file under: excerpts against interpretation

part 4, first paragraph:

"in a culture whose already classical dilemma is the hypertrophy of the intellect at the expense of energy and sensual capability, interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art."

part 6, last paragraph:

"interpretaion, based on the highly dubious theory that a work of art is composed of items of content, violates art. it makes art into an article for use, for arrangement into a mental scheme of categories."

part 9, last few paragraphs:

"what is important now is to recover our senses. we must learn to see more, to hear more, to feel more.

our task is not to find the maximum amount of content in a work of art, much less to squeeze more content out of the work than is already there. our task is to cut back content so that we can see the thing at all.

the aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art - and, by analogy, our experience - more rather than less, real to us. the function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means."

and finally, part 10 in its entirety:

"in place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art."

[susan sontag ruled all the way back in 1964.]

how many bands have i been extremely annoyed with because their lyrics are clever or literate while the instrumentation is somewhat unremarkable? is that an unfortunate side effect of the written world reporting upon sound? have i lost hope in music's ability to communicate anything literal and concrete? is that why i'm liking noise so much these days? i'm not sure about any of it.