Decon’n novelty mutha fucka!

Aethetics, or shall we just call them art - art in the plural: music, paint, theatre, dance etc. So ever since my last post on the matter, and a few more conversations with my friend’s roommate, I’ve been thinking long and hard about the matter in between all the other thoughts that I think long and hard about. I’ve been trying to resolve the issues of pastiche and simulacrum criticized by Jameson. If all contemporary art is garbage expressions of post-nostalgic reproductions, co-opted and distributed by the System to further perpetuate societal psychosis, what the fuck are we supposed to do? Well I think I’ve got it – it’s got something to do with the act. And since I’ve been reading Derrida this evening/morning I’m sure it’s got something to do with deconstruction. But lets first discuss an attribute often assigned to the act – originality or in context: the act of originality or the ‘original act.’ You might already be able to gather where I’m going with this: the act of the ordinary is intrinsically tied up in the act of originality: stemming from the ordinariness of the origin – the arche, or the thing from which all things are born, and all things are made up – the ordinary or at the very least the median. Suppose the uber-act of originality totally blind to the origin, but in being so blind of the origin it has no way of knowing that it’s set apart or original at all; thus, an awareness of the origin is needed in order to act with originality. But all that plays out in a lovely ideal-typical sign world. What about the artist? Well let’s apply it. The onus is placed on the artist to be as aware as possible of the origin, and to constantly renewing this awareness with every attempt at difference. So is the original possible? Nope, but neither is the un-original – one can’t act the same twice. The point that I’m trying to get at here is that this obsession with originality is a foolish one – one that I think Jameson ties nicely to capitalism and oppression. What is needed is an act from the artist – not from the origin (keep in mind the median). Maybe I’ll follow this up one of these days with what I think this expression is. For now, I will go as far as saying that we need to keep in mind that the artist is soooooo dead (and I’m soooooo over it.), but nonetheless the act is text, hence it certainly plays a dialectical function.