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

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

I'm making a statement, not a comparison according to you. Except, most others than you, would see I'm dissing every other type of drink with that statement, so am making a very definite comparison and finding that singular one - Pepsi Max - to be better than everything else.

And as with any statement, there are those who agree and there are those who disagree... but about her not comparing to anything is just bollocks.
You are not directly comparing anything. It's that simple.

If I were to say Pepsi Max is the most significant soda in the last 30 years, it is a generalization. It is not necessarily a 'diss' on anything - significant can mean that's notable for any one or number of reasons. It does not mean it's the best soda out there.

If Pepsi Max was the first soda to taste exactly like 'regular' Pepsi, be absolutely calorie free and free of artificial sweetners, come in a gold can and pay for itself, well it would be significant for any of those reasons, but to someone who hated the taste of Pepsi, it would still not be 'the best' soda... significant, yes... best, no.
 
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

To further that topic.

Pepsi Max is better than Coke because it has zero calories is a direct comparison.

Pepsi Max is the most signifcant soda in the last 30 years is not a direct comparison.

Continue to bury the discussion all you wish.
 
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Seriously doubt Paglia is crying into her cornflakes over what people say about her on the Movies section of the Replica Props Forum.

Is it bullying when a person who makes a controversial public statement succeeds in provoking controversy? Is it bullying when the 'victim' doesn't know a thing about it?

Oh, and 'most powerful/most significant' absolutely does indicate she considers it to trump everything else. Good lord, does that point really even need to be argued?! She goes out of her way to emphasise her point. I don't find the contortions required to interpret it any other way to be convincing.

But I'm with Colin - by all means carry on - this is great! :popcorn
 
Last edited:
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Hi there, Martyn!

Oh boys! Why haven't you busted me yet for the clear sexism in my 'Camille, honey' post? An open goal and you missed it.

No matter. Paglia's lawyers didn't. Got an email from them this morning... looks like you were right; she has indeed been seriously emotionally scarred by this thread. Ulp! Turns out she was in fact here reading us last night, as she'd just joined the forum looking to learn how to make a Sith Vader suit replica, then looked into the movie forum. Ouch!

And heh... trust me, I deal with the art world on a daily basis, I talk all the time with contemporary art people, and when a critic says something is the 'most significant', they do mean the 'most important'. In this, of course, they're rather like most other people in the world.
 
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Damn! I was so wrong there then, eh, Steve? Doubtless Solo and I are about to receive similar correspondence. Well, I'm a big boy and I can own up when I've done wrong, so let me be the first to say 'welcome to the RPF, Ms. Paglia', and also 'I'm terribly sorry for the hurt I've caused you with my thoughtless cruelty'.

Oh no...I can only guess at the pain I must have caused Mr. Lucas over the years. :(
 
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

If all she was saying was that it is merely significant, I'd absolutely agree with you -- she's made her case. Whether one agrees with her assessment, well, that's up for debate, but she has, at least, made her case.

What she hasn't done, however, is made the case for what it is the most significant work of art -- in any medium -- for the last 30 years. That's not just a matter of semantics or misspeaking oneself.

She's drawn a comparison by that statement to ALL art created in the past 30 years, and said "This one is more significant than all of those."

Then, she goes on to describe why it is merely significant.

Let me put it this way. Let's say I make the following argument:

"Apples are the greatest food source that has ever existed. Apples are delicious, offering a variety of different flavorful experiences from the bright tones of the honey-crisp to the luxurious decadence of the golden delicious. Their colorful skin not only is visually pleasing, it also, like the skin of a peach or plum, seals the fruit in a protective coating that leaves it safe from predatory insects. Apples are available in abundance, and are relatively easy to grow. Therefore, apples are the best."

Question: Have I made an argument in support of apples being the greatest food source that has ever existed?

Answer: NO.

I've made many statements extolling the virtues of apples. What I haven't done, however, is address apples in comparison to any other food source, nor explain why they are better than those other food sources. I haven't even explained what the criteria for consideration as "the greatest" would be, to allow you to guess at why I think they're the greatest.

"But you talked about peaches and plums." Yes, I did, but I did not explain why the apple is greater than them. If anything, I only muddied the water of my central point by equating the apple with those other fruits, instead of distinguishing it from them. And, I've only addressed fruits.

"You did talk about all those positive aspects of the apple." I certainly did. But I didn't tell you if those are the things that make it better than, say, steak, or corn, or chicken, or asparagus. The stuff I talked about isn't even applicable to those other food sources, so who knows how I'd respond to "What about steak?" as a question.


That's what Paglia is doing with her statement. Does she defend the significance of ROTS? Yep. That she does. Does she defend why ROTS is THE MOST significant work of art in all media in the last 30 years? Nope. That she does not.



Part of what I think may be confusing folks is that they may interpret what she's saying as mere exaggeration. Kind of like someone who's really enjoying a glass of wine who says "This may be the best wine on earth." Well, obviously they don't REALLY think that, right? They're just digging the wine.

Paglia, however, is different. First, she's an authority on the subject she's discussing. She's not just someone walking out of a theater saying what an awesome experience they just had. Second, she's just put out a book examining various works of art and their significance, and the statement is being made as part of her publicity for that book.

What she does for a living is critique art (among other things). So, when she says "The most significant work in the past 30 years in any medium including literature," I think we are meant to take her at her word. She's not just expressing that she really really liked the film and weren't the lightsabre battles cool. She's saying something Important with a capital "I." In her capacity as an expert, she's making a qualitative judgment that the end of ROTS is the most significant work in all media for the last 30 years. That's a big step beyond merely exclaiming in an overly dramatic way what a great movie ROTS is.

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.

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

If I were to say Pepsi Max is the most significant soda in the last 30 years, it is a generalization. It is not necessarily a 'diss' on anything - significant can mean that's notable for any one or number of reasons. It does not mean it's the best soda out there.
Seeing as you continually only focus on only half of what is said, both by me previously and even by Paglia, you are deliberately ignoring the comparison to further your own argument, which is simply fallible.

But following this... it means it's the most significant soda to her, meaning that at best, she has a specific opinion that is basically worthless to anyone else but herself. Those who agree will agree, those who disagree will disagree, 'cause, you can't argue taste, when it comes to cola.

Meaning... having watched the forementioned scene in the utterly boring movie, I not only yawned thrice, but rolled my eyes and nearly went to sleep out of pure boredom and thinking it was absolutely ridiculously set and designed and executed. Most significant work in 30 years in any genre, including literature, my ass. It's not thought provoking, it's not even the best CGI available. It looks fake and overly choreographed, lifeless and doesn't hold a candle to any of the OT fights. RotJ is WITHIN that 30 year mark and the lightsaber fight between father and son has more emotion than the cardboard, overly colored surrounding, emotionless debacle that was seen in RotS. Most significant art? Yeah, if you like cartoon colors and unrealism. Sure. Even worse than surrealism and splatter painting.
 
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Meaning... having watched the forementioned scene in the utterly boring movie, I not only yawned thrice, but rolled my eyes and nearly went to sleep out of pure boredom and thinking it was absolutely ridiculously set and designed and executed. Most significant work in 30 years in any genre, including literature, my ass. It's not thought provoking, it's not even the best CGI available. It looks fake and overly choreographed, lifeless and doesn't hold a candle to any of the OT fights. RotJ is WITHIN that 30 year mark and the lightsaber fight between father and son has more emotion than the cardboard, overly colored surrounding, emotionless debacle that was seen in RotS. Most significant art? Yeah, if you like cartoon colors and unrealism. Sure. Even worse than surrealism and splatter painting.
So at least we're getting somewhat of an admission that this is about someone not liking the movie and it's more about George Lucas raping your childhood. Why not just admit it outirght?

This isn't about Paglia saying a scene in a movie is the most significant - it's that it was one of the Star Wars prequels.

Just admit it rather than try to distract with a nonsensical argument about needing to compare with other movies or 'how dare she have an opinion.'
 
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Meaning... having watched the forementioned scene in the utterly boring movie, I not only yawned thrice, but rolled my eyes and nearly went to sleep out of pure boredom and thinking it was absolutely ridiculously set and designed and executed. Most significant work in 30 years in any genre, including literature, my ass. It's not thought provoking, it's not even the best CGI available. It looks fake and overly choreographed, lifeless and doesn't hold a candle to any of the OT fights. RotJ is WITHIN that 30 year mark and the lightsaber fight between father and son has more emotion than the cardboard, overly colored surrounding, emotionless debacle that was seen in RotS. Most significant art? Yeah, if you like cartoon colors and unrealism. Sure. Even worse than surrealism and splatter painting.

Sounds like its her opinion you dislike then. I may not share her view (even if I think she explains why she does well enough), but so what if she feels that way? Hell, I actually prefer if a professor doesnt have the mainstream opinion based on some kind of canon, even if I dont share it.

I dont share your view of Ep1, and cant really understand how you can like it. But hey thats perfectly fine. Im like, cool, there are ppl liking this better than say Ep3. Id go even further and say that you might make me like it more, as I will try to see what you like.
 
Last edited:
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

So at least we're getting somewhat of an admission that this is about someone not liking the movie and it's more about George Lucas raping your childhood. Why not just admit it outirght?
I've never tried to hide I don't like the movie and Lucas never raped my childhood - he enriched it. So again, you are shooting past the target deliberately.

This isn't about Paglia saying a scene in a movie is the most significant - it's that it was one of the Star Wars prequels.
It IS about Paglia and about that particular scene. I like a few things in the prequels, that scene just isn't one of them. So again you are shooting wrong, 'cause you cannot accept opinions of those who disagree with you.

Just admit it rather than try to distract with a nonsensical argument about needing to compare with other movies or 'how dare she have an opinion.'
That would be a lie. So just stop making assumptions regarding why I say what I say.

Sounds like its her opinion you dislike then. I may not share her view (even if I think she explains why she does well enough), but so what if she feels that way? Hell, I actually prefer if a professor doesnt have the mainstream opinion based on some kind of canon, even if I dont share it.
I generally dislike opinions and statements made solely to boost sales on a book, yes. Especially when it in such a broad strokes wipe everything else off the table that by far exceeds what she apparently claims is in that particular scene in RotS.

I dont share your view of Ep1, and cant really understand how you can like it. But hey thats perfectly fine. Im like, cool, there are ppl liking this better than say Ep3. Id go even further and say that you might make me like it more, as I will try to see what you like.
Well... it's the only of the PT I can watch throughout without getting bored or have to turn it off. I don't particularly think it is a good film... just that it is the best, most coherent story of the prequels.
 
Last edited:
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.

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 don't get what they're arguing... I can understand having an opinion, I can get disagreeing with someone's opinion.. What I don't get get is the venom and low brow tact some of the folks here are stooping to. (I don't think I said it was internet bullying - just that it could be interpreted that way - amazing how some are trying to make this about that instead of acting like adults and just not attacking Paglia for having an educated opinion).

I think it's pretty simple:
- Paglia is a (respected) critic, professor, etc.
- she wrote a book.
- in the book she named the duel scene of RotS as the most significant work of art in the last 30 years.
- she backed up her opinion in the book and in interviews promoting her book.

-- some folks are still whining about the prequels.
-- some folks are upset that Paglia reckoned that scene as art, as being the most significant art in the last 30 years and have simply attacked her for having an opinion and most won't acknowledge that she backed up her opinion.
--- even more absurdly, a couple folks are ticked that Paglia did not do a direct comparison against every other piece of 'art' that came out the last 30 years. :confused

I'm really starting to see that this is more about the Prequels than Camille Paglia naming any scene in a movie as the most significant. Oh, they'll deny it... they'll deny it with lengthy posts. The truth isn't that hard to find.

Some folks are so bitter and so angst ridden over the 'Lucas raping my childhood' theory (which I find laughable - get a grip) that their judgement is too clouded to separate their emotions from actual intelligent, rational thinking... now, they may appear to have a dialog - but, don't let that fool you: they're filled with rage and they tend to channel it well with lengthy posts railing against a critic with an opinion.

As for me. Well, I never said the duel scene of RotS is the most significant - but, I am not critic and I don't find myself well versed enough it art to say so. I find it a novel idea and I enoyed reading her reasonings why - the mere fact that so many folks saw the movie makes it somewhat significant (not that this is a great argument, but let's face it: more folks saw RotS than some painting hanging in a museum). I could see Paglia compared this scene to an opera and to dance... some folks are so closed minded, so adamantly against Lucas' prequels they refuse to acknowledge this (and again, they'll argue - probably vehemently, that this isn't the case. Don't let them fool ya).

I'm still not convinced it's great art - but, I'm not sure if Banksy or Basquiet is, either - but, I like the theory that it could be.
 
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Just read this in a Washington Post 1980 review of ESB - thought it was apt!

WashingtonPost.com: 'The Empire Strikes Back'

'To call "The Empire Strikes Back" a good junk movie is no insult: There is enough bad junk around. And surely we're getting over the snobbery of pretending that it is undemocratic to recognize any hierarchy of culture, as if both low and high can't be appreciated, often be the same people.

But when light entertainment is done well, someone is bound to make extravagant and unsupportable claims for its being great art. You will hear that this sequel to "Star Wars" is part of a vast new mythology, as if it were the Oresteia. Its originator, George Lucas, has revealed that the two pictures are actually parts four and five of a nine-part sage, as if audiences will some day receive the total the way devotees now go to Seattle for a week of immersion in Wagner's complete Ring Cycle.

Nonsense. This is no monumental artistic work, but a science-fiction movie done more snappily than most, including its own predecessor. A chocolate bar is a marvelous sweet that does not need to pretend to be a chocolate soufflé; musical comedies are wonderful entertainment without trying to compete with opera; blue jeans are a perfect garment that shouldn't be compared with haute couture. There are times when you would much rather have a really good hot dog than any steak, but you can still recognize that one is junk food and the other isn't.'
 
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

I'm not particularly riled mesself. Paglia's welcome to her opinion, no matter how silly and unfounded (at best) or deliberately, attention-seekingly outrageous and provocative (at worst) I might consider it.

Solo's done a pretty good job of outlining why he *is* annoyed, and though I don't share his feelings that's more apathy on my part than any disagreement with his reasoning.

She did name the scene as the most 'powerful' and 'significant' piece of art in 30 years. She actually didn't back up her opinion, she merely continued talking. There's a difference, as has been pointed out extensively. Backing up her (extreme, outlier) opinion would require her to at least make a credible stab at explaining why she sees the scene as better than any number of recent pieces of art that are more widely accepted as 'powerful' and 'significant', even if there is no universal consensus on which is the 'most' so.

Disclaimer; I am perfectly at ease with the idea of a positive assessment of the duel scene; it was almost the only moment in the PT that did move me much and IMO it's the greatest lost opportunity of the Prequels; it's trying to be Wagnerian but is too badly let down by the various elements others have touched on to work as well as intended...for my money. But the degree of positivity in Paglia's assessment is, well...kinda mental.
 
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Just read this in a Washington Post 1980 review of ESB - thought it was apt!

WashingtonPost.com: 'The Empire Strikes Back'

'To call "The Empire Strikes Back" a good junk movie is no insult: There is enough bad junk around.

Thanks for posting that. When I was twelve that whole review would have seemed like heresy. Now it's just common sense. :lol
 
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

I'm not particularly riled mesself. Paglia's welcome to her opinion, no matter how silly and unfounded (at best) or deliberately, attention-seekingly outrageous and provocative (at worst) I might consider it.

Solo's done a pretty good job of outlining why he *is* annoyed, and though I don't share his feelings that's more apathy on my part than any disagreement with his reasoning.

She did name the scene as the most 'powerful' and 'significant' piece of art in 30 years. She actually didn't back up her opinion, she merely continued talking. There's a difference, as has been pointed out extensively. Backing up her (extreme, outlier) opinion would require her to at least make a credible stab at explaining why she sees the scene as better than any number of recent pieces of art that are more widely accepted as 'powerful' and 'significant', even if there is no universal consensus on which is the 'most' so.

Disclaimer; I am perfectly at ease with the idea of a positive assessment of the duel scene; it was almost the only moment in the PT that did move me much and IMO it's the greatest lost opportunity of the Prequels; it's trying to be Wagnerian but is too badly let down by the various elements others have touched on to work as well as intended...for my money. But the degree of positivity in Paglia's assessment is, well...kinda mental.


Exactly, and I'm of the same opinion. I have no issue with Paglia merely saying "This is important/significant/great art." I think you can (and she does) make a case for that. Likewise, I have no issue with her saying "Lucas is a great artist." Again, one can (and she does) make a case for that position, too. It's the superlatives -- and her failure to articulate why they deserve to be considered superlative -- that I find, well, as you said, mental. That and the fact that she's given air time in spite of not actually backing up her points. I've explained all of that, though.

That's apparently not good enough for "some folks," though. "Some folks" are apparently either deliberately obtuse in their approach to argumentation, or are lacking in basic reading comprehension skills.

"Some folks," are also apparently unable to stop obliquely arguing against others' points, while simultaneously casting aspersions on the people making those points, and yet remain unable or unwilling to engage in direct debate, even when directly challenged to do so.

"Some folks" apparently also find it easier to dismiss the arguments of others by casting aspersions about the individuals making the argument, in an effort to thereby invalidate the argument as a whole instead of actually responding to it. "Some folks" apparently do so by pointing out imagined emotional connections that are so overriding that they dominate all discussion about such films (a "phantom menace," indeed...). Perhaps "some folks" are engaged in what psychologists refer to as "projection."

"Some folks" sure do seem to make a lot of baseless assumptions about other folks.


As you can see, some folks can also play the same games as other folks. Some folks imagine that other folks find them equally cowardly and tedious when the shoe is on the other foot.
 
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Man this is getting seriously complicated. :lol
 
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]

Actually it isn't complicated at all.

There is certainly a lot of ad hominem going on from one side here, and it begins with Paglia statement on ROTS.


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

No, really Solo. I swear to you I understand your argument.

I actually got the Kindle preview of her book for a little bed time reading. And her argument is more fleshed out from what I read. Basically, as I read it, she argues that the art establishment has overzealously clung to a dated notion of avante garde, which has created a reactionary sense of "shock art" (such as Urine ******, which she does actually address) . This coupled with a general non-interest in fine att from Americans chiefly, has driven creative energies towards pop art. She doesn't consider commercialism to invalidate any potential artistic merit.

Her arguments on ROTS have to be understood in the context of it being one part of a much larger argument. The book itself is a comparison of pieces of art, of which ROTS is one. It's s just not fair to say she hasn't done it. She did it, but we didn't read it. (Yet?)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top