Wednesday, December 3, 2008

If I can't dance it's not my revolution

This is follow up to Post-patriarchy in which I wondered about art and culture in a post-patriarchal world. These are some of the comments posted to the original Twisty post which I found particularly wonderful. There were also some awesome imaginings of the abolition of "childhood" as a domination/subordination power structure which felt like warm sunshine, but were apart from my quandary of the moment.

kate (not me)Dec 2nd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
T’would seem to me that art and music like anything else, would just exist and there wouldn’t be a heirarchy of “the artist” or “the musician”. Everyone would be an artist and everyone a musician. If something needs fixing, everyone would try and if one excelled, they’d deign to teach others who wished to know and they wouldn’t own that knowledge, they wouldn’t carry it around on their chest like a badge to market and to demand “respect” because respect would not be something to be demanded, everyone would have it, everyone would get it because they exist and that’s all there is; existence, the beauty of existence in all things as they are.

No one would give a damn about what one person said over another about what was ‘good’ or ‘great’ because well, no one’s opinion or version of events is any more important than the others.

Of course with this kind of fluidity with reality, I’d imagine there wouldn’t be a lot of “progress” as we know it, but then who cares? What’s the rush? Does a dog or a cat rush to find the answer to why they can’t sit at a table and eat with fork and spoon? No, they accept what is and are happy.

That’s what I think it would be. And that scares the living be-jesus outta lot of people.

In fact, I’ll bet people wouldn’t really have names beyond whatever one determined they might want to be called, but certainly there wouldn’t be “Mary’s child” anymore as each child has an identity of their own that they decide. If said child decides to be called “stick of wood” and then changes later to be called “George” who cares? Its what they want and that’s that.

TP Dec 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I was going to pipe in but kate pretty much spelled out exactly what I was thinking. Expertise would be a result of enthusiasm, rather than the pursuit of pride. Enthusiasm would be more rewarding, because you wouldn’t fear failure. I could see huge technological advances, and all of them geared toward improvement rather than profits.

Ghoti Dec 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
If I’m misinterpreting this, please let me know, but it seems that the abolition of art by no means requires the destruction of photography or music or whatever other medium one uses for expression. It just removes the institutionalized branding of such expression as either “art,” which is culturally sanctioned as beyond the realm of criticism by its very definition (if one objects or finds it offensive, they “just don’t get it”), or “not art,” which can be looked at for what it really is and openly branded as vulgar, or simply not worthwhile. Calling something “art” is akin to saying “it’s my religious belief”; it can be pornographic, objectifying and irrational, but pointing this out is considered insensitive or ignorant. Without art, one can still enjoy looking at a canvas with paint on it, but not create a bizarre, untouchable mystique around the canvas that makes it out to be inherently something more than the sum of its parts, and not just a figment of human depth perception and pattern recognition.

mir Dec 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
Imagining a post-P world is tough for me. I try but all I come up with are rationales for why I, personally, must retain the things that I love. And by ‘love’ I think I mean ‘own’, or maybe ‘have power over’ and ‘have power over me’.

I want scorching hot sex, music with magical ass-shaking power, fresh espresso and sharp cheddar cheese. I am so much attached to physical pleasures that my obstreperal lobe is weak. I cling, and I blame. Cling, blame, cling, blame. But I’m trying.

No comments: