gregor
@mothwater.bsky.social
Yes, that is more what I was thinking. I mean classical music almost requires some formal education, writers & painters likewise, Rousseau aside, usually had some, so different than naive art, but where the systems of categorization haven't been fully laid out. Stein lived it, didn't 'learn' it.
December 14, 2025 at 12:53 AM
Yes, that is more what I was thinking. I mean classical music almost requires some formal education, writers & painters likewise, Rousseau aside, usually had some, so different than naive art, but where the systems of categorization haven't been fully laid out. Stein lived it, didn't 'learn' it.
Yeah, better as systemized rather than formalized, as it isn't an issue of being educated but accepting certain systems of knowledge that differentiates modernism from post-modernism. I mean this is all just something that struck me seeing your post, not fully worked out. Heh.
December 14, 2025 at 12:04 AM
Yeah, better as systemized rather than formalized, as it isn't an issue of being educated but accepting certain systems of knowledge that differentiates modernism from post-modernism. I mean this is all just something that struck me seeing your post, not fully worked out. Heh.
Which is to say it is precisely because Stein doesn't fit into social/political expectation readily that she could write as she did and make the rest of the world be shaped into her process of consideration. The absent contextual awareness replaced by a heightened attention of individual focus.
December 13, 2025 at 8:36 PM
Which is to say it is precisely because Stein doesn't fit into social/political expectation readily that she could write as she did and make the rest of the world be shaped into her process of consideration. The absent contextual awareness replaced by a heightened attention of individual focus.
That's pretty much my feeling on Stein. Since you started reading it, I've seen a number of essays pop up on Stein, all trying to find ways to reconcile her work to her life, but none really noting that Modernism largely relies on the odd autodidact, formalizing modernism produced post-modernism.
December 13, 2025 at 8:36 PM
That's pretty much my feeling on Stein. Since you started reading it, I've seen a number of essays pop up on Stein, all trying to find ways to reconcile her work to her life, but none really noting that Modernism largely relies on the odd autodidact, formalizing modernism produced post-modernism.
Which, incidentally and as much as it bugged me at the time, the book matching her with Kael is kinda perfect since Kael didn't care much at all beyond the feelings of the moment, as filtered through memory. Sontag was invested in the 'why' of it all going forward, Kael more the 'what' right 'now'.
December 7, 2025 at 2:19 AM
Which, incidentally and as much as it bugged me at the time, the book matching her with Kael is kinda perfect since Kael didn't care much at all beyond the feelings of the moment, as filtered through memory. Sontag was invested in the 'why' of it all going forward, Kael more the 'what' right 'now'.
It's an iffy word choice, particularly given Against Interpretation, but seems fairly evident to me that her mode of understanding requires something beyond the moment, a hook of thought that can be taken in, if she misses it, like with Stein, she is at a loss. I have some sympathy with that.
December 7, 2025 at 2:03 AM
It's an iffy word choice, particularly given Against Interpretation, but seems fairly evident to me that her mode of understanding requires something beyond the moment, a hook of thought that can be taken in, if she misses it, like with Stein, she is at a loss. I have some sympathy with that.
Eh, I don't think so, more that Sontag preferred 'intellectualization' over feeling and was reacting against the tide of certain conventions in popular filmmaking. I question some of her favored choices, but the general drift has some pull still, or maybe has some returning strength in Netflix era.
December 7, 2025 at 1:55 AM
Eh, I don't think so, more that Sontag preferred 'intellectualization' over feeling and was reacting against the tide of certain conventions in popular filmmaking. I question some of her favored choices, but the general drift has some pull still, or maybe has some returning strength in Netflix era.
Heh. An argument of the times against formalist tendencies in criticism, which would be rendered moot at best almost simultaneously with its printing.
December 7, 2025 at 1:49 AM
Heh. An argument of the times against formalist tendencies in criticism, which would be rendered moot at best almost simultaneously with its printing.
Although I will admit I find it funny that Notes on Camp is in the same book as Against Interpretation. (Especially when it's abundantly clear Sontag has absolutely no affinity for camp at all.)
December 7, 2025 at 1:46 AM
Although I will admit I find it funny that Notes on Camp is in the same book as Against Interpretation. (Especially when it's abundantly clear Sontag has absolutely no affinity for camp at all.)
Ouch. Too harsh! Sontag says plenty of things to disagree with, but at least there's an actual argument behind what she says, not just pop culture vibes.
December 7, 2025 at 1:43 AM
Ouch. Too harsh! Sontag says plenty of things to disagree with, but at least there's an actual argument behind what she says, not just pop culture vibes.
They are definitely not Loachian, nor Loach Dardennesian, nor whatever front back, top bottom, push me pull you combination one could imagine, that's just dopeytalk
November 26, 2025 at 4:04 AM
They are definitely not Loachian, nor Loach Dardennesian, nor whatever front back, top bottom, push me pull you combination one could imagine, that's just dopeytalk
For me, it's an irritant that I think keeps people from reflecting on some larger notions of art that are badly needed again. So I guess I end up becoming a bit of an irritant myself in trying to push for different aesthetic considerations. Like going beyond 'great' artists to ideas of art itself.
November 16, 2025 at 1:07 AM
For me, it's an irritant that I think keeps people from reflecting on some larger notions of art that are badly needed again. So I guess I end up becoming a bit of an irritant myself in trying to push for different aesthetic considerations. Like going beyond 'great' artists to ideas of art itself.
Yes, there was a useful element in the very basic claims of the politique that was understood as responding to the situation of French cinema, but they aware of the limitations as well, to varying degrees. Bazin never took much to the grander auteur concept & Godard saw it via production practices.
November 16, 2025 at 1:00 AM
Yes, there was a useful element in the very basic claims of the politique that was understood as responding to the situation of French cinema, but they aware of the limitations as well, to varying degrees. Bazin never took much to the grander auteur concept & Godard saw it via production practices.
Essentially, once an artist's work is recognizable by name, to whatever group, they are effectively understood as an 'author' of sorts, but in films, people want to have authors and favored authors (auteurs) without added effort in differentiation beyond liked/disliked, so it's mostly a naming game.
November 16, 2025 at 12:45 AM
Essentially, once an artist's work is recognizable by name, to whatever group, they are effectively understood as an 'author' of sorts, but in films, people want to have authors and favored authors (auteurs) without added effort in differentiation beyond liked/disliked, so it's mostly a naming game.
It's self evident in the way it is self evident Eggers, say, is clearly seen as the author of his films in a way Chris Columbus is not, yet anyway. Give it time. Popular awareness of a 'signature' is one thing, but for most artists it's still there, just not recognized as such for lack of interest.
November 16, 2025 at 12:33 AM
It's self evident in the way it is self evident Eggers, say, is clearly seen as the author of his films in a way Chris Columbus is not, yet anyway. Give it time. Popular awareness of a 'signature' is one thing, but for most artists it's still there, just not recognized as such for lack of interest.
I mean, like, c'mon, Cahiers bros picked some of the most famous directors of the time & claimed them as authors. Hawks, Hitch & Ford already had their names above the titles as possessives, Hitchcock had a TV show by name, this was obvious stuff noted for career gains not theory. Sarris f'ed it up
November 16, 2025 at 12:29 AM
I mean, like, c'mon, Cahiers bros picked some of the most famous directors of the time & claimed them as authors. Hawks, Hitch & Ford already had their names above the titles as possessives, Hitchcock had a TV show by name, this was obvious stuff noted for career gains not theory. Sarris f'ed it up
I don't like auteurism because it is largely self evident, that is something clear in all the arts, redundant, ignores that history, and it rewards, in Berlin's terms, the repetitions of hedgehogs over the variations of foxes, & repetition celebrates commercial success rather than unique outsiders.
November 16, 2025 at 12:19 AM
I don't like auteurism because it is largely self evident, that is something clear in all the arts, redundant, ignores that history, and it rewards, in Berlin's terms, the repetitions of hedgehogs over the variations of foxes, & repetition celebrates commercial success rather than unique outsiders.
I think that's where the idea of the "auteur" gets unwieldy and, for me, ultimately not of much use, as it becomes a circular argument or simply an honorific.Absent a standard for merit other than taste, 'authorship' is met by many, Eggers, del Toro, & Waititi as readily as Eastwood, Mann, or Lynch.
November 15, 2025 at 11:50 PM
I think that's where the idea of the "auteur" gets unwieldy and, for me, ultimately not of much use, as it becomes a circular argument or simply an honorific.Absent a standard for merit other than taste, 'authorship' is met by many, Eggers, del Toro, & Waititi as readily as Eastwood, Mann, or Lynch.
in some of his little foibles to keep even the films of his I really dislike, Death Becomes Her, for example, still part of getting to know his thematic & formal concerns but also why I am dubious about his attitude & contradictions in his sensibility/work, like the latent misogyny & superiority.
November 15, 2025 at 7:48 PM
in some of his little foibles to keep even the films of his I really dislike, Death Becomes Her, for example, still part of getting to know his thematic & formal concerns but also why I am dubious about his attitude & contradictions in his sensibility/work, like the latent misogyny & superiority.
Thanks. Just to be clear, some of my favorite moots really like Here, so don't take my word on it alone. I have mild respect for Zemeckis, thought Gump was worth seeing because it isn't what it seems, really enjoy Used Cars. Flight & Contact are solid, Beowolf interesting enough & Zemeckis' stubborn
November 15, 2025 at 7:48 PM
Thanks. Just to be clear, some of my favorite moots really like Here, so don't take my word on it alone. I have mild respect for Zemeckis, thought Gump was worth seeing because it isn't what it seems, really enjoy Used Cars. Flight & Contact are solid, Beowolf interesting enough & Zemeckis' stubborn
Greatest hits of the living room structure suggests a representative concept, something universal to a group, likely boomers, but Wright/Hanksing warps that as they're 'special' & his use of real events is distorted to serve that end in ways that deny the representative structure. Clever but false.
November 15, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Greatest hits of the living room structure suggests a representative concept, something universal to a group, likely boomers, but Wright/Hanksing warps that as they're 'special' & his use of real events is distorted to serve that end in ways that deny the representative structure. Clever but false.
The important question for his art is whether that adds up to anything other than being aloofly superior while serving commercial entertainment to the same society he criticizes. I'm not sure it does. Here, for example, is interesting enough in its way, but is contradictory/doesn't really parse.
November 15, 2025 at 7:28 PM
The important question for his art is whether that adds up to anything other than being aloofly superior while serving commercial entertainment to the same society he criticizes. I'm not sure it does. Here, for example, is interesting enough in its way, but is contradictory/doesn't really parse.
Zemeckis, like most directors really, is an auteur in that his films do tend to carry a notable sensibility that appears to be his because of its consistency across projects. That is different than claiming merit however. His films have a fairly strong misanthropic or anti-social US perspective.
November 15, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Zemeckis, like most directors really, is an auteur in that his films do tend to carry a notable sensibility that appears to be his because of its consistency across projects. That is different than claiming merit however. His films have a fairly strong misanthropic or anti-social US perspective.
I know I certainly can't, but tend to annoy by my continual attempts to that. Heh.
Immediate pleasure, or strong feeling vs deliberated engagement, the idea of the artist being 'in' their work and our attachment to them vs the work speaking for, & us valuing it for itself, are fraught questions.
Immediate pleasure, or strong feeling vs deliberated engagement, the idea of the artist being 'in' their work and our attachment to them vs the work speaking for, & us valuing it for itself, are fraught questions.
November 9, 2025 at 9:21 PM
I know I certainly can't, but tend to annoy by my continual attempts to that. Heh.
Immediate pleasure, or strong feeling vs deliberated engagement, the idea of the artist being 'in' their work and our attachment to them vs the work speaking for, & us valuing it for itself, are fraught questions.
Immediate pleasure, or strong feeling vs deliberated engagement, the idea of the artist being 'in' their work and our attachment to them vs the work speaking for, & us valuing it for itself, are fraught questions.
Funny, I was also just reading some Greenberg today and sort of marveling at his influence, in part because he fought so convincingly for and against certain avenues of culture. Here he asks the right question, but he, like Adorno & some other major theorist/critics, is the wrong person to answer it
November 9, 2025 at 8:55 PM
Funny, I was also just reading some Greenberg today and sort of marveling at his influence, in part because he fought so convincingly for and against certain avenues of culture. Here he asks the right question, but he, like Adorno & some other major theorist/critics, is the wrong person to answer it