|
Just read both pieces, roachboy. I don't think it matters, really. Both pieces recount inevitable trends. Both of them start with the “Let one thousand flowers bloom," hypothesis.
The first one is celebratory of the wild anarchic joy-of-the-jungle-to-a-lover-of-exotic-flowers metaphor. I like that. It's true. A lot of good stuff will be seen and read. A lot of good stuff will get missed. That's OK too.
The second reminds us that there are silly and sinister power structures like silly and sinister professorial types who tend to horde the best available vases and spaces in the greenhouse for their ass-kissing petal-pushing favorite flowers. What else is new? That means a lot will be lost. Imagine missing Ginsberg, Blake, Dickinson.
I think we already miss a thousand of them a decade and always have. There's nothing new to see here, I think. Power corrupts, narrows the field, and jerks off a lot. Let's move on.
For myself however, I prefer the vision of the first article and the Maoist approach to jungle aesthetics...
The second one can get tossed and ignored along with the stuffy/elitist rag in which it resides.
__________________
create evolution
|