Boorstin—Recordings as Pseudo-Events

Daniel Boorstin
The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America (1961)

[My notes say:]

p. 174—the recording as itself a pseudo-event
This is actually quite provocative, and I'm inclined to agree, at least in the metaphysical sense, not necessarily in the material/functional sense. Generally commercial sound recordings are not quite as central to the Dark Forces of image-mongering as scholars of music (for their own self-importance mostly) would like to think.

Having said that, the sonic wallpaper phenomenon (p. 175) IS real, it has since taken some yet more disturbing (and very functional) turns, and certainly in that metaphysical way referenced above it is nothing less than an affront to our humanity.

[from a post-it, 2017]

Boorstin—The Four Criteria for Pseudo-Events

Daniel Boorstin
The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America (1961)

pp. 11-12—the four criteria for pseudo-events

(1) It is not spontaneous, but comes about because someone has planned, planted, or incited it...

(2) It is planted primarily (not always exclusively) for the immediate purpose of being reported or reproduced...

(3) Its relation to the underlying reality of the situation is ambiguous...

(4) Usually it is intended to be a self-fulfilling prophecy...

[My notes say:]

Does Hopscotch itself qualify?

Does virtually any arts event qualify?!

Lipstick Traces—Attention-Seeking Ain't Easy

Greil Marcus
Lipstick Traces: A Secret History of the Twentieth Century (1989)

[My notes say:]

pp. 251-252—On Isou's "way[s] of getting attention" (252), incl. fabricating interviews with "luminaries of literary Paris" and titling a publication The Lettrist Dictatorship at a time (1946) when new details of Nazi atrocities were emerging daily.

This certainly could be seen as "worse than the punk celebration of the swastika," and certainly it "worked on the same levels," but more to the point, it probably wouldn't succeed in grabbing attention today, nor would the "placing" of fake interviews. And so there is one point of historical affinity here between then and now (there were and are at least some artists willing to lower themselves to this level in hopes of gaining exposure) and also one disaffinity (there are undoubtedly more of them now, both in absolute number and proportionately, and this cannot be due solely to extra-artworld dynamics but must, IMHO, be in at least small part an inevitable escalation generation by generation).

See also p. 323, final ¶ re: dedication of a film to the masters, "thus placing himself in their company." Is this not always the case with tributes?

[from a post-it, 2017]