I have written the first essay for this website so many times and in so many different ways that I have finally lost the desire to compose any sort of impressive introduction to my foray into online publishing. Perhaps this is a good thing. One would think that the desire to see oneself reflexively would decrease with the anonymity of the Internet, "but I look around me and I see it isn't so, oh no". In fact, I would argue that many put more effort into presenting themselves well over the Internet than they would in person. Daily life still retains somewhat the spirit of improvisation that the Internet does not allow. Even the offhanded gesture, when recorded, becomes permanent, and, in hindsight, may seem more considered than it was.
So rather than any sort of long introduction, I shall simply state the following: I am concerned with the world around me, and will use this website as a means of working out my concerns. I only share in the hope of reaching greater understanding. In this sense, I am ambitious, but I have no ambitions for any sort of fame or success. I am manifesting myself on the Internet for the benefit of ideas only.
My main concern will be to try and discuss life in the postmodern age. Most of my discussions will happen in the context of music and art, and also possibly some references to cities, and how they are built and experienced. I follow Jameson and, by extension Marx, in his general belief that "going back" to other places and periods is impossible. The postmodern must be accepted. If it is to be overturned, it will not be overturned by trying to recover the past. The desire for this recovery, especially of the Modernist period, is a postmodern desire, usually manifesting itself aesthetically, which is why recovery is impossible. All that can be recovered is motive.
I am not an expert in reading social and critical theory; the subtitle of this website is not meant to be read as ironic, self-effacing, or a grasp for plaudits. Rather, I admit a truth, and create a context in which this website can be read. While I admit to a certain lower level of critique than that of the best writers out there, I hope my simplified language will not be interpreted incorrectly. I see no reason to use "big" words or the specialized terminology of contemporary criticism unless they connote a specific meaning unavailable otherwise.
Lastly, I have no desire to plagiarize. If I fail to cite a specific writer, it is either because I have not read them or have so deeply taken in their thinking that it appears to be mine.