From: IN%"[email protected]" "Art Criticism Discussion Forum" 15-JAN-1994
15:11:40.00
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: yet more against individualism ...
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01H7PSBCQTO08WVYKR@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 15 Jan 1994 15:11 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 8815 for HRL@PSUARCH; Sat,
15 Jan 1994 15:11 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7380; Sat, 15 Jan 1994 15:09:52 -0500
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 15:01:15 -0500
From: GILBERT VANBUREN WILKES IV <[email protected]>
Subject: yet more against individualism ...
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01H7PSBCQTO08WVYKR@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: [email protected]
>>
>> Can there be a society if we are just a group of individuals?
>> Don't we need a common thread, an ideal, to link us all
>> together?
>>
> not necessarily, individuals are the sub-group of the larger
> group 'society'--the common thread of a society may be
> something as mundane as living in a common area--'ideals' may
> exist but finding one which would link an entire society
> would be a pipe-dream--individuals may collect in sub-groups
> drawn in by common 'ideals'. These 'ideal'-linked subgroups
> might range from the highly defined (say a political party)
> to very loosely defined (people interested in Artcrit, for
> e.g.).
Vapor-whisps and phantoms who believe we are but social
atoms not linked in any way:
The above is a rather interesting piece of work - the
author would like to discredit any notion of a genuine
social life, of a commonality and productive relations
among peoples, by denying the very material reality of
that which links us together: the material means through
which we reproduce our social lives. Toward this end the
author sets up a few straw-men only to knock them down
for our delight, such nebulous things as "ideals" or
geographic region (continuity and contiguity) - the
"subgroups" he allows are entirely arbitrary and subject
to change.
How, it must be asked against such a bit of smoke-
screening, is it possible for say, a city to exist? Well
gee, let me see? Firstly (i suppose), it is required that
there be sedentary agriculture (cities did not appear
among us until there was sendentary agriculture), for
hunters and gatherers do not build cities - their means
of production and distribution will support large, urban
concentrations. There must be means of communication and
transportation, for that which sedentary agriculture
supplies to be moved urban-ward for distribution. There
must be a system of production such that the material
means of city-making (road-building, building-building
(architecture), communications building, urban planning)
may take place - there must be some (and a rather
sophisticated) division of labor.
Toward these ends, these entirely social relations
(for production is a social phenomena: people coming
together and cooperating in the production of materials
for the use of others) is an entirely collective affair
(although our capitalist brothers and sisters insist that
it is not, they've not as yet demonstrated a how
commodities can come into being without labor), and oft-
times (all the time) requires such material, social
phenomena as a common language, a common set of culture-
making, social practices ... (instance: the troubles our
corporate brothers and sisters have had trying to make
wage-slaves of Amazon native-peoples who simply refuse to
accept any notion of clock-time).
What links people together? That you cannot see what
links us together rather boggles the mind! Culture.
Labor. Language. Marriage/family. Our social practices
and means of distribution. Our common contribution to our
common life-support - such as the common life-support
system known as a city (or perhaps a nation, in some
cases), given as an example above. There's none so blind
as them who will not see, is there! How will you explain
these things away? These are the things that link us!
Even in the straw-man example of those so tenuously
linked by the art-crit list, the author has entirely
ignored the entirely material reality of the computer and
telecommunications network upon which it is implemented -
a distributed network constituted of the loves and labors
of many people and much in the way of material
investment! A material, social artifact that demands for
itself a body of computer-adept consumers and qualified
personnel! We are linked with far deeper and entirely
material relations that our author would have us believe!
So too with artistic production! Artistic production
is (a set of) entirely social relation(s)! Rendered
intelligible only within a given cultural community! This
cannot be denied! Once agian, the Art-crit right-wing
finds itself arguing against the facts! When will this
anti-social hysteria cease! Q.E.D.
yours & etcetera
g.v.w. iv
15:11:40.00
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: yet more against individualism ...
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01H7PSBCQTO08WVYKR@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 15 Jan 1994 15:11 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 8815 for HRL@PSUARCH; Sat,
15 Jan 1994 15:11 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7380; Sat, 15 Jan 1994 15:09:52 -0500
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 15:01:15 -0500
From: GILBERT VANBUREN WILKES IV <[email protected]>
Subject: yet more against individualism ...
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01H7PSBCQTO08WVYKR@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: [email protected]
>>
>> Can there be a society if we are just a group of individuals?
>> Don't we need a common thread, an ideal, to link us all
>> together?
>>
> not necessarily, individuals are the sub-group of the larger
> group 'society'--the common thread of a society may be
> something as mundane as living in a common area--'ideals' may
> exist but finding one which would link an entire society
> would be a pipe-dream--individuals may collect in sub-groups
> drawn in by common 'ideals'. These 'ideal'-linked subgroups
> might range from the highly defined (say a political party)
> to very loosely defined (people interested in Artcrit, for
> e.g.).
Vapor-whisps and phantoms who believe we are but social
atoms not linked in any way:
The above is a rather interesting piece of work - the
author would like to discredit any notion of a genuine
social life, of a commonality and productive relations
among peoples, by denying the very material reality of
that which links us together: the material means through
which we reproduce our social lives. Toward this end the
author sets up a few straw-men only to knock them down
for our delight, such nebulous things as "ideals" or
geographic region (continuity and contiguity) - the
"subgroups" he allows are entirely arbitrary and subject
to change.
How, it must be asked against such a bit of smoke-
screening, is it possible for say, a city to exist? Well
gee, let me see? Firstly (i suppose), it is required that
there be sedentary agriculture (cities did not appear
among us until there was sendentary agriculture), for
hunters and gatherers do not build cities - their means
of production and distribution will support large, urban
concentrations. There must be means of communication and
transportation, for that which sedentary agriculture
supplies to be moved urban-ward for distribution. There
must be a system of production such that the material
means of city-making (road-building, building-building
(architecture), communications building, urban planning)
may take place - there must be some (and a rather
sophisticated) division of labor.
Toward these ends, these entirely social relations
(for production is a social phenomena: people coming
together and cooperating in the production of materials
for the use of others) is an entirely collective affair
(although our capitalist brothers and sisters insist that
it is not, they've not as yet demonstrated a how
commodities can come into being without labor), and oft-
times (all the time) requires such material, social
phenomena as a common language, a common set of culture-
making, social practices ... (instance: the troubles our
corporate brothers and sisters have had trying to make
wage-slaves of Amazon native-peoples who simply refuse to
accept any notion of clock-time).
What links people together? That you cannot see what
links us together rather boggles the mind! Culture.
Labor. Language. Marriage/family. Our social practices
and means of distribution. Our common contribution to our
common life-support - such as the common life-support
system known as a city (or perhaps a nation, in some
cases), given as an example above. There's none so blind
as them who will not see, is there! How will you explain
these things away? These are the things that link us!
Even in the straw-man example of those so tenuously
linked by the art-crit list, the author has entirely
ignored the entirely material reality of the computer and
telecommunications network upon which it is implemented -
a distributed network constituted of the loves and labors
of many people and much in the way of material
investment! A material, social artifact that demands for
itself a body of computer-adept consumers and qualified
personnel! We are linked with far deeper and entirely
material relations that our author would have us believe!
So too with artistic production! Artistic production
is (a set of) entirely social relation(s)! Rendered
intelligible only within a given cultural community! This
cannot be denied! Once agian, the Art-crit right-wing
finds itself arguing against the facts! When will this
anti-social hysteria cease! Q.E.D.
yours & etcetera
g.v.w. iv