Manifestos: Nuts and Bolts

The Manifesto Exhibition Series (Part Two, over a period of time)

The Manifesto series has been on hold. Actually, I had these two posts written, and was waiting to finish the others, but they are looking slow in coming, because this is how a blog works. So rather than hold them back, here they are. The rest to follow as they will.

In the first half of the Manifesto Exhibition, we looked at a variety of manifestos, but mostly from a wholistic angle. That is to say: with my choices and my comments, I sought to direct attention towards how the overall document might be perceived in relation to its motivations, its author(s), and any goals it may have.

For the second half I'm picking a different set of manifestos, which on the whole are not very different in form. There are many manifestos: angry, theoretical, semi-serious, or completely ironic (or not?) With each selection I wish to highlight one of the more literary aspects of the example. Not a quintessential trait of manifestos precisely, but something specific that gives the piece its particular character within the genre of manifestos. What works in one does not work in another, necessarily, and what strikes a tone in a certain essay may be used for opposite effect by others.

We'll get into the specifics as we progress, of course. But, the main point I want to draw as I round out our series is that is authorship, thesis, and intent are not the only important features in a manifesto. Each one is a piece of literature in its own place, and therefore there are literary elements and idiosyncrasies that carry it through. One might appreciate these pieces of writing not only by way of the author(s) and his/her/their ideas, but also in the way they proceeded when embarking on the road that drove them to put pen to paper (as it may or may not be), and what caused them to head towards that monolith: manifesto.