I kept thinking as I was reading this- when is the proposal going to discuss Guy Debord and Situationism which is seminal and indicative in debates around Detournement and Derive but it never came. You have some work to do- Some phraseology and expression requires proof reading- get better at using terminology- one would not say ‘the detournement ‘ for example.. The chapter outlines lack depth and detail- and seem to be missing some fundamentals You need to underpin this work with further reading about how Marxism informs our understanding of Detournement but also how it informs the ways in which we critique in visual culture the dilution and absorption of signs into more benign and mundane meanings… You need basic fundamental reading- get some books out that introduce you to visual culture and themes in postmodernism which actually intersect with Detournement – such as appropriation, bricolage, counter bricolage etc etc… Key texts missing at the moment: Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord and other writings that support your understanding of Detournement- such as The Most Radical Gesture by Sadie Plant- you should also read Fredrick Jameson’s text Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of late Capitalism. Chapter 1 and 2 lack detail- why is the Avant Garde and Kitsch particularly important?- How are you linking these ideas together- I would also say that postmodernism is very relevant also.
Chapter 3
Just to be the devil’s advocate- this chapter development is thin- What makes you think that Nirvana was not out to make money also? Where else have we seen this type of distillation ? Actually earlier than this in the 60’s- where all sorts of signs were culturally re-appropriated. There are several political contexts worth exploring such as protest and revolutionary activity. What are your conclusions? There is no sense of this…. Your research does not pull together currently- I think you should also read something like The Practice of Every Day Life by Michel de Certue and Postproduction by Nicholas Bourriaud who discusses the remixing of culture- I think you need to be more informed about the differing critical positions around this issue
There is a sense of your 'distaste' for the inevitable life-cycle of an artist's work - i.e. the way in which something counter and iconoclastic becomes mainstreamed etc. I think this distaste situates within the Romantic view of the artist and his 'responsibility' to culture - but also the need for the artist to be 'estranged' from culture or alienated from societal norms.
Romanticism - the notion of the poet mystic/ truth teller - so the heroic artist, the tragic artist, the visionary, the lunatic, the alien - the paradox here is that the 'stranger' can make work that is universal and speaks to us all - check our Hugh Honour's Romanticism - I do think the 'disapproval' you feel needs to be contextualised as situating within a tradition of expectation of the role of the poet in culture...
ReplyDeleteI kept thinking as I was reading this- when is the proposal going to discuss Guy Debord and Situationism which is seminal and indicative in debates around Detournement and Derive but it never came.
You have some work to do-
Some phraseology and expression requires proof reading- get better at using terminology- one would not say ‘the detournement ‘ for example..
The chapter outlines lack depth and detail- and seem to be missing some fundamentals
You need to underpin this work with further reading about how Marxism informs our understanding of Detournement but also how it informs the ways in which we critique in visual culture the dilution and absorption of signs into more benign and mundane meanings…
You need basic fundamental reading- get some books out that introduce you to visual culture and themes in postmodernism which actually intersect with Detournement – such as appropriation, bricolage, counter bricolage etc etc…
Key texts missing at the moment:
Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord and other writings that support your understanding of Detournement- such as The Most Radical Gesture by Sadie Plant- you should also read Fredrick Jameson’s text Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of late Capitalism.
Chapter 1 and 2 lack detail- why is the Avant Garde and Kitsch particularly important?- How are you linking these ideas together- I would also say that postmodernism is very relevant also.
Chapter 3
Just to be the devil’s advocate- this chapter development is thin-
What makes you think that Nirvana was not out to make money also? Where else have we seen this type of distillation ? Actually earlier than this in the 60’s- where all sorts of signs were culturally re-appropriated. There are several political contexts worth exploring such as protest and revolutionary activity.
What are your conclusions? There is no sense of this….
Your research does not pull together currently- I think you should also read something like The Practice of Every Day Life by Michel de Certue and Postproduction by Nicholas Bourriaud who discusses the remixing of culture- I think you need to be more informed about the differing critical positions around this issue
There is a sense of your 'distaste' for the inevitable life-cycle of an artist's work - i.e. the way in which something counter and iconoclastic becomes mainstreamed etc. I think this distaste situates within the Romantic view of the artist and his 'responsibility' to culture - but also the need for the artist to be 'estranged' from culture or alienated from societal norms.
ReplyDeleteRomanticism - the notion of the poet mystic/ truth teller - so the heroic artist, the tragic artist, the visionary, the lunatic, the alien - the paradox here is that the 'stranger' can make work that is universal and speaks to us all - check our Hugh Honour's Romanticism - I do think the 'disapproval' you feel needs to be contextualised as situating within a tradition of expectation of the role of the poet in culture...