Now I agree with almost all of this, but where I get uncomfortable is here:
This isn’t art, Ms. Palmer, it’s cynical, dismissive marketing.
And I don't want to get caught up in semantics (and I fear I'm getting close!) but I would say that it's BAD art before I would agree it's NOT art. Which isn't to say that I don't agree that it's cynical, dismissive marketing, or even that I personally think it has no redeeming artistic value, or that I don't understand why it's repugnant enough to some listeners to make one no longer a fan of her work. I just think there's a line we do have to maintain between "not art" and therefore something to be regulated, and "bad art" as something I find in poor taste and will avoid.
But I do also agree with everything you say about her response to the criticism, which I find more distasteful even than the actual project? Because her response does indicate to me that she is kind of wearing a fig leaf with her response that it's too artistic for anyone who's offended to understand. (Which again, I don't think invalidates her right to have done it, but if she's going to say it's high art I agree she ought to be ready to actually engage productively).
For me, it's actually very much like what Nicole is saying about Dollhouse. Where I agree that it probably didn't HAVE to be fail, and this project of AP's doesn't HAVE to be fail, but it treads close enough to a line that makes me uncomfortable such that it would have to be done pretty expertly and with a hell of a lot of understanding for me to enjoy it. And in neither instance does that appear to be the case, so I just won't watch and/or won't buy. Even though I'll probably stay away from criticizing either too loudly, since I didn't actually watch or listen to either project...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 10:38 pm (UTC)This isn’t art, Ms. Palmer, it’s cynical, dismissive marketing.
And I don't want to get caught up in semantics (and I fear I'm getting close!) but I would say that it's BAD art before I would agree it's NOT art. Which isn't to say that I don't agree that it's cynical, dismissive marketing, or even that I personally think it has no redeeming artistic value, or that I don't understand why it's repugnant enough to some listeners to make one no longer a fan of her work. I just think there's a line we do have to maintain between "not art" and therefore something to be regulated, and "bad art" as something I find in poor taste and will avoid.
But I do also agree with everything you say about her response to the criticism, which I find more distasteful even than the actual project? Because her response does indicate to me that she is kind of wearing a fig leaf with her response that it's too artistic for anyone who's offended to understand. (Which again, I don't think invalidates her right to have done it, but if she's going to say it's high art I agree she ought to be ready to actually engage productively).
For me, it's actually very much like what Nicole is saying about Dollhouse. Where I agree that it probably didn't HAVE to be fail, and this project of AP's doesn't HAVE to be fail, but it treads close enough to a line that makes me uncomfortable such that it would have to be done pretty expertly and with a hell of a lot of understanding for me to enjoy it. And in neither instance does that appear to be the case, so I just won't watch and/or won't buy. Even though I'll probably stay away from criticizing either too loudly, since I didn't actually watch or listen to either project...