In-Class Response

Question 3. "Blogs bring on decay. Each new blog is supposed to add to the fall of the media system that once dominated the twentieth century." Do you think that this is a true statement, that blogs have contributed to the erosion of mass media or are they the second step in the progression of mass media in people's lives?

First of all, i think it's pretty fucking stupid to analyze what blogs are "supposed" to do. Out of all the reasons i can think of for setting up a blog, "adding to the fall of the media system that once dominated blah blah blah" is last on a long fucking list that includes reasons like vanity, a profound desire to project thoughts and opinions to a group of people that don't matter, and being really stoned.

having said that, the only reason blogs cause the fall of the media system is that the media system is letting the blogosphere matter, when it really shouldn't. If, god fucking forbid, print media weren't an overblown, outdated and irrelevant form of media, then it wouldn't be getting edged out of the public space by a bunch of assholes with iBooks.

Newspapers have been undercutting themselves for decades by firing writers and increasing advertising space, graphics, and other "cutting-edge" shit that really only serves to magnify the fact that all the talented writers have left or been fired from journalism. papers are dying because they, like the music industry, failed to adjust to changing social climates and trends and are now reverse-engineering their own failure to make it seem like blogs were out to get them.

blogs are not out to get anybody; but if someone is writing something funny or engaging and you can get it for free, you're damn sure NOT going to pay for inferior writing. the funny thing is that most bloggers parlay their experience into books; i'm thinking about garfield without garfield or stuff white people like. this proves that the print format is still valid; people are just tolerating crap less now that better material is available for free.

print media fucked itself over by trying to cut costs without realizing it was actually just cutting quality. it's like when Coke tried New Coke to compete with Pepsi and after a colossal market failure, realized that people are more invested in the image and connotation of Coke as opposed to its actual taste.

people are attached to papers and magazines for the same reason: reading the Wall Street Journal or Rolling Stone says something about you as a person, it crystallizes a certain image people have of themselves. this is the only thing that's going to reverse the downward slide that print journalism is in.

The Machine is using us

The machine is not using us; we are trapped in its belly and it is bleeding to death. although i enjoyed the video by way of its unique aesthetics, editing choices, and overall execution, i was really pretty irritated by its message. although i, like everyone, appreciate the way the internet brings information and entertainment directly to my increasingly lazy fingers and skull, i am strongly opposed to rethinking "myself" on its terms.

One: the internet is not real. WoW is not real, Facebook is not real, hell, even half of my Twitter posts are made up to throw the Man off my back. the real world is real. getting hit in the face by a frisbee while because you were texting is real. pain is real. love, physical and otherwise, is real. physical interactions are real. conversation is real. the internet offers extensive simulations of all of these things, but they are not real. most of my facebook friends are people i've met maybe once and was socially intimidated into making friends with on the internet. a relationship cultivated on the internet may stir feelings of interest or even lust, but until you've held that person's hand or kissed them or even looked at them without a fucking lcd screen in the way, you have no idea what they're like, all you have is an idea of what the facsimile of them is like.

two: the internet is bad for you. children that are raised by computers are social misfits. this is a fact, and until we are literally living like the matrix and only unplugging from our computers to fight hugo weaving via semi-crappy CGI, the unfortunate truth is that YOU WILL HAVE TO LEAVE YOUR COMPUTER AT SOME POINT and then all your witty 4chan slang and funny facebook picture captions will not help you when somebody looks at you in your beady, squinting eyes and says something. kids need to get out and get dirty and hit each other and fall down and learn physics and social schemas and all that shit for themselves, they don't need to learn how to upload digital pictures and post them on the internet. if your only social interactions have been message board diatribes and chat room 'convos', then you have not learned how to properly interact with other humans, you have learned how to be a shrill, intolerant asshole unable to voice opinions with any degree of articulation or spontaneity.

look, while i might be something of a luddite, i am not against the internet. point of fact, it's pretty fucking awesome. BUT, having said that, i think it's getting way out of control and i really do worry when i see a three year old that's spent more time using windows than playing outside, and i really don't like the idea that some day i might be conducting something like 85% of my daily business through a bunch of wires and satellites gathered around in the ozone layers like a bunch of frat brothers around a passed out freshman girl. the internet needs to be used like what it is, a tool, not a way of life, not a brain, and certainly not the new be all end all of human civilization. nothing is the be all end all of human civilization, that's the fucking point of it.

Uncreative Writing Response

Not really sure what to make of kenneth goldsmith. Although his wardrobe and several of his comments in interviews are interesting, the whole of uncreative writing seems kind of like some bizarre joke. I understand the intellectual purpose of it but once again, like Flarf, there seems to be little or no overarching value to uncreative writing. i understand the idea and methodology behind creating (or exposing) rhythm in things like weather reports or creating writing so uncreative and boring that it becomes interesting and avant-garde, but...who the hell reads this stuff? does anybody pay money for it? sometimes it seems to me that people like Goldsmith are either lazy or bored with their jobs, and therefore decide to create something like uncreative writing to fuck with people. again, i support this practice, but let him inflict it on his own students and those foolish enough to pay attention to him; i don't think this practice or theory needs to be spread any farther than it already has.

i suppose it all goes back to the original idea of 'what is art' and that whole semantic masturbatory seesion, but anyone that starts invoking the nature of art itself in a discussion about something has essentially lost the argument from point of view, as they retreat down the long, comforting birth canal of semantics, making it easy for their debate opponent to get lost, bored, or pissed off. the point that i suppose i'm trying to make is that there are obviously forms of art out there that cross the gap into intellectual excercises and do not actively require any emotional connection, but this practice makes art more divisive than it does inclusive, which is ultimately defeating the point of art. it's not about making obscure intellectual divisions that serve to alienate and annoy and then provide elitist plateaus from which can look down and laugh, saying "hahaha, you don't understand Flarf? you peasant!", it's about making us feel less fucking alone when we look at a piece of art and recognizing how that artist is mired in the same shit we all are, but look what they did to alleviate that pain a little bit. i don't think that when i read uncreative writing, i think about how i want a sandwich and some well-written poetry to read. kenneth goldsmith is missing one of the prime points about life; to become good at something (in this case creativity), first you have to really suck at it, and then get a little bit better by imitating the creativity of others, and then after a long and arduous slog in which you produce a whole lot of crap, you gradually become better at it. and that's life, really.