Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
That's a really good interview with Zizek - I think he did well to articulate relatively complex points in a format that's not ideally suited to it. Interesting that Sackur came across as an agent provocateur of middle-class ideology (and unsurprising given he's from the Beeb) in the face of a general 'pessimism' towards political ideology.
|
it's a horrendous format. it's ludditte and sackur/the bbc knows it. there is no need for a time limit and the usual "i'm afraid that's all we have time for" in the age of the internet. at least you'd think the bbc could let it go on for as long as it needs to, broadcast the edited version and put the full version online. but who gives a shit about the bbc and their so called "expertise" which usually involves being a coked up/drunken celeb egotist and towing the state line until the anxiety and self hatred of your own image drives you further down the road of coked up/drunken celeb mediocrity. a gross generalisation maybe, but one born of the jealous exasperation of being internetless/poor and trying to gain some insight from the tv, all the while wishing it would shut up and let you talk for once.
i've made this point before - the internet needs to move beyond the web2.0 stage of being a digital reproduction or alternate version of allready existing pre digital media. the interativity and democracy if technology that the bbc and their ilk love to promote needs to be taken away from their poisoned grasp.
yet when you do this you end up in a position like simon reynolds describes in a resonance fm interview; being wary of not putting too much content on his blog and instead saving it for a new book. i don't criticise reynolds for this, as he said himself he has a son to feed. i think many of us are in this same position. now that our lives have become so commodified there is a potential intellectual commodity in our own minds that might translate into cash/survival in the future. so how much do we "give away" and how much do we "hold back"? are we comprised by our very status as potentially commodified subjects? the coming insurrection would seem to get around this impasse, but isn't even the potential revolutionary scenario that it describes merely commodified by the very act of its transcription? can what zizek/the invisible committee say lead to an affective anti-capitalism? if it can then this would mean that it is an intellectual commodity that will bring down capitalism, which by its nature seems impossible. or have i just gone way off track with this line of thought?