Essays in Post-Industrialism: A Symposium of Prophecy concerning the Future of Society, eds. Ananda Coomaraswamy and Arthur Penty (London: T. N. Foulis, 1914).
Allan Antliff highlights the place individual that artisans held for Coomaraswamy and his cowriter—the guild socialist Arthur Penty—as they fleshed out the concept of Post-Industrialism: “Neither Penty nor Coomaraswamy sought a wholesale resuscitation of medieval institutions in Europe or India; their program idealized medieval societies in those countries as alternative ‘models’ for the social organization of the future in which spiritual values would shape every aspect of daily life … The most important feature of medieval society was the integration of spiritual idealism with the day-to-day activities of the population, primarily through art.” Allan Antliff, Anarchist Modernism: Art Politics and the First American Avant-Garde (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).
Ananda Coomaraswamy, “The Purposes of Art,” Modern Review 13 (June 1913): 606.
Ananda Coomaraswamy, The Arts and Crafts of India and Ceylon (London: T. N. Foulis, 1913), 34.
Ananda Coomaraswamy, Medieval Sinhalese Art (Broad Campden: Essex House Press, 1908), viii.
Ananda Coomaraswamy, The Dance of Siva (New York: Sunwise Turn, 1924), 138–39.
Bell notes his surprise in discovering the prior usage: “Ironically I have recently discovered that the phrase occurs in a book by Arthur J. Penty, a well-known Guild Socialist of the time … and called for a return to decentralized, small workshop artisan society, ennobling work, which he called ‘the post-industrial state’!” Daniel Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 37.
William Davies, “Neoliberalism: A Bibliographic Review,” Theory, Culture & Society 31, no. 7 (August 2014): 316.
Karl Marx, The Grundrisse, in The Marx-Engels Reader (New York: Norton, 1972), 382.
Julia Elyachar, “Phatic labor, infrastructure, and the question of empowerment in Cairo,” American Ethnologist 37 (2010): 452–64.
Nikolas Rose, The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).
Andre Gunder Frank, The Development of Underdevelopment (New York: SAGE, 1966).
Joanna Cook, “Mindful in Westminster: The Politics of Meditation and the Limits of Neoliberal Critique,” Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 6, no. 1 (2016): 141–61.
Michael Storper and Susan Christopherson, “Flexible Specialization and Regional Industrial Agglomerations: The Case of the U.S. Motion Picture Industry,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77 (1987): 104–17.
Michael Silverstein, “Discourse and the No-thing-ness of Culture,“ Signs and Society 1, no. 2 (Fall 2013): 327–366, 349. For a broader discussion of “Oinoglossia,” see Michael Silverstein, “Indexical Order and the Dialectics of Sociolinguistic Life,” Language & Communication 23 (2003): 193–229.
Silverstein, No-Thingness of Culture, 329
In his history of early cinema, Georges Sadoul writes that Auguste Lumière’s need for film to run through a mechanism at a normal rate of speed made him think that a foot pedal from a sewing machine might function equally well in a film projector. Georges Sadoul, Histoire Général du Cinéma, vol.1 (Paris: Denoël, 1946), 184–96.
Jonathan Beller, “Dziga Vertov and the Film of Money,” Boundary 2 26, no. 9 (1999): 162. Italics in original.
Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility: Second Version,” trans. Jephcott and Zohn, in Walter Benjamin, Selected Writings, vol. 4 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004): 101–33.
Dziga Vertov, Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov, ed. Annette Michelson (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984); John MacKay, “Vertov and the Line: Art, Socialization, Collaboration,” in Museum Without Walls: Film, Art, New Media, ed. Angela Dalle Vacche (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012).
John Thornton Caldwell, Production Culture: Industrial Reflexivity and Critical Practice in Film and Television (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008); Jerome Christensen, America's Corporate Art: The Studio Authorship of Hollywood Motion Pictures (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012); J. D. Connor, The Studios after the Studios: Neoclassical Hollywood (1970–2010) (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2015).
Caldwell, Production Culture, 232
Ibid., 3.
Although often regarded as merely a “receptor surface,” this question of “orientation” is key to the art historian Leo Steinberg’s discussion of the “flatbed picture plane”: “The characteristic ‘flatbed’ picture plane of the 1960s” insists on a “radically new orientation” towards it. Leo Steinberg, “Other Criteria,” in Other Criteria: Confrontations with Twentieth Century Art (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975). 84–85.
The denouement of “Speculative Materialist” art, in the wake of the most recent Berlin Biennial, seems to have resulted from the movement’s inability to renovate a codified set of materials and talking points that had become vulnerable to ready-typification and parodic trolling from competing registers.