Thoughts

First off, I'm going to say this before I say anything else; I've been picking at both of these readings for the past few days, reading and re-reading one bit at a time, occasionally jumping around between paragraphs searching for any information that looks as if it stands out, or might be important. I'm also going to be honest with you guys and tell you that I really don't think that I'll muster up the patience to read these Higgins and Marinetti articles in their entirety in time for it to matter. I've been trying, I really have, and I just can't stand it. It's not that I don't have a grasp on the way they're written -- I get it. Generally, I even like writing in this vein (I never had a problem with Shakespeare, even in high school). But I'm just gonna say it, these guys both sound like idiots. Especially Marinetti, and he sounds like the worst type of idiot. So, I could be way off with this, and if I am, I apologize -- I'll get a grip later in the semester. For now, here goes.

As I will continue to insist, I do have a grasp on what they're saying, even without reading their articles word-for-word. Higgins' extremely analytical approach is, relatively, the most logical of the two. He strongly emphasizes the importance of "horizons" in prose and artwork, and -- in quite a roundabout way -- explains how and why they work. Higgins' literary voice comes off as very scholarly; this is clearly something that he feels is important, and that he spent a great deal of time outlining in such a way that he could explain it the way that he did. And, although I find his descriptiveness on the subject pretty boring myself, I do hand it to him that he left no aspect of the concept untouched. That isn't to say that he leaves the reader without questions, though. I also feel that Higgins could have chosen better examples to drive his point. His little bit towards the end of the article about painting coming to form "visual poetry, visual music," etc. is not only really obtuse but inaccurate, if he is trying to explain what I think he is. I'll admit that I could be way off, though.

Marinetti, on the other hand, is a complete asshat. I don't understand the importance of the little, uh... introduction, I suppose? that appears before the manifesto guidelines. Immediately upon reading his first few pages, Marinetti comes off as brash, rude, rambling, and extremely full of himself, and whereas Higgins at least thought out his points before he made them, Marinetti seems to assume that he can just jump straight into what he wants to say without any noticeable attempt at organization. I find it extremely ironic that, though Marinetti was clearly trying very hard to be "futuristic" and forward-thinking, that his ideas almost directly conflict with those that we consider to be progressive in contemporary society -- we are, of course, living in what would be the future to Marinetti. I'm sure that isn't a freak occurrence in history or anything, but I just find it pretty funny that he seems to understand forward thinking as holding contempt for women, eradicating the past, and war -- and here we are a century later: feminists strive for (and are making pretty good headway towards) a more equal or even matriarchal society; progressives and active problem solvers condone war and advocate for peace and understanding. I wish I had an example of respect for history. Unfortunately, it seems as if most people are bored with history, and if they can't find a connection to it in an action movie, they don't care. At the very least, though, few people seek to actively destroy it.

This is kind of long. Anyway, I guess my point in all of this is, these are the kind of thoughts I have when I (try to) read these articles. I'm pretty sure I have a grasp on all this, but even if that's the case, I really feel that Higgins at least should have pontificated a little less and been a little more explicative. Since he wrote that in the 80's, and was discussing something that had already existed for quite some time, he has no reason to sound like he was alive in the 1800's and made some gigantic discovery. I know, it's college reading, deal with it... whatever, that's how I feel about it.

Oh, also -- having studied art, and only recently changing my major from art, anyone who is well-versed in the subject can give you a really long speech about why no art is fully original; that's just part of being an artist, and I learned that within my first year of studying art. Artists always play off of what they know and see, and particularly, what other artists have done. As Picasso said himself, good artists don't copy -- they steal. So, really thus far, my interpretation of the "avante-garde" is a bunch of self-proclaimed rebels whining about how they don't want to conform and they want to make something new. Not that they aren't important to history, I'm just saying.