(Dutch version on substack. Dont forget to subscribe!)
The ease with which a form from the art world was adopted and applied to the literary world reflects the ease with which officials assemble a committee meant to represent the writing community, without any democratic or substantive basis. This committee is comprised of random networkers, selected by officials for obscure reasons, ostensibly to ‘represent literature’. The writers themselves had no voice in this process. Thus, these committee members only represent the opinions of a few officials.
A small excerpt from my new objection, for the Letterenfonds continues to stubbornly manipulate literature by influencing writers’ incomes. A very positive review of Anneke Brassinga was downgraded by a novice, based on ‘a flawed plan’, a novice who for mysterious reasons was placed in the most important position in Letterland. However, in the art world, that ‘plan’ serves a purpose; otherwise, the exhibition space takes a risk, a risk that in this case lies with the publisher, who has long approved this plan. There is therefore no literary reason to review this plan once again.
In this way, control can always and everywhere be maintained over which literature will flourish and which will be condemned to poverty. It is not surprising that writers and poets are reluctant to participate in this – something they themselves admit. I would be furious if my positive review were annulled in this way by a novice in the wrong place.
Personally, I find the idea that you condemn writers and poets to poverty if they have a slump utterly bizarre and sadistic, especially if they are also aging. It’s not as if you suddenly need less to eat if you write a lesser book. I see no reason why you wouldn’t set a basic income in those grants and then give everyone the same amount. The idea that some networker, with a wet finger, should judge writers’ incomes as ‘quality control’ is so skewed that it’s not surprising that a large red panic button had to be installed at the entrance of the Letterenfonds. They still don’t realize that the cause of all that anger out there lies in the injustice of their own methodology.
Ironically, they are trying to accuse me of indecency in court. We’ll see if that strategy works for them. Later, you can expect extensive analyses on this matter from me, for understandable reasons, I hope.
The last moments of Gorn, our first Atlas moth. Such a male lives only about six days, yet in those six days, I have grown quite attached to Gorn.
The other pupae have not (yet) emerged. This adds a certain sadness to Gorn’s story, as he has missed his apparent goal of reproduction and could only ride on our hands and sprinkle his moth dust upon me. Atlas moths do not eat; they live a few days and then die, so they are not very active: they must conserve their energy for the ultimate act.
That the moth exerted itself to throw the dust of infinity upon me, I consider a great honor. That Gorn paraglide through life and eventually lost his wild hairs – oh, I shall write a song about it.
‘Joe’, Martinus Benders, 2024
I consider this a very good painting, even though it is a digital work I created in Photoshop. As Gombrowicz notes in his diaries: why should such value be placed on muscle control? He wrote an entire tirade against painting, which is more relevant now than ever, as the computer can take over muscle movements.
Why should muscle control weigh more heavily than the aesthetics of the work itself?
This work contains thousands of judgments from me, all based on my experience: my experience as an art observer, my experience as a designer (colors), and my philosophical experience. With this, I guide Photoshop and create a work that I consider high-quality. Some people, however, believe that this is not ‘real work’ because the supposed muscle control is missing. They place great importance on a kind of suffering, a cyclist’s aesthetics, where too little toil and too little schadenfreude are seen as shortcomings.
What if, like me, you have suffered a nerve condition due to trauma, causing your muscle control to falter? Or if you were paralyzed, would you not be allowed to become a painter? But above all, as Gombrowicz noted: why is so much value placed on muscle control and not on pure aesthetics?
Opponents of A.I. like to claim that I did not create this work ‘myself,’ but I find that an extremely primitive argument, as it is clearly created through my instructions.
The same arguments were heard at the introduction of samples and drum machines (which were nearly banned in England at the time) and even further back, at the introduction of the camera. “You didn’t make that work yourself but that devilish machine you’re holding!”
No, anyone who sees the mediocrity of the stream of ‘artworks’ people create with A.I. knows that it is the human at the helm here: the computer, after all this time, should hopefully know better.
Martijn 03-06-2024