Re: Who's a brand?

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

>keets:  I am wondering if you saw the entire diary.  I did not at first.  
>He must have posted a draft and expanded it later.  Kind of like Lifehouse 
>:-)

Yeah, I think so.  It's the same today that it was last night.  I'm seldom 
the first one there to read his latest postings.  What part did he start 
with?


>My take on the irony talk is that he wants to have it all ways.  He wants 
>to render his art, criticize it himself, have people enjoy it, and silence 
>the critics.  He must want that because of the great difficulty in standing 
>up and baring yourself naked to millions of people as he so often has.  He 
>has to retain some defense, doesn't he?

If I had to sum it up, I'd say Roger is the one who wants everything.  Pete 
doesn't know what he wants--a difference in philosophies.

I followed the previous post about pretentions just fine, but this one is 
much more convoluted.  I'll take a whack at interpreting the first part, but 
what the hell does he mean here:


>>But outside a few certainties like that you plunge into subjectivity in a 
>>world in which subjectivity itself is an anachronism - a contradiction. 
>>There can be no subjectivity in a process (like pop) dedicated by its very 
>>nature to objectivity, observation, compassion, identification and 
>>reflection. All executed with irony.

>>When you intercept an irony you undermine it. Criticism thus becomes
cynicism.

How is pop in any way objective?  Or for that matter, any of these other 
things?  It's generally considered shallow, isn't it?  And how does it say 
one thing and mean another?  Is he talking about his own approach to 
songwriting?

That last is interesting, but I don't follow it either.  What does he mean 
by "intercept an irony"?  To understand it?  To spoil it's effect in some 
way by criticism?


>I have read Pete quotes (don't recall where) where he discusses the 
>inherent contradictions in personal artistic expression.  That such an 
>artist has to be both egotistical and insecure at the same time.  Insecure 
>in the need to gain acceptance for his thoughts.  Egotistical enough to 
>think that his inner thoughts are profound enough to deserve a stage.

Sounds like a good analysis.


>I am also seeing a great dose of Warhol in this entry.  Anyone else hear 
>that?

Do you think he's been reading Warhol, or is it just that they're both 
post-modern artists?


keets
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.