Quiz #6 1) Is it possible that the recent desire amongst innovative writers to build analogic skywalks into a discipline of power and social utility such as architecture may be impelled from below by a hidden structure of ideological tensions and undergirdings that parasitizes and eats from within, thus shaping, as it consumes, the very social space of avant-garde aesthetic practice? Answer yes or no, and then rewrite this question into a syntax that is less onerous. Erring on the side of caution, I’ll say ‘no’ until I’ve rewritten this. I’m going to attempt a couple of interpretations as an additional hedge. Attempt 1: Are innovative writers appropriating topics such as architecture in order to add utilitarian (or pragmatic) purpose to avant-garde aesthetic practice? Reflection: The onerous version of the question suggests that the writers are driven by an “ideological conflict”, meaning, possibly, the conflict between something ostensibly pragmatic like architecture (or science) and the superfluous avant-garde writing. Response to Attempt and Reflection: It is possible, but current trends would indicate the opposite. Take almost any of Kenneth Goldsmith’s books, which are totally useless and, in terms of content, have nothing of intellectual value to tell us (aside from a little bit of gossip). The statement of uselessness, however, is paradoxically powerful for reasons that have little to do with architecture (ask me another time). Even Madeline Gins, who has said that she is always pragmatic, and whose books do offer ‘content’, doesn’t seem to have aspirations to make writing more purposeful – in fact, she appears to believe writing serves a very important utility. That said, she also doesn’t appropriate or “build analogic skywalks into” architecture, she lives in it (don’t we all?). {more attempts later, time providing}

No comments: