Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
I hear you, man. I do think you understand what I'm saying. My gripes in this have been more with JD. I actually appreciate the civil tone we've had in our discussions -- and if I've come across as attacking you, that's certainly not my intent.
Ok, that's interesting. Does the piece mention that ROTS is the most significant in the last 30 years? And does she compare it to other works done in the last 30 years? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity here. If she's making more of an argument there, then that's a damnsight better than just making bold assertions. I might still disagree with her conclusions, or even with some of the premises on which it's based (e.g., her definition of "significant art,") but at least in that case she's bothering to demonstrate her expertise.
The piece on Lucas, though, from the Chronicle of Higher Learning, is where she certainly doesn't support her argument that Lucas is the greatest artist of our age. If that's the same piece from the book, then maybe the book as a whole must be judged in its entirety, rather than the essay in and of itself. (For example, her premises and definitions for significant art may be in the chapter dealing with the Egyptians; her lead in to ROTS may include previous chapters from art during the last 30 years, to discuss why it's significant, and the chapter on ROTS then can be taken as showing why it's more significant than those other works.)
I still disagree with her "shock" tactics in making these bold statements to help sell her book. Sensationalism in furtherance of commercialism cheapens serious academic studies, in my opinion. "LIFE SAVING CANCER DISCOVERY MADE: Pay $30 to find out how." (Ok, we're not talking cancer cures here, but you get my point.)
I've tried to couch my points to say that what I've read seen and read from her (which is the video and the piece on Lucas being the greatest artist of our time) does not support what she's arguing. I still maintain that. Her book may do a better job, though. I might still disagree with it, but she may do a better job of arguing there. Or she may not. I won't know unless and until I take a look at it. What I've seen, though, isn't really an argument in support of her position, as much as it is a series of bold pronouncements that don't make up a coherent argument.
Those pieces may not be intended to make that argument, though, and maybe she makes it elsewhere. I'd be curious to see it, and see if she supports her claim at this point. Actually, I'd really like to see a formal debate between her and some other experts in the field.
On a related note, I do agree that pop art can be art. And I do think that Lucas is a great artist, and that Star Wars (particularly ANH) is a work of art. Not just fun junk sci-fi, but art. I don't agree that he's the greatest or that Star Wars is the most significant, but then I wouldn't want to make that claim about ANY artist simply because I don't feel qualified and it seems too easy to me to blow holes in such an argument. But that's just where I stand. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject in the least.
I hear you, man. I do think you understand what I'm saying. My gripes in this have been more with JD. I actually appreciate the civil tone we've had in our discussions -- and if I've come across as attacking you, that's certainly not my intent.
Ok, that's interesting. Does the piece mention that ROTS is the most significant in the last 30 years? And does she compare it to other works done in the last 30 years? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity here. If she's making more of an argument there, then that's a damnsight better than just making bold assertions. I might still disagree with her conclusions, or even with some of the premises on which it's based (e.g., her definition of "significant art,") but at least in that case she's bothering to demonstrate her expertise.
The piece on Lucas, though, from the Chronicle of Higher Learning, is where she certainly doesn't support her argument that Lucas is the greatest artist of our age. If that's the same piece from the book, then maybe the book as a whole must be judged in its entirety, rather than the essay in and of itself. (For example, her premises and definitions for significant art may be in the chapter dealing with the Egyptians; her lead in to ROTS may include previous chapters from art during the last 30 years, to discuss why it's significant, and the chapter on ROTS then can be taken as showing why it's more significant than those other works.)
I still disagree with her "shock" tactics in making these bold statements to help sell her book. Sensationalism in furtherance of commercialism cheapens serious academic studies, in my opinion. "LIFE SAVING CANCER DISCOVERY MADE: Pay $30 to find out how." (Ok, we're not talking cancer cures here, but you get my point.)
I've tried to couch my points to say that what I've read seen and read from her (which is the video and the piece on Lucas being the greatest artist of our time) does not support what she's arguing. I still maintain that. Her book may do a better job, though. I might still disagree with it, but she may do a better job of arguing there. Or she may not. I won't know unless and until I take a look at it. What I've seen, though, isn't really an argument in support of her position, as much as it is a series of bold pronouncements that don't make up a coherent argument.
Those pieces may not be intended to make that argument, though, and maybe she makes it elsewhere. I'd be curious to see it, and see if she supports her claim at this point. Actually, I'd really like to see a formal debate between her and some other experts in the field.
On a related note, I do agree that pop art can be art. And I do think that Lucas is a great artist, and that Star Wars (particularly ANH) is a work of art. Not just fun junk sci-fi, but art. I don't agree that he's the greatest or that Star Wars is the most significant, but then I wouldn't want to make that claim about ANY artist simply because I don't feel qualified and it seems too easy to me to blow holes in such an argument. But that's just where I stand. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject in the least.
