|
|
search
follow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
(in case of site outages or other emergencies, I'll update my status on Twitter and Facebook)
|
||
contact
|
share and enjoy
shop to support
support FlickFilosopher.com when you click through here and buy almost anything at:
• Amazon U.S.
• Amazon Canada
• Amazon U.K.
• Amazon Germany
• Amazon France
• Amazon Spain
• Amazon Italy
• Chapters/Indigo (Canada)
• Amazon U.S.
• Amazon Canada
• Amazon U.K.
• Amazon Germany
• Amazon France
• Amazon Spain
• Amazon Italy
• Chapters/Indigo (Canada)
pre-Disqus comments
posted by Newbs (Fri Jul 03 09, 7:58PM)
Yes, right; that's not a completely meaningless statement, not at all. :P
Just about the ONLY word you could substitute for "criticism" there that wouldn't be exactly as meaningful and/or revelatory is "democracy". Yet even then... it still seems kinda profound. Not that it is, of course. Just seems.
Far more wonderful (and relevent) is the subtitle of that very article:
"You might think it's arrogance or snobbery that leads me to criticise a work of art, and maybe it is – but I'm still right".
Now that's a quote. :)
posted by Paul (Sat Jul 04 09, 9:19AM)
The problem with his idea is that he thinks criticism is just about his gut and he doesn't have to explain why. Anybody can have a gut reaction, but a critic must know why and be able to articulate it, other wise he has no business being a professional critic. Without knowing why he thinks something is good or bad, he's just a louder mouth.