From: Bernard Roddy (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Jul 30 2010 - 15:47:09 PDT
Let me underscore Nietzsche's use of "high point" and Chuck's use of "paid any
attention to." The whole topic is discussed in depth by Giorgio Agamben in the
first half of his book, The Man Without Content.
For the guy who expressed a concern about not having an audience, you've not
reached your high point.
Anja, your posts are beautifully bold. That is all I meant to say. I hope you
get the information you need, every time.
From: Tony Conrad <email suppressed>
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Sent: Fri, July 30, 2010 11:32:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Open letter to Jeff Kreines
On Fri 07/30/10 1:41 AM , Chuck Kleinhans email suppressed sent:
> On Jul 29, 2010, at 8:40 PM, Bernard Roddy wrote:
> "This is what distinguishes the artist from laymen (those susceptible
> to art): the latter reach the high point of their susceptibility when
> they receive; the former when they give - [. . .] The perspectives of
> these two states are opposite: to demand of the artist that he should
> practice the perspective of the audience (of the critic-) means to
> demand that he should impoverish himself and his creative power - "
> Nietzshe, entry 811 of Book III, Sect. IV, of "The Will to Power as
> So Bernie, you're saying that Jeff Kreines would be impoverished as
> an artist if he paid any attention to the audience? How exactly
> would you then edit a documentary film while doing so?
> Or are you trying to say something else: like trashing critics in
> general? or Scott Macdonald in particular?
> IF you answer this, are you then responding to a critic and facing
> your own loss of artist creds (and perhaps vital fluids)?
> I'll raise your Neitzche with an Oscar Wilde. Still in the game or
> gonna fold?
> Chuck Kleinhans
I’m not sure what Chuck is asking Bernie to do, but before they compare vital
fluids between Nietzsche and Wilde, let’s see. Here Chuck is receiving, so he is
thinking that Bernie is… wait; actually Bernie is receiving from Nietzsche. But
Nietzsche isn’t an artist, I suppose he’s a critic. Nietzsche goes on (in the
entry quoted) to say, “It is to the honor of an artist if he is unable to be a
critic–otherwise he is half and half, he is ‘modern.’" Nietzsche doesn’t think
that he’s “modern”–but I think Nietzsche is modern, and so are Bernie and Chuck.
On the other hand, it doesn’t seem that Nietzsche is doing them any honor as
artists, if they are being critics. But Bernie isn’t really receiving; he’s
giving, and Chuck is receiving. Or Chuck was receiving at first, and now he’s
giving, like me. I guess all of them are hermaphroditic; at least Nietzsche also
says “It is the same here as with the difference between the sexes: one ought
to demand of the artist, who gives, that he should become a woman–that he should
receive.” So can anyone else untangle this?
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks mailing list