la szum
Axe-Master
That article is really interesting. That’s of course the problem of not editing your own writing. I know when I’ve written music with band mates in the past it’s involved just a ton of argument and editing with one person, but almost none with another. And I’ve found that in music I wish I’d hear a little more fanciful ideas and indulgence in tangents and weirdness. If everything is concise all the time, it starts to resemble a product or a briefing more than a work of art. Sometimes succinctness is essential to the art, that in itself should not be a goal, in my opinion.
And I think that poet also did himself a great disservice drawing these conclusions from such an endeavor. If you are on a board, reading through 800 literary submissions, you’re an editor, not a wide ranging critic, and the sheer volume will make it seem boring. It takes this sacred act of writing and turns it into something as dry as reading resumes, in my estimation. It’s an interesting conclusion regardless of this context, but I am dubious of it.
On the other hand, I see a parallel to modern screenwriting, which seems so focused on people in capes, so maybe he has a point haha.
Isn't there an argument made about how ubiquity = the loss of the sacred, i.e., the loss of meaning?
As I recall, the argument goes that the more we are exposed to something----the more ubiquitous it
becomes----then the less impact it tends to have. Books used to be sacred, because they were rare.
Music the same way. Once upon a time all music was literally liturgical, kind of like all written words
and symbols used to be. They had native import.
Now... not so much. Now we have to work to ascribe sacred value and meaning to what once had it
inherently and innately..... just because it was NOT ubiquitous.