Morrissey Central "REPULSION !" (September 26, 2024)

September 26, 2024
1000024669.jpg

"Oscar Wilde was physically a work of art. The new statue 'of' him in Chelsea (by Eduardo Paolozzi) is even more grotesque than the ridiculous statue in Merrion Square in Dublin by Danny Osborne. Both statues are too repulsive to be shown here - or anywhere. As Oscar Wilde said, 'All art is quite useless'."
MORRISSEY.
 
Last edited:
I don't get it.

It is well documented that many contemporaries commented on Wilde's fat and ugly appearance, which only got worse with age and debauchery (and he was only 46 when he died!)

That strongly suggests that he was not a work of art, actually; the reality is that Wilde repulsed himself and many others. The reason his mouth is closed in every photo or image you see of him? He had absolutely awful teeth...

I'm not judging him, I'm just pointing out that it's apparent Morrissey is very much buying into the rose-tinted myth of Oscar, not the reality.

Furthermore, I've recently highlighted at length that Oscar himself would have many doubts and criticisms of Morrissey's own work, which is deeply ironic.
I haven’t agreed with any of your comments that you’ve made about Negative Capability over the last few months, but as your comments seemed not to be inclined to delve too deeply into the subject, it didn’t appeal to me as a conversation worth exploring. But you’ve brought it up in a transitory superficial way so many times now, that I find it really interesting that you seem to want to use it as framework with which to judge something - that you continue to be insistent that you’re “not judging”.

Also, the common and most blindingly pervasive thread in all your comments over the last few months on Negative Capability, have been your realization that you’re dealing with your own personal, internal disillusionment about your own former feelings about Morrissey’s work, and your subsequent disappointment. None of any of that is my business or what I’m making comment about now, because certainly there are a lot of people whose opinions and perspectives might change over time. People need different things in different phases of their lives, including from music, from the arts in general, or from what they perceive as another person has brought/brings into their lives.

But when you go on about Negative Capability and about how you perceive that it does or doesn’t apply to Morrissey, or that he knows or doesn’t know about it - it’s a VERY didactic stance on your side.

Also, you made some posts previously talking about Negative Capability and how you interpreted it as applying to some of his business/career decisions. That’s fine, obviously you can do whatever you want and think whatever you want and apply it however you want - but the question that stands out is, why is that the way in which you choose to frame your own judgement (while saying you’re not judging)?

Yes, Negative Capability as a concept can be broadened as in the case of that book you mentioned one time - but why on earth is sone therapist’s interpretation of a concept he didn’t invent in the first place, the round hole in which you want to jam your square peg?

As I assume you very well know, when Keats introduced the concept of Negative Capability, he was talking about the qualities that make great artists, and he believed that artists could remain enshrouded in uncertainty, mystery, and doubt, without being forced to desperately seek logical or factual solutions.

In this sense, it means artists are able to explore the complexity of human experience, including contradictions and unresolved tensions, allowing for a deeper, more emotional, and (often) more profound representation of reality. This is evident in art that embraces ambiguity rather than providing neat answers; so i don’t think anyone needs to further highlight how this applies to any of Morrissey’s work?

Oscar Wilde never directly referenced Keats’ concept of Negative Capability. But his writings obviously show a philosophical openness to ambiguity and paradox, and he was a MAJOR proponent of the Aesthetic Movement, which emphasized the value of Art for its own beauty and emotional power. Wilde’s own life and works often display a fascination with paradox and duality, and he was vocal in his critique of certainty and moral absolutes - including those who sought to impose rigid moral and philosophical structures around life and art. His personal life and self-stylization reflected an embracing of his own fluid identity and of his shifting roles, and he often presented himself as a living work of art - resisting the simplification of fixed societal standards. This is also reflective of the spirit of Keats; of living in a world where certainty and self-definition are ever elusive.

So Wilde’s philosophy of Art IS that it is something that transcends rationality and certainty.

Yet your superficial and throwaway comment above ends with “Furthermore, I’ve recently highlighted at length, that Oscar would have many doubts and criticisms of Morrissey’s own work.” (LOL!)
Have you? Where? Because I’d love to read that! 🤣

As I’ve said, I’m not making any comment on your struggle with your personal disillusionment about Morrissey, that’s something that you have to accept or reconcile for yourself, just like everyone else does who may feel anything similar.

My comments are specifically on the much broader pronouncements that you’re making, which sorry to say, I think are a complete nonsense.
 
Oscar Wilde said:
Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself.

Not sure I agree, but I don't think Wilde would have wanted a statue (if he would have wanted one at all) that didn't have detractors.
 
I haven’t agreed with any of your comments that you’ve made about Negative Capability over the last few months, but as your comments seemed not to be inclined to delve too deeply into the subject, it didn’t appeal to me as a conversation worth exploring. But you’ve brought it up in a transitory superficial way so many times now, that I find it really interesting that you seem to want to use it as framework with which to judge something - that you continue to be insistent that you’re “not judging”.

Also, the common and most blindingly pervasive thread in all your comments over the last few months on Negative Capability, have been your realization that you’re dealing with your own personal, internal disillusionment about your own former feelings about Morrissey’s work, and your subsequent disappointment. None of any of that is my business or what I’m making comment about now, because certainly there are a lot of people whose opinions and perspectives might change over time. People need different things in different phases of their lives, including from music, from the arts in general, or from what they perceive as another person has brought/brings into their lives.

But when you go on about Negative Capability and about how you perceive that it does or doesn’t apply to Morrissey, or that he knows or doesn’t know about it - it’s a VERY didactic stance on your side.

Also, you made some posts previously talking about Negative Capability and how you interpreted it as applying to some of his business/career decisions. That’s fine, obviously you can do whatever you want and think whatever you want and apply it however you want - but the question that stands out is, why is that the way in which you choose to frame your own judgement (while saying you’re not judging)?

Yes, Negative Capability as a concept can be broadened as in the case of that book you mentioned one time - but why on earth is sone therapist’s interpretation of a concept he didn’t invent in the first place, the round hole in which you want to jam your square peg?

As I assume you very well know, when Keats introduced the concept of Negative Capability, he was talking about the qualities that make great artists, and he believed that artists could remain enshrouded in uncertainty, mystery, and doubt, without being forced to desperately seek logical or factual solutions.

In this sense, it means artists are able to explore the complexity of human experience, including contradictions and unresolved tensions, allowing for a deeper, more emotional, and (often) more profound representation of reality. This is evident in art that embraces ambiguity rather than providing neat answers; so i don’t think anyone needs to further highlight how this applies to any of Morrissey’s work?

Oscar Wilde never directly referenced Keats’ concept of Negative Capability. But his writings obviously show a philosophical openness to ambiguity and paradox, and he was a MAJOR proponent of the Aesthetic Movement, which emphasized the value of Art for its own beauty and emotional power. Wilde’s own life and works often display a fascination with paradox and duality, and he was vocal in his critique of certainty and moral absolutes - including those who sought to impose rigid moral and philosophical structures around life and art. His personal life and self-stylization reflected an embracing of his own fluid identity and of his shifting roles, and he often presented himself as a living work of art - resisting the simplification of fixed societal standards. This is also reflective of the spirit of Keats; of living in a world where certainty and self-definition are ever elusive.

So Wilde’s philosophy of Art IS that it is something that transcends rationality and certainty.

Yet your superficial and throwaway comment above ends with “Furthermore, I’ve recently highlighted at length, that Oscar would have many doubts and criticisms of Morrissey’s own work.” (LOL!)
Have you? Where? Because I’d love to read that! 🤣

As I’ve said, I’m not making any comment on your struggle with your personal disillusionment about Morrissey, that’s something that you have to accept or reconcile for yourself, just like everyone else does who may feel anything similar.

My comments are specifically on the much broader pronouncements that you’re making, which sorry to say, I think are a complete nonsense.

There's a possibility you may be right and I'm open to that possibility.

I won't mention it here again.

I'll continue to ruminate on it personally.
 
But who is the better band? In your opinion?
That is really a horrific question. So hard to answer. I’ve been a fan of The Cure for a few years longer than The Smiths. Their music is very dissimilar, which makes comparisons even harder. The Smiths were far more even than The Cure, but they made not nearly as much music. Both bands are fronted by icons of their generation. Two of the greatest frontmen and lyricists of all time. Musically, I’m generally more into the stuff The Cure did (ie I listen to far more post punk and it’s dark subgenres than guitar based indie music). That said, The Cure has done much more than just dark post punk and The Smiths definitely weren’t just some ol’ indie band. But…when it finally comes down to it, when push comes to shove, I will have to go with The Smiths. They speak to me like few other bands do. Whenever I listen to them, I always think…”this band was ridiculously good. They were perfect.” Joy Division is the only other band that make me feel similar.
 
There's a possibility you may be right and I'm open to that possibility.

I won't mention it here again.

I'll continue to ruminate on it personally.
I’m just talking about Oscar Wilde, because it’s an Oscar Wilde thread, that you said something about Oscar Wilde in.

I wouldn’t have bothered to take the time to type out all of that or to share my thought process and to explain what my own perspective is based on, if I didn’t think it was a subject worth discussing.

If you disagree, you should preferably still always feel free to ruminate out loud. I thought ruminating out loud is why we’re all sitting around on a discussion board.

It isn’t for drinks or the decor, i know that much!
 
Morrissey's career is not 'in tatters'. He is between labels, as he was 1997-2004 and 2009-2013.
I don't know how anyone can look at what's been happening with Morrissey these past few years and think it's just like past times. I'm not happy about it... but I think for numerous reasons he's in a far worse place now. The record industry and his status in it has changed but he can't seem to accept it. Thankfully Morrissey didn't have Central in those past wilderness years or he might have tanked those deals as well.
 
Sometimes I like to think about how Perth, Nottingham, The Greek, etc aren't worth a post, but he had to clear up that he wasn't vaping. And how he posted he was literally f***ing around Paris "doing nothing" two weeks before the YATQ shows that were tanking, then suddenly he is just so exhausted from "doing nothing" in Paris that he cancels and makes Donnie tell people he's exhausted? And now posts about a statue? Dude, f*** off with this shit.
as iv said many times before,anything that is put on central isnt meant to be put on here.
if you dont like it then dont look at it.
 
I don’t know, Gordy. Derek “Feckin” Braghard, who has definitely heard the album and was not passed out in his own vomit dreaming it all, says it’s just average.
think dirk was pulling everybodies middle leg that night,wonder if he regrets that post.
 
But who is the better band? In your opinion?

it’s complicated. Better in what way? Subjective no? They’re both very different bands.
Maybe a better question would be, which band is more important to you? And why?
 
As far as I know, only legend @Dirk Blaggard heard it on someone's smartphone but can't remember much. So wassup!
phrancie i was just mentioning that to smiffy,who could forget an album that was discussed on here almost daily at the time,you would at least remember if it was good or bad.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom