Historiological Notes

Wallpaper*

I have been a regular reader of Wallpaper* since 2000. Of course it has not been the same since Tyler Brûlé left, but I still have felt up-to-date by reading it. It is the kind of magazine I by to take on the plane or take to a nice coffee shop, feeling - for half an hour - that one is part of the cool crowd.

However, I have not bought the newest edition and came across it in the public library and I browsed through it. The experience of reading a well read copy in a public library does not give you the experience of belonging to the cool crowd and I understood that I do not read it because of all the interesting articles, but because I feel it have, or at least had, a certain image that did me good. Perhaps it is time to stop.

Is it a classic?

I could not agree more with Jolyon Patten on his views on Classic FM. I have days when I listen to Classic FM for a while, but then I get bored because all the music they play is of the same kind. Nothing is challenging, nothing is new. Here in Britain BBC Radio 3, but the channel I prefer is the Norwegian NRK Alltid Klassisk which has a wide variety of classical music and tries out early music and contemporary sound installations too. You can listen to NRK Alltid Klassisk on the web from this page (scrawl down to Alltid Klassisk.

Is it a bit arrogant to not like Classic FM? As it is the classic radio station with the most listeners, the music must appeal too many. I do not want to criticize all the music they play. However, like any popular radio station they play the same tunes again and again. So even if they had not only played bad good music, it will be boring in the long run. And I do not find it too arrogant to want variation. Not all classical music is relaxing or smooth. Som of it is very challenging.

But if a classic is something that is famous and easily recognisable and something that appeals to "all" human nature, then perhaps Classic FM is right.

The most famous artist from Fife?

Before I moved to St Andrews I had never heard of Jack Vettriano, but whilst being here I have learnt that he is a famous kitsch-painter and that there are a discussion going on if he deserves a place in a prominent gallery. It is also possible to by prints by him in gift shops and, for some curios reason, the university bookshop, but I still think golf themed novelty items sell better than this local artist.

Today, however, I found Vettriano in two of my morning papers; Guardian and Dagbladet (in Norwegian) and in a blog entry at Crooked Timber. Why all this fuzz? Is it not better to keep silent about him instead of giving him publicity?

The Artistic Order of Things

This lunch break I went to the Crawford Arts Centre to have a look at the exhibition The Order of Things (yes, it is a reference to Foucault) by Fred Langford Edwards.

This is what the Arts Centre writes:

The art of Fred Langford Edwards is both intellectually rigorous and beautiful. Through different series of photographs and groups of objects, he examines the endless variety found within the natural world and highlights the human desire to control nature through imposed order. His work mirrors the approach of scientists and museums who collect and classify things, but demonstrates the limitations of such attempts in projects like 'The Unfinished Catalogue' of every natural and artificial phenomena in the world.

The exhibition hall is all white and the photos and glass tubes in order made a very scientific impression, even though the contence of the tubes and photos did not seem to be systematisized. To some extent this seemed to be an exhibition mocking the scientific interest of the 18th and 19th century, but it also gave respect to the scientist. Nevertheless, it was beautiful.

And of course there was a framed quote of Jorge Louis Borges's "certain Chinese encyclopaedia" which also is quoted in Foucault's The Order of Things:

animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies.

Fred Langford Edwards have an online exhibition (text and photos) The Study of Disciplines (a name which also seemes to be a tribute to Foucault, but here are no direct references). This exhibition seems to be in the same spirit as The Order of Things.