- Resist easy anti-pop narrative that Sky is more interesting/legitimate because her label doesn’t own her!! esp. since it is evident that Sky doesn’t scorn pop music—adores it, admits its influence. She claims Britney as much as she claims Kurt
- w/women and pop, the…
These reviews, these critiques, these opinions—I’ve always had a problem with inexperienced critics. That is to say […] if you haven’t made a film, if you haven’t actually gone through the process that it takes to even get a script green-lit, let alone cast and produced and edited and released and marketed correctly—if you haven’t gone through all those things and somehow had a thing [made], I don’t really wanna hear too much about what you thought of my film.
I’m passing some time today by listening to this while working (and because I’m one of the few idiots who will still defend the LOST finale), and this bit, which is really just a quick aside in an otherwise fine conversation, sent up a red flag. It’s something you hear creative people across all different disciplines say from time to time: this assumption that having worked the mechanics (or bureaucracy) involved in getting mass-audience art made yourself is somehow essential to interpreting and critiquing the final product, with this hint of a defensive attitude underneath it that says “What, you think you can do better??”
Pop culture commentary and criticism is its own art form with its own craft, processes, audience, and all that stuff. It’s an art of explicit argument rather than suggestion or obfuscation, but it’s still ultimately put out into the world for other people to enjoy and react to and think about (a strict interpretation of Xgau’s “consumer guide” schtick is pretty well useless in the modern age so don’t even go there). The problem is that it relies on other art to fuel it, so people in those other arts can be understandably defensive about their work. [I would like to note, though, that music critics have been rather generous about the instances where the tables have been turned and their work has been portrayed in movies as childish (High Fidelity), sentimental (Almost Famous), or creepily highfalutin (American Psycho).] But this is how things are: if you put your name on something that goes out into the world for people to enjoy and react to, you expose yourself to criticism. And the legitimacy of any critique can’t be contingent upon the critic’s experience with anything else but the listening/reading/viewing experience at hand.
I personally think all art of any ‘brow’ should work this way, but come on: it’s Pop. The only barrier to entry is “did you see/read/listen to it?”
I’m all for industry familiarity in criticism, but it goes both ways. As in, I’d love critics to start using this too: “If you haven’t actually gone through the process that it takes to compose a pitch cold to an editor and having a chance of having it accepted, let alone researched and written and rewritten and revised and cut by half and imposter syndromed over and gotten published and fielded hate mail and chased down a paycheck for it, and still somehow continued writing things….”(via katherinestasaph)
Why I love my family: A conversation that begins with comments on Yeesuz goes like this: Kanye’s thoughts on consumerism and materialism > consumerism and hipsterism > definition of hipster > unpacking the term ‘irony’ > the postmodern paradox > self awareness in 2014 > Sophia Coppola’s The Bling Ring and Harmony Korine’s Spring Breakers > and then I was able to make it come back to consumerism and materialism > all the way back to Kanye.
I’m so lucky I can spend hours talking with my siblings about anything, from art and culture to economics and politics to region and technology. They are my best friends and the smartest people I know. We are all always learning from each other and inspiring each other.