Thursday, July 30, 2009

Just revolutionizing the role of the marxist artist

So I talked about this a whole bunch and then never produced. I'm sure this was to the relief of some but whateva it is happening now. The thing is that I wasn't exactly sure how to go about it, because a lot of what I am doing is actually new. SO I guess I am going to do this in big person article style by starting big and working my way down into the nitty gritty details.

There are a couple of big ideas to work with though. So lets start at the beginning.

Marx sets up a sort of transhistorical paradime with his quaint little ecconomic theory where there is the people who control the means of production and the people who produce. Throughout history these people had diffrent names, currently it is the ones most of you should be decently familiar with, the burgeosie and the proletariate. Man at one point I knew how to spell both of those words. Oh well. They are set up a dimetrically opposed paracites. The burgeosie needs the proletariate to live and function blah blah blah.

One of the most important parts of where I come in though is that there is a section of the communist mannifesto where Marx talks about a splinter group of Bourgeoisie which will break off and help with the proletariate revolution. The burgeoisie isn't an inherently evil organization, it just happeneds to be a side effect of its excistence, similarlythe proletariate are not just a group of disoranized retards that simply need leading. It is important to remeber both of these points as I will be significantly complicating the marxist paradime should I ever actually really get into this.

Next there is the siginficant number of theoretical issues which are frequently ignored by Marx. Marx and Engles were both increadble realists and they largely ignored the theoretical implications of the communist project, hence the oft repeated criticism that if I were to rise up and destory the burgeosie tomarrow eventually there would be an uprsing within the proletariate and and we'd be back to square one. See Animal Farm for the clearest example ever of how this works. What needs to be done is that the bugeosie needs to be adressed both as an ideological issue and a physical one. Only then can we start to make actual, honest to goodness headway against the problems faced both by capitalism and the predicted evolution into communism.

Lastly there is the problem of the Marxist/post marxist technophobic hysterics that predominated the theoretical landscape which precists more or less to today. This is the main part where I am going to come in and I am more or less going to work my way backwards. The Burgeosie constantly revolutionize the means of production, That is part of the marxist mantra and it is one of the fundamental pillars that makes the burgeosie so unasailable to the proletariate. In addition there was a great deal of fear first from Marx then from others that this constantly evoling techonolg would cause art to become fundamentally pushed to the side. I am going to commit the cardinal sin of praphrasing when I say that Marx questioned if the greek myths would be able to be created with things like the printing press, would we still be able to believe in achillies when we have things like guns, (ironically there is the story of the native american geronimo but we'll be getting into that a little later). When motion pictures hit the scene Benjamin lead the charge against them claiming that they diced up visions and all sorts of other things. I love Benjamin and I will attack him properly when his time comes. The point is that Marx and his little fun bunch believe that art is brought under seige by technology.

Tangentally related critics and theorists alike realized that there is something strange about the Marxist eccomic modle and the way art fits into it, or rather how it does not fit into it at all what so ever. People have tried to pigeon hole art into the current modle but for the most part they have compleatly failed. What I am going to do is reset things up from the ground up, first by modernizing some aspects of marxism and them expanding out wards with what it means to be an art in an era where the means of production are so tighly controlled. Here is a hint, it equals rebellion of the purest form, and I get to kick around the surrealists because THEY FUCKING DESERVE IT. But for now I am off.

No comments: