Written by Absis Minas on December 24, 2012
Arranged by Leah Malinowski on December 28, 2012
Published in Issue 004
Surrealist Obsession With Purity and How It Relates to the Economic
Theory of destructive creation, how? That search for purity fails. If the aim is to fix what exists, and not just flat out remove it, how? The white cube unseen! Full of imaginary art and/or devoid of art that taints. The pureness of the cube's total vacancy. Alone is pure, how? When combined with moral automatism (which I guess might as well be read for simplicities). Sake as blind--trolling perpetual devils, advocacy, and a sort of investigative journalism-- it can make for critique. That is, both hilarious and cruel, how? I can't morally bring myself! To lock in with this annihilating conception of purity, and how? Even if I could, my peers would make a mockery of me, call me Lazy, and throw out that "it's easier to destroy than it is to create" platitude (gravity is).
The architects curse, "And if it could understand us it'd wind upfeeling!" Regret for Ophelia, the WTC, etc: obvious criticism of this approach is that. You're championing an art. Specifically, about art and artists' nothing else; and that you're not integrating with the larger world-good response to this. Problem is that, the "faith artists" have, in their own "art" is itself capable of.
Affecting political change, like, the invented. Conspiracy in Foucault's pendulum whose force comes from the basic fact that people believe. In it--and that toying with "artists"-- as a social class is simply a different way of tackling the relevant. Issues that they have the gall to imagine. Themselves addressing, besides, popular misconception of "artists" is that. They're loopy, finicky, and pretentious. Thus, out of all the types of people we take pleasure in watching receive their comeuppance it's the over educated. Liberal and artistic, class that takes first.
The only art is schadenfreude.