Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
No, really, I do get what you're arguing. But I think Paglia's reasoning for calling it the "most" significant is already implicit in what she said - at least in as far as how I interpret her argument.
Perhaps, but she doesn't address any of the questions she begs with her statements. If you look at my apples example, I don't address, say, why apples are superior to a number of food sources with different characteristics. I talk about why they're good, not why they're best. It may be implied that my criteria for "best" are what I've already described as being "good" about apples, but the logical follow up to my assertion is "what about [insert food source with other characteristics that are completely different]?" She doesn't begin to address any of that -- again, in the stuff I've seen.
And again, I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that she hasn't done it if you haven't read the book. Full disclosure: I haven't read the book either, but from what I gather from the synopsis, placing ROTS in context with art history is one of the main arguments of her book. She may not have done it to your satisfaction in the linked articles and video, but I think that's the point of doing press tours to sell a book, no? Is that not a reasonable assumption?
I've qualified my statements several times by saying that she hasn't done it in what I've read/seen, and I freely admit that she may very well do it in the book. If she does, great. Let's have a discussion on that, but I haven't had a chance to get to a bookstore to even skim what she says, let alone read it in full, and read the whole book so I see it in context.
I've also asked several times whether the article I linked to (which posits that George Lucas is the greatest artist of our time) is the same piece from the book but got no response one way or the other. She doesn't really explain why Lucas is the greatest artist of our time in that piece, either. It's just more bombast backed by "why Lucas is good." She does do a better job in that piece (obviously) that in the video, of course. But consider the following. She says:
Who is the greatest artist of our time? Normally, we would look to literature and the fine arts to make that judgment. But Pop Art's happy marriage to commercial mass media marked the end of an era. The supreme artists of the half century following Jackson Pollock were not painters but innovators who had embraced technology—such as the film director Ingmar Bergman and the singer-songwriter Bob Dylan. During the decades bridging the 20th and 21st centuries, as the fine arts steadily shrank in visibility and importance, only one cultural figure had the pioneering boldness and world impact that we associate with the early masters of avant-garde modernism: George Lucas, an epic filmmaker who turned dazzling new technology into an expressive personal genre.
That's her opening paragraph. So, right there, she's suggesting that her criteria for the best artists (the "supreme" ones) is their ability to innovate and embrace technology. She points out a few examples of this (Bergman, Dylan), and then says "Lucas is the greatest of our time."
Well, first, what's "our time"? Her lifespan? My lifespan? The 20th Century and early 21st? The 2nd half of the 20th Century? It's unclear, but let's say for the sake of argument that it's "the last 30 years" since that neatly dodges the obvious question of "Wait, why is Lucas better than Dylan, whom you already said was a supreme innovator?"
What follows is largely a biography of Lucas, chronicling his various achievements. All well and good, and certainly it forms the basis for a coherent argument on why Lucas is
a great artist, but not why Lucas is
the greatest artist of our time. Why is he better than, say, Joss Whedon who subverted the classic tropes of the horror genre in a bold feminist statement with Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the series, I mean, not the movie)? Why is Lucas better than James Cameron, who further innovated with CGI and 3D technology in his films? Why is he better than, say, various music producers, or the guys from Kraftwerk, or any number of multimedia artists? Why is he better than, say, Martha Clarke and her work in surrealist modern dance? Or Herbie Hancock? Or the guy who did "Urine" ****** (different name, actually, but the board blocks it), or....the list could go on.
She also talks about the end of Revenge of the Sith in the piece, which is why I ask whether that's the piece from the book. In the article, she again discusses the apocalyptic imagery of Mustafar (citing it as a visual counterpoint to Kamino, as well), the the number of f/x shots, the length of the duel and its balletic and operatic quality, and how it crosscuts with the disintegration of the Old Republic.
All great, but there's no discussion of why those sequences are better than any number of other sequences in modern film -- or any other medium. She doesn't talk about, say, any of the fight sequences in The Matrix which, one could argue, highlight and play with the concepts of reality and simulation, and act as a commentary on the nature of humanity itself.
Ultimately, my point is that she makes a very bold claim which implicitly compares Lucas to all other artists "of our time" -- and finds those others wanting, yet does not directly address any of the questions she begs with her statements. If you read the piece I linked to (I'll link it again here:
Why George Lucas Is the Greatest Artist of Our Time - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education), it really reads like my apples example. Apples are great. But I haven't told you why apples are the greatest.
Now, maybe she does it better in her book. In which case, we could actually dissect her argument, challenge the premise, and whether she has adequately supported it. I don't think she does so in the linked piece. I don't think she's even really clearly established her premise. We could maybe guess from implication why Lucas is the greatest, but she still doesn't defend that position so much as assert it vehemently and at length. Not quite the same thing.
But ultimately, I don't think she really cares. I don't think she's making serious statements to be considered by folks in the art world or in academia or any serious realm of scholarship or critique. And when I say "Serious realm of scholarship or critique" I mean people who will make supported arguments, defend their positions, cite to other examples and explain why they would distinguish one work/artist from another and find it better than the rest, etc. They do these things because, in so doing, it allows other experts to fully consider and then test the hypothesis.
Ultimately, I think she's making statements to be considered by the general public, which largely absolves her of the need to present her argument with anything approaching academic rigor. The public won't have the background or breadth or depth of knowledge of art to challenge her statements, so who cares? She can make them with impunity, free from having to actually defend her position (in spite of her claims that she will defend them to the death).
I suspect that most academics wouldn't take her all that seriously precisely because of this. This is also why I reject her as an expert: she isn't demonstrating any real expertise. She's no more an "expert" on art than any number of blowhards on AM talk radio are "experts" on politics. She's part of the larger "non-fiction entertainment media" sector, and she's only entertaining because she says out-there stuff in a strident tone. Anyone can do that, including any of us right here.
And frankly, I'm sick to death of people in the media getting away with this kind of crap. It's high time the media and the public held our "experts" to higher standards, instead of looking to them to simply confirm our already held, emotionally-rooted beliefs. I'm not just saying that about her, mind you, but about a whole swath of public figures who get away with making bold assertions, stridently, and who go unchallenged by actual experts.
opcorn
