RUDIMENTS, pt. 1,169
(philip petit and me, pt.1)
Overreach often has dire
consequences. I used to
see it a lot. For instance,
before I got to NYC, in
196, after high school,
July, I was very suddenly
aware of the difference
in realities - between
what had been being
drummed into me, and
what actually was. What
I saw, what that difference
was, was what I called
'overreach.' The kids I
had been with in school
were all overreaching,
with their concerns for
career, achievement, the
right colleges, proper
placement, etc. They were
making themselves 'done'
before they'd even gotten
into the pot. (The old 'pot,'
as in 'cooking;' Not today's
apparently frolicsome
version of the word).
-
One thing that used to
occur to me was why no
one ever just said to a
teacher: 'Show me why
I should believe you, what
you are saying. What is
the end result of this
knowledge to you?' And
then I'd review what was
apparent - house, lawn,
cars, kids, wife or husband,
deadening debts and all
the obligations, and a
noose-locked slavery to
a job purely for the money.
None of it hardly seemed
worth doing.
-
In the innards of NYC, where
I was living, none of that stuff
mattered. Perhaps it was just
the seeding of a criminal class
over the finer sensitivities of
the artists and writers crowd,
but the mix brought forth and
to my attention an entire raft
of people to whom little of
that mattered. I met people
who admitted to their goal in
life being to reach sustenance
without need of working. A
simple, flat-out statement,
and one spoken with a full
confidence in achievability.
-
I guessed at some point it
was all about the two very
opposed categories of the
subjective and the objective;
which just as well were the
same categorical conflicts
much present in the modern
writing of that day. The 'New'
Journalism, as it was called -
Tom Wolfe, Norman Mailer,
Truman Capote, all that. A
different approach to getting
things done in a sort of half
magazine article/ half fictional
account, with the non-fictional
instructionals thrown in too.
The visuals arts, too, were right
then going through much of that
in the same way, though quite
differently. I've said all this before,
about how the reigning force
within and behind it all ended
up being 'irony.' Or even comical
'irony.' If even your artists and
writers could no longer be
serious, but had to operate with
a wink. what was left of a crummy
society? It seemed to me that a
subjective approach to things
would have a person 'in there,'
hard at work and chucking for
results, with, I suppose, the stance
of an activist; a 'doer,' not a taker.
The other, 'objective' stance would
be the stand-offs, those a few steps
back from things. The takers. Those
NOT in the mix. Funny, it was, how
those two designations - so seemingly
different - actually seemed to have
merged. into the one type of 'urban'
person - those 'actively at work
to attain doing nothing.' Passivity
in the employ of Activity?
-
Sometimes I just wanted to give up,
having been little prepared for any
realities of the modern-day street life
presented to me. At which point, I
admittedly went way off-track.
-
One of the acquired skills, from this
all, was balance. Finesse. The strange
way we fight the surge and try to
stay 'up' on whatever form of a
high-wire we've put ourselves
upon. Philip Petit had
nothing on me.
No comments:
Post a Comment