Ken Phaxay's late futurist manifesto response.

I am a little late with my response. Truth be told, I forgot then forgot again yesterday! This school year has started off janky with parking and then falling on the bus and punching some exchange student on the bus. Anyways, I find that this reading was a little difficult for me. It did take me three times to read it over to get a sense of what was being said.
If I am not mistaken about what is being said. I agree and disagree with what is being said. At the time I would have agreed with the push into the future with the acceptance of new technology and material. I do not agree with the part where we should forget the past and destroy the institution of history such as museums. Looking at when this was written, I could see how it could be so powerful in its words and meanings.
I don't know, if I'm being honest. I truly do not understand the entirety of the manifesto. I am like the worst student in meadows.

The Futurism Manifesto

Reading the Futurism Manifesto and writing this blog post is ironic. If we followed the Futurism Manifesto, the younger generation of stronger men would have destroyed Marinetti's work when he turned 40. In his manifesto, Marinetti wants to destroy the past and claims that studying history is harmful and poison to human kind. The study of the past can affect the way someone sees the world. As humans we learn from previous generations and mimicry of people around us, then we pass on that knowledge to the next generation. If we think of the lack of knowledge as innocence and knowledge as experience, as soon as we are born that innocence is lost. Even Marinetti says "we are the revival and extension of our ancestors," which is unescapable. Even if Marinetti could successfully destroy all of the past written works, people would pass on history and knowledge through word of mouth. The only way that this manifesto could be practiced without bias is if a person was isolated from all human contact and had no knowledge of that past generations, which is impossible. Marinetti also promotes violence and chaos and even claims that "art is nothing but violence, cruelty, and injustice." The Futurism Manifesto is more of a political movement that promotes war and hatred,  than an art movement. Marinetti claims that war cleanses the earth and he supports militarism, patriotism, and scorn for woman. He promotes the destruction of "museums, libraries, academies of every kind, will fight moralism, feminism, every opportunistic or utilitarian cowardice." Marinetti's commentary on the past in the Futurist Manifesto is interesting but in the end it is just the thoughts of a violent man who wants to be rebel against the norm.

My response to the Futurist Manifesto is as follows. I found myself feeling very emotionally driven when reading it, I think that's because I find such joy in going to museums and honoring those works of art. I entirely understood everything that was being said and in some degree I agreed with it as well. I like the idea of allowing art to continually grow and to not get stuck in trying to replicate or aspire to be what those art works are. But I think there is still definitely significance in pieces that have stood the test of time and find themselves in museums. Another phrase I did not agree with was that all art came from pain and scorn and disaster. To me, art is a beautiful thing that, yes, can come from hardship and pain but can also be a release of beautiful emotions and beliefs. Overall I believe that the manifesto has some incredible outlines and thoughts for art, but I think that the drastic nature of it places a very rigid limit on the range of design that art should be able to explore and expand to for many years to come.

Raymond's The Futurist Manifesto Response

Over the weekend I spent my time studying, working out, and binge watching some of my favorite shows. Coincidentally, after reading "The Futurist Manifesto", I was reminded of an episode of "Portlandia" that I watched over the weekend.

The older generation of millennials (late 20's / early 30's) were trying to preserve or "take back" MTV from the 'tweens' (futurist) and return it to its original format. The cable channel was originally built on music and music videos that used to play on the channel 24/7.

Today the "new generation" of young adults seemed to have taken on this "Futurist" attitude and dismissed the past and the origins of the music channel.  Today the channel is filled with reality shows, mindless antics and complete disregard for the generations that paved the way for the youth network.

Although "The Futurist Manifesto" was written in the early 1900's, the same sentiments can be felt as more and more generations of people evolve.  People no longer have to remember history or care to study the past - a simple Google search can speed up any time wasted looking up history in a library.  The desire to study the past is no longer important. There seems to be an overall hatred towards history and people who once made history. Look at the comments section on news stories regarding yesterday's heroes - you are bound to see the word "has-been", a disrespectful term.

In this comedic "Portlandia" clip, once popular MTV Veejays, Kurt Loder, Tabitha Soren & Matt Pinfield who were staples on the music network, are simply brushed off by the younger generation as "a bald man, a weird looking lady, and another weird looking man."  Innovative bands of the time like "Sonic Youth" are referred to as people in their 50's. It's hilarious for those of us who may remember this time in pop culture, but also a sad acknowledgement to ideas of "The Futurist Manifesto".

https://youtu.be/WEf5I_Wdb94

-Response to Futurist Manifesto-

The concept of breaking free of an older generations chain has always been present throughout history. Younger generations have always struggled with the current state of affairs left behind by their predecessors. The Manifesto wanted to put Italy back on the map again, it wanted to show the world that Italy was not a place of ancient ruins and old glories. After all, the Roman Empire ended more than 1000 years before the 20th century. Marinetti admitted that by creating this manifesto, his work will be useless when he is 40 and that the new artists will have to throw his work in the trash in order to be true to the manifestos rules. I also noticed a bit of Nationalist influence on the piece, I mean this was only 20 years before Mussolini so you could start seeing the warning signs from here. Fascist ideals were present in the manifesto, at least from an artistic point of view. The demolishing of museums and libraries is also present in the ideals of Futurism, which reminds me of nationalist ideals.

Without history, we have no direction.

The Futurist Manifesto is by no means the foundation for a movement. It is an impulsive, petulant rejection of the foundation of society. It is not 'violently upsetting,' as its complete rejection of the accomplishments of mankind cannot be taken seriously. I reeks of a youth that wishes to rebel for sake of rebellion and its own inability to think but for themselves, not of a new world order.

There is a difference between understanding and agreeing. The authors of and subscribers to this manifesto do not seem to comprehend this. One can appreciate and understand a work without having to buy into the message it invokes. The manifesto claims to 'sing' of 'fearlessness,' when in actual fact it is quite the opposite. Running away from and rejecting history, whether it be in art or academia, on the simple notion of it being in the past is cowardice. It is the ability to analyze and understand a topic and then reject it on its principles, not its age, is true bravery and enlightenment. Humankind is by definition flawed and unequal. Looking to our past and seeing how far we have come is the ultimate testament to our progress. Without history, we risk running in circles, with no reference to what man has accomplished and what injustices man must resolve.

Candi's Futurist Manifesto Response

On my first look, the Futurist Manifesto read a little like satire, with its proclamation to destroy the museums, ending glorification of war and violence, and its proclamation to throw away an artist’s works once the artist reaches 40. I think that its complete disregard of the past is a little extreme. The Futurist’s idea that going to museums and learning about the past is a waste is almost silly because all human advancement is built of the work of those who come before us. And the idea that daily visits to museums, libraries, and academies is damaging seems to forget that those same places are where a good deal of inspiration is born. 

Not to say that some of the Futurist Manifesto’s ideas don’t have merit. I think the general message that focusing on the past doesn’t create new art is true. If we get too caught up in past works of art and literature, people can ignore what’s happening now. And to an extent, creatives shouldn't spend all their time looking at older works. 

Response to the Menefesto

The imagery of the piece is palpable and enjoyable but I disagree with some of the fundamental messages. There is an important balance to maintain if any progress is to be achieved. I support that there comes a time to do away with the old. Change is inevitable and vital. To cling to traditional ways of thinking is to be doomed to stagnation. However, to not learn from the past is also a hindrance of progress. We must stand on the shoulders of giants to even hope of see a greater distance. To not study, analyze, and critic the past. We will repeat it and be slowed by old problems. To grow there must be chance coupled with education from those who have struggled before us.

Response to The Futurist Manifesto

This is not my first exposure to The Futurist Manifesto. I read it once before in high school, in an art history class. The introductory anecdote is really beautifully written. It had such wonderful imagery. I admire the way in which Marinetti refuses to look backwards. I sometimes feel the same disdain for classical art as he does and the same frustration with our fascination with history.  My favorite quote is: "to admire an old painting is to pour our sensitiveness into a funeral urn."

While a lot of the ideals of the manifesto align with my own, my respect for the formal movement known as Futurism is essentially nonexistent. I refuse to accept any ideas of a movement which advocates for "the scorn of women." I'm not just saying this to be lazy, I have read and fully understood The Futurist Manifesto. But the fact that they went out of their way to advocate for hatred towards women is disgusting. Marinetti wanted to abolish feminism in a time when women weren't even able to vote in Italy.

I refuse to give this manifesto any more of my time. I can write a response disregarding the abhorrent parts of it if this isn't sufficient, but I feel like that wouldn't be honest.

Futurist Manifesto Response goes here?

This piece was a very interesting read to me, and I feel it to be representative of how culture (and counterculture) has evolved over time. It evokes a rebellious and "fuck the world" kind of sentiment that, while completely visionary and new for the time, has a much larger following today. Anarchy was akin to complete chaos when the piece was written, so these blasphemous statements were not taken lightly.

To me, I see this as encouragement for the visionary/artist/inventor to try new and unpaved pathways in their craft. It encourages the refusal of the accepted/caudified and the investigation of the new and outrageous. If anything, this article incites at least a candle of rebellion in any reader with a shred of individuality. The language and some of the idioms no longer translate properly to be sure, but the spine of the piece is one of defiance. This defiance of the accepted and facile is what any visionary should pursue in their work if any change is to be made to a genre.

-Zach Biehl

Hello students! Welcome to the course blog for Introduction to Hybrid Media (ASIM 1300) at Meadows School of the Arts.

This will be a repository for your responses to course readings. The idea is that after reading each text, you will dump your thoughts (or response) here before discussing the reading in class. I will look over these responses to get a sense of what you all are thinking about in relation to the text before we hold discussion. I expect you to read each text thoroughly and to respond critically. I do not want you to paraphrase the reading. I've read it already and I don't need your summary. I am curious about your reaction, though, whether you agreed or disagreed, or if you thought of something seemingly unrelated that might enrich the conversation. 

I'm looking forward to introducing you to a variety of new techniques and technologies, and an awesome semester!