ADDENDUM TO E. BLAIR'S CONVERSATIONAL MANIFESTO.
by Connor Coyne
17 May, 2006.
While the manifesto is an accurate and exciting encapsulation / interpretation of our conversation, I'd like to qualify and extend some statements.
1.
Most importantly, with regard to the New Sentimentality (eg. Garden State).
Gothic Funk is not the absence of irony; it is a self-conscious irony, or an irony aware of its own limitation and contradiction. While the New Sentimentality is a response to postmodern atavism, it does not attempt to rigorously engage the serious issues postmodernism raises.
That is to say; the fault of postmodernism is not in its fundamental premise (the instability of communication, identity, and thought) but the logical extremes to which it pushes these premises. DON DeLILLO's Mao II is not Gothic Funk.
There is certainly a kinship between Gothic Funk and the New Sentimentality; both rely heavily on impulse, view creation as an organic process and emotion as a legitimate mode of inquiry, analysis, and exploration. That said, there are considerable differences.
The New Sentimentality neglects the issues of postmodernism on the assumption that they are of negligible importance and that a sincere, direct, and focused effort is sufficient to communicate. Postmodernists counter that this runs the risk of leading to fascism and tyranny; an unrooted emotional relativism that does not correspond to any "objective" perspective. Standing on one foot with bent knee and the other tiptoe, Gothic Funk cautiously admits the validity of this argument. Quite simply, Gothic Funk is interested in addressing and surmounting the problems raised by Postmodernism, not ignoring them.
GARDEN STATE is not Gothic Funk.
As Lisa has suggested, Gothic Funk requires a fractal understanding of the universe. This must, however, be fourth-dimensional. It must "oscillate." The interpretation of any object is valid only insofar as one constantly reevaluates one's orientation to that object. Gothic Funk, then, can be deeply ironic just as it seriously and straightforwardly makes its case. An audience is invited to scrutinize an object with the full weight of emotion and passion, then to momentarily withdraw to contemplate the subjective danger inherent in such an approach.
Constant reconsideration allows progress in that our intrinsic extremes self-regulate.
We advance toward the light because we believe in our souls that their is a light.
We stop frequently to check our bearing however because we have been taught the danger in zealoutry.
2.
The Conversational Manifesto states that: "Postmodernism would say that confirmation and re-confirmation of daily situations is necessary to provide stability. We say that the energy spent in that maintenance could be better spent in the immersion in the experience itself."
I propose the following amendment: "Postmodernism says that confirmation and re-confirmation of daily situations is insufficient to provide stability, but that we confirm and reconfirm anyway out of a persistant wish for security. We say that the energy spent in that maintenance is better spent in alternating immersion and scrutiny of experience."
To return to the earlier point, again, isolated scrutiny is atavistic and defeatist, and isolated immersion is indulgent and hazardous. Oscillation allows progress.
3.
For any other questions, please consult the Addendum to this Addendum.
