People do like groundwork to their plots, that X event happens should have a reason for happening.
FLCL rather ignores that in place of teaching lesson, but it's not undue that people feel confused about the events when there's not enough internal consistancy to piece it together.
People do like groundwork to their plots, that X event happens should have a reason for happening.
FLCL rather ignores that in place of teaching lesson, but it's not undue that people feel confused about the events when there's not enough internal consistancy to piece it together.
I always felt that, on a literal level, it was just a space opera that we don't see most of.
At the end of episode 4, The blow up the Death Star and stop a literal planet genocide.
and they hold this really fancy celebration ceremony... but it's like, the Empire is still out there, The celebration ceremony holds the internal consistency that you watched an entire opera play out, but the truth of the matter is that holding fancy ceremonies while dictators just get wounded isn't a likely thing.
At the end of episode 4, The blow up the Death Star and stop a literal planet genocide.
and they hold this really fancy celebration ceremony... but it's like, the Empire is still out there, The celebration ceremony holds the internal consistency that you watched an entire opera play out, but the truth of the matter is that holding fancy ceremonies while dictators just get wounded isn't a likely thing.
I have not seen....any? of the Star Wars films in full.
I don't watch a lot of movies, which is why my opinion on Ghostbusters doesn't matter.
What I'm saying is that if a thing is only able to appeal to those with a lesser understanding of media, that is not equally valid to making a work that only appeals to those with a greater understanding of media.
Broad appeal is absolutely a thing that exists, but, well, Toy Story and Michael Bay's Transformers are both things that appeal to eight year olds. Thing is, one of them can ONLY appeal to people who don't 'get' story mechanics and that is not a valid aim, and so the enjoyment thereof cannot be considered equivalent to the enjoyment of well crafted media.
Understand that I use "critic" as shorthand for someone who understands storytelling. Hence the quotes in my original post. I'm well aware that uninformed critics exist.
I compared history and art to put it in perspective for you. Because the idea of someone approaching history from a from a background of vague knowledge of some cultural mythology absolutely will not be engaging with it as meaningfully as someone who actually knows what the hell they are talking about.
That's kind of obvious, isn't it? I mean, there's nothing wrong with only knowing some things, especially if it's just as a result of differing priorities. But certain voices are simply more informed. But people get really, really offended when a similar (and I use the following word in the broadest possible sense) hierarchy* is suggested with regards to understanding media.
Going into more specifics, it is my viewpoint (one that I will defend fiercely even if I don't literally believe it is a fucking law of reality because that's how viewpoints work) that a person intending only to seek enjoyment from media can't reach the same level of understanding of it as someone willing to be challenged and that such voices are at best only useful in some critical contexts and at worst are actively detrimental.
Furthermore, in the realm of discourse relating to works (or aspects of works) intended to be challenging rather than strictly enjoyable, I think it's a pretty logical thing to say that people only intending to enjoy media probably don't have a dog in that fight.**
*Before anyone suggest otherwise, no, I don't believe that it's always a straight scale starting at casual viewing and ending at being a critic. There are many angles to it, but to put it in mathematical terms, a vector has an angle and a magnitude. Magnitude is analogous to expertise in this case, if that wasn't clear.
**I am omitting my belief that everyone secretly wants to engage with meaningful things for the sake of clarity.
ADDENDUM:
(On mobile or I would quote)
And yes I have considered that being bothered by a certain approach is a problem with me. I have come to the conclusion that it is my way of reacting to a reaction that I see as harming people's ability to healthily engage with art and to a lesser extent a fear of being met with such a reaction.
I think the latter is a more petty, selfish one and the former a more practical way to approach understanding my responses to things, but people tend to be more receptive to the latter because the former comes off as condescending.
I am expressing it nonetheless because that possible condescension is there whether I present it openly or not and I'd rather present it openly than be disingenuous and only present the more palatable part.
SECOND ADDENDUM:
Absolutely none of this conversation is directed at you, Jane. You have a way of assuming everything people say about media and how people engage with it is directed at you and telling you that you're Doing It Wrong.
Which is weird because you're genuinely very intelligent in that particular arena and you honestly don't have a lot of the thought processes that you end up defending and would probably vehemently disagree with the people who do, if they weren't being criticized by people who you thought were criticizing you.
Absolutely none of this conversation is directed at you, Jane. You have a way of assuming everything people say about media and how people engage with it is directed at you and telling you that you're Doing It Wrong.
Which is weird because you're genuinely very intelligent in that particular arena and you honestly don't have a lot of the thought processes that you end up defending and would probably vehemently disagree with the people who do, if they weren't being criticized by people who you thought were criticizing you.
on the contrary
a lot of your talking seems to be directed at some imaginary gaggle of GameFAQs or IMDB (that site's about movies, right? Right.) posters, rather than any of us.
I disagree with quite a number of the points you raise in that post of yours and there are a few I think are simply wrong, but I'm not really in the mood for um
And if I want to wade further into the mire of possibly judgy bullshit it seems like you often fill in the blanks of what I've said, with what you assumed I meant, based on my ideological common ground with people who you assume are criticizing you, and that seems a tad unfair.
Going into more specifics, it is my viewpoint (one that I will defend fiercely even if I don't literally believe it is a fucking law of reality because that's how viewpoints work) that a person intending only to seek enjoyment from media can't reach the same level of understanding of it as someone willing to be challenged and that such voices are at best only useful in some critical contexts and at worst are actively detrimental.
And if I want to wade further into the mire of possibly judgy bullshit it seems like you often fill in the blanks of what I've said, with what you assumed I meant, based on my ideological common ground with people who you assume are criticizing you, and that seems a tad unfair.
that is like a feature of the actual act of conversation
it is the same kind of reasoning that lets things that are garbage be sold to us as high art
Young Thug is an example from my particular wheelhouse. Going by your own reasoning, I can safely say I know more about hip-hop than you do.
Because. You. Do. Because you've put time and effort into understanding the genre, its history, and it's conventions, whereas I purely skim the surface of it, and for me to imply that my voice is as valid as yours in a discussion about that subject is insulting to all the effort you've put forth.
Going into more specifics, it is my viewpoint (one that I will defend fiercely even if I don't literally believe it is a fucking law of reality because that's how viewpoints work) that a person intending only to seek enjoyment from media can't reach the same level of understanding of it as someone willing to be challenged and that such voices are at best only useful in some critical contexts and at worst are actively detrimental.
Basically I think this is not just wrong but like
actively harmful.
And let me ask you a question.
How can someone only willing to engage with media in the context of pure enjoyment reach a level of understanding equal to a person who is willing to enjoy things but is also willing to be challenged without implying that art only exists to allow enjoyment and therefore challenging media is meaningless and not worth engaging with?
I am not saying that the only valid media worth studying is angsty obtuse avant garde navel gazing. I mean, fuck, how many times have I argued with Myr over the value of damn Marvel movies? This seems to be the major pretense you're operating under and it's really not productive having to constantly try and disprove that.
let me lay this out for you ok so you don't just think I'm being a douche
I would describe my whole opinion on art as an entity thusly;
what matters about a piece of art is what the audience takes away from it. The reason your "hierarchy" concept is bullshit is because it thinks that understanding something less on an academic level means that it necessarily means less to you on an emotional level. That isn't true.
There is value in academia but at the end of the day if you put me in a room with Anthony Fantano, we both listen to an album, and I hate it and he loves it, I am going to listen to why he likes it, because that is his fucking job, so he better have something interesting to say, but I may not change my own opinion, because understanding why someone likes something and liking it yourself--and replace "like" with any word there, "appreciate", etc.--are not the same thing.
the issue I have with top-down critical theory--that critics are a higher class of consumer that get to decide what art "really means"--is that it devalues the ordinary.
I have a great amount of love for things that critics hate, in all media I enjoy--slice of life anime, new age music, vaporwave, pastoral paintings--and maybe that is why I take it a little bit personally when I am told that something "is bad" full stop. Conversely, I hate a lot of things that critics seem to eat up and don't like being told they're "just good" full stop. If I can boil someone's entire reason for liking something down into one of those two phrases, I don't think they--on a deeper intuitive level--have any better command of the media they're experiencing than I do.
I have never, ever, ever encountered something I could not boil down to those two phrases.
Criticism is a lot of things, but it is not gospel. Public consensus is not objective fact, and it can sometimes fail to even be meaningful (especially if what's being discussed is recent).
Perhaps I am just misunderstanding you, but that is what you seem to be, if not saying, at least implying, in everything you've said so far.
Call it artistic nihilism--it's been called worse--but that is how I think.
How can someone only willing to engage with media in the context of pure enjoyment reach a level of understanding equal to a person who is willing to enjoy things but is also willing to be challenged without implying that art only exists to allow enjoyment and therefore challenging media is meaningless and not worth engaging with?
What does "being challenged" actually mean.
Because to me, "being challenged" is enjoying that the art you're experiencing is pushing boundaries or otherwise asking questions about the nature of the artform it is a part of.
Because. You. Do. Because you've put time and effort into understanding the genre, its history, and it's conventions, whereas I purely skim the surface of it, and for me to imply that my voice is as valid as yours in a discussion about that subject is insulting to all the effort you've put forth.
So is that the issue here? You feel insulted so few people appreciate Mass Effect 3's ending?
The difference is that I don't actually care that people like Young Thug--I think his music sucks--but it's not something I stress about.
and also you're operating on this assumption that I'm like trying to undercut you or something
I don't disagree that you know more about that specific kind of video game storytelling--you probably do--I just don't care, and you seem to want me to care.
or indeed--whoever the hell you're talking to--to care
Kexruct if you follow any piece of advice I ever give you, let it be this one:
listen to a Lil B album--one of the good ones, ask around--front to back.
That is a serious suggestion. I am not yanking your chain or trying to be a dick. It's a good idea.
And see, this is how I know that you've been operating under the aforementioned pretense.
Here's the thing: my reaction to your recommendation is 1. I am certain that you are making this recommendation because this is a good, or at least interesting and valuable artist because I trust and respect your judgement 2. I'm not sure I, as someone with only a surface level understanding of rap, could enjoy this without really knowing anything about the genre. 3. If I do enjoy it, I will not know whether or not this is because of my ignorance of rap without further studying the medium.
If this, then, had purely been a recommendation for the sake of my understanding rap, I'd be perfectly content with those three thoughts. But it seems like you're only saying that I should listen to it so I could loosen up and stop being pretentious and learn that there's more than one way that things can be good etc etc etc
But I'm thinking that over and honestly? I might just be assuming your intent based on my own fears. But I'm not sure.
I did not say that academic criticism is the only valid approach. I did not say that emotional understanding is invalid. I am getting defensive because I think people think that I think that.
I AM WELL AWARE THAT UNDERSTANDING OF ART IS NON OBJECTIVE AND OTHER APPROACHES ARE VALID.
I am stating that a specific approach (wanting all art to be indulgent) is unhelpful, and I stated that in a way that made it easily misinterpreted.
I AM WELL AWARE THAT EMOTIONAL UNDERSTANDING IS A VALID FORM OF APPROACHING MEDIA CRITICISM. I AM AWARE THAT CEREBRAL ENGAGEMENT IS NOT THE ONLY VALID FORM OF ENGAGEMENT.
Kexruct if you follow any piece of advice I ever give you, let it be this one:
listen to a Lil B album--one of the good ones, ask around--front to back.
That is a serious suggestion. I am not yanking your chain or trying to be a dick. It's a good idea.
And see, this is how I know that you've been operating under the aforementioned pretense.
Here's the thing: my reaction to your recommendation is 1. I am certain that you are making this recommendation because this is a good, or at least interesting and valuable artist because I trust and respect your judgement 2. I'm not sure I, as someone with only a surface level understanding of rap, could enjoy this without really knowing anything about the genre. 3. If I do enjoy it, I will not know whether or not this is because of my ignorance of rap without further studying the medium.
If this, then, had purely been a recommendation for the sake of my understanding rap, I'd be perfectly content with those three thoughts. But it seems like you're only saying that I should listen to it so I could loosen up and stop being pretentious and learn that there's more than one way that things can be good etc etc etc
But I'm thinking that over and honestly? I might just be assuming your intent based on my own fears. But I'm not sure.
that's part of it
the other part is that Lil B makes good music and unless you are Kevin Durant (that would be weird) he loves you.
let me explain myself,
Lil B also makes ' ' ' real rap critics ' ' ' foam at the mouth because he operates very far outside of conventional rap structure. He does everything in one take, often stumbles over his lines (sometimes hilariously so), dedicates songs to inappropriate subject matter, and often leaves holes in his vocal takes.
he is a rapper totally unedited--everything Lil B has ever produced, outside of some material lost in an apartment fire--we have heard.
Now here's something I don't like about Lil B, or more accurately, the people who listen to him.
Lots of people, including another noted rapper, Lupe Fiasco, like to pat themselves on the back for "getting him".
What these people fail to understand--whether they are too pretentious to do so or are just misguided--is that there is nothing to get. Remember that part about him being a rapper totally unedited? That's the appeal. That's it, you don't even have to actually know that in the same way you know geography facts. If you like that, you like Lil B, if you don't, you don't. It runs no deeper than that, it is art at its most populist.
You can fucking torture yourself--and people do, because people are stupid--listening to Lil B if you don't like him trying desperately to "get it". There is nothing to get.
Points 2 and 3 of your chart are irrelevant in this situation, and that is what great art is to me.
To be as cliche as humanly possible, it is something that speaks to the human soul.
"Speaks to your soul" does not mean that something is meaningless on a cerebral level. It means that its meaning is existent but difficult to grasp, nearly intangible.
Speaking without meaning ("Speaking to the soul" while having "nothing to get") isn't speaking at all. It's noise.
And I don't think Lil B is noise, to be clear. I have a feeling that your assessment that he "speaks to the soul" is likely an accurate one, just that your reasoning, that he has nothing to convey, not even conveying nothingness (delving into incomprehensibility, meaninglessness, etc. are valid aims but they are not, paradoxically, meaningless themselves.) is a troubling one because you're equating meaning nothing with being about nothingness. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it isn't.
These distinctions are the critical equivalent not being able to divide by zero, something that a layperson wouldn't care about beyond maybe vaguely knowing that it's a thing but really it's a fundamental aspect of making a set of concepts work.
Even for someone whose appeal is "being about nothing" even if his appeal is raw, or unintentional, there is no "that's it." He's created something with worth, that can help people come to terms with things, or understand things, or just giving us something of value. That's why he resonates. If he didn't do something worthwhile, people wouldn't care.
Comments
FLCL
Broad appeal is absolutely a thing that exists, but, well, Toy Story and Michael Bay's Transformers are both things that appeal to eight year olds. Thing is, one of them can ONLY appeal to people who don't 'get' story mechanics and that is not a valid aim, and so the enjoyment thereof cannot be considered equivalent to the enjoyment of well crafted media.
Understand that I use "critic" as shorthand for someone who understands storytelling. Hence the quotes in my original post. I'm well aware that uninformed critics exist.
I compared history and art to put it in perspective for you. Because the idea of someone approaching history from a from a background of vague knowledge of some cultural mythology absolutely will not be engaging with it as meaningfully as someone who actually knows what the hell they are talking about.
That's kind of obvious, isn't it? I mean, there's nothing wrong with only knowing some things, especially if it's just as a result of differing priorities. But certain voices are simply more informed. But people get really, really offended when a similar (and I use the following word in the broadest possible sense) hierarchy* is suggested with regards to understanding media.
Going into more specifics, it is my viewpoint (one that I will defend fiercely even if I don't literally believe it is a fucking law of reality because that's how viewpoints work) that a person intending only to seek enjoyment from media can't reach the same level of understanding of it as someone willing to be challenged and that such voices are at best only useful in some critical contexts and at worst are actively detrimental.
Furthermore, in the realm of discourse relating to works (or aspects of works) intended to be challenging rather than strictly enjoyable, I think it's a pretty logical thing to say that people only intending to enjoy media probably don't have a dog in that fight.**
*Before anyone suggest otherwise, no, I don't believe that it's always a straight scale starting at casual viewing and ending at being a critic. There are many angles to it, but to put it in mathematical terms, a vector has an angle and a magnitude. Magnitude is analogous to expertise in this case, if that wasn't clear.
**I am omitting my belief that everyone secretly wants to engage with meaningful things for the sake of clarity.
ADDENDUM:
(On mobile or I would quote)
And yes I have considered that being bothered by a certain approach is a problem with me. I have come to the conclusion that it is my way of reacting to a reaction that I see as harming people's ability to healthily engage with art and to a lesser extent a fear of being met with such a reaction.
I think the latter is a more petty, selfish one and the former a more practical way to approach understanding my responses to things, but people tend to be more receptive to the latter because the former comes off as condescending.
I am expressing it nonetheless because that possible condescension is there whether I present it openly or not and I'd rather present it openly than be disingenuous and only present the more palatable part.
SECOND ADDENDUM:
Absolutely none of this conversation is directed at you, Jane. You have a way of assuming everything people say about media and how people engage with it is directed at you and telling you that you're Doing It Wrong.
Which is weird because you're genuinely very intelligent in that particular arena and you honestly don't have a lot of the thought processes that you end up defending and would probably vehemently disagree with the people who do, if they weren't being criticized by people who you thought were criticizing you.
And let me ask you a question.
How can someone only willing to engage with media in the context of pure enjoyment reach a level of understanding equal to a person who is willing to enjoy things but is also willing to be challenged without implying that art only exists to allow enjoyment and therefore challenging media is meaningless and not worth engaging with?
I am not saying that the only valid media worth studying is angsty obtuse avant garde navel gazing. I mean, fuck, how many times have I argued with Myr over the value of damn Marvel movies? This seems to be the major pretense you're operating under and it's really not productive having to constantly try and disprove that.
Perhaps I am just misunderstanding you, but that is what you seem to be, if not saying, at least implying, in everything you've said so far.
Here's the thing: my reaction to your recommendation is
1. I am certain that you are making this recommendation because this is a good, or at least interesting and valuable artist because I trust and respect your judgement
2. I'm not sure I, as someone with only a surface level understanding of rap, could enjoy this without really knowing anything about the genre.
3. If I do enjoy it, I will not know whether or not this is because of my ignorance of rap without further studying the medium.
If this, then, had purely been a recommendation for the sake of my understanding rap, I'd be perfectly content with those three thoughts. But it seems like you're only saying that I should listen to it so I could loosen up and stop being pretentious and learn that there's more than one way that things can be good etc etc etc
But I'm thinking that over and honestly? I might just be assuming your intent based on my own fears. But I'm not sure.
I AM WELL AWARE THAT UNDERSTANDING OF ART IS NON OBJECTIVE AND OTHER APPROACHES ARE VALID.
I am stating that a specific approach (wanting all art to be indulgent) is unhelpful, and I stated that in a way that made it easily misinterpreted.
I AM WELL AWARE THAT EMOTIONAL UNDERSTANDING IS A VALID FORM OF APPROACHING MEDIA CRITICISM. I AM AWARE THAT CEREBRAL ENGAGEMENT IS NOT THE ONLY VALID FORM OF ENGAGEMENT.
Speaking without meaning ("Speaking to the soul" while having "nothing to get") isn't speaking at all. It's noise.
And I don't think Lil B is noise, to be clear. I have a feeling that your assessment that he "speaks to the soul" is likely an accurate one, just that your reasoning, that he has nothing to convey, not even conveying nothingness (delving into incomprehensibility, meaninglessness, etc. are valid aims but they are not, paradoxically, meaningless themselves.) is a troubling one because you're equating meaning nothing with being about nothingness. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it isn't.
These distinctions are the critical equivalent not being able to divide by zero, something that a layperson wouldn't care about beyond maybe vaguely knowing that it's a thing but really it's a fundamental aspect of making a set of concepts work.
Even for someone whose appeal is "being about nothing" even if his appeal is raw, or unintentional, there is no "that's it." He's created something with worth, that can help people come to terms with things, or understand things, or just giving us something of value. That's why he resonates. If he didn't do something worthwhile, people wouldn't care.
the closest I've ever come to dropping acid is probably that dream I had about my skin peeling off because I was growing up