Here we are again, somewhere in the middle of what I think of as the “AWARD” season. You known what I mean, don’t you? That time of year when there seems to be a never-ending round of broadcast “events” celebrating the awarding of various sorts of trophies/prizes to individuals, and/or groups, for having produced, or contributed in some way to, the “Best Something or Other” during the last year, or season. These programs (and the prizes that provide the reason for their existence) may be related to television, movies, theatre, musical recordings and/or videos, you name it. If there’s an excuse for an award, there’s probably an “AWARD SHOW” for it. There are even awards for opera and ballet, although I think they are less well known and not as well publicized. PLUS, there are awards for various types of literature, music, and, I’m sure, many other “artistic” things. I have to admit that I HATE the whole idea!
I will certainly admit that it is flattering to be recognized for having done good work, whatever your field of endeavor. AND, it is ESPECIALLY nice when such recognition comes from those who seem to be knowledgeable and experienced in the specific field. But I’ve noticed that such recognition generally ends up serving mostly commercial purposes, and, it has been said by many “award-winners” (especially performers), that receiving such awards can actually be detrimental to the “winner,” as producers/sponsors/patrons assume that an “award-winner” will now be substantially more expensive to hire for future projects, so they may be less likely to consider the “winner” for future employment. But, I confess that my dislike of these sorts of awards goes far beyond these simple, “commercial” aspects. I believe that the idea that any sort of artistic endeavor can be ranked as good, better, or best shows a basic lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of art.
“ART” CAN be tricky and complicated to define, of course. Wikipedia says;
I will certainly admit that it is flattering to be recognized for having done good work, whatever your field of endeavor. AND, it is ESPECIALLY nice when such recognition comes from those who seem to be knowledgeable and experienced in the specific field. But I’ve noticed that such recognition generally ends up serving mostly commercial purposes, and, it has been said by many “award-winners” (especially performers), that receiving such awards can actually be detrimental to the “winner,” as producers/sponsors/patrons assume that an “award-winner” will now be substantially more expensive to hire for future projects, so they may be less likely to consider the “winner” for future employment. But, I confess that my dislike of these sorts of awards goes far beyond these simple, “commercial” aspects. I believe that the idea that any sort of artistic endeavor can be ranked as good, better, or best shows a basic lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of art.
“ART” CAN be tricky and complicated to define, of course. Wikipedia says;
There is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art, and its interpretation has varied greatly throughout history and across cultures. In the Western tradition, the three classical branches of visual art are painting, sculpture, and architecture. Theatre, dance, and other performing arts, as well as literature, music, film and other media, such as interactive media, are included in a broader definition of "the arts.”
I, however, think that this “definition” avoids dealing with the question as to what “ART” actually IS! Personally, I believe that Art is virtually anything which has been created with the intent of making one think, feel, react, emote, and that the term should, generally, be inclusive, not limited to some set of pre-established subjects, forms, etc. Something which doesn’t create an emotional response (a dictionary, a textbook, a scholarly paper, etc.) may be of value (and often is), but I don’t consider them to be art, as they are intended to provide information, not, at least usually, to cause a response! That’s what causes my frustration with most of the awards which I have seen presented on the sort of shows I mentioned earlier. I think they have little to no actual purpose except as advertising!
To try to be more specific; I think that a work of art is something which is created by a human mind for the purpose of stimulating a response in other humans. That response is most frequently, but not necessarily exclusively, emotional. Given this, it should be easy to accept that an “art object/experience” is unlikely to be equally effective, nor to create identical responses in/on everyone. In fact, I believe that it’s possible for one responder’s reaction to be quite different, even, completely opposite from another’s.
Thus, it seems to me that the concept of “best” is meaningless in relation to art since something which is powerfully moving to one individual may well have little, even no, effect on another. That, in no way, makes the created object less “artistic“ than one which has a powerful, and similar, impact on many people, it merely indicates that it, like all art, is subject to different interpretations, responses, reactions. Even if a work only attracts a small audience, that does not imply that it is less “good” than one which attracts a big one. That fact just indicates that it has a smaller, appreciative audience at the moment. Therefore, unless a work of art is to be judged solely by the size of the audience it attracts (its ability to sell tickets), the notion of “best” seems irrelevant, which makes “Best of” awards just advertising.
Of course, it could also be, at least in part, the fact that as I have found many (all?) of the Awards Shows I’ve viewed to be pretty poor theatre doesn’t do much to encourage my spending my time and energy to watch them. And I think that it’s too bad that the industries of the arts pay so much attention to the awards presented on those shows. I do understand that the creation of any sort of “Major Production” is expensive (and that museums, for example, can’t possibly provide viewing space for every, possible work) but I do wish that our (collective) experience didn’t have to rely so much on a few people’s opinions as to what they have judged to be the “best!” This gets me around to wanting to say something about my feelings relating to those curious creatures, the “critics.”
You see, while I believe that I have always tried to be sympathetic to those who may not have liked my work, and I was always pleased when people praised it, I don’t think that I made what might be called my “artistic choices” based on other people’s opinions as to what was the “correct” or “proper” interpretation or “meaning” of the play/production we were producing. I always strove to present MY personal interpretation as accurately as possible. I do admit that, as a designer, I did, on occasion, have to allow my preferred choices to be over-ridden by a director, because that’s the nature of theatre. And I have to confess that my choices may, at least at times, have been influenced by my reaction to the choices made by others, in movies, shows, or performances which I thought were particularly effective. However, I think I can say with reasonable honesty that I didn’t make my choices relating to whatever was my contribution to a production, BECAUSE someone else had made those choices. No, I think I made them because I believed that MY choice (which MIGHT be similar to theirs) would be most effective for the work.
During my academic training, I was taught to understand the term “criticism” to include the study of the underlying principles of the art, the “rules of the game,” so to speak. For example: criticism tells us that different types of poetry are composed along different sets of rules as to rhyme scheme, length of line, number of lines in a verse, etc.; that a play is written as dialogue and in acts; a painting is (usually) pigment applied to a (usually) flat surface, etc. These are definitely over-simplifications, but I don’t feel that this is the place to engage in a lengthy discussion of Aristotle’s Poetics, which is the classical work of criticism which I probably studied the most as a theatre student, though I do not claim to be an expert on this work.
This suggests that what is/was called criticism seems to have been derived from the notion that a work of “Art” was to be valued if/and/or because, it “followed the rules” established by the “ancients,” and the people who decided if it did so were the “critics.” That meant that, for all intents and purposes, THEY were the ones who decided if something was “correct” or not. And only the “correct” was considered acceptable in “proper” society for much of history. Now, my study of these ideas suggests that, while the “rules” may be less rigid today than they used to be, the notion of a critic today is still largely based on the concept that the critic is “the one who decides if something is good or not.”
On the other hand, I would suggest that, while basing such decisions on the Classical rules may have been (certainly was) acceptable for some time, it no longer seems to be the dominant thinking. The reliance on “rules” has lost popularity and MODERN “criticism” often seems to have just become the opinion of someone who is in a position to have his/her opinions published, OR by being a “social influencer.” Thus, they are able to convince others that their opinions are “of greater importance” than those of other people.
I would suggest that this view mostly relies on the belief in a centuries-old type of person who wants to fulfill his/her desire to be thought of as “superior,” or powerful, or a trend-setter. Now, in the old days, these folks tended to be hangers-on to various courts, royal families, etc., and their means of demonstrating their “superiority” was their adeptness in defining what the “COOL PEOPLE” were “supposed” to like. In my opinion, this was mostly a way for these “celebrities” to establish a sense of their "power,” while also serving to boost their egos within their social circle.
Unfortunately, this meant that they often had a significant influence as to the works which were considered to be “acceptable.” Anyone would who has seen the movie, or play, Amadeus, should understand this, as that work, in part, represents the conflict between the established, Classical-rules-based, “expert opinions” and emerging (and differing) notions of art. The older view, is, of course, represented mostly by Salieri, and his colleagues in this work. In it, there is a scene where, after hearing one of Mozart’s piano pieces, the Emperor (who is portrayed as having little musical talent or actual appreciation) suggests to Mozart that his latest work is a bit too “elaborate,” and might be improved by cutting some notes from the score. To which, Mozart says:
To try to be more specific; I think that a work of art is something which is created by a human mind for the purpose of stimulating a response in other humans. That response is most frequently, but not necessarily exclusively, emotional. Given this, it should be easy to accept that an “art object/experience” is unlikely to be equally effective, nor to create identical responses in/on everyone. In fact, I believe that it’s possible for one responder’s reaction to be quite different, even, completely opposite from another’s.
Thus, it seems to me that the concept of “best” is meaningless in relation to art since something which is powerfully moving to one individual may well have little, even no, effect on another. That, in no way, makes the created object less “artistic“ than one which has a powerful, and similar, impact on many people, it merely indicates that it, like all art, is subject to different interpretations, responses, reactions. Even if a work only attracts a small audience, that does not imply that it is less “good” than one which attracts a big one. That fact just indicates that it has a smaller, appreciative audience at the moment. Therefore, unless a work of art is to be judged solely by the size of the audience it attracts (its ability to sell tickets), the notion of “best” seems irrelevant, which makes “Best of” awards just advertising.
Of course, it could also be, at least in part, the fact that as I have found many (all?) of the Awards Shows I’ve viewed to be pretty poor theatre doesn’t do much to encourage my spending my time and energy to watch them. And I think that it’s too bad that the industries of the arts pay so much attention to the awards presented on those shows. I do understand that the creation of any sort of “Major Production” is expensive (and that museums, for example, can’t possibly provide viewing space for every, possible work) but I do wish that our (collective) experience didn’t have to rely so much on a few people’s opinions as to what they have judged to be the “best!” This gets me around to wanting to say something about my feelings relating to those curious creatures, the “critics.”
You see, while I believe that I have always tried to be sympathetic to those who may not have liked my work, and I was always pleased when people praised it, I don’t think that I made what might be called my “artistic choices” based on other people’s opinions as to what was the “correct” or “proper” interpretation or “meaning” of the play/production we were producing. I always strove to present MY personal interpretation as accurately as possible. I do admit that, as a designer, I did, on occasion, have to allow my preferred choices to be over-ridden by a director, because that’s the nature of theatre. And I have to confess that my choices may, at least at times, have been influenced by my reaction to the choices made by others, in movies, shows, or performances which I thought were particularly effective. However, I think I can say with reasonable honesty that I didn’t make my choices relating to whatever was my contribution to a production, BECAUSE someone else had made those choices. No, I think I made them because I believed that MY choice (which MIGHT be similar to theirs) would be most effective for the work.
During my academic training, I was taught to understand the term “criticism” to include the study of the underlying principles of the art, the “rules of the game,” so to speak. For example: criticism tells us that different types of poetry are composed along different sets of rules as to rhyme scheme, length of line, number of lines in a verse, etc.; that a play is written as dialogue and in acts; a painting is (usually) pigment applied to a (usually) flat surface, etc. These are definitely over-simplifications, but I don’t feel that this is the place to engage in a lengthy discussion of Aristotle’s Poetics, which is the classical work of criticism which I probably studied the most as a theatre student, though I do not claim to be an expert on this work.
This suggests that what is/was called criticism seems to have been derived from the notion that a work of “Art” was to be valued if/and/or because, it “followed the rules” established by the “ancients,” and the people who decided if it did so were the “critics.” That meant that, for all intents and purposes, THEY were the ones who decided if something was “correct” or not. And only the “correct” was considered acceptable in “proper” society for much of history. Now, my study of these ideas suggests that, while the “rules” may be less rigid today than they used to be, the notion of a critic today is still largely based on the concept that the critic is “the one who decides if something is good or not.”
On the other hand, I would suggest that, while basing such decisions on the Classical rules may have been (certainly was) acceptable for some time, it no longer seems to be the dominant thinking. The reliance on “rules” has lost popularity and MODERN “criticism” often seems to have just become the opinion of someone who is in a position to have his/her opinions published, OR by being a “social influencer.” Thus, they are able to convince others that their opinions are “of greater importance” than those of other people.
I would suggest that this view mostly relies on the belief in a centuries-old type of person who wants to fulfill his/her desire to be thought of as “superior,” or powerful, or a trend-setter. Now, in the old days, these folks tended to be hangers-on to various courts, royal families, etc., and their means of demonstrating their “superiority” was their adeptness in defining what the “COOL PEOPLE” were “supposed” to like. In my opinion, this was mostly a way for these “celebrities” to establish a sense of their "power,” while also serving to boost their egos within their social circle.
Unfortunately, this meant that they often had a significant influence as to the works which were considered to be “acceptable.” Anyone would who has seen the movie, or play, Amadeus, should understand this, as that work, in part, represents the conflict between the established, Classical-rules-based, “expert opinions” and emerging (and differing) notions of art. The older view, is, of course, represented mostly by Salieri, and his colleagues in this work. In it, there is a scene where, after hearing one of Mozart’s piano pieces, the Emperor (who is portrayed as having little musical talent or actual appreciation) suggests to Mozart that his latest work is a bit too “elaborate,” and might be improved by cutting some notes from the score. To which, Mozart says:
MOZART: I don't understand. There are just as many notes, Majesty, as are required. Neither more nor less.
JOSEPH: My dear fellow, there are in fact only so many notes the ear can hear in the course of an evening. I think I'm right in saying that, aren't I, Court Composer?
SALIERI: Yes! yes! er, on the whole, yes, Majesty.
MOZART: (to Salieri) But this is absurd!
JOSEPH: My dear, young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Cut a few and it will be perfect.
At this point, Mozart asks: “Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?” Of course, the Emperor has no idea how to respond and becomes embarrassed, which pleases Salieri, as he is jealous of Mozart and wishes to encourage the Emperor to dislike him.
Historically, there is no reason to assume that this event is true, although I am told that Mozart DID tend to pay less than “proper” attention to the “proper” (Classically-defined) rules of musical composition. But, Shaffer was writing a play, which, eventually, became a movie. (ASIDE: Both won major awards!) While he, certainly, had some knowledge of the facts of Mozart and Salieri’s lives, there is no reason to assume that they were intended to be the focus of his piece. He was writing a play, not a history book! The notion that Salieri killed Mozart (which is central to Shaffer’s work) is said to be a myth which gained traction after the publication of Pushkin's 1830 play, Mozart and Salieri, which portrayed Salieri as a jealous rival. It seems to me that the actual facts probably are, largely, irrelevant to the response Shaffer was trying to create.
I believe it is also important to point out that most works of art don’t change after they are created, unless they are deliberately altered (as when a movie is re-edited to make time for broadcast ads). But, they do change over time as society’s customs change, and certainly any sort of performance-based art, (plays, operas, dance performances, musical performances, etc.) are going to vary with every production, even every performance. I would think it wise to consider the number of artists (of all sorts) whose works have been rejected as “low quality, hack work” for years, only for them (and their works) to be “Discovered” later, often after their deaths. I would even go so far as to suggest that the personality and circumstances of a reader can be said to change a work of literature, as, of course, changes in society do. Hence re-encountering a work, after a period of time, may not be a bad thing.
On this basis, I would suggest that modern “critics” mostly serve as “influencers” who can provide some assistance as to how one could spend one’s time and/or money, but all they actually do is state their opinions, which may, or may not, be of any particular value to anyone. I suspect that most of my former students would agree that it is easy to know that I am quite fond of Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet. I taught it in my Dramatic Lit. classes and was involved in 2 productions of it at Western Carolina. Then, I’ve seen 3 other live productions, I believe, and I own 9 different video versions. And I like them all.
However, THEY ARE/WERE NOT the same. Each, in my estimation, is/was a legitimate version of the play, but, obviously, each one is/was unique in both what I consider to be its good points as well as in those which disappointed me. More than one of those videos are of productions which won awards either as movies or in the theatre. So, WHICH ONE IS BEST? I have no response, except to argue that the concept of BEST is, essentially, meaningless!
I believe that the same points can be made about musical performances (live or recorded), especially when the performer(s) change. Literary works (which may be published on a single page, or presented as hard-cover books, paperbacks, audiobooks, or e-books) also change depending on the publishing format, as I believe that the “experience” of the reader/hearer changes. Visual art, (paintings or sculptures) change depending on where and how one encounters them. And so on.
Back in my youth, I was a big fan of what we then called “folk” music. At that time, one of the most popular songwriter/performers, was a guy named Bob Dylan. I loved many of his songs, but I never really enjoyed his performances of that material. He always sounded to me like a Jewish kid from Minnesota who was trying to sound like Woody Guthrie (which, I would suggest, is what he was doing). However, I was quite fond of many other people’s performances of those, same, songs.
My point here, I suppose is that if you choose to believe that you need someone else to tell you what is good and what isn’t, go ahead, pick your “influencer” (whether they are a famous, published, expert CRITIC, or not) and be happy with substituting THEIR opinion for your own. I’d suggest that the only thing that awards really mean is that some person, or group, has decided that since THEY like this work (which could simply mean that they hope to make money from it) everybody else should think the same way.
Personally, I have a number of authors I have discovered whose works I seek out because I have enjoyed others of their works. I have a LOT of movies and TV shows recorded in various formats, virtually all of which I have viewed and enjoyed enough to wish to own a copy of them. I, sometimes, pay attention to the music I hear around me, and, if I enjoy it, I may try to find out what it is, who is the performer, etc., and I might even obtain it. We do have a fairly large library of recorded music, of many types, which we enjoy on occasion. And we do, sometimes, go to a museum or auditorium where we can encounter visual art or musical performances. And, if we like them, we may seek out reproductions of them, or of other works by the same creators. (I should admit that Bonnie and I do have our differences in the art we favor most, but I think that’s to be expected.) And, of course, I get together with family and friends at times to discuss all sorts of stuff, including, on occasion, art objects we may have encountered.
I also fairly frequently “visit” with old fictional friends, because the point of a work of art is, at least in part, what happens to you THIS time! So, even when I know how a story, movie, book, play ends, I can (and do) on occasion, enjoy the trip again, so to speak, and the same is true of a piece of music, or some other work of art. In most cases, it’s worth revisiting more than once over a period of time.
I guess it’s fair to say that I enjoy a lot of different things in a pretty wide variety of styles, forms, and objects. But to return to my main thread, I am NOT going to suggest that DaVinci is great just because he’s old, or that Picasso is not because he’s “too new.” And, how does one deal with Banksy? Musically, what about Mozart, Beethoven, Louis Armstrong, Pete Seeger, Peter, Paul and Mary, Linda Ronstadt, Dolly Parton, the Beatles, or Sting? Which is the BETTER artist? I think that’s a stupid question. I believe that everyone should have the right to their own likes and dislikes and that NO ONE has the right to suggest that they are wrong! AND, their choices may change as does their mood, or age, or experience. Justin Wilson, the Cajun chef and PBS cooking show host, used to say when he was asked about which kind of wine “goes” with certain foods, “the kind of wine you drink is the kind of wine you like.” I support this notion. Like him, I do NOT believe in arbitrary standards or “established” rules, especially for art. I think I have the right to like what I like and, if my selections are different from YOURS, that’s OKAY! And, I have the right to change my mind when/if I feel like it for whatever reason I want to do so, just as you do!
Well, I’ve tried to make a point and to explain my thinking related to it. I hope I’ve been at least reasonably clear, but I may have just muddied up the waters a bit. I do hope, however, that no one will read this and think that I am trying to ram my beliefs down their throats as some sort of general TRUTH. You see, while I support the right of people like Charlie Kirk to have and express their opinions, I was highly offended by the statement the late Mr. Kirk had on his “sunshade/tent” at his public appearances. You know, the one with the prominently displayed “Prove I’m Wrong!” I would argue that that statement was oppressive, offensive, and, one could even say UN-AMERICAN!
I think that people SHOULD have responded to that assertion by saying: “I DON’T HAVE TO PROVE YOU WRONG! YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU’RE RIGHT!” After all, YOU are the one making the assertion of TRUTH! Don’t you have an obligation to present the evidence supporting what you are advocating? I’ll grant that you might be right, but I won’t accept that just because you say so. YOU need to make your case and PROVE IT, with EVIDENCE (that is with FACTS and such)!
Okay. Since I have this off my chest for now. It’s unlikely that I’ll return to this topic anytime soon. But I do plan on posting something in a couple of weeks to try to stimulate your thinking, tickle your funny bone, or something. I wonder what it’ll be? I hope you’ll return to find out. See you then.
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
Historically, there is no reason to assume that this event is true, although I am told that Mozart DID tend to pay less than “proper” attention to the “proper” (Classically-defined) rules of musical composition. But, Shaffer was writing a play, which, eventually, became a movie. (ASIDE: Both won major awards!) While he, certainly, had some knowledge of the facts of Mozart and Salieri’s lives, there is no reason to assume that they were intended to be the focus of his piece. He was writing a play, not a history book! The notion that Salieri killed Mozart (which is central to Shaffer’s work) is said to be a myth which gained traction after the publication of Pushkin's 1830 play, Mozart and Salieri, which portrayed Salieri as a jealous rival. It seems to me that the actual facts probably are, largely, irrelevant to the response Shaffer was trying to create.
I believe it is also important to point out that most works of art don’t change after they are created, unless they are deliberately altered (as when a movie is re-edited to make time for broadcast ads). But, they do change over time as society’s customs change, and certainly any sort of performance-based art, (plays, operas, dance performances, musical performances, etc.) are going to vary with every production, even every performance. I would think it wise to consider the number of artists (of all sorts) whose works have been rejected as “low quality, hack work” for years, only for them (and their works) to be “Discovered” later, often after their deaths. I would even go so far as to suggest that the personality and circumstances of a reader can be said to change a work of literature, as, of course, changes in society do. Hence re-encountering a work, after a period of time, may not be a bad thing.
On this basis, I would suggest that modern “critics” mostly serve as “influencers” who can provide some assistance as to how one could spend one’s time and/or money, but all they actually do is state their opinions, which may, or may not, be of any particular value to anyone. I suspect that most of my former students would agree that it is easy to know that I am quite fond of Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet. I taught it in my Dramatic Lit. classes and was involved in 2 productions of it at Western Carolina. Then, I’ve seen 3 other live productions, I believe, and I own 9 different video versions. And I like them all.
However, THEY ARE/WERE NOT the same. Each, in my estimation, is/was a legitimate version of the play, but, obviously, each one is/was unique in both what I consider to be its good points as well as in those which disappointed me. More than one of those videos are of productions which won awards either as movies or in the theatre. So, WHICH ONE IS BEST? I have no response, except to argue that the concept of BEST is, essentially, meaningless!
I believe that the same points can be made about musical performances (live or recorded), especially when the performer(s) change. Literary works (which may be published on a single page, or presented as hard-cover books, paperbacks, audiobooks, or e-books) also change depending on the publishing format, as I believe that the “experience” of the reader/hearer changes. Visual art, (paintings or sculptures) change depending on where and how one encounters them. And so on.
Back in my youth, I was a big fan of what we then called “folk” music. At that time, one of the most popular songwriter/performers, was a guy named Bob Dylan. I loved many of his songs, but I never really enjoyed his performances of that material. He always sounded to me like a Jewish kid from Minnesota who was trying to sound like Woody Guthrie (which, I would suggest, is what he was doing). However, I was quite fond of many other people’s performances of those, same, songs.
My point here, I suppose is that if you choose to believe that you need someone else to tell you what is good and what isn’t, go ahead, pick your “influencer” (whether they are a famous, published, expert CRITIC, or not) and be happy with substituting THEIR opinion for your own. I’d suggest that the only thing that awards really mean is that some person, or group, has decided that since THEY like this work (which could simply mean that they hope to make money from it) everybody else should think the same way.
Personally, I have a number of authors I have discovered whose works I seek out because I have enjoyed others of their works. I have a LOT of movies and TV shows recorded in various formats, virtually all of which I have viewed and enjoyed enough to wish to own a copy of them. I, sometimes, pay attention to the music I hear around me, and, if I enjoy it, I may try to find out what it is, who is the performer, etc., and I might even obtain it. We do have a fairly large library of recorded music, of many types, which we enjoy on occasion. And we do, sometimes, go to a museum or auditorium where we can encounter visual art or musical performances. And, if we like them, we may seek out reproductions of them, or of other works by the same creators. (I should admit that Bonnie and I do have our differences in the art we favor most, but I think that’s to be expected.) And, of course, I get together with family and friends at times to discuss all sorts of stuff, including, on occasion, art objects we may have encountered.
I also fairly frequently “visit” with old fictional friends, because the point of a work of art is, at least in part, what happens to you THIS time! So, even when I know how a story, movie, book, play ends, I can (and do) on occasion, enjoy the trip again, so to speak, and the same is true of a piece of music, or some other work of art. In most cases, it’s worth revisiting more than once over a period of time.
I guess it’s fair to say that I enjoy a lot of different things in a pretty wide variety of styles, forms, and objects. But to return to my main thread, I am NOT going to suggest that DaVinci is great just because he’s old, or that Picasso is not because he’s “too new.” And, how does one deal with Banksy? Musically, what about Mozart, Beethoven, Louis Armstrong, Pete Seeger, Peter, Paul and Mary, Linda Ronstadt, Dolly Parton, the Beatles, or Sting? Which is the BETTER artist? I think that’s a stupid question. I believe that everyone should have the right to their own likes and dislikes and that NO ONE has the right to suggest that they are wrong! AND, their choices may change as does their mood, or age, or experience. Justin Wilson, the Cajun chef and PBS cooking show host, used to say when he was asked about which kind of wine “goes” with certain foods, “the kind of wine you drink is the kind of wine you like.” I support this notion. Like him, I do NOT believe in arbitrary standards or “established” rules, especially for art. I think I have the right to like what I like and, if my selections are different from YOURS, that’s OKAY! And, I have the right to change my mind when/if I feel like it for whatever reason I want to do so, just as you do!
Well, I’ve tried to make a point and to explain my thinking related to it. I hope I’ve been at least reasonably clear, but I may have just muddied up the waters a bit. I do hope, however, that no one will read this and think that I am trying to ram my beliefs down their throats as some sort of general TRUTH. You see, while I support the right of people like Charlie Kirk to have and express their opinions, I was highly offended by the statement the late Mr. Kirk had on his “sunshade/tent” at his public appearances. You know, the one with the prominently displayed “Prove I’m Wrong!” I would argue that that statement was oppressive, offensive, and, one could even say UN-AMERICAN!
I think that people SHOULD have responded to that assertion by saying: “I DON’T HAVE TO PROVE YOU WRONG! YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU’RE RIGHT!” After all, YOU are the one making the assertion of TRUTH! Don’t you have an obligation to present the evidence supporting what you are advocating? I’ll grant that you might be right, but I won’t accept that just because you say so. YOU need to make your case and PROVE IT, with EVIDENCE (that is with FACTS and such)!
Okay. Since I have this off my chest for now. It’s unlikely that I’ll return to this topic anytime soon. But I do plan on posting something in a couple of weeks to try to stimulate your thinking, tickle your funny bone, or something. I wonder what it’ll be? I hope you’ll return to find out. See you then.
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
P.S. A couple of days ago I saw this cartoon from Non Sequitur and thought it worth adding to what had been my “final”draft, as it suggests that I may not be alone in my reaction to “Award shows.” RSB
RSS Feed