Here's a lively exchange about the nature of reccomending art/music/movies to other people, and how conditional it should be, that leapfrogged from one blog to another (and now, I guess, to this one). I participated heavily in the Haloscan debate on the latter post, and I think I did a decent job of sorting out and expressing my position on the matter, but ultimately there wasn't much seeing eye to eye. It's still an interesting topic to me, though. More and more over time, I've arrived at the opinion that context is hugely important to art, and having an expectation of great art to transcend context is simply too idealistic to be practical. It can be tempting to think that everything that's worth appreciating has the same broad entry point and a need for precedent or explanation is a symptom of, I don't know, impurity or mediocrity (this ties into the suspicion that surrounds any artist whose biography is discussed as much as their art, which is understandable, but shouldn't always be regarded as a red flag). But I don't think there's anything wrong with framing one's praise or reccomendation in conditional terms -- not necessarily a direct "if you like this, you'll love this" equation, but understanding someone's taste means having a pretty good idea of what they'll be receptive to and what they won't let through the front door. And one of the things I try to do as a writer, especially when discussing something obscure or new, is to provide a context for the generalized reader, so that even if I can't predict their taste, I give them enough signifiers to let them figure out whether something's worth their time. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't reccomend everything I like, but if people wanna hear me out I am willing to explain what I like about it.

Labels:

« Home | Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »

having an expectation of great art to transcend context is simply too idealistic to be practical That's what it really boils down to, as Mr. Brown pointed out. I'm an idealist when it comes to this, because I can't see not being one. You and Zig and most other people are realists, or at least more realistic than I am. However, I'd say my idealism results from my relativistic or skeptical view of the world, which means I feel I can't know the truth better than anyone else (no matter how strongly I feel it; and those things can coexist). Therefore, I can't help but feel so-called "realism" or being practical in matters like this isn't any more valid than my idealistic approach. i.e., How do you know your method works better?
 
yeah, good question. I'm not sure that most people are realists, though...if I had to guess I'd say there are more idealists in the world, y'know? but then, this semester I took a Poli Sci class where the professor would always ask people to raise their hands in response to yes or no questions, and after the majority picked a particular answer, she'd say "you're all idealists for thinking that". so maybe that's warping my view a little right now.
 
See, I'd say most people _think_ they're realists. I'm not sure if that's really the case or not.
 
yeah, I was actually just thinking that after I posted. it's probably to your credit that you actually identify yourself as an idealist; maybe others are so far gone into idealism that they think their ideal is reality. or something like that.
 
Yeah, well, who's to say what reality is and all that stuff?
 
you just blew my mind. are we in the Matrix?
 
Post a Comment