From the issue dated August 10, 2001
|
|
The Anti-Manifesto ManifestoBy CARLIN ROMANOI. A spectre is haunting the manifesto -- the spectre of common sense, declaring it passé. II. That spectre now stands naked for all to see, thanks to Manifesto: A Century of Isms, edited by Mary Ann Caws (University of Nebraska Press, 2001), a PROVOCATIVE holy alliance (with brief intros) of more than 200 influential instances, drawn from the countries of Old and New Europe. III. The original 1848 model by Engels and Marx, lacking "on the one hand, on the other hand" balance, caused endless grief to those who suffered the "dictatorship of the proletariat." IV. Other models also stink. Where would we be if the powers that were had put various historic manifestoes into action? V. The Polish writer Stanislaw Przybyszewski's "Primitivists to the Nations of the World and to Poland" (1920) leaves everything to be desired as a blueprint for society. VI. Przybyszewski and his Primitivists declare that we "CROSS OUT HISTORY AND POSTERITY," then add, "women should be exchanged frequently. the value of a woman depends on her fertility." [Author's note: The value of a manifesto can depend on its nonstandard punctuation.] We say bosh. VII. Przybyszewski and his Primitivists also propose that it is "necessary to tear from the walls the scraps of canvas called pictures." We say tosh. VIII. Przybyszewski and his Primitivists claim to "praise understanding and therefore throw out logic, that limitation and cowardice of the mind. nonsense is wonderful by virtue of its untranslatable content." We say both bosh and tosh. IX. To the Primitivists, we say (and conclude): You are really primitive!!! X. As this anarchic example demonstrates, the manifesto stirs primal thoughts about the pros and cons of unqualified pronouncement, mealy-mouthed academic statement, and the vast TERRAIN OF DISCOURSE between the two. For what is the manifesto if not the devilish antitoxin of the academic impulse??? XI. Where the old, graduate-student reflex dictates caution, the wild-eyed manifesto-maker (Tzara and Marinetti) urges extremism, danger, risk -- the exuberant ditching of uncertainty. XII. Where the spectre of one's dissertation committee, or journal referees, or tenured senior colleagues counsels exactitude and moderation, the manifesto demands boldness, contempt for precision, INTOLERANCE. XIII. The academic's wolfsbane in the face of the manifesto is "Acknowledgments," where the genial professor details, in footnote or gregarious coda, how his good-natured work has been read and commented on by every college graduate he's known since commencement, vetted by every half-empty audience to which he's delivered the pieces now sewn together, so that all manifesto-ish tone has been properly extinguished. SO THAT ALL MADNESS IS BANNED! XIV. What Caws calls the "Ur-Manifesto" -- Marinetti's "Founding and Manifesto of Futurism" (1909) -- exemplifies the poor policy to which MADNESS leads. XV. Where Marinetti trumpets that "no work without an aggressive character can be a masterpiece," we stand for gentle submittance of the work -- preferably with a subvention from a university press -- to a globalized world with preoccupied eyes. XVI. Where Marinetti insists, "We will glorify war -- the world's only hygiene," we say: thanks for Mussolini, jerko! XVII. Where Marinetti threatens, "We will destroy the museums, libraries, academies of every kind," we say: We will make donations, organize benefits, attend fund raisers, and buy subscriptions, because -- let's face it -- those are great places to go on a summer weekend. XVIII. To all Manifesto-heads, we say similar rude things. XIX. To the Futurists, we say: maybe WAY in the future, but not now. XX. To the Communists, we say: better luck next time. XXI. To the Symbolists, we say: Could you explain that a little more clearly? XXII. In short, we DECLARE that the greatest joy of the manifesto -- abandoning transitions, evidence, and self-criticism -- must be sacrificed to the HIGHER GOOD. We defend to the death the disconnect between comment and declaration, observation and pissiness. XXIII. Does the manifesto fulfill the critic's eternal hope that the artist, so often a dupe of chance in the creative "process," will actually have an aesthetic, a coherent set of principles, an articulable philosophy? We say -- well, it rhymes with gosh. XXIV. Upon our sacred honor, we embrace concessions to nuance, staccato qualifications, reasonableness and persuasion, and "other hands" -- the most beautiful of appendages. XXV. Finally, having made our point, we abandon the "We" to the junkbin of history. XXVI. Meticulous thinkers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but a genre (and a place in the revised edition of Caws's anthology). Carlin Romano, critic at large for The Chronicle and literary critic of The Philadelphia Inquirer, teaches philosophy at Temple University. http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Page: B11
|
Copyright © 2001 by The Chronicle of Higher Education