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: meta

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 at 10:36 PM. You can skip to the end and leave a response.