The Anti-Intellect or, Why Theorywankers Piss Me Off You meet them at loft parties in Brooklyn, or outside the Film Forum. They are young and most likely English or Film majors. They are universally apolitical. They are, or rather fancy themselves, the heirs of Bohemia and the Left Bank, and yet they are slavish in their devotion to the ideas of the past. Meet the Intellectual, who's forte is not the exploration of the mind, but the mastery of syntax. I should begin by pointing out that many of these self-styled Intellectuals are my friends, and I, for the most part, like them. They are decent people who happen to feel that a conversation is much deeper when it employs words like "meta", "post-structuralism" and "binaries". This doesn't make them bad people, exactly but, after years of enduring their tortured self-involved discourses on how my love of apple pie is a gastronomic dialectic between knee-jerk patriotism and oppressed self-oppression, I feel like I must speak out in defense of knowledge, wisdom and intellectual curiosity, the latter of which is the true enemy of the Intellectual. It is not the Intellectuals fault that they are self-absorbed, unoriginal and convoluted in their ability to reason. They are the children of post-structuralists like Lacan, Derrida and Foucault (pictured above). Post-Structuralism, for those who hate "isms", is essentially a reaction to Structuralism, which posited binary relations as the keys to understanding meaning (ie: good is good only in relation to bad). Post-structuralism set the stage for my Intellectual friends by arguing that meaning is always shifting and mutable, which is not necessarily a wrong idea in itself, but given to an undergraduate literature or film major who dives in to say, Derrida's On Grammatology, without ever having read Plato, and the meaning of the post-structuralist writer becomes convoluted (irony! ha!) and you have a bunch of theory-wankers sitting around thinking they're brilliant when they're not really saying anything at all. The problem with the Intellectual is that they are true Platonists without holding themselves up to the mental rigors and standards of a philosopher. They have made the fatal mistake of trying to apply an a priori system of logic to the real world. Their discussions, which sound deep when filled with an arsenal of carefully learned terms, are mere tautologies, often self-evident ones at that; which is to say nicely, their just engaging in mental masturbation. It wouldn't be so bad, if they were simply misguided, but the Intellectual (and the Intellectual is always in italics, you see), has no real interest in knowledge, wisdom or learning. They use the symbols of the intellect, but know none of its meaning. They have no use for such things at all. Their primary goal is simply to assert themselves as superior, and do so by adopting an arcane knowledge of specific vocabulary, and though they speak it pidgin, since the outsider is not in on the code, nobody is the wiser. These are the same folks who learn the most obscure bands, films and books joylessly, memorizing details not out of a love or passion for the work, but out of a desire to use this knowledge to gain the upper-hand in any debate. "Oh, you haven't seen The Three Thistlebrock Sisters Project?", says The Intellectual. "Well you really need to see it. Then you'll understand what I'm talking about." It's this tactic that The Intellectual employs time and time again, and his or her victim has no recourse but to feel as if they are simply not cultured enough. A true Intellectual would never do any of those things. He would constantly ask questions and often admit to not knowing. She would be curious about what others thought and also about how much she really knows. He would realize that if you can not paraphrase an idea in your own words then you truly do not know it. Relying on the language of the past does not make you a leading light of your age, but a dim fading candle to be blown out by the winds of the past. The Intellectual is the modern day Anti-Stratfordian, believing that no idea can really be useful unless it is gussied up in noble foppery. Just at the Anti-Stratfordian believes it is impossible that Shakespeare was commoner, the Intellectual refuses to believe that any idea that has not been codified is worthwhile. Like all true aesthetes, their code of view is expressed not in ideas, but in their clothes, the things they own and the places they love. They are suburban kids making poverty into a pose, not only denying their own perfectly mulched and fertilized sod heritage, but making a mockery out of the lower classes they appropriate, gentrify and oppress. They call themselves artists but create nothing. Their art, such that it is, seeks out the original and criticizes it, generalizes it and make sit the object of their scorn through the tired "lens" of irony. How many young saplings have the Intellectuals crushed in their effort to turn the Earth into an intellectual mega-mall parking lot? There must be a better way. For the Intellectual it may be too late, but do not let their pretension and insecurity stymie the rest of our minds. They have made their secret club; let the rest of us have open and lively talks, filled with passion and not pretense, dynamic differences and not dogma and new ideas, rather than the garbled echo of minds past. Let us view fellow men and women not as significations of our own psyche, but rather as living beings of heart and mind and work towards a community of open doors where past and present mingle to make future. I have no use for the dry pages of dust which have shackled my Intellectual friends. I seek the living word. Note: This blog has been updated since it was first posted

Read more! (in beta)
posted by Japhy at 7/26/2003 09:05:00 AM || #

Japhy is Having More Fun Than You Are One never knows what will happen at Fiammi. Rather than talk about the party, per se- let's focus on this photo of the party- ya know, as a piece of art. Fantastic composition, yes, the use of color sublimely restrained and the subjects are at once beautiful and horrifying. Let's break it down shall we? From left to right, we begin with T.Sammi. Her face draws us in with its beguiling smile, yet look into her eyes- is that fear, is it embarrassment we see? "What's that purrty gal with the pre-Raphaelite hair worried about?", asks Cletus, the slack-jawed art connoisseur. She's like the Mona Lisa. She's got a secret and that secret is that she's sober. Foolish Sammi, hasn't anyone told you that your inhibitions and fear melt away in the sweet baths of liquor? Next to Sammi is someone who clearly knows the bottle well. Look at his rugged, manly physique, poking through and held aloft by a bevy of arms. A more discerning viewer will notice that Sammi, for all of her nervous wariness is, in fact, holding my ass! Truly, a greater contrast between Apollonian serenity and Dionysian squalor the world has never seen. Is my mouth open in pleasure or pain? Oh the duality! Perhaps, as we move to our right and take Dyann into the picture, we can reassess this image as something of a Bacchanal Piéta. Dyann here becomes the Mother Mary, holding the Christ-like (well, emaciated) body of Japhy in a tender, motherly embrace. Sammi then becomes an Angel of God, pulling me heavenwardd by holding my ass. And then of course, Denver, just right of Dyann, becomes a demon, pulling me down into the fiery depths, cackling all the while. And in the fiery pits of hell resides the cool, very very evil, pink-gingham wearing Overlord of Darkness herself- Satan...or Laura, as the case may be. If only Michelangelo could have sculpted such intertwining, sinewy madness, he would have achieved the greatness that the artist of this masterpiece, who is, as you may have guessed, none other than the dear darling, spawn-mother of my children, Fiona. Truly, Fi- you have created a work for the ages. It's also entirely possible that drunkards should just be kept away from cameras, because, Jimminy Cricket, they act like fools.

Read more! (in beta)
posted by Japhy at 7/23/2003 09:33:00 AM || #

Theatre Review: Avenue Q: A Beautiful Play for our Neighborhood There are so many superlatives I want to throw at Avenue Q, currently in previews and opening July 31st at the Golden Theatre, that I risk burying my message underneath a mountain of adulatory roses, so let me begin simply: Go see this musical. It is by far the best thing on Broadway and the most exciting and heart-warming piece of theatre I have ever seen on the Broadway stage. With a cast that has the committed passion that the original cast of Rent had when that show first moved to Broadway, a cleverness that is sarcastic, but never caustic and relevance to real life that most "serious" dramatists can only aspire to, this is the musical to see if you don't like musical theatre. In fact, there is not a person I know who I could not guarantee will enjoy this show. As you may have noticed from the posters canvassing town, Avenue Q stars puppets. Yes, it's Sesame Street for twenty-something's. The brainchild of Robert Lopez, Jeff Marx, and Jeff Whitty, Avenue Q is about my friends, your friends, and all the people you meet at your local neighborhood dive bar. Our hero (and a puppet), Princeton, has just graduated from college and moves to Avenue Q to find his "purpose". With the help of his neighbors, which include a closeted Republican, a sweet sensitive monster, and Gary Coleman, Princeton learns some Important Life Lessons- as is evidenced by song titles like "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" and "The Internet is for Porn". This is one of those shows that could easily dissolve into too-clever-for-its-own-good winking. That it doesn't is due in a large part to the infectiously spirited and emotionally honest cast, both the human "friends" and the puppeteers themselves. John Tartaglia, the puppeteer for Princeton, is a standout. He's sweet without ever becoming saccharine and easily wins you over with his honesty and affection. Too often Broadway appeals only to the "theatre crowd" and ignores the other groups that make up this city, especially, well- me. Avenue Q is the musical of our generation. Go see it. Avenue Q is now playing at The John Golden Theatre (252 W. 45th Street). Tickets are $20 - $86.25 and available at the box office or through Tele-charge at 212-239-6200. Special Rush ticket lottery: Prior to each performance, a limited number of first row orchestra seats will be sold via lottery at the theatre for $21.25. Potential ticket buyers are asked to line up in front of the theatre and print their own name and the number of tickets requested on a card provided. Duplications will be disqualified. Cards are available starting at 5:30pm for 8pm shows and 11:30am for 2pm matinees. There is a limit of one card and two tickets per person. Daily drawings will be held two hours prior to each performance. After the names are drawn, eligible ticket buyers will line up at the box office window to show proper identification to purchase their tickets. At the conclusion of the lottery, no additional $21.25 tickets will be available for that performance.

Read more! (in beta)
posted by Japhy at 7/21/2003 01:44:00 PM || #

Get Ready for The Fireworks How a universally ignored issue has suddenly become an election flashpoint. If you had asked anyone six months ago what the major issues going into the 2004 elections would be the answers would most likely be the usual: the economy, social security and healthcare. Today, bewilderingly and seemingly out of the blue, one issue seems to be shaping up as the fulcrum on which all candidates must teeter, and inexplicably, it's the one issue that's been hiding furthest back in the closet of American politics: gay rights. In a little over a month Canada has legalized same-sex marriages, the Supreme Court has handed down a stunning decision in Lawrence vs. Texas that states that the government has no right to legislate in the bedroom and Wal-Mart, America's #1 retail chain, has included gay workers in their anti-discrimination policies. Most likely, before this month is out, Massachusetts will be the first state in the Union to grant marriage rights to same-sex partners. What's most telling is that most of the country is rather non-plussed by the whole thing. The two groups most in shock: The Christian Right and gay people. The group with the most to lose: The candidates for president come 2004. What makes gay rights such a major issue is that it is merely a focus for a much larger debate going on in America between the Red and the Blue. While it's true that the two parties have become virtually indistinguishable in their policies, their spirits have never been further apart. The conservatives see America as something defined by its values while the liberals see it as a country defined by its freedoms. Gay rights is merely a convenient field to wage the battle upon. To the conservative, gay rights, and especially gay-marriage, are incompatible with the American way of life, which they feel is assaulted on all fronts. This Mom and Apple Pie Politics is obsessed with making America safe- safe for its children, which is shorthand for "safe for our innocent way of life". To the liberal, gay-rights are the logical extension of the civil rights movements of the 60's. The core tenant of the liberal is that the more freedom and choice we grant to the individual, the more freedom and choice our society will gain on the whole. The gay rights movement crystallizes these fundemental differences in our political parties and so becomes the focus of much debate in the coming months. Because the "gay question" so clearly illuminates where a politician's heart truly lies, the question is the last one a politician wishes to address. Clinton was the first president to raise the gay issue, but while observing Gay Pride Month, he also managed to institute the disastrous "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy that led to en-masse discharges of service men and women based on their orientation. Clinton also signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to ignore civil unions performed in other states. That law now looks to be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's Lawrence vs. Texas decision. Bush has two-stepped the issue by making small overtures to homosexuals (appointing gays in various positions) while appeasing the right by defending heterosexual unions as the only legitimate kinds of unions. If there's anyone who could most be harmed by the gay issue, it's Bush. His Big Tent will collapse no matter how he responds to the gay issue. If he comes out against it, right wingers will applaud, but he will lose those in the center who don't wish to appear to be homophobes. Even Cheney, who has a gay daughter, supports states rights to create civil unions. If he chooses to support gay-marriage, he will lose the support of the far right, which Bush can not afford to do. In the past, this issue could be easily diced into various conflicting policies, that while pleasing nobody, offended nobody as well. In the wake of the sweeping changes, this time he will be unable to get away with not making a stand- one way or another. This all begs the question- Why now? What has happened to make gay-marriage (for that's the ultimate battle) come to the forefront? What radical change has occurred in our country? A May Gallup poll shows the country is split 49 to 49 on the question of granting marriage to same-sex couples, however, as the Village Voice reports, "when Gallup took a step back and asked whether gay people should receive the fundamental protections of marriage, such as Social Security benefits, approval jumped to 60 percent." Is it possible that America, after so many nights of watching Will & Grace on TV has just gotten used to the idea of gay people? Is it possible that, because gay men and women no longer hide who they are, most straight people now know somebody in their lives who is gay? Has gay become boring for middle America? The changes that are sweeping across the courts and board rooms of this nation are not changing the world we live in, they are changing to reflect the world that we do live in. There is an endgame to all of this- and it's coming sooner than later. The laws regarding gay-marriage and gay-rights are currently incompatible with each other. Either gay men and women are fully consenting adults with the same equal rights as their straight countrymenin regards to visitation, custody, social security, etc... Or, they are persona non-grata. Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, a Colorado Republican, has reintroduced a Constitutional amendment that would define, once and for all, marriage as a thing between a man and a woman. Gay advocates are already preparing their strategies to bring the gay marriage question before the Supreme Court. It's a zero-sum game. Either the United States will allow gay marriage or it will ban it. It's a road who's end is coming up shortly and it's a road no candidate can stand on the side of- not anymore. P.S.- While my pseudo-dispassionate tone clearly favors one side over the other, I do not want to give the impression that I, in any way, support the rights of The Anna Nicole Show fashionista Bobby Trendy. I will glaldy queer-bash Bobby Trendy any day. You hear that, you pock-marked, gloss-lipped little twerp? BASH YOU. I fully support any legislation which involves flaying Bobby Trendy alive. If there's one thing that all Americans can rally around this day, it should be are unforgiving hatred forBobby Trendy. Somebody should fly an airplane into that guy.

Read more! (in beta)
posted by Japhy at 7/04/2003 12:01:00 AM || #

Brockobitch Yes, I hate just blindly linking people to other sites (after all, you should be paying attention to ME!), but Wagner James Au's piece in Salon about Julia Roberts love of the hardcore violence videogame Halo, is just too funny to resist. So here's to Deathmatch, Julia Roberts-style

Read more! (in beta)
posted by Japhy at 7/02/2003 01:17:00 PM || #