www.crikey.com.au
Immediacy and the race to be first on the internet is killing quality music criticism (and journalism) stone dead, writes Everett True.
Showing posts with label Death Of The Critic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Death Of The Critic. Show all posts
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
death of the critic (reprise)
There are some really excellent arguments around the whole 'death of the critic' argument (particularly when applied to web 2.0 and what some commentators are calling 'the death of print') posted right here. The blog comments are equally as incisive.
P.S. Equally, much of the most interesting stuff on this blog is contained within the comments.
P.S. Equally, much of the most interesting stuff on this blog is contained within the comments.
Monday, May 25, 2009
"everyone a critic"
There's a post on the Plan B forum, made by the magazine's publisher Frances Morgan, that I want to reprint. I agree with an enormous amount of what she has to say here. (I've also reprinted the posting on my other blog, because I think it's directly relevant to both. It continues a conversation that we were having when we first discussed the possibility of Plan B shutting.)
Quote:
Quick question - any chance of the mag continuing in on-line form, a la Pfork, The Quietus or Good.is?
I just wanted to answer this question. For me, the answer is no. This is not to slight the sterling work of the above websites, because they're great examples of how web publishing can work. However, I feel very committed to print as a medium. There are many reasons for this, a lot of which can be picked apart and thrown aside as luddite, fetishistic, elitist, or just plain old-fashioned, and you're welcome to do so...but it's a commitment that I can't switch off just because making this particular print product is no longer viable.
It is not that I'm decrying the web for making "everyone a critic". I don't think the web has killed criticism, not at all. It's not that I am bemoaning the loss of "authority" of the critic - fuck authority, it's that which has kept music criticism entrenched in such narrow gender, race and class strictures for so long (and I'd argue, actually, that the web has done less than it should to change this, but the potential is there for sure). I like a plurality of voices, wherever it occurs, although I do think that plurality often results in a lack of space to think and consider and to reflect; it seems to have generated this need for a quick response, an instant appraisal or commentary.
One thing I like about print criticism is that there is an unavoidable temporal gap between writing and print. This may not suit everyone, but I think it suits me and it suits the music I am interested in, and actually it probably suits most music. I do sometimes wonder if there is more of a connection between the music that gets reviewed and the style of reviewing than we actually acknowledge. Bit of unformulated thought, that, but I'd like to ponder it a little.
Although it might not always seem like it, we do edit things at Plan B. If you've written something for us, it will go through a few hands and past a few pairs of eyes before it appears on the page. If there's time, we ask for rewrites and clarification. I like to have a little shout at everyone about punctuation. We have to stick to certain word lengths. I'm not saying web editors don't do this too, but often more content is required at a greater speed. Put simply, it's just different, and while I'd certainly work for online publications as a freelance writer, there's no way I'd have busted my ass for five years on a very, very low wage to set up and maintain a web magazine. That's not to say one shouldn't, or that others at Plan B won't. But it's not for me. It never has been.
The other big factor is the visual side of Plan B, which is so important to us. The web - and again, this is my opinion - is not the right place for all those amazing photos and illustrations and layouts that go into making up an issue of Plan B. They belong on paper, decent paper at that. Photographers deserve good post-production work (which Cat and Sarah should be enormously praised for); illustrators deserve to have similar care taken with their work (ditto Andrew).
Those are my thoughts on the matter at this point - they're not representative of Plan B as a whole. We are talking about archiving back issues online, because I think they're a great resource for everyone.
Quote:
Quick question - any chance of the mag continuing in on-line form, a la Pfork, The Quietus or Good.is?
I just wanted to answer this question. For me, the answer is no. This is not to slight the sterling work of the above websites, because they're great examples of how web publishing can work. However, I feel very committed to print as a medium. There are many reasons for this, a lot of which can be picked apart and thrown aside as luddite, fetishistic, elitist, or just plain old-fashioned, and you're welcome to do so...but it's a commitment that I can't switch off just because making this particular print product is no longer viable.
It is not that I'm decrying the web for making "everyone a critic". I don't think the web has killed criticism, not at all. It's not that I am bemoaning the loss of "authority" of the critic - fuck authority, it's that which has kept music criticism entrenched in such narrow gender, race and class strictures for so long (and I'd argue, actually, that the web has done less than it should to change this, but the potential is there for sure). I like a plurality of voices, wherever it occurs, although I do think that plurality often results in a lack of space to think and consider and to reflect; it seems to have generated this need for a quick response, an instant appraisal or commentary.
One thing I like about print criticism is that there is an unavoidable temporal gap between writing and print. This may not suit everyone, but I think it suits me and it suits the music I am interested in, and actually it probably suits most music. I do sometimes wonder if there is more of a connection between the music that gets reviewed and the style of reviewing than we actually acknowledge. Bit of unformulated thought, that, but I'd like to ponder it a little.
Although it might not always seem like it, we do edit things at Plan B. If you've written something for us, it will go through a few hands and past a few pairs of eyes before it appears on the page. If there's time, we ask for rewrites and clarification. I like to have a little shout at everyone about punctuation. We have to stick to certain word lengths. I'm not saying web editors don't do this too, but often more content is required at a greater speed. Put simply, it's just different, and while I'd certainly work for online publications as a freelance writer, there's no way I'd have busted my ass for five years on a very, very low wage to set up and maintain a web magazine. That's not to say one shouldn't, or that others at Plan B won't. But it's not for me. It never has been.
The other big factor is the visual side of Plan B, which is so important to us. The web - and again, this is my opinion - is not the right place for all those amazing photos and illustrations and layouts that go into making up an issue of Plan B. They belong on paper, decent paper at that. Photographers deserve good post-production work (which Cat and Sarah should be enormously praised for); illustrators deserve to have similar care taken with their work (ditto Andrew).
Those are my thoughts on the matter at this point - they're not representative of Plan B as a whole. We are talking about archiving back issues online, because I think they're a great resource for everyone.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
tightrope walking
Just to make this explicit...
I do not think the "slow death of Everett True" has anything to do with the babble of voices in hyperspace. That is down to other (outside) factors (e.g. I am now a postgraduate student, a dad, a Queenslander - none of which seem to be particularly conducive to being a critic). There are plenty of platforms where "Everett True" could exist right now and continue to exert influence, if he chose to do so. Indeed, one could argue that the opportunities for Everett True to be Everett True to be a tightrope walker, performing for those impressed by such feats of dexterity, have increased exponentially since the advent of web 2.0. Are they devalued because the opportunities for Sam Citizen Critic to be Sam Citizen Critic have equally increased? I don't think so. The playing fields haven't been levelled, not at all. That's simply wishful thinking.
Here's a quote for today: "For all the supposed emancipation implicit in the pronouncement 'we're all critics now', the loss of critical authority...diminishes the agency and choice of the reader. It plays into the hands of the monopolies who pedal fewer and fewer choices and whose primary interest is always the bottom line." (McDonald, Ronan, The Death Of The Critic, 2007, Continuum Books)
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The slow death of Everett True
More (edited) stuff from Twitter last night. The babble of voices is meant to reflect the...well...babble of voices. I love Andrew's 140-character answer to why writing (criticism) is important: "Because it is the dominant way of recording history. Because it influences other people. Because it conveys your beliefs."
everetttrue c'mon, c'mon...anyone know of any music criticism that ISN'T rooted in Bourdieu's theories of cultural capitalism?
niteshok@everetttrue Yeah: How To Be A Live Music Critic
louispattison@everetttrue Semi on-topic but have you read Carl Wilson's Celine Dion book in the 33 1/3 series? V v good.
everetttrue anyone in Brisbane got a dog-eared copy of (Paul Morley’s) Ask they’d care to loan me? Doesn't have to have canine characteristics, of course
everetttrue 1) can a music critic exist without an audience? 2) Is a music critic defined by their audience? 3) Does the term 'music critic' automatically confer authority? Is this down to (misplaced) notions of autonomy? 4) Is an audience defined by their music critic?
aramadge@everetttrue 1) Yes. 2) No. 3) I owe you a beer.
angusbatey@everetttrue 1) Yes 2) No 3) No (but if it did, then yes to part two) 4) I should hope not, but they should be informed and perhaps guided.
kicking__k@everetttrue 1) Depends on whether they feel the need to feedback or share their opinion, but they're only a critic if they're critiquing.
everetttrue yeah but, 1) a tightrope walker is a tightrope walker, is physically quantifiable. is it simply down to the statement, "I am a music critic"?
angusbatey@everetttrue If you listen to music - really properly listen - and think about it, and react or form an opinion, then you're a music critic. I don’t think it’s about writing or anything like that - it's about the nature of your relationship to music.
kicking__k@everetttrue 2) Some aspire to lead, others to follow (much modern music press claims to do former while secretly aiming more at the latter)
everetttrue so music criticism is performance. wait a sec...there's a fellow up here who argued that a couple of years back: Marc Brennan's his name...
aramadge@everetttrue What? Writing something produces a more tangible outcome than walking 10m on a piece of string, audience or not.
kicking__k@everetttrue 1) I'd say more institutional/culturewide recognition, like the value conferred by being in print, as opposed to blogging.
angusbatey@everetttrue Not performance as such - more about being an engaged participant rather than passive recipient in the music/listener exchange.
everetttrue@angusbatey but isn't the difference between opinion and criticism a) being informed and...um...isn't that the difference? most critics are passive, however. n'owt to do with feminism.
aramadge@everetttrue How could he or she possibly speak for the reaction of all potential listeners? Engages with the music’s effect on the critic.
everetttrue@kicking__k isn't recognition via blogging culturewide these days? c.f. citizen journalism
angusbatey@everetttrue The acquisition of information is a function of level of engagement. You only learn about it if you care.
everetttrue but most (rock etc) music criticism engages with the music's effect on an audience, not the actual music itself
kicking__k@everetttrue 1) If a music critic belongs to the media (i.e. 'in the middle'), s/he's always dependent on having subject + audience.
angusbatey@everetttrue I think the act of criticism is inherently interrogatory so cannot be entirely passive, even if it has no impact on the art/ist
everetttrue@angusbatey what if it has no impact on its audience?
everetttrue@aramadge agreed. i'm just referring to the fact that surely a critic is writing with an audience in mind, even if it's just themselves. re: piece of string analogy. surely, that's for the audience to decide?
angusbatey@everetttrue You can only hope for impact. You'd still write it, it's not defined by its reception. This is getting very tree/forest/sound.
aramadge@everetttrue RE: string...You were talking about how it's “physically quantifiable”. The piece of writing more quantifiable than the walk.
angusbatey@everetttrue Also, define "audience". The most important audience may be yourself - your criticism may impact on future thoughts.
everetttrue Ziggy Stardust does not exist without an audience. Neither does Everett True. Or am I only talking about one strain of rock star/rock critic?
angusbatey@everetttrue BTW, didn’t mean "This is getting very tree/forest/sound" to sound so potentially impatient - just a trun(k)cated observation.
niteshok@everetttrue "If you're not writing to be memorable, then why the fuck are you writing?", right?
angusbatey@everetttrue Ziggy still had to learn to play gtr. He wouldn't do that in front of an audience. Did he exist while honing craft? I'd say
aramadge@everetttrue But even if both only have one audience, themselves, then both exist.
angusbatey@everetttrue indubitably yes. So ET is still ET if all his Twitterfollowers are asleep and they never see his words of wisdom. You don't stop being a rock star/critic just cos other people forget to pay attention. Ask Anvil!
everetttrue@aramadge so what does differentiate criticism from opinion, esp in the context of web 2.0?
everetttrue@angusbatey i've got bugger all Twitterfollowers. give me MySpace anyday! 15-yr-old goths + lonely h-wives! I was Book of The Week there, y’know...
kicking__k@everetttrue Some, but atypically. I think most bloggers are less about opinion or debate than they are the act of distributing.
aramadge@niteshok@everetttrue "Writing to be memorable" sounds like a load of shit. What about writing because it’s important? Polemic.
aramadge@everetttrue Did anything ever differentiate the two? If it did, it wasn't a printing press or a publishing model. It was in the writing.
angusbatey@everetttrue Myspace scares me. Facebook too. I thought I'd hate this but like it a lot.
everetttrue@aramadge i thought it was (partly) the platform. People treat you differently, depending where you're from. Take that Guardian blog furore...no one cared about the fact I'd had a go at the Australian music press cos I was Everett True. It was all because it was "The Guardian" - that's what conveyed the notion of authenticity. You could argue that it took me years to get to the position where I could represent "The Guardian" but I think that's irrelevant. Anyone can represent "The Guardian"
everetttrue@aramadge what is 'important'? depends on yr approach as a critic. there is more than one.
everetttrue@kicking__k another means of spreading 'the word'...?
niteshok@aramadge Why is writing important, though?
everetttrue At QUT, Journalism studies (partly) argues that it's not about the platform but the writing...sorry, i think that's being deliberately naive
aramadge@everetttrue If you'd been writing for The Times it would have been just as big. It was "Everett True" and not "The Guardian".
aramadge@everetttrue Yes, what is important may depend on the writer. But I believe it is a better inspiration than fame.
aramadge@niteshok Whoa! Why is it important? Honestly, I have no idea how to put an answer into 140 chars. But I will think of a way to.
everetttrue@aramadge I really don't want to disagree with you, but I have to. I'm simply not that well-known. Not here in Australia. And not in the UK, either.
kicking__k@everetttrue The writing affects how it's processed - one expects a blog to be informal, and print to be learned - often the best in either field plays with that expectation.
aramadge@niteshok Because it is the dominant way of recording history. Because it influences other people. Because it conveys your beliefs.
everetttrue@aramadge i think we're talking about the same thing here. writing to be memorable = writing about what's important. it's not about fame.
aramadge@everetttrue The original journo must have known. After that, "Everett True" became "legendary British critic" and it turned into drama.
aramadge@everetttrue I suppose, but it doesn't go both ways. I can think of many memorable idiots. Then again, perhaps they are important too?
angusbatey@everetttrue It's not about the platform *or* the writing - it's about the engagement with the subject, the intellectual process.
everetttrue@aramadge It was the Courier-Mail. It was an easy hook. I'm nowhere near as famous as I'm given credit for. It used to be flattering but...(shrugs)
everetttrue wait. i am getting so confused holding down...what...five different conversations at once.
aramadge@everetttrue Anyway we're getting off topic. Back to opinion vs criticism. Re: deciding by platform, wasn't that always bullshit anyway?
everetttrue@aramadge not totally. the platform confers authority, a crucial part of the critic's role.
aramadge@everetttrue I mean, a certain tabloid critic may have published more critical writing than their broadsheet counterpart.
everetttrue@aramadge what i mean is...in the babble of voices that is web 2.0, how is one more voice - however well-informed and succinctly argued - going to stand out?
aramadge@everetttrue Perhaps all today's situation means is that the critic has to earn their own authority rather than rely on the masthead.
everetttrue@aramadge without authority, who is going to afford the critic the necessary power to fill their role?
aramadge@everetttrue A fair point, however a good writer will find their way to the story by circumventing the powers that demand said authority.
everetttrue@aramadge agreed. and that'd be nice but i don't see it happening. i really don't. you could argue 'Pitchfork' but...i have issues with that...but of course i'm arguing from a blinkered perspective. i once had authority. i no longer have authority. Hence i feel embittered by the situation and it colours my judgment. i try not to let it.
aramadge@everetttrue What are your issues with Pitchfork? Certainly, it's not perfect. But nor is it the only example of web criticism.
everetttrue@aramadge because they're up their own arse, and don't attempt to engage with the world outside their own narrow worldviews. and it’s not even their own arse, it's Simon Reynolds' - and much as I like Simon, I do not want to be up his bottom.
aramadge@everetttrue Couldn't that be said of a lot of music criticism via traditional publishing as well, though? I think it could.
aramadge@everetttrue Why do you believe you no longer have authority? Do you really think a multitude of voices has killed "Everett True"?
everetttrue@aramadge the title of my PhD thesis is precisely that. (straight up!) i'm not sad about it - more intrigued. actually, it's more down to the fact i refuse to stay put, and keep uprooting myself just when all seems to be settled.
aramadge@everetttrue RE: Simon Reynolds and his arse... That is something we can both emphatically agree upon. :)
everetttrue c'mon, c'mon...anyone know of any music criticism that ISN'T rooted in Bourdieu's theories of cultural capitalism?
niteshok@everetttrue Yeah: How To Be A Live Music Critic
louispattison@everetttrue Semi on-topic but have you read Carl Wilson's Celine Dion book in the 33 1/3 series? V v good.
everetttrue anyone in Brisbane got a dog-eared copy of (Paul Morley’s) Ask they’d care to loan me? Doesn't have to have canine characteristics, of course
everetttrue 1) can a music critic exist without an audience? 2) Is a music critic defined by their audience? 3) Does the term 'music critic' automatically confer authority? Is this down to (misplaced) notions of autonomy? 4) Is an audience defined by their music critic?
aramadge@everetttrue 1) Yes. 2) No. 3) I owe you a beer.
angusbatey@everetttrue 1) Yes 2) No 3) No (but if it did, then yes to part two) 4) I should hope not, but they should be informed and perhaps guided.
kicking__k@everetttrue 1) Depends on whether they feel the need to feedback or share their opinion, but they're only a critic if they're critiquing.
everetttrue yeah but, 1) a tightrope walker is a tightrope walker, is physically quantifiable. is it simply down to the statement, "I am a music critic"?
angusbatey@everetttrue If you listen to music - really properly listen - and think about it, and react or form an opinion, then you're a music critic. I don’t think it’s about writing or anything like that - it's about the nature of your relationship to music.
kicking__k@everetttrue 2) Some aspire to lead, others to follow (much modern music press claims to do former while secretly aiming more at the latter)
everetttrue so music criticism is performance. wait a sec...there's a fellow up here who argued that a couple of years back: Marc Brennan's his name...
aramadge@everetttrue What? Writing something produces a more tangible outcome than walking 10m on a piece of string, audience or not.
kicking__k@everetttrue 1) I'd say more institutional/culturewide recognition, like the value conferred by being in print, as opposed to blogging.
angusbatey@everetttrue Not performance as such - more about being an engaged participant rather than passive recipient in the music/listener exchange.
everetttrue@angusbatey but isn't the difference between opinion and criticism a) being informed and...um...isn't that the difference? most critics are passive, however. n'owt to do with feminism.
aramadge@everetttrue How could he or she possibly speak for the reaction of all potential listeners? Engages with the music’s effect on the critic.
everetttrue@kicking__k isn't recognition via blogging culturewide these days? c.f. citizen journalism
angusbatey@everetttrue The acquisition of information is a function of level of engagement. You only learn about it if you care.
everetttrue but most (rock etc) music criticism engages with the music's effect on an audience, not the actual music itself
kicking__k@everetttrue 1) If a music critic belongs to the media (i.e. 'in the middle'), s/he's always dependent on having subject + audience.
angusbatey@everetttrue I think the act of criticism is inherently interrogatory so cannot be entirely passive, even if it has no impact on the art/ist
everetttrue@angusbatey what if it has no impact on its audience?
everetttrue@aramadge agreed. i'm just referring to the fact that surely a critic is writing with an audience in mind, even if it's just themselves. re: piece of string analogy. surely, that's for the audience to decide?
angusbatey@everetttrue You can only hope for impact. You'd still write it, it's not defined by its reception. This is getting very tree/forest/sound.
aramadge@everetttrue RE: string...You were talking about how it's “physically quantifiable”. The piece of writing more quantifiable than the walk.
angusbatey@everetttrue Also, define "audience". The most important audience may be yourself - your criticism may impact on future thoughts.
everetttrue Ziggy Stardust does not exist without an audience. Neither does Everett True. Or am I only talking about one strain of rock star/rock critic?
angusbatey@everetttrue BTW, didn’t mean "This is getting very tree/forest/sound" to sound so potentially impatient - just a trun(k)cated observation.
niteshok@everetttrue "If you're not writing to be memorable, then why the fuck are you writing?", right?
angusbatey@everetttrue Ziggy still had to learn to play gtr. He wouldn't do that in front of an audience. Did he exist while honing craft? I'd say
aramadge@everetttrue But even if both only have one audience, themselves, then both exist.
angusbatey@everetttrue indubitably yes. So ET is still ET if all his Twitterfollowers are asleep and they never see his words of wisdom. You don't stop being a rock star/critic just cos other people forget to pay attention. Ask Anvil!
everetttrue@aramadge so what does differentiate criticism from opinion, esp in the context of web 2.0?
everetttrue@angusbatey i've got bugger all Twitterfollowers. give me MySpace anyday! 15-yr-old goths + lonely h-wives! I was Book of The Week there, y’know...
kicking__k@everetttrue Some, but atypically. I think most bloggers are less about opinion or debate than they are the act of distributing.
aramadge@niteshok@everetttrue "Writing to be memorable" sounds like a load of shit. What about writing because it’s important? Polemic.
aramadge@everetttrue Did anything ever differentiate the two? If it did, it wasn't a printing press or a publishing model. It was in the writing.
angusbatey@everetttrue Myspace scares me. Facebook too. I thought I'd hate this but like it a lot.
everetttrue@aramadge i thought it was (partly) the platform. People treat you differently, depending where you're from. Take that Guardian blog furore...no one cared about the fact I'd had a go at the Australian music press cos I was Everett True. It was all because it was "The Guardian" - that's what conveyed the notion of authenticity. You could argue that it took me years to get to the position where I could represent "The Guardian" but I think that's irrelevant. Anyone can represent "The Guardian"
everetttrue@aramadge what is 'important'? depends on yr approach as a critic. there is more than one.
everetttrue@kicking__k another means of spreading 'the word'...?
niteshok@aramadge Why is writing important, though?
everetttrue At QUT, Journalism studies (partly) argues that it's not about the platform but the writing...sorry, i think that's being deliberately naive
aramadge@everetttrue If you'd been writing for The Times it would have been just as big. It was "Everett True" and not "The Guardian".
aramadge@everetttrue Yes, what is important may depend on the writer. But I believe it is a better inspiration than fame.
aramadge@niteshok Whoa! Why is it important? Honestly, I have no idea how to put an answer into 140 chars. But I will think of a way to.
everetttrue@aramadge I really don't want to disagree with you, but I have to. I'm simply not that well-known. Not here in Australia. And not in the UK, either.
kicking__k@everetttrue The writing affects how it's processed - one expects a blog to be informal, and print to be learned - often the best in either field plays with that expectation.
aramadge@niteshok Because it is the dominant way of recording history. Because it influences other people. Because it conveys your beliefs.
everetttrue@aramadge i think we're talking about the same thing here. writing to be memorable = writing about what's important. it's not about fame.
aramadge@everetttrue The original journo must have known. After that, "Everett True" became "legendary British critic" and it turned into drama.
aramadge@everetttrue I suppose, but it doesn't go both ways. I can think of many memorable idiots. Then again, perhaps they are important too?
angusbatey@everetttrue It's not about the platform *or* the writing - it's about the engagement with the subject, the intellectual process.
everetttrue@aramadge It was the Courier-Mail. It was an easy hook. I'm nowhere near as famous as I'm given credit for. It used to be flattering but...(shrugs)
everetttrue wait. i am getting so confused holding down...what...five different conversations at once.
aramadge@everetttrue Anyway we're getting off topic. Back to opinion vs criticism. Re: deciding by platform, wasn't that always bullshit anyway?
everetttrue@aramadge not totally. the platform confers authority, a crucial part of the critic's role.
aramadge@everetttrue I mean, a certain tabloid critic may have published more critical writing than their broadsheet counterpart.
everetttrue@aramadge what i mean is...in the babble of voices that is web 2.0, how is one more voice - however well-informed and succinctly argued - going to stand out?
aramadge@everetttrue Perhaps all today's situation means is that the critic has to earn their own authority rather than rely on the masthead.
everetttrue@aramadge without authority, who is going to afford the critic the necessary power to fill their role?
aramadge@everetttrue A fair point, however a good writer will find their way to the story by circumventing the powers that demand said authority.
everetttrue@aramadge agreed. and that'd be nice but i don't see it happening. i really don't. you could argue 'Pitchfork' but...i have issues with that...but of course i'm arguing from a blinkered perspective. i once had authority. i no longer have authority. Hence i feel embittered by the situation and it colours my judgment. i try not to let it.
aramadge@everetttrue What are your issues with Pitchfork? Certainly, it's not perfect. But nor is it the only example of web criticism.
everetttrue@aramadge because they're up their own arse, and don't attempt to engage with the world outside their own narrow worldviews. and it’s not even their own arse, it's Simon Reynolds' - and much as I like Simon, I do not want to be up his bottom.
aramadge@everetttrue Couldn't that be said of a lot of music criticism via traditional publishing as well, though? I think it could.
aramadge@everetttrue Why do you believe you no longer have authority? Do you really think a multitude of voices has killed "Everett True"?
everetttrue@aramadge the title of my PhD thesis is precisely that. (straight up!) i'm not sad about it - more intrigued. actually, it's more down to the fact i refuse to stay put, and keep uprooting myself just when all seems to be settled.
aramadge@everetttrue RE: Simon Reynolds and his arse... That is something we can both emphatically agree upon. :)
Thursday, March 26, 2009
ronan mcdonald
This man, he sometimes talks a lot of sense...
"The internet provides space for criticism and analysis of niche interests, which, because of space limitations, conventional publications do not. But this atomises cultural discussion, to the detriment of the wider public sphere. Those who want to join the arena for, say, performance poetry or the work of minor film-makers or installation artists may well be drawn to relevant websites, but this will disperse the arenas for debate and evaluation. Non-initiates are unlikely to stumble on the relevant sites, which may become, instead, hermetic discussion circles for those already won over to the cause. The danger, again, is that while everybody's interests are catered for, nobody's are challenged or expanded."
(p.15-16, "The Value Of Criticism", The Death of the Critic, McDonald, Ronan, Continuum, 2007)
Last night, following on from a lecture given by Gu Xin in Critical Enquiry Research (using her own model of cultural studies in the UK), we had a discussion about the fact that, although the 'opportunity' (and I use this word advisedly, because personally I believe this to be illusional) is now present for everyone to be equally creative, equal cultural entrepeneurs - clearly, not everyone is. Everyone has equal access to culture, according to some thinkers: but the over-supply of cultural goods causes homogenisation AND diversity. It's a bit like walking into your local Woolworth's or Cole's and railing at the lack of choice, despite the seemingly endless aisles. (Why don't you shop at the Saturday food markets, one masters student wanted to know. You try shopping at Saturday food markets with a three-year-old complaining every dragged step of the way, I retorted.)
The commercialisation of Western society has led academics to start equating creativity with profit, almost to the degree that art cannot be art unless it makes money. But wait! Who is deciding this? Who is funding the universities?
"The internet provides space for criticism and analysis of niche interests, which, because of space limitations, conventional publications do not. But this atomises cultural discussion, to the detriment of the wider public sphere. Those who want to join the arena for, say, performance poetry or the work of minor film-makers or installation artists may well be drawn to relevant websites, but this will disperse the arenas for debate and evaluation. Non-initiates are unlikely to stumble on the relevant sites, which may become, instead, hermetic discussion circles for those already won over to the cause. The danger, again, is that while everybody's interests are catered for, nobody's are challenged or expanded."
(p.15-16, "The Value Of Criticism", The Death of the Critic, McDonald, Ronan, Continuum, 2007)
Last night, following on from a lecture given by Gu Xin in Critical Enquiry Research (using her own model of cultural studies in the UK), we had a discussion about the fact that, although the 'opportunity' (and I use this word advisedly, because personally I believe this to be illusional) is now present for everyone to be equally creative, equal cultural entrepeneurs - clearly, not everyone is. Everyone has equal access to culture, according to some thinkers: but the over-supply of cultural goods causes homogenisation AND diversity. It's a bit like walking into your local Woolworth's or Cole's and railing at the lack of choice, despite the seemingly endless aisles. (Why don't you shop at the Saturday food markets, one masters student wanted to know. You try shopping at Saturday food markets with a three-year-old complaining every dragged step of the way, I retorted.)
The commercialisation of Western society has led academics to start equating creativity with profit, almost to the degree that art cannot be art unless it makes money. But wait! Who is deciding this? Who is funding the universities?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)