have we done post-spectacular art yet, or?

are we just posting at times dis-satisfaction, grave as it may be, from the spectacularisation processes we are engulfed within?

Earlier today, I read somewhere, will have to look this up later, (typing now because this thing is stuck in my head!!) that so and so does X to, as the writer put it “spectacularise critique”.. I think it was in relation to 60 words crtic.. Will check..
Then it suddenly transpired to me – should have ions ago but here you go – that these little jokes and ironies and sarcastic openings and hypocritical stances we find in culture, when we point them out they way we do, eg that shows the redundancy, the pretence theatricality and bombasticness of it, that shows its smelttring swelling underbellies and the seemingly invincible invisible is visibly naked – when we do that, we spectacularise as well.. We are still within the spectacle language even when we rail against it, possibly as way to “ensure” we are heard.. Are you listening to unspectalurised content?

Content/meaning/stuff that is endorsed by many rather than few? That seems to be clever and sophisticatedly put? Meaning you understand, perhaps even agree, meaning that strokes your feel-good elements? Stuff that leaves a mark which transcends beyond its mere materiality? The walk in town was not “just a walk” it transformed the urban landscape.. 😉

UPDAT3
—–>

Found the text that prompted me to think/propose/suppose/wonder the above.. Its from a Charlotte Frost post on [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING], titled:
Post digital art criticism: Lori Waxman’s 60wrd/min art critic.

the interaction goes:
CF: I love the way 60wrd/min makes a spectacle of criticism and draws
attention to the ways it’s changing in the digital age. Was the acceleration
of art writing the specific impetus behind the project?

LW>>In part, yes, though I would say more generally that it is the
acceleration of everything‹more art, made faster, digested faster, alongside
just about everything else in our prolific visual culture‹that really
prompted the project. But also it was the opaque nature of art criticism, of
how mysterious and absent the critic always seems to be. What would happen,
I wondered, if the critic was made available and criticism was made
transparent.