Prince of Networks#2: Conceptual Prehensions?

EDIT 26/07/09: Graham Harman has responded to this post on his blog. Apologies for the tone of the opening paragraph. Graham seems pretty cool, how can he not be after being a sportswriter! The opening para is for my non-academic readers who neither have an interest or the professional investment in reading, discussing and debating […]

Fertile Ground

Terry Flew has posted on Marcus Westbury‘s discussion in The Age about the perceived conflict between “arts for art’s sake” and “creative industries”. Mark Bahnisch weighs in and suggests that Marcus has not “succeeded in overcoming the dichotomy [between creative industries and traditional arts] here.” I am not sure if the point is to overcome […]

No Man by Proxy

Yes Man is both sinister and refreshing. High concept cinema is oxymoronic by definition. High concept cinema needs to be explained in the briefest possible number of words yet be able to grab your attention quicker; there is nothing conceptual about it. Yet, all well-crafted popular art highlights a truth or two. Germane problems of […]

Harman: Prince of Networks #1

“The question is only whether we grant sufficient reality to objects when we say that a thing is not just known by what it ‘modifies, transforms, perturbs, or creates’, but that it actually is nothing more than these effects. If the pragmatism of knowledge becomes a pragmatism of ontology, the very reality of things will […]

Book Project: I am recruiting

My current reading material leads me to believe that most of academic philosophy is careerist shit. There are a few worthy exceptions to this wide-ranging criticism, but not many. The mistake that all these authors make is that they assume their readers are in the same position as them. So instead of simply getting onto […]