Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
I've read some selections of his stuff. In answer to your question: absolutely not, on all three counts. I wouldn't mind checking something more substantial by him though. Not being as good as either Artaud, de Sade or Bataille hardly makes someone bad, after all. Have you read Deleuze's essay 'Coldness and Cruelty'? It's about the only thing of his I've ever actually liked (or, I should say, remotely understood). If you're into your French libertarian stuff, you should like it quite a bit. Was flicking through Bataille's Visions of Excess anthology today - just to maintain contact with my inner ponce. Brilliant stuff.
Regarding your point about Whitehouse's Britishness, I entirely agree. There's definitely something of the 17th Century Ranters about them.
EDIT: I think I just managed to use up all my twat cards in a single post.
|
I think I managed to use up Europe's international reserve of twat cards in the last 3 years of messageboarding, and neologising verbs with the abandon of an A-level Derrida fanatic does nothing to assuage that fact. So I shouldn't worry if I were you.
Prima: You should read Deleuze on cinema (1 & 2) because he's got a fairly nervy grip on its various mileus (certainly over Badiou, with whom I agree because I don't really like cinema).
Further: I haven't read that particular Deleuze, because I'm of the impression Lyotard had a much better grip on the so-called 'philosophy of excess' without falling into the insouicance of the sado-dilletante (and this statement does L the disserverce of debasing him to a narrative that he merely glanced at).
Sunburn: It's not what you were saying, but I never saw Bataille as a Libertarian in the simple sense; there's too much of the Christian struggle to his writings (Madame Edwarda's Godcunt, the endless deification/ apotheoses of sex, sex-organs, sex-practises, sex-tension [etc, probably]).
Corrolary: The problem with 'simple' sadism in art (which is necessarily distanced from the sadism associated with sex) is that people like Whitehouse (and I imagine Sotos' writings) rarely go further than the first argument. Where batreleaser says,
"[Whitehouse are/ were] extremly confrontational, controversial, and offensive to those who dont understand tongue in cheek humour."
I think that's a perfect summary of Whitehouse - however, the problem is that there's plenty of people who get their humour, who appreciate their aesthetic, who appreciate the notion of 'sado-masochist' music/ lyrics who
still don't find them that exciting. That's not to say Whitehouse are boring - the problem is that they create this polar narrative whereby the individual is supposed to either love them or hate them. The truth of the matter is that, to someone like me, the force of their rhetoric only perpetuates the fact that Whitehouse, to a great many people, simple aren't that good.
I do admire them for their agenda, and I like the
idea of what they're doing, and as I said before, they're legions more articulate than the noise scene over which they stand, sentinal-like. The problem is that they seem to think they're forcing people to have an opinion. And it's true, I do have an opinion on them, but that's not because of the excess of their aesthetic (either their lyrical or musical), that's because I'm a gobshite, and the majority of record 'obsessives' are gobshites too (hello, internet messageboard).
Theta: In other news, international reserves of 'internet-twat cards' are at their lowest level since the internet was invented.