Dit, deze omschrijving uit David Foster Wallace's essay E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction (1990), is ook volkomen van voorspellende toepassing gebleken op de auteur wiens naam ik zoek en die nog niemand heeft geraden.
Het citaat:
"The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue.
These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic.
Maybe that’ll be the point.
Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels.
Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval.The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism.
Today’s risks are different.
The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the “Oh how banal.” To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law."
Morgen weer een echt stukje. Een eigen tekst.
P.S. Eerder in hetzelfde essay geeft DFW een afdoende definitie van Low Art: ‘The sort of art that has to please people in order to get their money.’
Leuk om in gedachten te houden bij discussies over kunst(subsidies) en ondernemerschap.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
