= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Zetetic comments on A less wrong way to talk about the arts? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (48)
They aren't if you're friends with any film or music buffs with a solid knowledge base. When I have a chat with my more movie conscious friends about movies the conversation always includes some level of debate about acting skill, cinematography, flow of events, writing, dialogue, how well the characters mesh together etc.
If you want to successfully critique a piece of art, why not study the formal aspects of the art form some? You don't have to devote your life to it or anything, but it's good to have a repertoire of objective criteria to fall back on when explaining why you like the piece. Besides, it would make your proposed exercise less painless, more effective and you'd be able to parse hardcore reviews of films readily and thus be able to more easily discern whether there is anything out that you might like to watch.
If you can persuade a friend to learn about this art form with you, or go to some functions where you would likely meet someone with discerning taste you will probably have much more fun with this sort of thing.
I agree that discussing film in terms of form can be enjoyable, but plenty of people already do that. Plus, I'm suggesting that the actual experience of enjoying or not enjoying a piece of art has relatively little to do with its attention to form. I think there's more to explore in terms of various biases: ingroup loyalty, good/bad memory associations, whether or not you've eaten lunch, etc.
"I'm suggesting that the actual experience of enjoying or not enjoying a piece of art has relatively little to do with its attention to form"
Maybe for The Hangover 2, but not for, y'know, art. Of whatever type. For example, when I watch or listen to the comedian Richard Herring, I've often literally laughed so hard I become out of breath, can't see, turn red and get a buzzing sound in my ears. But that's because Herring (at his best) plays with the form of stand-up comedy, doing things like telling an extremely dull story and then repeatedly extending it, threatening the audience that it will continue til they all laugh.
Or listening to The Warmth Of The Sun by the Beach Boys, I can tell exactly why I love the song, and it's because of the key change on the third bar, and the way that breaks a standard pattern and turns it into something magical.
If all you're getting out of art is what you're bringing to it, you're probably not looking at the right works...
I haven't heard of Richard Herring, but he sounds like a descendant of Andy Kaufman--this is of course a compliment.
Yes, I agree that attention to form can be important, especially when attention equals subversion.
Not really, although I imagine his humour would appeal to the same kind of people. He's less confrontational and more whimsical than Kaufman though - most of the reference points I could use would be lost on an American, unfortunately (not intended as an insult), but Herring and his former double-act partner Stewart Lee (who does the same kind of thing but is more cerebral and to my mind more obvious, though still great) are part of a long tradition in British comedy - Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, the Goodies, I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue, the Palin/Jones team within the Monty Python group...
(I'm rambling now. I'll shut up).
Would you provide a link? I checked out some clips but I wasn't finding anything along the lines of what you described.
His stuff doesn't work particularly well as clips - often his best shows are structured as a series of jokes in the first half that are funny enough in themselves, but then work up to a very long, complicated routine in the second half that doesn't really work in excerpts. The particular routine I was referring to, though, was the second half of his DVD Someone Likes Yoghurt, which is available from gofasterstripe.com . He also does routines which deconstruct the show in Menage A Un and (to a lesser extent) Hitler Moustache, both of which are available from the same site.
A warning,though - I honestly have no idea how well his humour would travel across the Atlantic.
A friend just made a good point: seeing standup in an actual comedy club usually guarantees real laughter, whereas seeing the same performance on video causes less of a reaction, if any reaction at all.
I'll try to dig up the routines you mentioned, but yeah, so far it isn't making me laugh. What was the line or lines that really made the tears flow? Can you break down why?
It's not a matter of individual lines (though he has some lines I quite like - "I'm definitely the best comedian you'll ever see... I don't know the meaning of the word hubris. Which is a shame, because I'm entering a 'define the meaning of the word hubris' competition straight after the show. Doesn't matter, though, I'm definitely going to win.") but the cumulative effect of the whole thing.