Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'Thomas Stearns Eliot' keyword pg.1 of 1
15 FEBRUARY 2017

Silent-era avant-garde artist-filmmakers disrupting the new realities of mass media (rather than replicating them)

"Around the time Shub started her documentary experiments, 20th century avant-garde artists likewise began using repurposed chunks of mass-produced ephemera. Picasso and Braque threw bits of newspaper into paintings; Max Ernst cut up Victorian illustrations to create proto-surrealist collages; Walter Benjamin, T. S. Eliot, and James Joyce pushed the literary practice of quotation into the realm of pastiche; Marcel Duchamp pioneered sculptural assemblage with his readymades; and photomontage blossomed in the graphic works of John Heartfield, Hannah Höch, and Alexander Rodchenko. These works rearranged reality to suit their artists' purposes but, unlike the compilation films, did not try to hide that manipulation. Whether Cubist, Dada, or Constructivist, these artists chose to disrupt the new realities of mass media rather than replicate them, savoring the illogic of dreamlike disjunctions and precipitating new ways to see all-too-common images."

(Ed Halter, 10 July 2008, Moving Image Source)

TAGS

20th centuryAlexander Rodchenkoavant-garde artistsavant-garde cinemaconstructivistcubismcut-up techniqueDadadisruptiondocumentary experiments • dreamlike disjunctions • Ed Halter • Esther Shub • experimental film • found-footage • Georges Braque • Hannah Hochinfluential artistsJames JoyceJohn Heartfield • literary practice • Marcel Duchampmass media • mass-produced ephemera • Max Ernst • new realities • Pablo Picassopastichephotomontagepioneering filmmaker • proto-surrealist collages • quotationreadymade • repurposed archival material • Russian constructivism • sculptural assemblage • Thomas Stearns Eliot • Victorian illustrations • Walter Benjamin

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
03 JANUARY 2013

The Value of Culture: Mass Culture

"Melvyn Bragg considers how technology and increasing access to education made possible the rise of a true mass culture in the twentieth century. He examines how the rise of cinema and photography opened the cultural realms to millions, and how our understanding of what culture is, and what it's for, was transformed by the work of scholars such as Richard Hoggart and Raymond Williams."

(Melvyn Bragg, 2013)

"The Value of Culture: Two Cultures", Radio broadcast, Episode 4 of 5, Duration: 42 minutes, First broadcast: Thursday 03 January 2013, Presenter/Melvyn Bragg, Producer/Thomas Morris for the BBC Radio 4, UK.

1

TAGS

20th centuryaccess to educationAngela McRobbie • Arnold Bennett • art • art and entertainment • cinemacultural diversity • cultural realms • cultural studiescultureculture and society • culture theory • David Puttnam • educated classes • Emile Zola • Englishness • entertainmentEuropean cinemaeveryday cultureF R Leavis • free public education • George Bernard ShawGeorge OrwellGustave FlaubertH G Wells • half-educated • highbrow • imperialism • John Carey • lowbrow • mass civilization • Mass Civilization and Minority Culture • mass culture • mass reading public • mass societymedia technologyMelvyn Bragg • minority culture • modernist intellectuals • overpopulationphotographypop-culture • provincial culture • Raymond Williams • regional cultural • Richard Hoggart • Robert Hewison • science fiction literature • semi-educated • silent cinemaStuart Hall • The Intellectuals and the Masses • The Time Machine • The Uses of Literacy • The Value of Culture (radio)Thomas Stearns Eliot • travel photography • working class culture

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
25 APRIL 2011

Stephen Fry: Don't Mind Your Language...

"For me, it is a cause of some upset that more Anglophones don't enjoy language. Music is enjoyable it seems, so are dance and other, athletic forms of movement. People seem to be able to find sensual and sensuous pleasure in almost anything but words these days. Words, it seems belong to other people, anyone who expresses themselves with originality, delight and verbal freshness is more likely to be mocked, distrusted or disliked than welcomed. The free and happy use of words appears to be considered elitist or pretentious. Sadly, desperately sadly, the only people who seem to bother with language in public today bother with it in quite the wrong way. They write letters to broadcasters and newspapers in which they are rude and haughty about other people's usage and in which they show off their own superior 'knowledge' of how language should be. I hate that, and I particularly hate the fact that so many of these pedants assume that I'm on their side. When asked to join in a 'let's persuade this supermarket chain to get rid of their 'five items or less' sign' I never join in. Yes, I am aware of the technical distinction between 'less' and 'fewer', and between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested' and 'infer' and 'imply', but none of these are of importance to me. 'None of these are of importance,' I wrote there, you'll notice – the old pedantic me would have insisted on 'none of them is of importance'. Well I'm glad to say I've outgrown that silly approach to language. Oscar Wilde, and there have been few greater and more complete lords of language in the past thousand years, once included with a manuscript he was delivering to his publishers a compliment slip in which he had scribbled the injunction: 'I'll leave you to tidy up the woulds and shoulds, wills and shalls, thats and whiches &c.' Which gives us all encouragement to feel less guilty, don't you think?

There are all kinds of pedants around with more time to read and imitate Lynne Truss and John Humphrys than to write poems, love–letters, novels and stories it seems. They whip out their Sharpies and take away and add apostrophes from public signs, shake their heads at prepositions which end sentences and mutter at split infinitives and misspellings, but do they bubble and froth and slobber and cream with joy at language? Do they ever let the tripping of the tips of their tongues against the tops of their teeth transport them to giddy euphoric bliss? Do they ever yoke impossible words together for the sound–sex of it? Do they use language to seduce, charm, excite, please, affirm and tickle those they talk to? Do they? I doubt it. They're too farting busy sneering at a greengrocer's less than perfect use of the apostrophe. Well sod them to Hades. They think they're guardians of language. They're no more guardians of language than the Kennel Club is the guardian of dogkind.

The worst of this sorry bunch of semi–educated losers are those who seem to glory in being irritated by nouns becoming verbs. How dense and deaf to language development do you have to be? If you don't like nouns becoming verbs, then for heaven's sake avoid Shakespeare who made a doing–word out of a thing–word every chance he got. He TABLED the motion and CHAIRED the meeting in which nouns were made verbs. New examples from our time might take some getting used to: 'He actioned it that day' for instance might strike some as a verbing too far, but we have been sanctioning, envisioning, propositioning and stationing for a long time, so why not 'action'? 'Because it's ugly,' whinge the pedants. It's only ugly because it's new and you don't like it. Ugly in the way Picasso, Stravinsky and Eliot were once thought ugly and before them Monet, Mahler and Baudelaire. Pedants will also claim, with what I am sure is eye–popping insincerity and shameless disingenuousness, that their fight is only for 'clarity'. This is all very well, but there is no doubt what 'Five items or less' means, just as only a dolt can't tell from the context and from the age and education of the speaker, whether 'disinterested' is used in the 'proper' sense of non–partisan, or in the 'improper' sense of uninterested. No, the claim to be defending language for the sake of clarity almost never, ever holds water. Nor does the idea that following grammatical rules in language demonstrates clarity of thought and intelligence of mind. Having said this, I admit that if you want to communicate well for the sake of passing an exam or job interview, then it is obvious that wildly original and excessively heterodox language could land you in the soup. I think what offends examiners and employers when confronted with extremely informal, unpunctuated and haywire language is the implication of not caring that underlies it. You slip into a suit for an interview and you dress your language up too. You can wear what you like linguistically or sartorially when you're at home or with friends, but most people accept the need to smarten up under some circumstances – it's only considerate. But that is an issue of fitness, of suitability, it has nothing to do with correctness. There no right language or wrong language any more than are right or wrong clothes. Context, convention and circumstance are all.

I don't deny that a small part of me still clings to a ghastly Radio 4/newspaper–letter–writer reader pedantry, but I fight against it in much the same way I try to fight against my gluttony, anger, selfishness and other vices. I must confess, for example, that I find it hard not to wince when someone aspirates the word 'aitch'. ..."

(Stephen Fry, 4 November 2008)

Fig.1 Matthew Rogers (2010). 'Stephen Fry Kinetic Typography – Language'. http://rogerscreations.com/blog/?p=202

1

TAGS

Anglophone • animated presentation • apostrophe • Charles Baudelaire • circumstance • clarityclarity of thoughtClaude Monetcommunicationcontextconvention • correctness • cultureeducation • elitism • evolutionexpressiongrammatical rulesGustav Mahler • heterodox language • Igor Stravinskyinnovationintelligence of mind • John Humphrys • kinetic typographyknowledgelanguagelanguage developmentlanguage habitslinguistics • Lynne Truss • meaning makingmotion graphicsmotion typographyOscar WildePablo Picasso • pedantry • pleasure • pretension • Radio 4scriptible • sensuous • sentence • sharpie • signageStephen Fry • technical rules • Thomas Stearns Eliotusageuse of wordsverbal freshnessvisualisationWilliam Shakespearewords

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
08 OCTOBER 2003

Deleuzian Memory of Sans Soleil

"Deleuze's notion of time–image cinema describes a revolutionary and political cinema. To understand time–image cinema, we must contrast it with movement–image cinema, 'in which frame follows frame according to necessities of action, subordinating time to movement.'1 Clearly, Sans Soleil is nothing like movement–image cinema. The film has no action or plot that could subordinate time; instead, Marker claims that the only qualification these images have for being included in the film is that they quicken the heart. These images span many different time periods from World War II to the present, and a scene is just as likely to cut to West Africa or San Francisco as it is to cut to a different angle within the same room. In the film, an unnamed and unseen narrator reads the fictitious letters of Sandor Krasna, a traveling cameraman (a thinly–veiled alter–ego for Marker)."

(B.C. Holmes)

TAGS

16mm • Alexandra Stewart • Anne-Marie L Hote • Antoine Bonfanti • Arielle Dombasle • authorial intrusion • Bajazet (1672) • Beaulieu (camera) • Catherine Adda • Charlotte Kerr • Chris Markercinema • Daniele Tessier • Eugenio Bentivoglio • fictitiousness • Florence Delay • Gilles Deleuze • global histories • Guinea-Bissau • Haroun Tazieff • Hayao Yamaneko • human memory • IcelandJames StewartJapan • Jean Racine • Jean-Michel Humeau • Judy Burton • Kasabian (band) • Kim NovakLa Jeteeletters • Madeleine Elster • Mario Marret • meditation • Modest Mussorgsky • movement-imagenarrationnarratorParis • Paul Bertault • personal histories • Pierre Camus • Riyoko Ikeda • San Francisco • Sana Na N hada • Sandor KrasnaSans Soleil (1983) • Spectron video synthesizer • Stalker (1979)stock footageThomas Stearns Eliottime-imagetravelogueVertigo (1958)video synthesizerWorld War II
Sign-In

Sign-In to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.