he responds to one comment with "So I think the least important thing a critic can tell me is whether a work is “good”. To paraphrase another important late-20th century philosopher, That’s just, like, his opinion, man. The analysis directed toward defending one’s taste, “proving” that something is good, seems like wasted effort, because it can be refuted by the Lebowski corollary. Such writers are plainly jockeying for power, and I don’t have odds in that fight."
but that's as much as most poptimists want. so he actually concedes most of the ground. hurrah we win.
This guy is responding to an IDEA he has of what he thinks "poptimism" probably is like, but his idea only has a shaky relationship to the thing itself and how it actually plays itself out in the world. Most self-described poptimists I know are actually very attracted to the questions he claims they totally avoid re: capital, ideology, culture and subculture, but they also don't believe their (or his) answers to such questions necessarily invalidate the worth and meaning of the subject; plus, they're interested in many other kinds of questions as well.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 10:07 pm (UTC)"So I think the least important thing a critic can tell me is whether a work is “good”. To paraphrase another important late-20th century philosopher, That’s just, like, his opinion, man. The analysis directed toward defending one’s taste, “proving” that something is good, seems like wasted effort, because it can be refuted by the Lebowski corollary. Such writers are plainly jockeying for power, and I don’t have odds in that fight."
but that's as much as most poptimists want. so he actually concedes most of the ground. hurrah we win.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 10:17 pm (UTC)