And there's a tendency for style and technique to predominate over substance. Maybe I am incoherent sometimes, but if I edited every thought for its coherence I would never write in such lists, or speak up in a group discussion. Others that are accustomed to speaking fluidly are more likely to find it irritating when people do not take an active part in the discussion, or when they say stuff that sounds confused. I am at the point now that I am inundated with other's writing. A lot of it looks better than mine, but I realize that awkwardness in writing and in person should not be a reason to remain silent.
Whenever I hear about these anarchist conferences that you can attend where you can actually talk to people face to face, I am hopeful that something else will come of this; that I will meet people who are inspiring and make connections that will lead to future collaborations or friendships. The rest of the time that we are not talking, folks are just shooting the shit with their friends and often do not attempt to develop a dialogue with others who are strangers to them. Sometimes I attend the colloquiums at various university functions, and it's interesting to hear the face-to-face dialogue with people that have researched a given subject; usually there's many within the room who are concerned with the same problem and will talk amongst themselves after the speaker gives about a half hour of his/her time. Lots of times the humor and good nature is natural easy-going attitudes that come naturally when speaking and, for a lot of reasons, is not expressed via email.
I agree that left publications could do more for their aesthetic presentation, but I also think that some of the worst designs are a result of computer graphics -- e.g clip art like Z puts in -- and maybe even type font, since everything looks like times new roman these days. Seeing the mags that German dissidents like John Heartfield put out was really illuminating. And whoever says that the Soviets didn't care aboutt style should look at the designs that were being made. The problem is more than people don't seem to make interesting and provocative political art, and the mags today don't seem to do much to promote it; the paper just doesn't reproduce colors well, etc. Actually, one of the mags that I think is interesting in that manner is Anarchy. Not all of the art is interesting, but it often is on-target in a way that Z hardly ever is in its comix.
But there's a larger issue of aesthetics that seems troubling to me; the kind of mentality that castigates what it considers incompetence in style. I think that a certain amount of visual disorder must be tolerated in most aspects of society; it is even desirable. Visual disorder in cities, in living spaces, in magazines, in street landscapes, in films and so on is desirable since the juxtaposition of elements is what entails modern life. The stranger is unlike me, but in an ideal world, the stranger is as able to develop his/her personality to the fullest extent. Additionally, it is good if the good aspects of their personality are shown to me. It may be good that they are "ugly" in some ways since it may change my mind. In a more authoritarian mindset, one would view disorder as a public problem; it is supposed to be sorted into comprehendible elements, "ugly" aspects of the landscape--including people, should be expelled. However, the collision of fragments of aesthetic values is valuable; if one is able to allow the stranger to exist in the public, then a more egalitarian discursive climate can exist. As a result, it's valuable to have streets, buildings, parks, neighborhoods that have a mixture of classees, textures, social networks. However, the acceptance of visual disorder can become aesthetically shallow. Seeing the stranger and the unpleasant reality they represent do not mean that contemplation of the strange is going to result in a positive way; it may cause xenophobia and so on. However, it's necessary not to sanitize the visual. I suppose that means, for the discussion of magazines in the left, that if we're going to talk about our political and social ideals, if we're going to contribute to society by talking about positive social change that is radical rather than reformist, we ought to reflect that in the design and artistic content of magazines. Challenging militarism, classism, racism, sexism etc. and the mentalities / pathologies that societies have requires art that splinters notions of societal order. I'm thinking maybe of Kurt Schwitters, Georg Grosz, the Blue Rider, Max Beckmann, etc.-- all artists who had attacked their society's repression and limitations.
But in order to do this we have to reinvent the notions of left that rigidly place it in a political and not artistic culture. Only political comix is used for art in such mags, not to say that such art is bad. Art for arts sake, whether it has political content or not, is not likely to be in left publications.
But in the long run, it seems that very few people think their ideas mean anything to the left anymore. Everything seems so complex even though learning about it should be a simple matter, like talking about it to someone or picking up a magazine, reading it, and talking about it to others. Political discourse in North America is so obfuscating. Who can keep up with it? It is a lot to wade through it all, people are too bored ... or scared ... to enter into the conversation, and very little of it is really consequential. So it's not surprising that very few people care.
.
-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5784 bytes Desc: not available URL: <../attachments/20030805/9d203518/attachment.bin>