World War I

The first thing that struck me about Blast was the fact that, even after reading the introduction to the magazine, I had no idea what was being said, or what the magazine's point was. The manifesto that followed the Blast and Bless sections didn't make this any clearer to me. It seemed like the intent was to literally blast everyone in bold, capitalized print. The weird, choppy strings of adjectives-- poetry?-- that accompanied some of the blasts (e.g. BLAST HUMOR... gunshot, freezing supple/ REAL in ferocious chemistry/of laughter) were just bewildering. The rambling points that were made later in the manifesto were equally impenetrable, at least on my first read-through.

Another thing that struck me during the reading was just how personally juvenile the people in this movement seemed to be. Throughout the magazine, the futurists are attacked and mocked. It doesn't even seem to be real futurism that is derided though, more like a vague, straw-man version of it. In conjunction with the printed bashing of the futurists, the story of the vorticists' conduct when they showed up at the 'Vital English Art' lecture(setting off firecrackers and making fun of Nevinson's pronunciation) makes them seem bickering children.

I have looked at BLAST before in one of Professor Drouin's previous courses and I still find joy in flipping throught the magazine. The digital copy of BLAST does not do it any justice after seeing the physical magazine in TU special collections. Everything from art, style, tone, font, spacing, etc. seem to have a diliberate purpose that conveys some sort of message to the observent reader. When I was reading Manifesto I, I automatically read it theatrically with enthusiasm and emphasis on the varying degrees within font size. Of course I do not usually read things in this way, which is why I wondered the reason I did..

The writing and tone felt rushed, caotic, and almost violent. Eventhough I have read these passages before, I am still not finished digesting the material and I am unsure of it actual meaning. I did however notice English nationalism and hostility or unapproval of the French. I am not that knowledgable on the historical relationship between the two, so I am not certain why there is this negativity toward the French.

BLAST BLAST!

I hardly think I am the only one to have come away with this impression, but here it is:  I found Blast quite severely, even oppressively masculine, at least in a traditional, Burkian sense.  The intense heaviness of the text, the insistence on frequent capitalization for the sake of emphasis (there's a reason constant italicization is discouraged in most forms of writing), and the sharp, dark style of the artwork featured within all manifested a raw, powerful form that made me think over and over of Edmund Burke's treatise on aesthetics, where he describes the "sublime" as intensely masculine and the "beautiful" as feminine, and where the crags of a mountain are masculine and awe-inspiring, while the curves of a woman or a pastoral landscape are feminine and softly appealing.  This gendering of art is one that I have seen before, which resonates quite strongly and yet also oversteps the boundaries of offense.  The attitudes the magazine seems to take towards women are all rather condescending, yet in almost an affectionate way that is quite redolent of Burke.

Not only is the magazine quite blatantly sexist, albeit in a manner that considers itself protective and affectionate towards the "fair" sex, but it is absolutely pretentious.  It endeavors to tear down both the indolent wealthy and the pathetic poor, raising itself as something removed from both and superior in its removal, a sublime ascension from the muck of humanity.  It attempts to soften this message through, again, an air of affection and even something of the child's appreciation for its mother, but nevertheless speaks like the stereotype of a university student who turns up his nose at his less educated parents while claiming he appreciates them for bearing and supporting him in his studies.  I can hardly criticize those who derided it for discarding not only the bad but the good of the past—the journal sounds very much like a teenager who thinks himself brand-new, revolutionary, and uniquely burdened with glorious purpose.

BLESS all those who catch my references and my purpose for this post.

I know I am speaking in a rather emotional and less logical language about the journal at the moment, but I am quite keen on setting down exactly what I think about it before I settle for the class discussion.  In addition, I mean to make a point of how sensationalist, broad, and equally emotional the language of Blast seems to be. 

(I will, however, confess that the energy and passion of the 'zine does appeal to me, on a certain level, which it is certainly meant to do.)

My first thought reading through BLAST is "wow..." I mean the uniqueness of this magazine is what stands out most about this magazine. The way they used different fonts, the boldness, and the position of words in the maifesto section displays this uniqueness of this magazine. Before, I had read the introduction to BLAST, but I did not expect anything like this, which is why my reaction was the way it was. It is also interesting in this section how the writers bad talk the French, it would almsot seem like some of the influence to produce their magazine in this way may have come from the French. But it is understandable why they might give credit strictly to the English, they have may been creating a strong sense of nationalism with certain crisis' existing within the country and most likely elsewhere, not the war because that was still a month away but it doesnt mean there wasnt existing problems between certain countries.

The use of the manifesto text is a strong way to get a point across, the way it is written creates interest in what the writer is saying because it is written in such a different, uncommon way. But it also served a point as to way it was written. Before the war started, Im sure there were existing problems that existed and this was a way to create a sense of nationalism among the youth or anyone that read the magazine.

This was not the first time I had read through this edition of BLAST, but I think I got a lot more from it and found it to be even more intriguing this time around. I think part of that is because even though I went into it knowing what it was like and what to expect, it still surprised and shocked me. I believe something has to be pretty powerful for it to have that effect even when I had read it before. The first manifest is what shocked me the most. Its use of different font sizes, capitalization, spacing, and placement of the words around the page make it absolutely fascinating, and rather overwhelming to look at (seeing the magazing in the flipbook form made this even more true). I think this was the effect they were trying to create; this overwhelming and confusing, but also very intriguing feeling.

The words themselves were interesting too, not just their placement and size. As I read through it, I found myself reading faster and faster, and almost yelling in my head. Part of this most certainly had to do with the crazy formatting, but another part of his was the "violent rhetoric." When I started writing this I planned to include some examples, but reading through it, it is almost impossible because there are simply too many. In the very first one alone, nearly every word and phrase is violent and seems to be shouting off the paper, not just becuse of the boldness of the text. It says "BLAST" over and over again, as well as "CURSE." The third part to this manifesto especially felt very loud and overwhelming as I read it, and quite angry. I think this has a rather interesting effect because it forces me to read faster and faster, as I'm caught up in the text and language, and by the time I reach the end of the page, I'm almost exhausted from it... but at the same time unsure of what I actually read. I had to go back and reread often in order to understand it. It was like getting caught up in the words and emotions, without really taking in the content. I'm curious if this was a similar experience to those that read it at its time of publication. 

Even reading this for a second time, I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. However, I find the formatting of the text and the rhetoric to be extremely effective in making the reading of this magazine a very emotional experience. 

I do not think that the introduction to BLAST fully prepared me for what I was about to read. The manifesto was the section of the magazine that stuck out to me the most because it basically outlines all of the signers' opinions that they attempt to flesh out in the rest of the writings. I was most struck by the obvious nationalism in the manifesto, specifically the general idea that English culture was more elevated than those of France or the US. I thought that a group of people who so highly valued artistic creation would have given some merit to France, especially considering that French artists were less limited in their subject matter than English artists because they were not as heavily influenced by the Victorian period and the resulting cultural beliefs, which is something that the manifesto condemns.

I could not tell if the boastfullness of the signers regarding the superiority of England was satirical or serious, but it reminded me of our discussion of nationalism last week in regards to race. The anti-French and anti-American sentiments expressed in the manifesto is reminscent of many of the cultural tensions that led to the War in the first place. This manifesto is interesting because, while so childish and angsty in its condemnations, it sort of neatly sums up many of the jealous/childish/irrational tensions that Europe was facing at the onset of the War.

Blast initially seemed to me to resemble the whiny complaints of a petulant child.  After spending years of my life reading the introduction to the magazine, I was not surprised to be instantly confronted with examples of hatred towards the Futurists, and at first I was wary of reading on.  However, I now find myself impressed by the skill with which the writers of the magazines succeeded in leveling society through equality of flaw.   The Futurists are certainly despised, but then so are the fiendishly coquettish women the magazine ostensibly praises, all Englishmen, Frenchmen, the King, and the Pope through mention in the Manifesto, great artists like James Joyce (whose name is ostensibly placed next to castor oil in the blessings), and even the signers of the manifesto themselves, whose arrogance and ego is despised naturally through their assumption that they alone are perfect.  I now believe this was an intentional method of the Vorticists which they utlized in an attempt to perhaps similarly achieve a level of emotion in each of their readers, no matter their identities.  By making everyone offensive, they join society in an attitude of violent ire, opening their hearts to the impact of their ideas in the process.

Reading BLAST for the first time, I was shocked but also very confused. I felt like I had just read the confusing rantings of a group of emotional teenagers. I had to step back, think about what I had read, and then, in order to make sense of the angry and purposefully dense rhetoric, I worked to place this magazine within its time period. Once I thought about the fact that this magazine was published in 1914, I realized that Blast feels like an angry and cynical response which one might find in any transitional period, in this case, between the Victorian time period and a modern time period. The writers felt they had to shock people out of a stagnated lull in societal consciousness. They saw conformity, stagnation, and a lack of artistic growth. The words within Blast were intended to wake the more socially conscious out of some Victorian trance.

This made me think about other transitional time periods, like the transition between 1950’s conformist ideals in America and the more shocking views that came about in the 1960’s. During any transitional period like this, we see a group of subversive people trying to upset the social mores of the time. To do so, they have to be shocking, confusing, and perhaps overly ambitious. Sadly, this magazine was intended to be a quarterly publication, but it only survived two issues. This tells me the writers lost focus, funding, and / or audience. 

This is my second time reading this issue of BLAST magazine, and still one of the most interesting things I noticed was the unique use of capitalization, font sizes, and layout used in the Manifesto. These techniques really pull a reader along and I feel as though it is closer to a thought process or realistic manner of speaking than ordinary prose. The bolded capitalization especially creates a sense of strong emotional presence behind the words, and adds to the violent rhetoric, which was somewhat off-putting. Quite often, I felt as though I were being yelled at through the page. The unique spacing makes it seem as though the words confined to a single column are almost a side thought. This style helps these pages go much faster than the rest of the magazine, since each one is taken up with giant letters and occasionally with big empty spaces.

The unique presentation of the manifesto should have made the following text seem bland, but to me, it added to the rest of the text. It made me interested to see what the rest of the magazine had to say, and thus I paid more attention to the text following the Manifesto than I probably would have otherwise.

This is the second time I have read this particular issue of Blast, and I can say with all honesty that it is no less shocking and no less thought provoking than the first time I read it. What Wyndham Lewis created in Blast is equal parts intellectual and absurd. The visual orientation of the magazine is truly unique and perfectly captures the inception of a brave -- however, short lived --  artistic movement. The violent wording and varying font techniques act as a visual slap to the face and even now, almost 100 years later, I am stunned.

My favorite part of this magazine is definitely its manifesto. It contains the absolute core of vorticist ideals which present themselves unashamedly and without explanation. We stand for the Reality of the Present -- not for the sentimental Future, or the sacripant Past. WE NEED THE UNCONSCIOUSNESS OF HUMANITY - their stupidity, animalism and dreams. The only way Humanity can help artists is to remain independent and work unconsciously.

While a great deal of the statements made in the manifesto may (definitely) sound a little mental, I think what is so inspiring about the vorticist movement is the fact that Wyndham Lewis does not try to convert people to his way of thought traditionally -- instead, he states the mission of the vorticists unabashedly and never explains or apologizes for himself. The unreserved belief of purpose in Blast is rousing to say the least and although the movement was dead by 1920, the influence of Wyndham Lewis and this bizarrely weird publication can definitely be seen in the post-vorticist movements of Great Britain.

Sidenote: I really, really liked the flipbook versions of Blast.