Jump to content

Leonard Cohen


wasted

Recommended Posts

The Future, Waiting For the Miracle, Everybody Knows, First We Take Manhattan.

I actually got his new one, 10 New Songs - A Thousand Kisses Deep - not so doomy as before.

I think it's an example of Entry-ism - especially his famous songs they are pop but with political lyrics.

I think he tries to be monk nowadays - like he mediatates on a mountain for 6 months - then comes down to booze for a few months with Charlie Sheen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Future, Waiting For the Miracle, Everybody Knows, First We Take Manhattan.

I actually got his new one, 10 New Songs - A Thousand Kisses Deep - not so doomy as before.

I think it's an example of Entry-ism - especially his famous songs they are pop but with political lyrics.

I think he tries to be monk nowadays - like he mediatates on a mountain for 6 months - then comes down to booze for a few months with Charlie Sheen.

Very Desolation Angels :lol:

I like a lot of his early stuff, So Long Marianne, Bird On A Wire etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I thought - the monks think he's a rubbish monk as well!

Dharma Bums or Desolation Angels?

Pic - every read that? Kerouac's in love with a hip black jazz chick.

Doctor Sax - now that's just wrong!

But I can't get into the Chelsea Hotel stuff. all that smack it's just not glamorous!

It's like what Andy Warhol said is cool but the Factory was a depressing shit house!

Edited by wasted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Desolation Angels, no question

Pic isnt about the black jazz chick, pic is the one about the little boy whoose brother comes to the deep south to pick him up and take him to New York and start a new life, the one you're thinking about is The Subterraneans

Doctor Sax - now that's just wrong!

it isssss not :lol: its funky

But I can't get into the Chelsea Hotel stuff. all that smack it's just not glamorous!

It's like what Andy Warhol said is cool but the Factory was a depressing shit house!

the distinction is thus:

Theres a certain bent glamour to the whole thing, yes but...to live it is something else altogether. Depends really, depends on your prespective, i like the idea of the factory y'know, these very dispossessed decadent dandies waking up in stilettoes every morning, tweakin offa fuckin sulphate and trying their best to become a junkie but, like all good people that were in and around that scene, its something to dabble in, to sample, in a dilletante sense because living it is sort of...empty. there has to be something to you, its very difficult to sustain yourself trying to live art as opposed to create it. But more power to ya if you can manage it :)

Edited by ffrankwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Desolation Angels, no question

Pic isnt about the black jazz chick, pic is the one about the little boy whoose brother comes to the deep south to pick him up and take him to New York and start a new life, the one you're thinking about is The Subterraneans

Doctor Sax - now that's just wrong!

it isssss not :lol: its funky

But I can't get into the Chelsea Hotel stuff. all that smack it's just not glamorous!

It's like what Andy Warhol said is cool but the Factory was a depressing shit house!

the distinction is thus:

Theres a certain bent glamour to the whole thing, yes but...to live it is something else altogether. Depends really, depends on your prespective, i like the idea of the factory y'know, these very dispossessed decadent dandies waking up in stilettoes every morning, tweakin offa fuckin sulphate and trying their best to become a junkie but, like all good people that were in and around that scene, its something to dabble in, to sample, in a dilletante sense because living it is sort of...empty. there has to be something to you, its very difficult to sustain yourself trying to live art as opposed to create it. But more power to ya if you can manage it :)

Sort of what I mean I like the idea of it and the concepts but actually living a cupboard and living on acid and heroin - I don't know. Sounds cool but I'm happy with my Pot Noodle.

Doctor Sax - I think I read 3 times and I get the basic idea but everytime I read it's like what's going on!

I think I go Subterreans mixed up with Pic. I get Dharma Bums mixed up with Desolation Angles as well - maybe Kerouac wrote Naked Lunch, I'm not sure.

I've actually seen the original scroll of On the Road - in NY museum it's like giant bog roll about the size of a football.

I had a totally different perspective when I read them than I do now. I think I prefer Off The Road by Cassidy's wife - more of a biography of them alcos with typewriters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Desolation Angels, no question

Pic isnt about the black jazz chick, pic is the one about the little boy whoose brother comes to the deep south to pick him up and take him to New York and start a new life, the one you're thinking about is The Subterraneans

Doctor Sax - now that's just wrong!

it isssss not :lol: its funky

But I can't get into the Chelsea Hotel stuff. all that smack it's just not glamorous!

It's like what Andy Warhol said is cool but the Factory was a depressing shit house!

the distinction is thus:

Theres a certain bent glamour to the whole thing, yes but...to live it is something else altogether. Depends really, depends on your prespective, i like the idea of the factory y'know, these very dispossessed decadent dandies waking up in stilettoes every morning, tweakin offa fuckin sulphate and trying their best to become a junkie but, like all good people that were in and around that scene, its something to dabble in, to sample, in a dilletante sense because living it is sort of...empty. there has to be something to you, its very difficult to sustain yourself trying to live art as opposed to create it. But more power to ya if you can manage it :)

Sort of what I mean I like the idea of it and the concepts but actually living a cupboard and living on acid and heroin - I don't know. Sounds cool but I'm happy with my Pot Noodle.

Doctor Sax - I think I read 3 times and I get the basic idea but everytime I read it's like what's going on!

I think I go Subterreans mixed up with Pic. I get Dharma Bums mixed up with Desolation Angles as well - maybe Kerouac wrote Naked Lunch, I'm not sure.

I've actually seen the original scroll of On the Road - in NY museum it's like giant bog roll about the size of a football.

I had a totally different perspective when I read them than I do now. I think I prefer Off The Road by Cassidy's wife - more of a biography of them alcos with typewriters.

check out the first third by neal cassady, you'll like it :) and funnily enough, Kerouac did come up with the title for Naked Lunch :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The First Third by Neal Cassidy - thats the title? Is it his biography?

I read that Kerouac may have trascribed Nake Lunch for Borroughs making it publishable - I remember something about On the Road paving the way for Naked Lunch - getting him a deal.

There's another one - Borroughs - I like his image style but his books aren't very readable - if you read them in his voice they are funnier but still not entriely sure what is going on. I suppose you become part of the fiction like an experiment and just go with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The First Third by Neal Cassidy - thats the title? Is it his biography?

autobiography ;)

I read that Kerouac may have trascribed Nake Lunch for Borroughs making it publishable

y'hear these things, dont you? who knows how true any of it is, i dont think its very, considering all the stuff Burroughs pumped out later..

I like his image style but his books aren't very readable - if you read them in his voice they are funnier but still not entriely sure what is going on. I suppose you become part of the fiction like an experiment and just go with it.

This was initially what makes Burroughs the best of that bunch for me. because i just couldn't understand it yet i was just so drawn by the little that i did understand that i just committed myself to reading it intensively and the more i did that it was like "ahh, i can see what he's doing here". i still dont pretend to understand and grasp every single bit of it, its satirical in places, an example of the power of the collage (or cut ups if you will) and some glaring parrallels between that and human perception itself, y'know, the flow of conciousness...it very much mirrors the cut up technique or rather the resultant product :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I understood his techniques of cut ups and I sort think it's sort of old idea - Cobain used cut ups on In Utero - it's sort of what art students do. But Burroughs did it first.

I prefer his target paintings I think Ralph Steadman guy made up some targets and Bill took shots at them and then put them in a gallery.

"Beware of whores who say they don't want money. The Hell they don't. What they mean in that hey want more money much more."

I think the cut up technique defeats the idea of the novel as entertainment - if it's not that then it's like Brechtian technique to reveal some political truth or fact.

It's like Lynch, watch enough times and it pretty simple story of a girl who comes to hollywood, the story is the same, plot is way insane.

But does incomprehensibility make it art?

I say this with a straight face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I understood his techniques of cut ups and I sort think it's sort of old idea - Cobain used cut ups on In Utero - it's sort of what art students do. But Burroughs did it first.

I prefer his target paintings I think Ralph Steadman guy made up some targets and Bill took shots at them and then put them in a gallery.

"Beware of whores who say they don't want money. The Hell they don't. What they mean in that hey want more money much more."

I think the cut up technique defeats the idea of the novel as entertainment - if it's not that then it's like Brechtian technique to reveal some political truth or fact.

It's like Lynch, watch enough times and it pretty simple story of a girl who comes to hollywood, the story is the same, plot is way insane.

But does incomprehensibility make it art?

I say this with a straight face.

its only incomprehensible because you allow it to be, or we allow it to be. Its a better understanding or an elevated understanding of human perception. our perception isnt linear, thoughts dont occur to us in a linear fashion any more than our responses to those thoughts/acts/actions. And the whole idea is that, it isnt incomprehensible, is it? i mean, people get it, its informs and has informed artists and their art no end. and you've gotta understand that this is JUST Burroughs, one person employing this technique (im aware that others have dabbled therein but the whole concept of it being a "New Way" necessitates a lot more commitment to the notion to see it through) linear narrative is essentially a human creation...cut ups is a closer reflection of the core of our perception and the WAY in which we realise things...the very nature of our creativity if we allow it.

im not saying everyone should drop their shit and pick up cut ups, just saying that to see through an idea thats scope is so grandiose, thats the sort of thing thats required, not that it should or will ever happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean incomprehensible to people at the moment - I mean if you show Lynch 24/7 only everyone would get it.

I think we can make meanings out of it and it stimulates creativity but not sure if it became a language in which to communicate. Actually I think it can but it just isn't.

But really that's not what art is, or should be - that's propaganda.

That's why some people just do stuff, paint, make sculptures and say I don't why I do it.

In the end there is a subconscious style - or motifs which eventually get recognised which you couldn't do if you just tried to set it up.

I'm more of a conceptualist school of art.

You have an idea you carry it through and that is art. And good art is new ideas. Cut ups was a new idea, now it's old.

But it's a pretty much a dead end, conceptualism, I would say, cut ups or stream of consciousness seems like it could open up people more.

At the same time that cut ups are interesting, I also value just story telling - I think within a structure you can also have cut ups - maybe that's just me dying to sell out or just being honest about something I enjoy.

Like Dinosaur Jr. get experimental within a structure, some band's are just unstructured chaos.

Edited by wasted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can make meanings out of it and it stimulates creativity but not sure if it became a language in which to communicate. Actually I think it can but it just isn't.

Languages are man made y'know...what we do with them is up to us. its like how languages are like...or some would say they're confused and perverted by people who employ slang and stuff when its simply not true, these things get uploaded into socially acceptable ways of speaking, its just that theres always a few stuffed shirts that get their purist panties in a knot. im not saying that there should be a lack of respect of the power and historical validity of language, more an understanding of our own personal power over our modes of communication. after all, they're ours.

People are terrified of that kind of change, thats why this shit can't be seen through. its a helluva lot y'know, communication, language, the nature of our perception. fucking with shit like that, you dont know where it could/can lead. I dont think we're ready for it...and we wont be for centuries. i mean just think of the implications of all of that.

But really that's not what art is, or should be - that's propaganda.

How'd you mean?

I would say, cut ups or stream of consciousness seems like it could open up people more.

and that, THAT is really fucking important. i mean, we're talking about one person doing it...and look at what it instigated or...y'know, its sort of taken its place in the sort of chain of human invention. its been invaluable really and all the more pronnounced instances of it being used have pretty much been a sort of dabbling (Paul McCartney in Tommorow Never Knows, that was as a direct result of living with or near Brian Gysion and as such being in the company for Burroughs, for whatever short period of time).

Whatever, point being, people need to be opened up, not just by some sort of cut up fascism, im talking about all avenues. i've met loads of people like you that have said that cut ups would open up more yet no one seems to wanna put in the work to see it through. and hey, why should they if they dont wanna? :)

i just, i dunno a lot of this is sorta directed at myself i guess, i have this dilletante thing of being like "oh, thats interesting...and that....and that and that and that" y'know and never following through on shit..

Edited by ffrankwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just meant keeping things as an easily understandable language is propaganda.

In fact I did use cut ups for about a year at college but was laughed as it was seen as some stupid hippy ideal.

I guess I was at Yoko Ono's conceptual art college, I shoulda beter known better.

But I sort of took the conventions of conceptual art and mixed it with the freedom of Dada or cut ups or abstract expressionism - but as found styles.

People just saw it as trying to be "intellectually naive" - you can't do that!

So what I would do is take a conceptual idea, say I took 100 photographs on a walk around the park.

Then I would use the cut up method to make it into a painting or collage - 100 photos became 1.

But this shit doesn't sell in todays market or at the time - there was only a market for commercial art or neo-conceptualism, which I could but was bored of it. It's Andy Warhol for cokeheads. Sounds great, but it's boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just meant keeping things as an easily understandable language is propaganda.

definitely.

People just saw it as trying to be "intellectually naive" - you can't do that!

how'd you mean? you might've pointed out the possibility of their having a higher regard for their intellect than what it actually projects cuz i think thats a brilliant idea if you can channel it right.

i think cut ups work better in writing or poetry or cinema...especially cinema because the whole idea is that it mirrors our perception and cinema as an art covers more of the senses. what i think is an interesting notion or might be an interesting experiment, if only it didnt have strange Clockwork Orange-ish Third Reichian implication (:lol:) would be to experiment with it on people, perhaps to take a week or a month or a year documenting your dreams in as much detail as possible and re-creating them cinematically, using the cut up technique and then watching them intensively over a period of time, perhaps under the influence of some drug or another, something that encourages focus and then guaging the resultant effect on the subject.

Cut ups are such a wonderful representative of our own perception, both concious and subconcious (people seem to miss the concious part and agree with the subconcious bit). Its very difficult to divorce yourself from the nature of your perception and evaluate it objectively but try it...just on yourself during the course of your day...the thoughts that occur, the sensations, the order in which they occur and then maybe at the end of a given day, lump it all together and channel it through either prose or re-lay it into poetry and see what comes out. doing this over a period of time i think has the potential to be quite elevating if a little extreme.

Edited by ffrankwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like a Hollywood movie. Let's test the audience - I think most artistic endevours get turned into mind control.

If you accept that you can have a great career fucking supermodels with Julian Schabnel.

"intellectually naive" - I don't know why they couldn't get that you could do conceptual art but represent it as a child's painting.

I guess they prefered something marketable. It was more about Jeff Koons and the artist as a pop star. Your work just needed to be kind of like Pop Art but done in a minimalist style. That's what they wanted. they can sell that shit.

But some infantile rendition of a definition of art. I'll pass is what they said.

But if you have the stubborness you can push anything through - look at Robert Kippenberger :rofl-lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like a Hollywood movie. Let's test the audience - I think most artistic endevours get turned into mind control.

definitely. thats actually something that someone might wanna point out to the arty farty brigade that are always critical of advertising and marketing but by the same token you should be (or i would be) looking at it from the angle of distorting commonly acceptable modes of marketing and what is marketable. the whole idea is that the artist is in control of the art or at least leading the art (although there could be an argument made for the mirror opposite now i think about it)

This is why i could never dig art school. It used to spit out some pretty radical motherfuckers...doesnt seem to happen anymore. I think it has something to do with art (and just about everything else) being allowed its avenue for expression y'know, being given its own space to occupy (like everything else) and because of that its just become very complacent. Things only get interesting when art and the notions and ideas surrounding it spill into other areas.

But if you have the stubborness you can push anything through

and thats the important part although, granted, it occupies a space thats beneath fucking supermodels :lol:

Edited by ffrankwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically postmodernism killed Art as a radical force. It's just become a business and there's only a very small market of people with enough cash to buy the work, they are usually rich and having good time, and it's fun but trying to make politically charged art for a load of hedonists is pretty demoralizing. You just end up doing something fun and getting wrecked at the private view, it's nothing special. Then you just end up in advertising! Use some creative to sell Shampoo - there is no soul to this century so there can't be an equivalent of a Munch's Scream - it's just wacky ways to sell stuff - based not on logic but on the whims of the masses - if they think KFC is great give it to them - tell them what they want to hear.

What they were saying in the 60s was kind of flawed anyway - The Beatles were the product of the post war prosperity, given so much freedom to explore their creatvity on the back of the industrialist era and with a whole nation focused on them almost soley for a while. So it's like those 90s bands who preached revolution but came to shows by private jet, were using electricity to power their guitars which were made in factories in China. They were the first cultural opium to keep us happy as we ground out our days in the factories. I guess they tried to change the way people thought but they just got repalced by The Stones who just gave people what they wanted, booze, chicks and satanism. In the 80s they gave up their ideals and became accountants got divorced are now travelling the world like some kind of porno travel writers - oh isn't this buddist temple interesting, now lets get pissed and go back to our suite at the Hilton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically postmodernism killed Art as a radical force. It's just become a business and there's only a very small market of people with enough cash to buy the work, they are usually rich and having good time, and it's fun but trying to make politically charged art for a load of hedonists is pretty demoralizing. You just end up doing something fun and getting wrecked at the private view, it's nothing special. Then you just end up in advertising! Use some creative to sell Shampoo - there is no soul to this century so there can't be an equivalent of a Munch's Scream - it's just wacky ways to sell stuff - based not on logic but on the whims of the masses - if they think KFC is great give it to them - tell them what they want to hear.

What they were saying in the 60s was kind of flawed anyway - The Beatles were the product of the post war prosperity, given so much freedom to explore their creatvity on the back of the industrialist era and with a whole nation focused on them almost soley for a while. So it's like those 90s bands who preached revolution but came to shows by private jet, were using electricity to power their guitars which were made in factories in China. They were the first cultural opium to keep us happy as we ground out our days in the factories. I guess they tried to change the way people thought but they just got repalced by The Stones who just gave people what they wanted, booze, chicks and satanism. In the 80s they gave up their ideals and became accountants got divorced are now travelling the world like some kind of porno travel writers - oh isn't this buddist temple interesting, now lets get pissed and go back to our suite at the Hilton.

are you trying to depress me or what? :rofl-lol: Nah, you're fucking right man, art school needs to be handed back to the morons or the so called morons :lol: or even religious people y'know? people passionate about something. there was a time when total psychopaths came and gave lectures in art colleges, galvanised people. i think 99% of the problem is people like me and you. all talk and no practical application, too self aware, too...whats an opinion without action? (throughout this i've just presumed that you're as big a bum as i am and i apologise for that, for all i know you could be like...Dali mk2 :lol:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I live through that period as maybe a bad person to some people or crazy but I think I was just bored or I just didn't want to die having only banged one chick and worked in a bank my whole life - still not quite as hedonistic as the Ibiza brigade which I think is the 60s gone wrong. I think western society sets it up for you like this, when your young you are free to be more subjective and you want to experiment but then eventually you get reeled in have to take a role in the machine - as either a little cog or a big one - neither that much fun. You could be a little cog and live in your subjective dream forever but the big cogs are telling you your not that special. But you can still be free and think what you want - so your dreams become more important than the actions you take. I think some of the joy of rebellion has gone since it's almost owned by big corporations like Pepsi - it's more of a surrealist decade. anything goes, so bang it in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...