Greenberg and McLuhan

I’m finding more and more that I like these two for similar reasons. A central idea common to both is not just the interaction between figure and background (this can be found in many authors), but rather the way in which living media turn into clichés, and in which clichés can be reversed into new archetypal media.

A constant historical movement is demanded by both authors, since all content is doomed to become insipid someday. This is why no medium or no period of art (or philosophy!) can last forever. It’s not about an empty chase after frivolous fashion or “the next big thing” (which is always spoken sarcastically but shouldn’t be): it’s about the fact that every human discovery ripens and then decays into low-quality, ritualistic dogma. “The wheel is spinning, but the hamster is dead.” Once decayed to that degree, it needs to be replaced with the next big thing, which ought to contribute at least a few elements of lasting value before decaying in its turn. If there is still OOO in the year 2100, I’m sure it will be of appallingly low quality by then, and I will be happy to fight it if I can be brought back from the grave by some unforeseen technology. This is how knowledge progresses, not through the incremental amassing of permanently true propositional contents.

Consider it another way: Heidegger in 1928, 1950, 1985, and 2011 is four very different things. We can’t abandon Heidegger; he’s too important. But we also shouldn’t be 1985 Heideggerians, because any important thinker is going to be a lot bigger than how they are seen by a dominant group of scholars at any given date. This is the reason that scandalizing mainstream scholarship on any figure will always have a certain value.