Earlier, E. commented on the issue of how economics account for certain style choices, particularly in the realm of fashion. Expanding on this idea of how economics influences style, I can't help but think about the work of Raymond Chandler and The Ramones. How do economics of form turn into a form of style. The question I'm considering, is "the lack" a stylistic choice?
In the case of Raymond Chandler, the hard-boiled detective stories that became synonymous with the cheap quality of the paper it was printed on were once viewed as a lesser literary tradition. But the canon has since claimed Chandler as a modernist artistic visionary. Joyce Carol Oates writing for the New York Review of Books: "We are in the presence of not a mere action tale teller, but a stylist, a writer with a vision."
In times of economic hardship do critics reconsider the question of excess and its connection to value?
Chandler's tight, sparse prose quickly falls to more negative connotations of being cheap, but in his novel The Big Sleep, the reader learns that less is more. Marlowe, the man of few words, should not work as well as a narrator. Who was it from Dragnet that just wanted the facts? Marlowes observations may not focus strictly on the facts, but his one track mind reveals a hardline moralist, and the book has a hard hitting ending that could not have been achieved had the reader been bombarded with every little detail a lesser detective would have been interested in. Marlowe the moralist gives way to Chander the stylist.
In the case of The Ramones, their importance is based upon the countless punk bands that treat every version of their 3-chord progession as a work of art. The detail to which bands like The Riverdales and The Queers revel in is almost like creating something out of nothing. I am often awed in how much they see in something so little. Whether it be a particular guitar part, vocal affect, or key change, bands in debt to The Ramones turn it into something more meaningful.
I see the comic/project Garfied Minus Garfield as a perversion of this idea. To take Garfield out of Garfield comics reveals something more meaningful about John Arbuckle or the humor of Jim Davis's comics. The idea being that not only is less more, but that abscence has a presence, a powerful meaning in the abscense itself.
The Ramones stripped down style, where Rhythm functions for melody when melody isn't present or Chandler's vision of Marlowe not commenting on certain situations that rise in his novels reveals a hardline stance on certain moral issues. When Garfield is removed from Garfield comics we see what was there all along, a man struggling with his sanity. When we see the Ramones through their heirs we see the presence of every rock n roll innovation condensed and blown apart, unzipped if you will. And when we look back at the work of Raymond Chandler we see a stylist commenting on why you have to keep your eye on the quiet ones.
In the case of Raymond Chandler, the hard-boiled detective stories that became synonymous with the cheap quality of the paper it was printed on were once viewed as a lesser literary tradition. But the canon has since claimed Chandler as a modernist artistic visionary. Joyce Carol Oates writing for the New York Review of Books: "We are in the presence of not a mere action tale teller, but a stylist, a writer with a vision."
In times of economic hardship do critics reconsider the question of excess and its connection to value?
Chandler's tight, sparse prose quickly falls to more negative connotations of being cheap, but in his novel The Big Sleep, the reader learns that less is more. Marlowe, the man of few words, should not work as well as a narrator. Who was it from Dragnet that just wanted the facts? Marlowes observations may not focus strictly on the facts, but his one track mind reveals a hardline moralist, and the book has a hard hitting ending that could not have been achieved had the reader been bombarded with every little detail a lesser detective would have been interested in. Marlowe the moralist gives way to Chander the stylist.
In the case of The Ramones, their importance is based upon the countless punk bands that treat every version of their 3-chord progession as a work of art. The detail to which bands like The Riverdales and The Queers revel in is almost like creating something out of nothing. I am often awed in how much they see in something so little. Whether it be a particular guitar part, vocal affect, or key change, bands in debt to The Ramones turn it into something more meaningful.
I see the comic/project Garfied Minus Garfield as a perversion of this idea. To take Garfield out of Garfield comics reveals something more meaningful about John Arbuckle or the humor of Jim Davis's comics. The idea being that not only is less more, but that abscence has a presence, a powerful meaning in the abscense itself.
The Ramones stripped down style, where Rhythm functions for melody when melody isn't present or Chandler's vision of Marlowe not commenting on certain situations that rise in his novels reveals a hardline stance on certain moral issues. When Garfield is removed from Garfield comics we see what was there all along, a man struggling with his sanity. When we see the Ramones through their heirs we see the presence of every rock n roll innovation condensed and blown apart, unzipped if you will. And when we look back at the work of Raymond Chandler we see a stylist commenting on why you have to keep your eye on the quiet ones.
