by Christopher Fulkerson

The Romantic concept of genius was essentially that of a visionary, who supposedly had no tactics or techniques, but whose aura and 'greatness' swept the competition away. It's success was thought to be demonstrated when its adherents could enjoy mature arts and adult emotions in a fulsome way, though not reliably in an entirely healthy way - Romance is prone to nihilism. One might for this reason doubt the adult maturity of this form of genius tobegin with. The error of this notion of genius was painfully evident by 1945, but most people still believe in it; it survives in popular culture, including spectator sports.

The more recent idea of genius is in practice based on a similar idea that the genius has no need for technique, but now he sweeps his competition away through sheer popularity. His success is deemed to be demonstrated when his adherents can enjoy juvenile self-confidence and tribal experiences in a chaotic way, without too much concern about their wholesomeness. There is no remnant of the sentiment of genuine Romance, except as a consumer product that is almost invariably prepackaged. (Little thought is given to the paradox that genius might be prepackaged.) Even women have little idea or genuine concern for sentimental Romance (which is the last remaining vestige of emotional and philosophical Romance) that is not in some way tied to consumerism. In other words, Romance is seldom more than sentimentalism. The error of the kind of genius who leads through sheer popularity has only begun to be realized by the masses, but some doubts are being raised in the tedium of the forums of popular opinion. The poor quality of popular music; the cynicism about sports; and overdone production values in cinema are beginning to seem pointless and shallow to some people. But in general there is insufficient concern about this. The permanent awe of great genius is seldom sought, rather the momentary success of popularity. In general, in American culture today, brilliance from an individual is resented.

I feel on the forefront of a new kind of genius, that of being, simply, correct. It is not a 'right-wing' thrill; it has little to do with Romantic ideas of the artist or thinker as prophet; it is more like being a scientist. In this I trust my genius not because it is visionary, like the beautiful hallucinations of Romantic genius, but because of the accuracy of my insight and the utility of carefully made and executed plans. I cannot claim my genius is demonstrated to the masses, or even something they are aware of, or looking for, but it is very often demonstrated in a personal, everyday way at the level of personal work and unpretentious understanding. (However, the lack of pretention does not mean that persons with high levels of insight and understanding are not sometimes very impressed indeed with what I can do.) Such success as my genius enjoys is in the accuracy of its moments of appropriateness and its brilliance on these occasions. My genius is not concerned to bring about surfeits of emotion of the Romantic sort, and so it does not risk nihilism. It is not calculated to create sudden brief popularity of the more recent sort, so it scarcely risks shallowness. I decry any notion that genius does not employ technique, and I study the many and varied techniques of geniuses of the past, using whatever seems appropriate to a situation. My success is not that understood by today's measures of success but it is actually quantifiable by the perceptible fact that experience of what I do, if coupled with competent understanding of it, results in a true positive change in the situation on my public, measured in ways that are real though often subtle. If you require a 180 degree paradigm shift to be impressed, I may provide the shift, or I may disappoint you. But if you can perceive a fifteen degree paradigm shift and extrapolate the rest yourself, you can find my work consistently effective and interesting.

That said, there are times I am in fact able to bring about complete paradigm changes in a person's understanding and perhaps even in their capability. But these are changes are effected by going deeper into the actual material under discussion, not by careless iconoclasm. I have created musical forms that render mathematics audible; critiques of philosophy and literature that make succinct and complete redefinition of the terms of the discourse; glimpses on ideas and realities of many kinds that show the great inaccuracy of the ideas - I might even say, the notions - of our time, as well as of previous times. Glimpses are a completely different and safer idiom that visions, and less intrusive and socially dangerous than tribal mass populism. But for these very reasons only a few people perceive the effects of my work. If this means my efforts are real, and not hallucinations, and on the borders of perception, treating the masses as cumbersome baggage, rather than necessary evidence of popularity, I already have reasons to trust my genius.

************

c Copyright 2011 by Christopher Fulkerson. All rights reserved.

First posted 3/15/2011

HOME

PRINCIPAL WORKS

LISTING BY NOMENCLATURE