“Self expression” is the enemy of Art.

We’re not seeing much good Art bc the lines between private/personal, communal or “social”, the civilizational & the Ultimate/Transcendent have been totally blurred. We’re no longer situating ourselves in coherent relation to Creation
Think about someone like David Lynch~ is he “expressing himself”? It’s much more like he’s bearing witness to phenomena , recognizing patterns & artfully recapitulating them via formal properties of film
Miyazaki is another good example. Current year “creatives” would approach something like Spirited Away by first asking if they could “identify” with a 10 year old girl. Miyazaki’s movies are in no sense *about* the person of Miyazaki ~
If he has an ur-motivation, it’s something like a desire to write a love letter to Creation itself. Animation is the form it took, but one could easily imagine Miyazaki (or Lynch for that matter) as a composer or an architect
I think the turn towards the “personal” can be understood well thru someone like Kurt Cobain ~ Nirvana was Kurt/Kurt was Nirvana; the idea that he’d have to *perform himself* in exchange for $/status became totally intolerable to him
He couldn’t situate his person in a larger pattern of rock music ~ he saw it as an existential concession to do so; he would become a Caulfieldian “phony”
I’d argue that the big dumb rock bands of the 70s/80s- Kiss, Cheap Trick, etc~ were in fact higher expressions of rock. “Creativity” is about us trying to recapitulate Logos~ Things should *be what they do* & *what it does is it’s reason for being *
So a big rock band should be *about* being a big rock band. A big rock band that is *about* a private imagination is something like trying to drive a speedboat in a tiny creek.
& this is probably why Nirvana/Kurt was fascinating ~ it was bound for disaster.
Kurt was in the wrong boat the whole time. He should’ve been in the more feminine realm of the singer/songwriter , which is a better home for “the personal”. It can be musically dense/florid (Joni Mitchell), but it’s still more of a literary form
& even this mode isn’t to be understood in terms of “self expression” , but more in terms of intimate communications, “secret” exchanges . That’s *why* it’s quiet; if we’re too loud here it will come off as low & sordid.
& if Nirvana has left a lasting impression, it’s a vague, sickly, sordid one: pissed corduroys, empty pill bottles, abortions, divorce, self-obsession
It’s not a work that is *about* those things~ Kurt got his tormented wish; it *is* those things.
Internet/social media has accelerated this degeneration; previous generations had to observe patterns , had to develop eyes to see them in received context (Lynch grew up in “boring” small towns & suburbs) while current year kids “make” patterns~ they choose what they..
.. want to see. & Bc we can’t live wo meaning, we must ascribe significance to those selections~ in completely flat world of atomized selves, meaning can only emanate from “personal” selection, what one “identifies” with

More from All

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
॥ॐ॥
अस्य श्री गायत्री ध्यान श्लोक:
(gAyatri dhyAna shlOka)
• This shloka to meditate personified form of वेदमाता गायत्री was given by Bhagwaan Brahma to Sage yAgnavalkya (याज्ञवल्क्य).

• 14th shloka of गायत्री कवचम् which is taken from वशिष्ठ संहिता, goes as follows..


• मुक्ता-विद्रुम-हेम-नील धवलच्छायैर्मुखस्त्रीक्षणै:।
muktA vidruma hEma nIla dhavalachhAyaiH mukhaistrlkShaNaiH.

• युक्तामिन्दुकला-निबद्धमुकुटां तत्वार्थवर्णात्मिकाम्॥
yuktAmindukalA nibaddha makutAm tatvArtha varNAtmikam.

• गायत्रीं वरदाभयाङ्कुश कशां शुभ्रं कपालं गदाम्।
gAyatrIm vardAbhayANkusha kashAm shubhram kapAlam gadAm.

• शंखं चक्रमथारविन्दयुगलं हस्तैर्वहन्ती भजै॥
shankham chakramathArvinda yugalam hastairvahantIm bhajE.

This shloka describes the form of वेदमाता गायत्री.

• It says, "She has five faces which shine with the colours of a Pearl 'मुक्ता', Coral 'विद्रुम', Gold 'हेम्', Sapphire 'नील्', & a Diamond 'धवलम्'.

• These five faces are symbolic of the five primordial elements called पञ्चमहाभूत:' which makes up the entire existence.

• These are the elements of SPACE, FIRE, WIND, EARTH & WATER.

• All these five faces shine with three eyes 'त्रिक्षणै:'.