Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
She's good at what she does, I'll give her that, but she's pulling the wool over people's eyes.
First, it's not "just her opinion." Camille Paglia is not just some fan on the internet, casually offering an opinion. Camille Paglia is acknowledged as an art expert, and presents herself as such. She's CAMILLE PAGLIA. When she makes a claim, people pay attention because of her perceived expertise, and they rely on her expertise even if they don't necessarily agree with her positions. The thing is, expertise and authority have to be both demonstrated and legitimated.
Paglia isn't doing that, because she's not backing up her position. And that, my friends, is what experts do. They make claims, and they back them up. Usually with a lot of facts and information, because that's how you establish the legitimacy of your position. And you establish your expertise by both the breadth of the information upon which you can call to do that, and upon the analytical capabilities you demonstrate in so doing.
At first blush, it may seem that she is making such an argument, but she isn't. Her premise (depending on which piece you read) is that (A) the final battle of ROTS is the most significant work of art in any medium in the last 30 years; or (B) George Lucas is the most important artist of our time. And she provides an argument in support of....neither.
This is my second gripe about her. She APPEARS to make an argument, but the thing she argues for is not the position she's taken. It's similar, but it's not the same. Remember: Paglia's point is that ROTS is the most significant (etc.,etc.,) or that Lucas is the most important (etc., etc.). The information she offers in support of those positions, however, demonstrates not that they are the BEST, but rather that they are GOOD.
That is not the same thing.
If she is the expert she claims to be, she should be able to speak at length about comparisons to other contemporary works or artists who might be regarded as equally important or even more important, and then explain why those others fail to rise to the level of what she considers the best. To do that, she would also have to lay out her own criteria for what = "the best." She hasn't done that either, in spite of her claiming the mantle of expertise upon which others will rely.
Instead, at least based on what I've seen, she's made bold statements and has lazily not bothered to support them. And yet, we're suppose to treat her as an authority? Only if she earns it, I say. And you do that by doing the work of backing up your statements when you make them, if you're an expert.
Think of it this way. If I claimed to be an expert in diet and nutrition, and I say "Apples are the single most important and nutritious food source humans can eat," and then tried to sell you a book called The Apple Diet, don't you think it'd be legitimate for me to be challenged on both my expertise and my basic premise, particularly if I only said "Apples are delicious, and full of vitamins and nutrients. They look pleasing too" in support of my premise? I would not, as an expert, have effectively argued for my premise of "Apples are the best" by saying "apples are really good." How are apples better than, say, steak? Or asparagus, or barley, or fish, or peanuts, or chocolate, or cumin, or salt, or ANY OTHER FOOD SOURCE YOU CAN THINK OF?
Because -- read closely -- that's what she's doing, at least in the bits of work I've seen. Now, if she bothers to lay out why Lucas/ROTS is qualitatively BETTER than anyone else (which, FYI, would involve comparisons and a basic taxonomy for what = "the best"), I'd love to see it. But I ain't seen it yet. Not in support of the premises she states.
Real experts give you the reasoning and data BEHIND their conclusions because real experts know that this is how you demonstrate your expertise, and how you advance the state of whatever field it is in which you claim your expertise. Why? Because by doing so you open yourself up to challenge. If you're really an expert, you should be able and willing to defend against such challenges, and, indeed, WELCOME those challenges because you recognize that theory and practice advance as a result of those challenges. Maybe your theory is proven wrong. Or maybe it shakes up conventional wisdom and leads us to a better understanding. But either way, putting your theory out there and offering up a coherent argument to be carefully examined and considered benefits the community at large. Moreover, real experts do this because they recognize that FAILING to do so not only results in them being challenged personally for being hacks, but undermines the legitimacy of their field of expertise, and indeed the very concept of expertise itself.
lol:lol
