from infancy to certain permanent values which — yes, OK, granted — may, admittedly, have a whiff of proto-fascist potential about them, but which do, nevertheless (the values), anchor nicely the soul and course of a life — Old World patriarchal stuff like honor and discipline and fidelity to some larger unit — Gerhardt Schtitt does not so much dislike the modern O.N.A.N.ite U.S. of A. as find it hilarious and frightening at the same time. Probably mostly just alien. This should not be rendered in exposition like this, but Mario Incandenza has a severely limited range of verbatim recall. Schtitt was educated in pre-Unification Gymnasium under the rather Kanto-Hegelian idea that jr. athletics was basically just training for citizenship, that jr. athletics was about learning to sacrifice the hot narrow imperatives of the Self — the needs, the desires, the fears, the multiform cravings of the individual appetitive will — to the larger imperatives of a team (OK, the State) and a set of delimiting rules (OK, the Law). It sounds almost frighteningly simple-minded, though not to Mario, across the redwood table, listening."
Schtitt’s discussion with Mario on the nature of tennis and sports in general is definitely one of my favourite moments in the book so far, but I’ll leave you with just this excerpt for now.