odradek

Saab is somewhat right in his first post, although that absolute certainty about right and wrong, big and small, is unfortunate. It's also a pity that in the peremptoriness, which I find incomprehensible, a bit of self-reference to Wallace appears (then he saves the broom and not infinite j), and that part actually makes one smile, so that's fine; a good mood is always good. It declares the best novel of the last decades (!!!) wow, what bravado - "il meridiano" and "La strada," which devours them all, in a blind bite finding no room even for the nomination. Saab is partly right; I read "cent'anni" when it came out in Italy, and quite some time has passed. Naturally, I've scaled back my positive judgment, but I don't feel inclined to engage in trivial anthropology exercises or to express disdainful judgments about non-readers. I kiss the pages of E.F. Wallace, benevolently "saved" despite his "self-reference," and I thank for the concession of readings "in lungo e in largo" of those by Bolano. Even if one hardly passes through, there's always something to learn, in DeB! - ciaU

The movie is pretty bad, polished but pretty bad. The mountains are beautiful, a bit distant but beautiful.

In the last 10 years, I think I've seen three exhibitions: the works created using colors squeezed directly from the tubes were, in some cases, beautiful. The hyperproduction, serial (he had assistants who did everything; he reportedly signed works that were not his own) and his condition as a drug addict are facts, a cash cow for market sharks. But the elegance of his "pop art" is still infinitely superior to many others, even to Warhol himself, in some cases. The "art" (how many misunderstandings in its name), the cunning, the boundaries, and all the rhetorical apparatus can merrily go to hell for me when I observe, up close, works like those of Schifano that I've seen over the last 35 years or so. A sense of color, a speed of execution, a mark, and a power displayed with such lightness that they nourish the gaze well beyond the moment of vision. Food for the eyes. And even if it weren't "art," you know I couldn't care less.

yes

But so there’s someone else who thinks that I and Nettadebaser are the same person. Damn, what a genius. Thankfully, you’re the one who sets things straight with our nonsense. Besides not getting anything right, I see you’re also making it a matter of “origins”: sorry to disappoint you, little one, mine are Sicilian. And you, dear, where do you come from?

@ Lupin: Anyway, if you want to turn yourself in, go ahead. It's always a nice gesture; maybe you'll remember some crime you committed and had forgotten, and you’ll clear your conscience (then you can negotiate for a hefty discount or immunity) - I tend not to do that, because I remember them all and as long as I can, I avoid forced vacations. Cheers.

No, Lupin, you didn’t disturb anything. I simply tend not to express myself about things I don't know, and I have serious doubts that the latest recordings by N. D'Angelo have been listened to by those who make definitive judgments (are you sure you’ve listened to this record?). Another thing I tend not to do is to use parts of someone else's speech, mix them however I like, and attribute to others things they never said. In your post, however... Who, where, and when said it must please for sure? And that we are not free to listen to whatever we want? And then, dear Lupin, if you need to draw from formations that have been inactive for 30 years, it seems to me the landscape isn’t that rich. :) Anyway, the quality of the music in this guy's latest records is superior to that of most of his "colleagues." For me, obviously. And I do listen to some records every now and then. - The quotation from Rabih Abou Khalil, for example, is not at all out of place, even though we are on different levels of class. Rabih didn’t just break away now, MICHOOS WHAT (nice joke of yours:), he’s been doing it for decades. His is music, not packaged plastic, sometimes great music. Maybe it requires a bit of curiosity, a bit of attention. A different approach, a willingness to accept "other" ways of conceiving and proposing sounds. But given the ease with which records can be accessed today, a little more curiosity and a little less prejudice, in my opinion, wouldn’t hurt. That's all, without any polemical intent.

Should I deduce that I've gotten out of it? UUUwow! :)

P.S. The 1 slipped my mind. Commentarial flatulence, I suppose.

"Di Canio at the liberation party": a concise and effective image, it’s worth reading the page. The rest, however, seems a bit confusing, approximate, and even inaccurate ("dadaism, for which the pure aesthetic fact must replace the work of art" - either it's a convoluted and poorly expressed sentence or it's simply absurd). As if discussing "Art" required resorting to a forcefully evocative and apparently complex writing style, to the detriment of meaning and the works themselves. But it seems to be liked, so it must be right...