Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]""

[Colin Droidmilk]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

So its PC horseplay to react when someone say that people need to have thick skin so you can namecall people as you see fit?

I guess I have to deal with kids that are bullied on the net more than you.

I'm making a second response to this, as I've some important stuff to add.

I take great objection to these continued connections being made between internet bullying - insulting people to their face - and what I have done in this thread. To mock with mild terms such as 'loon' a distant, not-listening, media celeb who chooses to get up and broadcast her rather eccentric views to the world is not the same thing as to insult to the point of bullying an individual to their face. I consider that my remarks concerning Paglia equate to the insult-level of a newspaper caricaturist mocking a politician, i.e entirely acceptable, and that to portray them as anything more serious is indeed PC horseplay.

Lest people form the wrong opinion of me from your post, let me state clearly here that I have never, never, 'name-called' anyone to their face on the internet.

 

[JD]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

I'm making a second response to this, as I've some important stuff to add.

I take great objection to these continued connections being made between internet bullying - insulting people to their face - and what I have done in this thread. To mock with mild terms such as 'loon' a distant, not-listening, media celeb who chooses to get up and broadcast her rather eccentric views to the world is not the same thing as to insult to the point of bullying an individual to their face. I consider that my remarks concerning Paglia equate to the insult-level of a newspaper caricaturist mocking a politician, i.e entirely acceptable, and that to portray them as anything more serious is indeed PC horseplay.

Lest people form the wrong opinion of me from your post, let me state clearly here that I have never, never, 'name-called' anyone to their face on the internet.

You should really re-read your posts if you really belive what you're saying here... at the very least re-read this post where you seem to completely contradict yourself.

I'm not levelling a claim of bullying here, I'm just noting that what you say in the post appears to be not quite true.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Get a grip. You're reading way more into this than is even there... if you don't like what she said, that's fine. To continue to try and dissect it even further like this is just silly... there's a whole section of her book dedicated to this subject, write your own book countering hers if you feel you must.

You appear to be taking this way too seriously and to be honest, I wonder if you've even read the book where she truly supports her claim - because this interview piece is merely to support the book.

She has her opinion and she backed it up and did so in a very substantial way. She has experience and education to back up her opinion and is well respected for giving her opinion and critques.

She made a very bold claim, one I'm sure was geared in some respects for controversy. ...and good art is often controversial.

I didn't read the book, and said as much in my posts. Several times, in fact. I read the post on The Chronicle of Higher Learning, here: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-George-Lucas-Is-the/134942/

Did you read that piece? Is that the one from the book?

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Bullying is when you continually belittle and insult and harm someone without real reason and they are physically and mentally affected by it. I doubt very much that Paglia has any care whatsoever about what anyone is saying about her on the net.

Worse things than has been said in this thread has been said about George Lucas and the PT. Are you now also making the claim that that's bullying too? If you are... I only got one thing to say: whatever.

Currently her claim still reads as a sales ploy to get people to buy her book. Makes me wonder whether her previous book sales didn't go as well as she planned.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

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.


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.

Two first class points. Made by a man who has a grip.

Look, according to Paglia, a respected art critic, Lucas in his dodgy prequel trilogy is a better artist than (to name just a tiny handful of undoubted masters and masterpieces just from the world of film):


Kieslowski (Dekalog 1989)
David Mamet/James Foley (Glengarry Glen Ross 1992)
Martin Scorsese (The King of Comedy 1983, Goodfellas 1990)
Jan Svankmajer (Alice 1988, Faust 1994 etc. etc.)
The Coen Brothers (Fargo 1994, The Big Lebowski 1998)
Mike Leigh (Naked 1993)
Stanley Kubrick (Full Metal Jacket 1987)
Tarkovsky (The Sacrifice 1985)
Ken Loach (Riff-Raff 1991, Raining Stones 1993, My Name is Joe 1998)
Woody Allen (Broadway Danny Rose 1984, Purple Rose of Cairo 1985)
Terry Gilliam (Twelve Monkeys 1995)

And we could technically allow the year 1982, which gives us Ran by Kurosawa, and Fanny and Alexander by Ingmar Bergman, both of which are of course dwarves compared to the art pinnacle that is ROTS!

All told, I think the poor love is a bit of a silly-billy!

To defend Paglia's position it is necessary to demonstrate why the films on this list - and of course all other films, novels, pictures, plays etc. since 1982 - are inferior to ROTS.

 

[JD]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Bullying is when you continually belittle and insult and harm someone without real reason and they are physically and mentally affected by it.

Please back this statement up.

Because, as I am aware of it "bullying" is more of a social power that does not need be contiual or necessarily involve harm - and can be for a definite reason(s).

Bullying can be applied here, not against Paglia herself but to her public persona or even what's she said/written... and to those that might want to read this thread without reading what may be described as attacks against her or her writiing. ie, those attacking and name calling her opinions could be prejudicing others than come to this thread.

(Notice to those that like to read way too much into things: as I stated in my earlier statement, "I'm not levelling a claim of bullying here" and I said above: 'bullying can be applied here' - note the words the words can be. )

 

[Jeyl]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

First, it's not "just her opinion." Camille Paglia is not just some fan on the internet, casually offering an opinion.

I never said she was. I said I was. And I disagree with her.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

I never said she was. I said I was. And I disagree with her.

Sorry, to be clear, I wasn't responding directly to you. (Or actually, at all.) It was more in response to the "what's the big deal? It's just her opinion" posts. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Please back this statement up.

Because, as I am aware of it "bullying" is more of a social power that does not need be contiual or necessarily involve harm - and can be for a definite reason(s).

Bullying can be applied here, not against Paglia herself but to her public persona or even what's she said/written... and to those that might want to read this thread without reading what may be described as attacks against her or her writiing. ie, those attacking and name calling her opinions could be prejudicing others than come to this thread.

(Notice to those that like to read way too much into things: as I stated in my earlier statement, "I'm not levelling a claim of bullying here" and I said above: 'bullying can be applied here' - note the words the words can be. )

Uh... whuh? Members need to be protected from posts criticising a critic? What the hey is this?

 

[JD]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Two first class points. Made by a man who has a grip.

To defend Paglia's position it is necessary to demonstrate why the films on this list - and of course all other films, novels, pictures, plays etc. since 1982 - are inferior to ROTS.

First, no... not even close.

Second, by this reasoning any review/critique we read has to defend itself? I don't think so.

By this absurd rational, every movie review would have to say "I gave this movie three stars and movie 'B' 2 stars because (insert silly reasoning here); but two 22 years ago, I gave movie 'C' 4 stars because of (more silly reasoning)." Every review could go on forever and ever.

Can you imagine if Ebert had to justify every single movie review on these grounds?

RE: "Well, I liked movie X and gave it 4 stars."
Internet "But, Roger you overbearing expetive deleted, you gave movie Y 3 stars and whine, whine, whine."
RE: "Well, internet blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah "
Internet "Ok, Rog expletive - but this, that and the other thing and movie Z..." etc.

That's not logical thinking.

 

[JD]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Uh... whuh? Members need to be protected from posts criticising a critic? What the hey is this?

I didn't say that.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

First, no... not even close.

Second, by this reasoning any review/critique we read has to defend itself? I don't think so.

By this absurd rational, every movie review would have to say "I gave this movie three stars and movie 'B' 2 stars because (insert silly reasoning here); but two 22 years ago, I gave movie 'C' 4 stars because of (more silly reasoning)." Every review could go on forever and ever.

Can you imagine if Ebert had to justify every single movie review on these grounds?

RE: "Well, I liked movie X and gave it 4 stars."
Internet "But, Roger you overbearing expetive deleted, you gave movie Y 3 stars and whine, whine, whine."
RE: "Well, internet blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah "
Internet "Ok, Rog expletive - but this, that and the other thing and movie Z..." etc.

That's not logical thinking.

Do you understand the difference between a movie review in and of itself and a cultural critique of a piece of work as the pinnacle of ALL ART?

Do you understand the difference between "good" and "best"?

She is not simply saying "I really liked ROTS." Do you get that? She's saying "The end of ROTS is the most significant work of art across all media in the last 30 years."

 

[NAZGÛL]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Ppl seem to find it safe ground to call a person pretty much anything when over the net. Maybe Paglia or Lucas for that matter dont care, but whats the point in going so low as to personal attacks and namecalling? Usually just a bad way to try to make a person look bad and you better.

It doesnt matter if its some game release with a new producer, or if its a new film. Allways the pointless namecalling and hate. Im sick of seeing some kid put up a youtube vid of his passion hobby or what ever, just to get jumped for his voice, looks, whatever. People need to stop being rude online. I know I feel strong on the subject, but Im serious.

 

[JD]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Do you understand the difference between a movie review in and of itself and a cultural critique of a piece of work as the pinnacle of ALL ART?

Do you understand the difference between "good" and "best"?

She is not simply saying "I really liked ROTS." Do you get that? She's saying "The end of ROTS is the most significant work of art across all media in the last 30 years."

Yawn. Where shall I send the box of tissue for you?

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Yawn. Where shall I send the box of tissue for you?

So, that'd be a "no" then, I guess.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

First, no... not even close.

Second, by this reasoning any review/critique we read has to defend itself? I don't think so.

By this absurd rational, every movie review would have to say "I gave this movie three stars and movie 'B' 2 stars because (insert silly reasoning here); but two 22 years ago, I gave movie 'C' 4 stars because of (more silly reasoning)." Every review could go on forever and ever.

Can you imagine if Ebert had to justify every single movie review on these grounds?

RE: "Well, I liked movie X and gave it 4 stars."
Internet "But, Roger you overbearing expetive deleted, you gave movie Y 3 stars and whine, whine, whine."
RE: "Well, internet blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah "
Internet "Ok, Rog expletive - but this, that and the other thing and movie Z..." etc.

That's not logical thinking.

Hang on, it was Paglia who compared ROTS to thirty years' worth of movies, books, films, and plays!

 

[JD]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

So, that'd be a "no" then, I guess.

Quite the opposite, it's just after reading your postings here I have zero interest in interacting with someone who simply thinks his opinion outweighs someone elses.

It's funny you referred to Paglia is a troll, because I see that to be quite case for you.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Ppl seem to find it safe ground to call a person pretty much anything when over the net. Maybe Paglia or Lucas for that matter dont care, but whats the point in going so low as to personal attacks and namecalling? Usually just a bad way to try to make a person look bad and you better.

It doesnt matter if its some game release with a new producer, or if its a new film. Allways the pointless namecalling and hate. Im sick of seeing some kid put up a youtube vid of his passion hobby or what ever, just to get jumped for his voice, looks, whatever. People need to stop being rude online. I know I feel strong on the subject, but Im serious.

What? Here we go again! You've just connected a put-down of a big-time big-opinion media celeb who is not even present in this thread to some poor kid being hounded by internet bullies!

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Quite the opposite, it's just after reading your postings here I have zero interest in interacting with someone who simply thinks his opinion outweighs someone elses.

It's funny you referred to Paglia is a troll, because I see that to be quite case for you.

Oh. You just 'name-called.'

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Quite the opposite, it's just after reading your postings here I have zero interest in interacting with someone who simply thinks his opinion outweighs someone elses.

It's funny you referred to Paglia is a troll, because I see that to be quite case for you.

Then stop reading. REad something else and quit making oblique statements in my general direction. Don't engage me. Walk away completely, instead of tapdancing around the issue.

Or, toe the line and debate me straight up.

Look, you said that I was being illogical, in the same post where you make a rather sweeping category error. A movie review is not the same thing as cultural criticism. Saying "This movie was good" is not the same thing as saying "This piece of this movie is the most significant work of art in the last 30 years."

You want to challenge me on my logic, work on your own first. You want to debate me, hey, let's go for it. You want to call me a troll, go for it, but don't be surprised if I end up throwing a few elbows your way too, and don't go crying to the mods about it when I do.