Comments on: Frank Daniels’ Lit Riot: Take 4 http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/ where writers come to play Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:01:52 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Tim Barrus aka Nasdi http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/comment-page-1/#comment-18210 Tim Barrus aka Nasdi Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:29:00 +0000 http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/#comment-18210 From NEWSTATESMEN, UK In a word: revenge. Most of my compatriots at YouTube would be offended to hear that their work is graffiti. Their work and my work is graffiti. I work with young artists in a film collective where posting video to YouTube is very definitely creating public art. Yesterday, the Museum of Modern Art in New York posted one of our videos to their channel at YouTube. This is the third time this has happened to us. We find the interaction exciting. You can't get around the fact that what we do is art. You can't get around the fact that it's very public. You can't escape the reality it's a form of graffiti. We love graffiti. Why. Because everyone can see it? This is too simplistic. One of the reasons we do what we do has to do with revenge. The art world, the publishing world, and the film world have all been conquered and ruined by the middlemen who produce absolutely nothing. Yet they make the rules. To benefit themselves. They have become what these worlds are all about. The artist is ephemeral. What makes a work of art valuable is the recognition that it is valuable. This recognition is not automatic and intuitive; it has to be constructed. A work of art has to circulate through a sub-economy of exchange operated by a large and growing class of middlemen: publishers, curators, producers, publicists, philanthropists, foundation officers, critics, professors, editors, and so on. Without these grand poobahs the whole thing collapses of its own heavy, dull weight. The prize system, and the award system in terms of who gets to make public art, with its own cadre of career administrators and judges, is one of the ways in which value gets “added on” to a work. Of course, we like to think that the recognition of artistic excellence is intuitive. We don’t like to think of cultural value as something that requires middlemen—useless people who are not artists themselves—in order to emerge. We prefer to believe that truly good literature or music or film announces itself. Folly. But graffiti is different. Its value is not connected to your contractual relationships that assign worth. It is in your face. It exists outside the structures you have created that historically keep us out. It exists because inclusion is valuable even if inclusion is spit on and exclusion is the norm. Our art is out there with the great rabble of the crowd. Because we want revenge and we shall have it. In the form of pointing out with (le small dolls) that you do not SEE. In the form of announcing a gang's turf. In the form of pointing out that some intellectual property must exist in the public domain. Our work is original and yet challenges the notion that anything can be original. It confronts the idea of ownership. It confronts the idea of exclusivity. It ESPECIALLY confronts the idea that the heirarchal aristrocracy's place is to control the flow of creativity. The aristocracy might distain it, but it can't control it. And most of all, it isn't corporate. It does not exist to enrich you. It exists to enrich you. It is ironic and a contradiction. It is revenge. It is a part of the world. It exists alongside the chaotic and the tumultuous. You cannot control it and we are compelled to the secrecy it evolves in. It is in this place our art is art. Not a commodity to be picked apart by percentages. You scoff it has no value. But it speaks to us like nothing else does -- especially the cultural garbage pushed by the middlemen -- in knowing ourselves. And knowing yourself is the final and ultimate revenge. Tim Barrus, Paris GEISHA HOTEL RE: GUERRILLA GIRLS: MOMA http://www.myderelicthotel.blogspot.com From NEWSTATESMEN, UK

In a word: revenge. Most of my compatriots at YouTube would be offended to hear that their work is graffiti.

Their work and my work is graffiti.

I work with young artists in a film collective where posting video to YouTube is very definitely creating public art. Yesterday, the Museum of Modern Art in New York posted one of our videos to their channel at YouTube. This is the third time this has happened to us. We find the interaction exciting. You can’t get around the fact that what we do is art. You can’t get around the fact that it’s very public. You can’t escape the reality it’s a form of graffiti.

We love graffiti.

Why.

Because everyone can see it? This is too simplistic.

One of the reasons we do what we do has to do with revenge. The art world, the publishing world, and the film world have all been conquered and ruined by the middlemen who produce absolutely nothing. Yet they make the rules. To benefit themselves. They have become what these worlds are all about.

The artist is ephemeral.

What makes a work of art valuable is the recognition that it is valuable. This recognition is not automatic and intuitive; it has to be constructed. A work of art has to circulate through a sub-economy of exchange operated by a large and growing class of middlemen: publishers, curators, producers, publicists, philanthropists, foundation officers, critics, professors, editors, and so on. Without these grand poobahs the whole thing collapses of its own heavy, dull weight. The prize system, and the award system in terms of who gets to make public art, with its own cadre of career administrators and judges, is one of the ways in which value gets “added on” to a work. Of course, we like to think that the recognition of artistic excellence is intuitive. We don’t like to think of cultural value as something that requires middlemen—useless people who are not artists themselves—in order to emerge. We prefer to believe that truly good literature or music or film announces itself.

Folly.

But graffiti is different. Its value is not connected to your contractual relationships that assign worth. It is in your face. It exists outside the structures you have created that historically keep us out. It exists because inclusion is valuable even if inclusion is spit on and exclusion is the norm. Our art is out there with the great rabble of the crowd. Because we want revenge and we shall have it. In the form of pointing out with (le small dolls) that you do not SEE. In the form of announcing a gang’s turf. In the form of pointing out that some intellectual property must exist in the public domain. Our work is original and yet challenges the notion that anything can be original. It confronts the idea of ownership. It confronts the idea of exclusivity. It ESPECIALLY confronts the idea that the heirarchal aristrocracy’s place is to control the flow of creativity. The aristocracy might distain it, but it can’t control it. And most of all, it isn’t corporate. It does not exist to enrich you. It exists to enrich you. It is ironic and a contradiction. It is revenge. It is a part of the world. It exists alongside the chaotic and the tumultuous. You cannot control it and we are compelled to the secrecy it evolves in. It is in this place our art is art. Not a commodity to be picked apart by percentages. You scoff it has no value. But it speaks to us like nothing else does — especially the cultural garbage pushed by the middlemen — in knowing ourselves. And knowing yourself is the final and ultimate revenge. Tim Barrus, Paris

GEISHA HOTEL
RE: GUERRILLA GIRLS: MOMA
http://www.myderelicthotel.blogspot.com

]]> By: Juliet http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/comment-page-1/#comment-1884 Juliet Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:30:53 +0000 http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/#comment-1884 Yes, Frank, you're right. I wrote too quickly, and didn't think through my statement. Good fiction does cross that line (slapping my own face here, as I write fiction that I think quite crosses the line). If you look back to our Frey-day regarding memoir, you'll see that I quite agree with the box-statements. Thanks for correcting me. Yes, Frank, you’re right. I wrote too quickly, and didn’t think through my statement.

Good fiction does cross that line (slapping my own face here, as I write fiction that I think quite crosses the line). If you look back to our Frey-day regarding memoir, you’ll see that I quite agree with the box-statements.

Thanks for correcting me.

]]> By: Frank Daniels http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/comment-page-1/#comment-1882 Frank Daniels Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:33:52 +0000 http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/#comment-1882 I respectfully disagree, Juliet. GOOD fiction crosses that line every time. My problem with memoir, aside from the publishing stranglehold already discussed, is that it very much limits an author's abilities. How can you write while be constrained to so-called "facts"? It's far more exciting, from a writing perspective anyway, to be able to use real life as a jumping off point to greater stories, stories that expand on "real" life. The largest truths, for me anyway, lie in the exaggerations. I respectfully disagree, Juliet. GOOD fiction crosses that line every time. My problem with memoir, aside from the publishing stranglehold already discussed, is that it very much limits an author’s abilities. How can you write while be constrained to so-called “facts”? It’s far more exciting, from a writing perspective anyway, to be able to use real life as a jumping off point to greater stories, stories that expand on “real” life. The largest truths, for me anyway, lie in the exaggerations.

]]> By: Juliet http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/comment-page-1/#comment-1881 Juliet Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:34:44 +0000 http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/#comment-1881 We are facing a generation of those who have no lasting histories... no grandparents, hell, no fathers, no mothers and so we reach for bits of true story to make our world make sense. In that first-person voice of the author, we are reminded that we are all tied together in this giant mess, and that on another street, in another city, in heart and soul—there are those who are our people. That we belong. That we have a space, a voice, a shared connection. Fiction does not cross that line often. It's the gritty telling of one's pain, one's shame, one's hope that never dies which makes us all feel somewhat together. We are facing a generation of those who have no lasting histories… no grandparents, hell, no fathers, no mothers and so we reach for bits of true story to make our world make sense. In that first-person voice of the author, we are reminded that we are all tied together in this giant mess, and that on another street, in another city, in heart and soul—there are those who are our people. That we belong. That we have a space, a voice, a shared connection.
Fiction does not cross that line often.
It’s the gritty telling of one’s pain, one’s shame, one’s hope that never dies which makes us all feel somewhat together.

]]> By: Maria Headley http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/comment-page-1/#comment-1859 Maria Headley Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:30:26 +0000 http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/#comment-1859 Exactly - pissing people off is something that happens no matter what you write. Edging away from it is farily useless. You can only say what you believe. That said, it's good to be able to look at, and if necessary, expand your argument. The world of readers is a diverse, diverse place. There's room in it for all kinds of writing - memoir, novel, celebrity memoir, commercial fiction, experimental fiction, just as in the print journalistic world, there's room for celebrity tabloids, Vogue, Harper's, and Tin House, to name just a few of the diverse varieties. Some of these things sell better than others - I'm not denying that, but I don't think that if, suddenly, there were no more celebrity glossies, all the people who buy those in the supermarket line would suddenly transform overnight into Harper's readers. People like what they like. You can nudge them, you can expose them to other stuff, but that is a process of sharing what you like, and being articulate about it, more than of telling people NO, YOU CAN'T READ THAT ANYMORE, IT'S BAD. Who are we to dictate what is bad? Even if we don't like certain books, that doesn't mean that they aren't getting people to read, sometimes people who don't read in their daily lives. That is a step in the right direction, from where I sit (at my desk, typing on my next book.) I'm not pissed off - I think it's a complex issue, and that, as Josh points out, (and as Publisher's Lunch points out on a daily basis, if you like your facts harder) there are a lot of novels being sold, as well as memoirs, as well as self-help books. George Saunders just ( very deservedly, in my opinion) got a MacArthur Genius Grant, and he is not remotely mainstream. That's pretty exciting. I agree that the public hunger for true stories is high right now - possibly because we can ask for certain things from art without seeming nuts. Maybe the public hunger for true stories in books is an indicator of a hunger for that in our lives. If we took to the streets (and plenty of people have, but certainly not the majority of the country) demanding truth, demanding the real story,it'd be huge, and way less manageable than demanding truth in our books, not that I wouldn't love it if everyone in the country stopped taking bullshit for an answer politically. We're starting to, but it seems to be a very slow process with the population of this country being enormous and divided. It's slow for everything. We do, however, live in a world in which Thomas Pynchon's new novel was one of the most eagerly awaited books this fall. Whether you're a Pynchon fan or not, that is an exciting thought, because it means that there are a lot of readers for challenging fiction out there. Exactly – pissing people off is something that happens no matter what you write. Edging away from it is farily useless. You can only say what you believe. That said, it’s good to be able to look at, and if necessary, expand your argument. The world of readers is a diverse, diverse place. There’s room in it for all kinds of writing – memoir, novel, celebrity memoir, commercial fiction, experimental fiction, just as in the print journalistic world, there’s room for celebrity tabloids, Vogue, Harper’s, and Tin House, to name just a few of the diverse varieties. Some of these things sell better than others – I’m not denying that, but I don’t think that if, suddenly, there were no more celebrity glossies, all the people who buy those in the supermarket line would suddenly transform overnight into Harper’s readers. People like what they like. You can nudge them, you can expose them to other stuff, but that is a process of sharing what you like, and being articulate about it, more than of telling people NO, YOU CAN’T READ THAT ANYMORE, IT’S BAD. Who are we to dictate what is bad? Even if we don’t like certain books, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t getting people to read, sometimes people who don’t read in their daily lives. That is a step in the right direction, from where I sit (at my desk, typing on my next book.) I’m not pissed off – I think it’s a complex issue, and that, as Josh points out, (and as Publisher’s Lunch points out on a daily basis, if you like your facts harder) there are a lot of novels being sold, as well as memoirs, as well as self-help books. George Saunders just ( very deservedly, in my opinion) got a MacArthur Genius Grant, and he is not remotely mainstream. That’s pretty exciting.

I agree that the public hunger for true stories is high right now – possibly because we can ask for certain things from art without seeming nuts. Maybe the public hunger for true stories in books is an indicator of a hunger for that in our lives. If we took to the streets (and plenty of people have, but certainly not the majority of the country) demanding truth, demanding the real story,it’d be huge, and way less manageable than demanding truth in our books, not that I wouldn’t love it if everyone in the country stopped taking bullshit for an answer politically. We’re starting to, but it seems to be a very slow process with the population of this country being enormous and divided. It’s slow for everything. We do, however, live in a world in which Thomas Pynchon’s new novel was one of the most eagerly awaited books this fall. Whether you’re a Pynchon fan or not, that is an exciting thought, because it means that there are a lot of readers for challenging fiction out there.

]]> By: Julie Ann Shapiro http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/comment-page-1/#comment-1855 Julie Ann Shapiro Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:55:41 +0000 http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/#comment-1855 Frank, Great to hear. I've worked with mostly entrepreneurs through out my career and can tell you have the same drive they do. I probably should have said that more. I'm glad your looking into being a publisher. The world needs your alternative vision. Julie Frank,
Great to hear. I’ve worked with mostly entrepreneurs through out my career and can tell you have the same drive they do. I probably should have said that more. I’m glad your looking into being a publisher. The world needs your alternative vision.

Julie

]]> By: n.l. belardes http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/comment-page-1/#comment-1852 n.l. belardes Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:44:48 +0000 http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/#comment-1852 So, I'd like to see someone like Frank start to put together a list of writers, book titles, and so on... who are the folks who need the help? who are the people who would help market and distribute such books? How many avenues of media do we all collectively hold that we can strategize and share a vision, a marketing plan, and dreams? I see ideology on lit park. Someone take the lead and start a joint plan utilizing shared resources. So, I’d like to see someone like Frank start to put together a list of writers, book titles, and so on… who are the folks who need the help? who are the people who would help market and distribute such books? How many avenues of media do we all collectively hold that we can strategize and share a vision, a marketing plan, and dreams?

I see ideology on lit park. Someone take the lead and start a joint plan utilizing shared resources.

]]> By: n.l. belardes http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/comment-page-1/#comment-1851 n.l. belardes Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:41:45 +0000 http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/#comment-1851 I don't think there's anything wrong with pissing someone off. That's a good sign that what you say has struck a chord of thought. Ray Bradbury came to Bakersfield recently and I loved when he said to literally shove people out of the way who are obstacles to individual visions and dreams. Mike Smith talked about "griping and moaning". The reality is he is griping and moaning about a group of people with a rebellious attitude. When I wrote, "I guess we (literary folks with an aggressive vision) all have to make sure we’re not preaching to the choir," that means going the next step: convincing readers of a different kind of truth. I think that has to do with marketing Indie books in a whole new way that attracts so many readers that publishers will start mimicking the Indie publishers. Sort of the same way the MSM integrated blogging into the news: a mere reflection of the rebellion of citizen journalists. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with pissing someone off. That’s a good sign that what you say has struck a chord of thought. Ray Bradbury came to Bakersfield recently and I loved when he said to literally shove people out of the way who are obstacles to individual visions and dreams.

Mike Smith talked about “griping and moaning”. The reality is he is griping and moaning about a group of people with a rebellious attitude.

When I wrote, “I guess we (literary folks with an aggressive vision) all have to make sure we’re not preaching to the choir,” that means going the next step: convincing readers of a different kind of truth.

I think that has to do with marketing Indie books in a whole new way that attracts so many readers that publishers will start mimicking the Indie publishers. Sort of the same way the MSM integrated blogging into the news: a mere reflection of the rebellion of citizen journalists.

]]> By: Frank Daniels http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/comment-page-1/#comment-1846 Frank Daniels Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:17:06 +0000 http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/#comment-1846 Point taken, Josh. It's all learning and growing, of course. You never know when your friends are going to take offense to what you say with this kind of thing, especially when you are denied the benefit of actual vocal inflection when making points. I knew you, of all people, would be a good gamer about all of this. :) Julie Ann: I intend to do just that. If this was merely bluster it would be a waste of time. All the bitching in the world isn't worth shit if not followed up on with action. Point taken, Josh. It’s all learning and growing, of course. You never know when your friends are going to take offense to what you say with this kind of thing, especially when you are denied the benefit of actual vocal inflection when making points. I knew you, of all people, would be a good gamer about all of this. :)

Julie Ann: I intend to do just that. If this was merely bluster it would be a waste of time. All the bitching in the world isn’t worth shit if not followed up on with action.

]]> By: josh kilmer-purcell http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/comment-page-1/#comment-1845 josh kilmer-purcell Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:02:07 +0000 http://litpark.com/2006/12/09/frank-daniels%e2%80%99-lit-riot-take-4/#comment-1845 frank, like me, when you present an argument, you head off in one direction and don't stop until you fall off the edge of the earth. you raise some good points. and yes, memoir is very popular right now. but it is not all that is being published or sold. there have been tremendous works of debut fiction this year. rather than steer the discussion about the popularity of memoir towards "them" (mainstream publishers), i would have been more interested in an examination of readers. as maria points out, memoirs have been around, well, forever. and their popularity waxes and wanes like any genre. why is this? what is the public longing for at this precise moment in time? i promise you, this current trend of memoir will last no longer than the last one. (why do you think i'm writing fiction next? as a long-in-the-tooth professional whore, i can predict what streets the traffic will be on.) while publishing is indeed heavily influenced by marketing and sales, this is not really new news. amusing anecdotes about writers and their editors/publishers span centuries. i'd have preferred a look at what is making memoirs so intriguing to readers right now. i have a feeling it has more to do with the geo-political surrealism of world events, and less to do with mainstream publishers who have always reflected readers' desires. (and i'd be careful of overqualifying your criticms of friends. when you hedge on your critiques because you like maria, or me, or james, it thins out your broth. don't worry about pissing me off. that's the kind of spark that lights artistic brushfires.) frank, like me, when you present an argument, you head off in one direction and don’t stop until you fall off the edge of the earth.

you raise some good points. and yes, memoir is very popular right now. but it is not all that is being published or sold. there have been tremendous works of debut fiction this year.

rather than steer the discussion about the popularity of memoir towards “them” (mainstream publishers), i would have been more interested in an examination of readers.

as maria points out, memoirs have been around, well, forever. and their popularity waxes and wanes like any genre. why is this? what is the public longing for at this precise moment in time? i promise you, this current trend of memoir will last no longer than the last one. (why do you think i’m writing fiction next? as a long-in-the-tooth professional whore, i can predict what streets the traffic will be on.)

while publishing is indeed heavily influenced by marketing and sales, this is not really new news. amusing anecdotes about writers and their editors/publishers span centuries.

i’d have preferred a look at what is making memoirs so intriguing to readers right now.

i have a feeling it has more to do with the geo-political surrealism of world events, and less to do with mainstream publishers who have always reflected readers’ desires.

(and i’d be careful of overqualifying your criticms of friends. when you hedge on your critiques because you like maria, or me, or james, it thins out your broth. don’t worry about pissing me off. that’s the kind of spark that lights artistic brushfires.)

]]>