Rachel's response
Rachel responds:
Well yes, I did want to call you names. It was rude, and I apologize. But it didn't look like a discussion to me, but a name calling session. If talent is a purely subjective topic doesn't it warrant a discussion that's more sandbox than soapbox? Unless the idea of talent as a purely subjective topic is up for debate. Not name calling.
Steve replies:
Apology accepted and don't give it a second thought. I don't take these things personally.
If you mean that I was calling Spike Lee names, then yes, you are probably right. Since I don't have the opportunity to directly debate Mr. Lee, I have to use adjectives to describe his actions and semantic laziness leads me to apply them directly to him. However, I have no intention of apologizing to Spike, because I find his personal behavior beneath contempt. I could have said "Spike Lee behaves like a race pimp and a no-talent hack," but the difference would have been quibbling. For public figures, existentialism is everything. As far as we in the consuming public know, how they act is how they are.
As for sandbox vs. soapbox, that's the nature of blogging. The interactive discussion part is contrived at best. Anything one of us posts is going to look like soapbox, and because readers of the blog don't know us personally, the effect is amplified.
Talent is completely a subjective topic. I think Behethland is confusing skill with talent. Skill is an acquired ability. Talent is an innate ability to perform a skill in a superior manner. If I had access to the resources that Spike Lee has, I could make a movie that would be something between bad and awful, but I could make a movie. My contention is that Spike Lee has the skills to make movies (obviously), but he doesn't have the talent. Hollywood is not an adequate judge of talent, and the current scions of American popular culture, who are largely talentless themselves, are even worse.
Well yes, I did want to call you names. It was rude, and I apologize. But it didn't look like a discussion to me, but a name calling session. If talent is a purely subjective topic doesn't it warrant a discussion that's more sandbox than soapbox? Unless the idea of talent as a purely subjective topic is up for debate. Not name calling.
Steve replies:
Apology accepted and don't give it a second thought. I don't take these things personally.
If you mean that I was calling Spike Lee names, then yes, you are probably right. Since I don't have the opportunity to directly debate Mr. Lee, I have to use adjectives to describe his actions and semantic laziness leads me to apply them directly to him. However, I have no intention of apologizing to Spike, because I find his personal behavior beneath contempt. I could have said "Spike Lee behaves like a race pimp and a no-talent hack," but the difference would have been quibbling. For public figures, existentialism is everything. As far as we in the consuming public know, how they act is how they are.
As for sandbox vs. soapbox, that's the nature of blogging. The interactive discussion part is contrived at best. Anything one of us posts is going to look like soapbox, and because readers of the blog don't know us personally, the effect is amplified.
Talent is completely a subjective topic. I think Behethland is confusing skill with talent. Skill is an acquired ability. Talent is an innate ability to perform a skill in a superior manner. If I had access to the resources that Spike Lee has, I could make a movie that would be something between bad and awful, but I could make a movie. My contention is that Spike Lee has the skills to make movies (obviously), but he doesn't have the talent. Hollywood is not an adequate judge of talent, and the current scions of American popular culture, who are largely talentless themselves, are even worse.
posted by Anonymous | 10:17 AM
1 Comments:
1. Reading the discussion between you and your co-bloggers leads me back to my original impression which was: you admit you've watched one of Spike Lee's films all the way through and wasted your time watching a few others. You admit you are relatively unfamiliar with his work and feel justified making judgements about it nonetheless. Did you attend drama class with Lee in high school? That explains my "flaunting ignorance" comment.
2. You're trying to have it both ways: saying talent is subjective on the one hand, and Hollywood/pop culture is not an adequate judge of talent on the other. What can I extrapolate from that judgement, except this: you want to be the judge of talent and say what you want about it, and defend it how you want.
3. If your goal is to be contra mundum, you're succeeding. My point in saying "we need wise men not bullies" is this: the best polemicists are those with substantive weight behind their invective, like St. Athanasius, Martin Luther, or John Adams. The title of your blog indicates it exists because you want to use the internet to make a statement, "persuasively advocate an agenda"--not gratify your crankyness!
Post a Comment
<< Home