DGD: Arctic Landscapes-Series 1 (clonografía), 2009
6
The adjective is the most naive terror of modernity (in any currency), which intellectual stereotype up to Sadder and a wiser man , as stated in the famous verse of the Ancient Mariner (1798) of Coleridge. In 1795 Coleridge, Robert Southey and Robert Lowell were locked in draft form, in the wilds of Pennsylvania, a utopian communist society called pantisocracia and which govern all in complete equality. This plan was soon abandoned and, as the sailor of his poem, Coleridge became "wiser and sadder."
To modern thought very obvious (that is, in fact, the main evidence) that the experience can not create anything other than an individual more and more sad as it becomes more wisdom. History with a capital of a past is naive and gullible that nothing has accumulated but unfortunately failed utopia (Marxism is the great example that is often brandished as evidence great, but there are many others, almost one for each attempt at counter-argument.) The sadness comes from this monumental failure to which they remain, as only intellectual attitudes acceptable (ie, "logical"), bitterness, sadness and, for the avant-garde, cynicism. Any intellectual attitude that is not bitter, sad or cynical, it is automatically taxed as naive. (At bottom, this is the origin of the unusual success of virulent critics cultural culture as Cioran. Thinkers like Foucault, Barthes, Eco, or Deleuze must first assert its intellectual authority, through its dialogue with the classic, for only then venture into the "wild" without contaminating its seriousness.)
As repairs are not stopping it precisely because is naive - is that, by way of that logic , the past must always be primitive, credulous, shameful and dark, only in order to support the debugging, skepticism, pride and light of this. Not that yesterday's failure to be inferred as the triumph of today (which would be unsustainable, illogical and, again, naive ) than it is to assume the same failure, only averted by a sense of "impotence illustrated" more acute than in earlier times: the Sadder and wiser man is a man whose grief is the size of what know, that is, what he has learned from the experience of History with a capital. Such learning results in an essential certainty that individual learning, and acceptance can not do anything at all to the tremendous and almost cosmic track that precedes it.
However, there remains a deeper reason for his bitterness and cynicism: the unbearable knowledge that even the superlative evil of today will be seen in future as naive. No matter how torn is the realism of this, no matter how bleak his nihilism is not the media has invented to further lament the defeat of man, even that will be overcome by the following currencies that will probably (and this really gives a certainty of experience) will continue in that sort of competition for the biggest disappointment, the most resounding despair.
Perfect piantados health as well as other stubborn dreamers of utopia, is its freedom inconceivable to deny the paradigms instituted, whose only virtue is further transformed into sanity insanity of these same paradigms. One of the characters Rayuela, astonished, said: "Ceferino guess relationships, and that in the background is the real intelligence, is not it? After such proems, classification end there is nothing strange, quite the contrary. Would have to rehearse such a world. " Perhaps the surprise is that: a world that is not so strange alarm to alert the officers of sanity. Fabricio Lezama Lima and Francisco Diaz, Felisberto Piriz Ceferino Hernández and finally integrate the figure of the poet, who is profoundly subversive from the moment you can guess the real relationships between things.
As is becoming increasingly clear, in this territory boundaries are mobile and are diluted. Make any statement about the unclassifiable seems to betray his own call, but could experimentally be the same matching / differentiation which Cortázar between cronopios and piantados, for example between Lezama and Piriz, or between Felisberto and Fabricio Diaz. Piantados Cronopios and look at who take the time otherwise, and in no way is an illusion or a delusion, it is in itself an indictment of the strategy through which the modern sense of time handling . A good example is in the inevitable cliché "writers of repute". A twin to this euphemism is "internationally known artists, which puts the emphasis on space and ignores the time: just the fact that the popularity of these artists is repeated in several countries, is left out of this panorama of the possible consideration of time that would take such consecration.
From experience we know very well that the prestige usually last a very short time (fifteen minutes of fame to Warhol alluded ironically), but that's why time is strategically withdrawn from such considerations, say that there is a sort of shame or pity (if there is honesty in the media, they would say "today, Thursday 19 August this year, enjoy recognized prestige, in the morning do not know and is not liable"), but precisely so that phrases such as "recognized writers prestige "or" internationally renowned artists "be covered with a false sense of timelessness, as if all were granted recognition or celebrity since and forever.
Time is running (if running) otherwise to cronopios and piantados, and perhaps what defines and unifies them is the fact that beyond the successive past-present-future ("the one and two after by three ") as its territory is fundamental concurrency. But although they share the high privilege, while they differ: there are more writers naïve or "wild" among piantados, ie between those who are most lacking in self-criticism. And this could well way to another question: Is self-criticism is precisely what differentiates a respective naive and piantados cronopio? Because for the modern, the word "self" does not mean "desire" but "that prevents committing naive malice."
Perhaps you could speak rather of different wavelengths . This implies a range in which piantados cronopios and would be but various forms of manifestation of the exceptional, the unclassifiable. While authors like Felisberto Hernández Lezama Lima and speculators are risk-takers in the field of art and language, and in them is not without irony and malice, but they canceled their immense sense of wonder (that could be called innocent Adam, as does Cortázar), in figures such as Francisco Fabricio Ceferino Díaz Piriz and seems to be a complete break with the conventions of the world culture: you can not judge or make fun of them because they are perceived, such conventions do not have any significance for them. Each piantados own lives in a world that has links to our fragile world, ethereal bridges may crumble at any time. Conversely, the cronopios live in a world so vast that it is in our world only as a province, not the students like to explore.
For Cortázar, Lezama's ingenuity is that of Adam, ie the plant who is against all the evil of his time and, above all, without fear in the full root of the human. (Fear is still the great intellectual force, and it is primarily the fear of being naive .) Behold, the first tool to distinguish the great missed / strange, large unclassifiable.
For a contrasting look easy, Felisberto Hernández Lezama Lima and creative equals, while Fabricio Ceferino Díaz Francisco Piriz and are (as Julio Ortega writes) "the other side of the creativity, madness." The border between them exists, but is not as easy to establish. But the mere fact of seeking help to challenge the most common desire of our culture, the desire qualifying.
With all the risks, might consider the difference in experimental terms: Hernández Lezama and authors as they followed the work , while writers such as Díaz and Piriz found mainly in utopia, each your way? This question is visible the precariousness of this classification, since there no utopia in the writing of the cronopios?, And do not go piantados behind the work, whether utopian or not? And despite everything, it seems in effect, and very curious, more utopias in works of piantados that in the cronopios.
What ultimately we care about each other, they share one essential feature: the surprise, but obviously very different doses and with different purposes. We all need to surprise, even though we seem so comfortable in the world rational, orderly, and conventional around us (and precisely for that.) The media can convince us that we are in a world in crisis, yet we are comforted by the statement that we know so well to this crisis and the world that this crisis affects them. But something deep inside of us do not believe at all. Something is reluctant to accept all it tells us about the foundations of the world and the universe in which that world is immersed. We need, therefore, to the surprise and momentum to leave the tight network of conventions that sustains us everywhere (and in more ways than one, we detention).
Regarding literature, there is a profound experience that we all share: there is some disappointment when we read a writer who brings back the same tangle of conventions and deliver what we expected for a moment. This writer can capture our attention, you can even surprise and even delight, but to leave that story or that novel we sense, more or less obscure, we have been betrayed: have returned the world as we knew and in fact this writer has not only strengthened the power of conventions.
Hence the shock, the intimate pleasure when we find authors who provide us access to other realities (which is a single reality, only stripped of the filters that usually keep us from it), to worlds that are, but are are bathed in pure light, a deep atmosphere. In this case is not that we have taken from this world (which would be mere escapism and that we have enough) but we have put in their eyes a certain clarity that allows us to see more of our surroundings and ourselves. And there is no way to describe this clarity, or the actual experience of dialogue with the author, then we know that this is an unclassifiable writer, because there is no way to categorize without betraying that he gives us.
unclassifiable
That which we are well described by Cortazar, is "an incredible enrichment of total reality, which not only contains the verifiable but it shores up the back of mystery as the elephant underpins the world cosmogony Hindu. [...] Should more be asked a narrator capable of marrying the everyday with the exceptional to the point of showing that can be the same thing? ".
might be other ways to recognize the writers heterodox atypical or transparent (obviously not the secret, because if they really are, you never know anything about them). One of those ways is the role: how much worry about being "in the limelight, being seen, recognized and admired. Writers such as Antonio Porchia, Jose Lezama Lima and Felisberto Hernández not refuse to talk to a small group of friends, but give a lecture before the horrified five thousand people greatly (is it in this sense that Porchia says: "One hundred men, together is one-hundredth of a man "). Like posting, feel a tremendous pride in each book and in some cases to the complete works, but know they will never to millions of readers and their names are never in the best-seller lists a week, month or year.
We also recognize the unclassifiable because when they talk do not make concessions. And even when they speak, they seem to be two sentences of Antonio Porchia, "I speak thinking I should not speak: I speak" and "When I say what I say is because he has overcome what I say." Fortunately spoke, fortunately for us let themselves be overwhelmed by what they said, that is, so say . For this is no trace his everywhere, and especially because we owe the great lesson: the search for traces of ourselves, of finding our own compass, not content with what we are given, to develop our own individual antennas for the reception of these vibrations to which we called strangeness.
*
[Continued.]
