Transcribe
Translate
Vanguard Boojum, v. 1, issue 1
18
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Vanguard Boojum page sixteen (En Passant - continued) ion, as such matters more certainly will not improve themselves, but tend to be self-perpetuating. Dirty Pool Had I been opposed to the petition, I could easily have refused to mail it, as Vanguard's set-up provides machinery to use against inflicting loaded-dice propositions upon the membership. However, since this is not a case where any member is required to vote, simply paying no attention is the simplest way of saying "no". And since the treasury surplus is something wherein the desires of the (contributing) members' are all important, I hereby declare that a two-thirds vote shall be necessary to pass the petition. Temporary A somewhat disguised, but still recognizable sally in the collectivist-individualist struggle in relation to the arts. To reduce the collectivist position to the slogan "Art must serve the needs of the people", a neatly amorphous bit of mouthing, which, in practice can mean either "Art must serve the needs of the greatest number of individuals" and the individualist position to the slogan "the artist should work for the ideal audience" is an oversimplification -- but not a misrepresentation. It is not however, necessarily a case of Intellectualism-Anti-Intellectualism. In relation to the charge of "obscurantism" (which need not spring solely from the collectivists) it's necessary, as in charges of murder to examine the artist's intent. Was the artist trying to communicate the "ideal" audience (who would understand sufficiently at first view or hearing to want to explore into what was immediately obscure); was he communicating to a particular (restricted) audience, and was he trying to communicate something which "anybody" could grasp? From the collectivist standpoint, either of the first two intents are, at the very best, undesirable. No "responsible" artist, you understand, would indulge in such venality. (O vast, emoting, gushing populace; do you not have to understand; you don't even have to pay attention!) In respect to the individual artist, once the intent is established, the only question remains one of soundness of judgement as to the audience to which his work was presented, in relation to his intent of communication. The artist who deliberately presents his work to an audience incapable of understanding leaves himself open to the widest condemnation as a sheer charlatan; obvious his desire is to be able to leer at the unwashed. (His work, however, may have artistic value for all that.) Since there is no evidence to indicate what snobbery was the main motive in Blish's presentation of "that which should translate to Thersites", Temporary translates to sheer political-sociological opposition and can be ignored -- except for the single question as to whether or not Vanguard is a proper vehicle for non-collectivist presentation. Vanguard Variorum a) Van Vogt: Yes, it sure does help! b) Blish: While I do not hold your contention that American Imperialism is equally or more "evil" than the late Japanese Imperialism -- I place it in the same category as the Third Reich, although I'm aware of many superficial differences -- Let us assume for the nonce that the two are equal. And let us also assume that an A-
Saving...
prev
next
Vanguard Boojum page sixteen (En Passant - continued) ion, as such matters more certainly will not improve themselves, but tend to be self-perpetuating. Dirty Pool Had I been opposed to the petition, I could easily have refused to mail it, as Vanguard's set-up provides machinery to use against inflicting loaded-dice propositions upon the membership. However, since this is not a case where any member is required to vote, simply paying no attention is the simplest way of saying "no". And since the treasury surplus is something wherein the desires of the (contributing) members' are all important, I hereby declare that a two-thirds vote shall be necessary to pass the petition. Temporary A somewhat disguised, but still recognizable sally in the collectivist-individualist struggle in relation to the arts. To reduce the collectivist position to the slogan "Art must serve the needs of the people", a neatly amorphous bit of mouthing, which, in practice can mean either "Art must serve the needs of the greatest number of individuals" and the individualist position to the slogan "the artist should work for the ideal audience" is an oversimplification -- but not a misrepresentation. It is not however, necessarily a case of Intellectualism-Anti-Intellectualism. In relation to the charge of "obscurantism" (which need not spring solely from the collectivists) it's necessary, as in charges of murder to examine the artist's intent. Was the artist trying to communicate the "ideal" audience (who would understand sufficiently at first view or hearing to want to explore into what was immediately obscure); was he communicating to a particular (restricted) audience, and was he trying to communicate something which "anybody" could grasp? From the collectivist standpoint, either of the first two intents are, at the very best, undesirable. No "responsible" artist, you understand, would indulge in such venality. (O vast, emoting, gushing populace; do you not have to understand; you don't even have to pay attention!) In respect to the individual artist, once the intent is established, the only question remains one of soundness of judgement as to the audience to which his work was presented, in relation to his intent of communication. The artist who deliberately presents his work to an audience incapable of understanding leaves himself open to the widest condemnation as a sheer charlatan; obvious his desire is to be able to leer at the unwashed. (His work, however, may have artistic value for all that.) Since there is no evidence to indicate what snobbery was the main motive in Blish's presentation of "that which should translate to Thersites", Temporary translates to sheer political-sociological opposition and can be ignored -- except for the single question as to whether or not Vanguard is a proper vehicle for non-collectivist presentation. Vanguard Variorum a) Van Vogt: Yes, it sure does help! b) Blish: While I do not hold your contention that American Imperialism is equally or more "evil" than the late Japanese Imperialism -- I place it in the same category as the Third Reich, although I'm aware of many superficial differences -- Let us assume for the nonce that the two are equal. And let us also assume that an A-
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
