"Beauty, when it is not a promise of happiness, must be destroyed"
Guy Debord
From that fucking movie was "We just have to cry "(direct, we fa per dire, da Troisi e Benigni nel 1984) c'è da recuperare un concetto che stimo al punto di essermene servito in qualcuno di questi post: la mostruosità del passato rispetto al presente. Ovviamente, un concetto non valido per ogni presente che sia guerra, dittatura, recrudescenza religiosa, post-catastrofe naturale, cose di questo tipo, ma che, per il resto, dovrebbe non fare una piega, se si considera il perfezionamento naturale di due componenti importantissime della nostra vita, quali la libertà da schemi culturali e la comodità.
Grazie alla prima, e nonostante la resistenza tenacissima di chi la teme, oggi ci si sente meno reietti se non si mette su famiglia, se si è omosessuali, se si convive con chi non si ha né rapporto amoroso né legami di sangue, se si vive senza coltivare relazioni, se si fa un lavoro singolare, se si amano cose singolari, se si ama in un modo singolare, se si svelano proprie fragilità interiori, persino da maschietti. La seconda invece, per nulla osteggiata, ci ha soprattutto consentito di snellire tante operazioni propizie al lavoro o alla vita quotidiana che non producono né piacere né pensiero, il che non è poco.
Questo, anche se nel modo più becero, i due comici lo avevano detto. Avevano anzi scelto di rappresentare il mostruoso di un'epoca magnificatissima come il proto-rinascimento italiano, con in primo piano la sua archetipicità civile, la sua violenza. E si erano spinti a smitizzare di quell'epoca even the intellect, genius, Leonardo with that speck, a little 'slow compared to the two unfortunates of our time.
pity only that this was pure caciaroneria, a pat on the shoulder. Why then, in the eighties, when those liberties were beginning to soar from vague ideology, and the convenience to peep, he should first take note of the company's so-called culture, from producer to consumer, and not to slavishly indulge as some did, the great wave of reaction to commitment, but to finally get rid of the attitude and self specialitaria that separates it from life today, after some thought "unscrupulous" (Stirner, Nietzsche, Paul Lafargue) gave birth to after-effects and consequences (situations, anti-psychiatry, black art, cyber etc.).
Intending to create so-called culture, past and present product and thought are not tied to profit, it must be said that this has assisted us well for generations, helping to raise the quality of our being from a life in which the lack of freedom attacked the desire and the lack of comfort time. With the penalty, however, that the same thought summary of common life, soggetticida by definition, affects the statute. Do not forget that the nineteenth-century middle-class symphony is sipped lasted from mid afternoon into the night, that Freud, to legitimize sperimentalissima his discipline, stuffed with Greek mythology in his writings, nor that many young people of the sixties and seventies are all forced to read Marx, Lenin, everything, everything Gramsci.
But today, just when we feel on a consciousness of real people, who are we to make of a so-called culture, mainly, there aliens? That, to use it, we have to behave like someone lighting a candle in church? Should we even blame Debord (both of which we use) for writing "The society of the spectacle," he produced a performance of "pedantic parisienne", and of course we get angry with those who now sells at that blackmail, who raises or preaches 'power of that candle. Riteniamolo spoiler of our time together on television, events, to the disciplines of the potential, the neo-racism, neo-provincialism, homophobia ... Guastatrice Why is his laziness, sloth being the inability to manage an independent ethics sectarian thinking intellectualism. And 'yet another variation of the multifaceted needs of belonging, and with the aggravating circumstance that give thought to protect public monopoly intellectualism means a state of feeling separated from the daily specialties.
The damage mainly affects artistic production of which would enjoy more power to "dwell poetically the world," the cinema, music and literature - Visual art (definitely), poetry (with some exceptions) and theater (despite everything) can have on constitutionally much smaller.
cinema, the medium heat for Excellence (McLuhan) that contains images, words, story, characters, thought implied or expressed, is of course on top of this list. But precisely because this is the place where the pure-durismo intellectual, obviously in the minority, most s'incarognisce. And not to distinguish a film (author's) vision is that of psychological or social or political one (gender or otherwise) that sacrifices depth to the show every storyteller, but to defend the statute artistic film itself and disciplinary sense, forgetting completely that the true richness of the film is highly dependent on its being the art of "what", and perhaps a little 'less from being one of the "how".
Now, the filmmaker who works in a close relationship between what it means and the film language, and for this sovraesponga sometimes it seems to me not only a healthy art law, but also a practice that adheres to its desired functional purpose. How can you not appreciate that Hitchcock has made "Rear Window" by ensuring that the viewer could see exactly how the main character? Or that Polanski, in "Knife in the Water", has turned its claustrophobic sequences of the trio by boat from the boat itself? Of Moreover, the spartanissimo Bresson turned often many times the same scene, if not the same sequence, to obtain the intended meaning - and seems to have been born as a doubling of the suicide crash of Mouchette, not narrated by Bernanos. But the touch of Bresson films!
Sterilissimo, however, the attitude of the filmmaker (now, thankfully, endangered) whose purpose is the film itself, and even that of impoverishing Cinephile Orthodox, the fear of the Cahiers, which, while not admitting anything, underestimate the value of the dialectic between art and life, to revive the art to contemplate. Typical, in fact, is his defense of the film in the original language with subtitles, and so the usual alibi (invoked with a bit of a guilty conscience) to hear the voices and intonations of the original actors. But such voices and intonations, such as! (Always assuming that the film is in direct drive) Here is the verse to pornography: you want to share a whole vitally flawed (the film dubbed in the language in which the viewer thinks and feels, with incidental changes of tone and / or text) for a 'whole "not livable" parts connaturatamente perfect (recitations from the original content and little or no comprehensible images from which we must continually divert to read subtitles).
That is, the paradox is served: the pictures that we speak can not be lived, but only seen, because it is art and art that is not contemplated. The function of living that hot medium (containing images, words and bla bla bla) is clearly delegated to the movies to escape and on TV. And that, to retire Brecht, Gramsci, even Pasolini, who use the art of pleasure have certainly never spoken, because the time was not right, exactly, but the function of art in society other than!
It is no coincidence, moreover, that Pasolini was just one of the particularly deployed for dubbing, in addition to Bunuel, Fellini, Bergman, Truffaut, Ferreri ..., or that are found among the very contrary Godard, Straub, Garrel , Wenders ... It is to think about! Let
hours of music, the most psychic of the arts, the most importunate of the arts (Kant), art connaturatamente romantic (Schumann).
Well, from the artistic soul of independent music - as is the feeling intellect - has for centuries been the one against which the artistic ideals of the struggle to get the better musician, and most times succeeding: by Bach the sublimity of a consolidation of the forms to Cage that liquidity, a little 'naively, as the property passed. This, to the point that one wonders what the music most commonly considered the "copyright" actually tell us.
Sure, the music altrtettanto common saying "the people" has major limitations: essentially a musicality clear but elementary, due to the need, in most cases, to support a text of "bad conscience" or alleged to be poetic. While listening to the emotional, especially if dependent on a real demand for music and not by associations with other things, require a rich musical, able to pass on their wealth of emotions. The fact is that classical music still, by definition, the richest, has never ceased to come to terms with the status of classical severe altomimetica and intimidation, which has also relied on the expression of emotions rise autenticissime ( from Beethoven to the Romantics themselves), until, during the twentieth century, pure self-reference, and with the consent dell'elitarissimo consumer, even in the most befitting that status, since its application is more than music, that psychic structure, but of culture, ie mental superstructure.
I remember, on this, a rough statement of Paul Castaldi to the TV broadcast of Berio "There is music and music." He said that "... the difference between music without adjectives - meaning of course that cultured - and other music is that the former is created in the style of the composer, the other according to public taste." Coarse for the coarseness of the exchange between the amplitude of the humanistic concept of taste and its tiny slice of operation in Orthodoxy specification. That is, what is the taste in works such as "4.33" Cage or the same collage castaldiani? And what would a taste-of-the public in which to recognize Celentano to Coltrane? We took that to volghetto Aristophanes to Socrates a sophist!
But now comes the fun part: the same Berio was - obviously - for all concerned that the stakes of its transmission had never uttered the word jazz, as if it did not exist. And rightly so, from his point of view, because it is jazz that his language was subject to entrapment defense: the real loose cannon of music, to which belong all the romance and the author's ideals, the centrality of music and a ' exclusive freedom-to-be-free, infinitely more than that of plaster required and musician search.
Perhaps no music can tell us about how jazz, at least what has been done by Lester Young on, removed the Chet Baker, Keith Jarrett, the Italians "good" etc.. Why no music is so full mental, so authentic interpreter of the soul that the music was at its center. The last positions (imagine how the lower vertices of an inverted Y) squares in the usual course Cage - with its derivatives - and the songs of Sanremo, half floating (where the Y splits) rock, thief of musical emotions and no of any kind, while a great second place, alas, we can only grant-page classic, and came past, but we reserve the right to distinguish between those that speak to us than the more numerous, they are just composure, compassatezza, rhetoric ... At least with the art of psychic, try not to make the servants!
For various reasons, however, the right not to magnify the products collectively known as the culture is quite common in literature. Not only the unassuming reader says that Burroughs is unreadable (because it makes him lose the thread), but the reader too strong, experienced and wise, that if anything he deems unnecessary fireworks. And this same player is allowed even to love laughing at Gadda Manganelli, to legitimize the paranoia di Handke e non quelle di Bernhard, di sentire lo sperimentalismo di Butor e chiedersi perché mai Robbe-Grillet abbia fatto lo scrittore. Del resto, già Nabokov dichiarava di amare tanto l'"Ulisse" e di disistimare del tutto il "Finnegan's Wake".
In letteratura, infatti, il problema si presenta ribaltato rispetto sia al cinema che alla musica. Prima di tutto, nel senso che chi legge rivendica sempre, a sua misura, un diritto al riscontro di quell'atto comunque impegnativo. Ma anche in un altro senso: che gli scrittori, da un bel po' di tempo a questa parte, tendono a curare sempre meno la tridimensionalità dei personaggi e, semmai, sempre più una qualsiasi strategia di persuasione: più di tutto, trattare di soggetti choral and / or "unprecedented events", whether true or not. And here, there is little to do, even a so-called high literature and recognized as such becomes pure entertainment, a pastime that does not detract. Why pastrugnare with the great facts of evil, those committing crimes that is an exception, it is never the same thing with a story that, for lack of unheard of, could be yours. It is once again choose to be spectators or players, except that here the spectator is not a fear of culture, but a fear of his life to which the company offers the side of literature.
On the other hand, do not write more, Finnegans Wake (s). No, in the literature self monument does not roll over, even in France. And that in itself is already a good sign of progress. But was it really necessary that dirty that water was thrown away with in the usual kid? Namely, that literature really sacrificed a taste of the public, this time actually, its evil and its good together? The fact is that things seem to be gone just like that, probably for a summary, walking fear that the press must adapt to an age so generous with distractions.
So, faced with a life "improved" because average shed some monstrosity, discomfort and poor sources of fact, the so-called culture would behave on average male, non migliorando o addirittura peggiorando, per un verso o per un altro: chi la fa sarcofago e chi la fa escort, con la conseguenza media di farla perdere di vista come risorsa per la nostra felicità.
Perciò, da aspiranti felici, riprendiamocela! Ma migliorandola noi, se non sa farlo da sé, a partire da cosa usarne e come. E facendoci un baffo di tutta quella nata da sé stessa, che giustificatamente sentiamo distante da noi, se non penitenziale. Ricordando, invece, che chi produce cultura, come pensiero o come arte, non può avere altro movente onesto che rendere pubbliche le sue convinzioni, il che, in una società progredita, dovrebbe significare renderle utili, "per tutti e per nessuno", come diceva Nietzsche.
It 's the point at which the speech can be uncertain, because the utility of the material non-profit occurs only when at least one of its sections speaks to our lives. And we know not to be done in series. To me, for example, are useful Nietzsche, Freud, Marcuse, Lefebvre, Debord, Vaneigem and no philosopher tout court, Bunuel and Orson Welles, Coltrane and Stockhausen, Schnitzler and Queneau - and all with providential cuts my convenience. But what do I know what it is useful to those who are different from me?
One thing I can say that this use - or for leisure use - is the opposite of worship, and therefore the antidote to the glorification of the existential subject used, which does not is still a god, do not exist. Beethoven and Leopardi, for example, are any "big" for doing the worldly wisdom of the chronically depressed, and only for so-called culture of prudishness vulgar than that because we are still glowing smuggled to other more abstract and arbitrary, conscience-type of -sunset-of-life tunes like fries. While "big" it never is the artist who dares to simply remove or absence of feeling. His motive is hermaphrodite and his creations unusable out of the specialty.
And we, let us stop to admire something just because it is "another world"!
said, and not wanting to dwell well on a blog, call (with little hope) the fear of the culture to reflect on their positions and (more optimistically) intimidated by the culture to see that mustache that may be of the entire culture that seems far away and get on the trail of film, music, readings that they speak. Because this is to try to live well, and the crap we have seen that they're not enough. It is to become all subjects DOC, all masters not others, of course.
(Digital processing of Cristiano Mattia Ricci)
