Read the original essay here.

What are the “imprisoning conditions” of a masterpiece?
obeisance — the work’s self-knowledge of it’s physical limitation, knowing a painting cannot expand beyond the canvas

self-aggrandizing

Farber appears to believe the artist must destroy herself through the art, without fanfare, or that the artist nor the art should appear to be aware of themselves

A preference for sketches, unfinished work, the scaffolding itself even?

Must “a unique, personal vision” always be unfinished? Yes. The vision should have the capacity to change, the termite art should be less thought of as the nothingness or vestages the termite swarm leaves behind, than the swarm itself…Laura Walker’s book swarm lure. The art shouldn’t even be the swarm then, but what precedes it. What brings the swarm, what vision is worth ingestion and destruction?

Farber must have hated Pollack. His seeming illogical movements, as they were overdone

Interesting assumption that Warhol’s study was a “minute embrace”…I don’t know how Warhol’s works could even be made-into termite art, or if it ever existed as such except as works-in-progress

No continuity, no harmony, the idea of learning the rules (technique) and then forget them, is it possible to abandon technique or to at least give the impression that technique is abandoned?

No faking. Now this seems hypocritical.

What are the signs of “eager, industrious, unkempt activity”?

Objection must be oblique. Experimentation must be obvious. The artist should have no idea of the finished product before it is declared finished.

How does one turn boundaries into conditions?

Nostalgia must be avoided at all costs, and things that appear “curving” or even comfortable, pleasurable?

Signs of white elephant art

• action framed with all-over pattern (again, against continuity, the patterns must change or no pattern should exist?)
• continuity installed in every event, character, situation (obvious continuity or even links, a pathway?)
• every inch of medium/format treated as potential area for prizeworthy creativity (in praise of “waste”, the wasting of space, book is called Negative Space after all, his darks were in all the right places, photography’s light or absence thereof, honesty in mistake

A Taste of Honey, as I remember it, or have forgotten it, particularly the storyline…girl and mother despise each other, girl runs away, finds love, ends up like Lolita, or poor and self-dumbing, numbing. I do remember the interior scenes, her house. The green color and the vastness of space, lots of empty floorspace, emptiness

ALMOST. “almost acts into a state of grace.” Stopping short, again a sketch, no glazing over, staining or finishing work, as if the artist must abandon the work three-quarters in, this is making me question the revision of some work at all. The swarm must keep moving, never self-reference, never go back, against editing.

Or maybe just editing the most interesting parts. Stress, challenge…TENSION. The work cannot point to the answer, or even indicate the answer? The work should not be at all concerned with an idea of an answer.

Do not indicate any fear, self-awareness, or knowledge of the arts, what came before, even? No, the art must be aware of what came before, but not revisit these ideas just move forward into experimental, actual experience in zero time, now…

Okay, no edits on the most interesting parts. No overworking, especially of clichés, be careful of a close-up, for remaining for too long and considering for too long, indicates Warhol may have had the minute-embrace, but shouldn’t have colored-in all the lines

“a pretentiously handsome image…compromises the harrowing effect of the scene”

• romantic depictions of anything
• there isn’t even time for the romantic idea
• would Bukowski’s work be considered a glamorization in it’s anti-glamorousness, as in it’s trying too hard to be the exact opposite, and he was well-read and widely read, and too detailed?

I dreamt about you last night
and I fell out of bed twice
you can pin and mount me
like a butterfly

(zum ganzen Text)

heißt es im herrlich dreckigen Reel around the Fountain von The Smiths. Wir hatten es hier ja schon von talent borrows, genius steals und so weiter. So auch hier. Denn die ersten beiden hier angeführten Zeilen stammen aus A taste of honey (Shelagh Delaney). Der Song aus dem ersten Album der Smiths sorgte für jede Menge Ärger. Im Text, so argwöhnten einige Kritiker, thematisiere Morrissey Pädophilie unangemessen.

Ganz sicher geht es um Sex und so etwas wie sexuelles Erwachen. Das soll ja häufiger in der Jugend vorkommen, dass man da seinen ersten Sex oder sowas ähnliches hat. Und ebenso sicher gibt es in diesem Song eben eine unerfahrene, lustvoll sehnsüchtige (junge) Perspektive auf das erfahrene, den Ton angebende (ältere) Objekt der Begierde. Verführen und verführt werden liegen in den Bildern des Textes eng beieinander, ebenso, das „Davor“ und „Danach“. Dass Morrissey unter anderem aus A taste of honey zitiert, hat wohl nicht nur damit zu tun, dass er Shelagh Delaney so sehr verehrte. Im Theaterstück spielt Sex eine zentrale Rolle. Junges Mädchen, früher, nicht gesellschaftlich goutierter Sex mit einem Schwarzen, frühe Schwangerschaft... aber da wären wir schon beim nächsten Smiths-Song und der Liedzeile The dream has gone but the baby is real... dazu demnächst mehr.

Genug der Worthuberei: Ich finde diesen Song extrem sexy.

Here we go für die Hörprobe:

Die Fassung vom Album The Smiths

Reel around the Fountain live

Es gibt natürlich noch die Fassung aus der Peel-Session (Hatful of Hollow). Habe ich als Hörprobe jetzt nicht gefunden, ist aber sehr schön.

P.S.: Es gibt einen Musikblog mit dem Titel Reel around the Fountain

One fun thing about this joint -- from MY point of view anyhow -- is that I can see in my Blog Stats exactly what kind of web searches people use to find the site. Yes, I am looking into your dark hearts as you navigate the murky waters of the web and come into dock in my cyber-harbour.

As a result, I have become aware that two of the personages I've mentioned in passing have attracted quite a lot of notice. They are '60s British character star Murray Melvin, and Greek mythological character Medusa.

So, whopping great whore that I am, I thought I'd prepare a special blog posting about Murray Melvin and Medusa. Oh, and I'll throw in this random mention of ST TRINIAN'S head girl Gemma Arterton too, since so many of you seem to find her so damn interesting.*

Medusa was head girl of the Gorgons. She had snakes for hair.

Murray Melvin has hair for hair. He starred in A TASTE OF HONEY and pops up in Ken Russell's epic film maudit THE DEVILS, and Kubrick's BARRY LYNDON (the litmus test film that hardcore Kubrickians admire most, and that nobody else likes all that much).

Medusa had a petrifying gaze.

Murray Melvin is a petrifying gay.

Actually, I have no private information about Mr. Melvin's sexuality at all, so I take that back. He was cast as gay in A TASTE OF HONEY and it kind of stuck. He played highly repressed characters in THE DEVILS and BARRY LYNDON, and is a sort of Poster Boy for British Sexual Ambivalence (B.S.A.). I find it interesting (and definitely regrettable) that British cinema has made so little use of him since the swinging 'sixties and 'seventies. My theory is that Melvin's camp quality is out of fashion in a world that either wishes to ignore homosexuality, or is eager to present images of gay men that don't fit the camp stereotype. But some gay men ARE camp, if you want to use that word, and Melvin is an excellent actor, so where's the problem?

It reminds me of the way Hollywood discovered racial sensitivity in the 'forties and slowly phased out most most of the actors who'd made a living playing "comedy negroes" and servants. Replacing them with...virtually nothing. There's an argument that flawed representation is better than NO representation.

The possibility also arises that M.M. was acting camp in films because the roles demanded it, and could just as easily play Dead Butch. It would be slightly surprising to me, but it's still possible. In which case his recent disuse by our national cinema is even sillier.

The last time I saw M.M. at the cinema was way back in Scots director Bill Douglas' COMRADES, which also featured Barbara Windsor and Robert Stephens, who likewise should have been in far more movies.

When Harry Hamlin Perseus lopped off Medusa's serpentine head, her stare maintained its terrible power after death. Still going strong in his seventies, Murray Melvin likewise maintains his momentous powers of dramaturgical dazzlement.

*"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" ~ Johnny Rotten.

Biographie et discographie du groupe disponible ici

A1 Sayonara
A2 We've Got The Groove
A3 I'll Try Something New
A4 We've Got The Groove (Reprise)
A5 Lie's
B1 Diamond Real
B2 Never Go Wrong
B3 We've Got The Groove (Reprise)
B4 Midnight Snack
B5 Leavin' Tomorrow

ENJOY THAT FUNKY SOUND

for saturday afternoon i suggest a taste of honey by a taste of honey. what a cover (i seriously need a bigger scanner)! yeah, there are reasons for vinyl that have nothing to do with the vinyl, but with the cover.

a taste of honey is rather relaxed and downbeat, not too excited. oscillating between disco and funk and it has one of the great hits of the time included: boogie oogie oogie. a nice record to get in the groove - all while cleaning your appartment, putting on new sheets and scratch the dirt from under your nails... scrubbing yourself clean and pretty for the night out.

get your soundtrack for these and other activities here (link expired). mp3, ripped@192

for more information about the artists visit the discomuseum.