WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Monday said he reluctantly accepted the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose "good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."
Derrida and George W Bush
- stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
Derrida and George W Bush
I think I finally understand Derrida thanks to our Dear Leader.
- stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
Thanks for asking.
I am not sure. Maybe I just never appreciated his irony.
There is nothing outside the text. Maybe it is because of the way Bush uses language in such a meaningless way.
I really do not know anything about Derrida. But of course you know that. For some reason after reading the above quote I decided to Google Geroge W Bush + Derrida. I got 278,000 hits so it was hardly an original thought on my part. I can't find the url I was thinking about but this one is pretty interesting too.
I am not sure. Maybe I just never appreciated his irony.
There is nothing outside the text. Maybe it is because of the way Bush uses language in such a meaningless way.
I really do not know anything about Derrida. But of course you know that. For some reason after reading the above quote I decided to Google Geroge W Bush + Derrida. I got 278,000 hits so it was hardly an original thought on my part. I can't find the url I was thinking about but this one is pretty interesting too.
http://dyske.com/index.php?view_id=856Like Hirst, people love to hate Bush. Many critics refused to accept him as an artist. In fact, part of what makes him a fascinating artist is the fact that he never claims to be one. In this sense, his simulation is impeccable. It demonstrates that when art mimics life perfectly, it ceases to be art. And, this unbeing of art is his art, which makes recognition of his art impossible. This in turn makes his art undeniably “new” as an oft-quoted remark by Jacques Derrida concurs:
“One never sees a new art, one thinks one sees it; but a ‘new art,’ as people say a little loosely, may be recognized by the fact that it is not recognized.”
This remark has been liberally used to justify every unrecognized artist and art movement, but Bush’s unrecognizability is clearly far above the rest. To stay as “new” as possible, he never allows his art to be recognizable. No other artists are as committed to this ideology as he is. By the virtue of being always new, his work is also necessarily original. Virtually every work of his has some aspects that have never been done before, especially in the use of mediums as mentioned above.
- stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests