my favorite part from interview, as silly as it may sound is Sotos saying: A friend of mine was recently selling some used books on porn theory to a bookstore and the guy behind the counter didn't want them. He said they'd buy porn but not porn theory because it was too much like buying a book on beer. The guy's an idiot, obviously, but what does make sense to me is that very few artists actually make something that is better, or more actual, than the theory.
I can never see myself to use Sotos work as "trad." pornography, that would create some sort of arousal for myself. And don't think it would be even intended to be so? If I'm to pick up some material of sexual nature and pornographic, I think Sotos material is simply way too "intelligent" and artistic to affect on such level.
When I read pornographic book, I might even skip parts. The talent of persons writing seems pretty irrelevant, when compared to the fragments of texts, where certain situation or act is described. One could say, that it's incomplete experience to read a book, and skip all the storytelling and building the heat and tension. Building some sort of background for otherwise so dull and routine sexual acts. But I disagree. When pornography is at its best, I tend to think that it includes certain amount of mandatory storyline or set up, but in end it works in lowest urges and primitive impulses that are beyond some artistic or intelligent and theoretical "nonsense". There is still the characteristics what makes something good or bad, but is it art (product of human creativity) or something else...
I have thought about the idea, where book would consist nothing but the low quality porno pulp descriptions of certain favorite sex acts. No real story, no real context. No artistic merit in traditional sense, no obvious philosophical intent. Nothing. But the short paragraphs after another where these simple words deliver the stuff one wanted to read. Just the low arts and junk - pornography.
But yes, I do read also other things than pornography. Which includes Sotos. Why him? I'd say that because subject matter he deals with, interests me to certain degree and the nuggests of information you gather from text is interesting. But do I rate his works unusually high compared to other writers? Probably not. Most of stuff he writes, doesn't make much sense to me either. There is both, language barrier (due such language as he uses) and difference of perspective how things are seen. And I think I do prefer some of earlier books more than some of the later, where you might see some differences?
I think I have always certain prejudice towards something that goes beyong... simply doing. Lets say, when someone is recognized as "author", "writer", "artists", how stupid it may be, it has always certain negative tone in my mind -unless it actually is somehow so obvious that it seems worth of that. This is what sets apart low arts and pornography, noise, punk, metal, whatever. When it's just something that is done. Things that "just happened" and "got done". This doesn't take away possibility to value what is total garbage and what is good. But you can still say that those few riffs you managed to pull out from your guitar, hardly makes you "composer". Or even "guitarist".
I have written many stories that are published in magazines during my life. It hardly makes me "author". I have photographer and had publications, exhibitions,.. I have painted paintings. I have drawn & published dozen of comic books and exhibited stuff even in museums. I have composed and written countless albums. I have done videos... pff and whatever. And list could go on and on. But I find it hard to call it by any fancier name than it is. I think in finnish you could say "tekijä" (guy who does things) is what it is. It's simply creation of "low arts", which doesn't make me (or anyone) that special. Not "artists", not "musician", not "author". Words me be thrown into discussion once in a while, just to explain something vaguely, even if it hardly qualifies as such.
Like, what makes person collector? What is a "collection". Having 10 paintings? 10 dvd's? What is "hobby"? I recall TV show where some attention hungry cunt told her hobby is benji jumping. And turns out she did it once on holiday. Owning a camera and taking few snapshots doesn't make one "photographer" in my opinion. Nor artist. End result may be interesting and worth seeing, though.
The pornography is, or was, one of the greatest manifestations of this. You had shabbily created anonymous creation, which appealed to someone, including most importantly yourself. And that's about that. Until it leads into research, study, observation and appreciation, and perhaps the communication over the subject matter. And most of all the release becomes more than it actually was. While a lot of "artists", "painters" or "musicians" or whatever, in my opinion, deliver less than it actually pretends to be.
In this light, Sotos, as underground writer who puts out these ltd 50 copies digiprinted hardcover books. Yeah, he is great what he does. But how high in the world of literature, art and philosophy you'd put it? Same with guys like Trevor Brown or such. Of course he is good what he does, but how high you can rate it on standards of painting overall? It is low arts and junk that appeals to prurient interests. Which in my opinion, is enough. It doesn't have to pretend to be more or justify itself that much further.
Don't know if it makes any sense, and perhaps I don't have the time or interest to put it in form of nice manifesto of nature of "art" how I see it.
