Why are there far fewer advocates for popism/poptimism related to art forms OTHER than music?

Maybe I'm not reading the right people, but I feel like I don't read many insightful, clever people who push the "ascribing shame to pop pleasure is itself a shameful act" thing to Michael Bay movies and Dan Brown books or whatever.

It definitely seems like the idea that 'there's no such thing as a guilty pleasure!' is much more generally more accepted with music than other art forms, right?

Music is maybe more of an instinctive pleasure that doesn't invite such intense intellectual engagement as other forms? This is of course a massive, massive generalisation and I fully expect Tim F to come along and school me & u all

not only are you not reading the right ppl, you're posting to the wrong board

ILE seems like the best board for this.

It seems like there may be a few ILXors who are pretty knowledgeable about other art forms, but the majority seems to favour music, obviously. So, yes, I think your question may get more interesting responses in a film message board.

But I guess it depends what type of feedback you want.

There was discussion of this on some poptism thread several years ago, at least as it relates to books. Art forms are all very different, so "Pop" means very different things. Arguing the merits of Beyonce vs. Laurie Anderson is a completely different conversation than Thomas Kinkade vs. Jackson Pollock.

This is prob the closest thing I can think of to a 'poptimist' book on cinema (it's not that good, unfortunately):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_%28book%29

But since the 1950s at least, 'film culture' has been a big enough space to accommodate, or allow, almost any 'critical position' (eg luc Moullet's 'Charlton Heston is an axiom of cinema')

I'm afraid many "clever, insightful" critics tend to be big fans of shaming the unwashed masses. I said fuck it a long time ago and got a subscription to Entertainment Weekly.

michael bay kinda stands out these days for being a blockbuster filmmaker w no respect, imo

plenty of marvel/abrams poptimism going around

as for books, yeah everybody laughed at 50 shades of grey and dan brown but not at those swedish hacker rape books or george r r martin or (some of the time) stephen king. lotsa critics who <3 tswift hate the black eyed peas, or did last time i checked, this may have changed.

i mean i guess james wood doesn't write about george r r martin. but idk this stuff seems covered.

yeah i mean those are v good points - that a lot of the stuff critics and ilxors do like is simplistic boardroomed by-numbers artless trash, BUT THAT'S COOL

*flags own post, dies*

Is poptimism different from fandom? Because fandom tends towards hypercritical vehement hatred towards the people responsible for steering their properties wrong. (Lucas, lindelof, etc...)

Art history person here. Seems to me this is a fossil in the art world. I think those analogs don't work so well. In painting, for example, old masters have a "mass" audience, while it took a long time (and two world wars) for acceptance of "pop" language in art. This is an exciting time for us visual peeps because we can all, globally speaking, become more verbally literate.

Puritanism has always dogged music in particular, I think it still does. I think many people in the Western world still frown on pop and dance...or "pop" language.

Personally I quite enjoy pop, or "genre" literature, and I don't understand this meme that you are politically suspect if you prefer pop lit. Fact is, I like to stay in touch with mass culture, I think we should in democracies. I have nothing against "avant", then again, I'm not sure "avant" means "inaccessible" and vice versa.

I meant "visually literate" not "verbally literate" whatever that is.

Personally I love the early surrealists idea of destroying barriers between artist & audience, introducing new techniques (automatic writing, collage, dreams) that make it possible for the proletariat/workers/unwashed masses to not only understand a new art but to create it. To this day I have a lifelong hatred of art snobbery.

I think many people in the Western world still frown on pop and dance...or "pop" language.

I think last week when the new Grimes track came out and people were poo-pooing it because of the drops and the dubsteppy influences was good evidence that dance/electronic music is still looked down on.

.. or perhaps people praising it despite it's derivative & predictable influences provide good evidence that dance/electronic audience is a pretty uncritical one.

xp - looked down on by whom? The "art world" loves it

the surrealists, great champions of populist art that flatters audience's expectations.

Which sources in the " art world"?? And are they wrong?? Is dancing "uncritical"?? Should they exploit black "high culture" (jazz) instead? Also "opinion" does not mean "academic opinion" or "opinions in Artforum". It could mean "opinions of people who pollute Faebook walls". It could mean your neighbor's opinion.

I worked at an art museum for over a decade, as well as other high art/avant-garde institutions and it felt - to me - that there was less criticality of electronic and dance music than other musical genres that straddle pop and "high art."

I feel like there are a number of factors at play:
1. association of dance music with a constant progression of genres and sub-genres that tends to be something that appeals to a sensibility that is always looking for "the new," as well as its connection with technological innovation and it's experimental origins
2. electronic and dance music's social function re subcultures, which is something that also interests "high art" people
3. it is conducive to being played at galas and parties

When I say "the art world" I mean the musicians and music that gets presented by institutions, as opposed to what individuals in "the art world" happen to like or personally rep for.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/3/5867225/digital-revolution-barbican-london-exhibition-photo-essay

on the film side, farber's elephant and termite and related (and along with that in fact, french new wave crit) was a huge influence on proto-poptimist rockwrite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manny_Farber#.22White_Elephant_Art_vs._Termite_Art.22

the "poptimist" moment was in a sense about a dispute _within_ popculture where one _wing_ of it was taken as superior to the others in a particularly stupid way (and still is, by many, apparently).

"real art" (so constructed) doesn't enter the dispute here. Rather we've got (had?) a situation where the equivalent of exponents of mid-90s amerindie-derived "a family gets together, people die, people cry, there's a holiday, someone learns something" flix were insisting that everything with an explosion or a bank robbery or idk the romcom equiv could not possibly be good. But you don't have that in the film world. Like on the contrary the canonical "great" american films of the 70s and 80s are almost prototypically genre pieces.

Lit is a different story. There's a huge "poptimist" thing going on now with the explosion of "YA" genre stuff as a serious category for ppl to enjoy, but idk how i feel about it. On the other hand, there's also been the canonization of classic "genre" sci-fi and mystery stuff, and even a slow turn of modern "high lit" towards it. But lit is driven by other things than blockbusters and money, since the lit scene as such is insular in a sense, not by choice, but because "literary-lit" just matters less and less.

Those are my scattered thoughts, at least.

otm

There's this detail about Popism vs Rockism, which is that the argument still takes place within popular music. A rockist doesn't have a problem with popular music at all, just with pop music. Even though one often suspects that Rockists would rather be involved in classical music, they're still a faction within popular music.

So that might be why it's not easy to map popism and rockism on to other art forms?

As for literature, you'll see a ton of words defending YA and genre literature, but mainly defending it qua literature ('GoT is serious literature too, here's why ...') - doesn't sound like true poptimism to me.

what would a poptimist defense of it sound like?

read what makes you feel good, mayne

i haven't read it, but that series seems to be designed to make the readers feel terrible! the conversations I hear are like, "did you get to that part yet?" "oh my god, that part was the worst! I can't believe that happened!"

and the new yorker piece about the YA author is about a book where the main character is dying of some terminal illness. maybe poptimism is incompatible with YA because YA is about making you feel bad.

Popist defense of GoT would be along the lines of: the plot kept me reading it, I got angry when people I liked died and punched the air when people I liked got their own back; I like entering the world of the book, and everything in the story that could be called ridiculous, I find thrilling and exciting

Same with Twilight and Harry Potter more or less

If you had a GoT fan saying GoT was better than 50 Shades of Grey because it was serious and literary, and the 50 Shades fan responded by saying they just got off on 50 Shades, that might map on to rockism vs popism? Both people are talking about mass market products, but one of them wants to elevate one product above others, whereas the other just enjoys the product for itself without caring about its status.

Don't think either of those books would appeal to a a rockist. Seems like "rockist" literature would have to somehow feel (to the litist) like the natural state of the form, the bedrock from which all subsequent diversions are just novelty or temporary experimentation, a real book as opposed to an ebook or whatever, apparently timeless and classic, authentically created as an artistic expression and not specifically created for an existing market. Steinbeck maybe, or Kerouac?

its maybe a more interesting question with visual arts. we don't have the same low/high divide there because there aren't really even low visual arts, or to the extent they develop, like graffiti, they're adopted incredibly rapidly by the art world. so arguably the 'challenge' to the low-high divide (challenge in quotes because you can't just keep challenging it forever like its a thing) in the art world for the past 50 years (70? 80?) has been probably the defining narrative.

on the lit side, there is actual genre lit that gets written out of the 'real' lit story even as there's been a place made for westerns long ago and sci-fi more recently and YA today (sorta): http://www.gorillaconvict.com/2011/10/vickie-stringer-keeping-it-real-3/

there aren't really even low visual arts

jack vettriano

There are a lot of very well-read people who will rep for mass market fiction, even when the fiction in question isn't particularly well-written. Usually it's based on enjoying it for what it is rather than criticising it for what it isn't (and usually isn't trying to be).

Garden variety comments box rockism usually looks ridiculous when you invite the poster to compare Mozart or Beethoven or Shostakovich to whatever band they're holding up as an objectively superior to modern pop music (usually the Stones), usually because they miss the point that both are pop and both are trash. And they're either both "art" or neither of them are.

There's still a big (albeit shrinking) contingent in the world of classical/notated music that looks down on all pop whether it's Beyonce or Led Zeppelin or "art-rock" and where these barriers still firmly exist with very few pop performers allowed over the line, but that debate happens even there.

Variations of this debate also appear to exist in dance, film, architecture and visual art from what I can see. I suspect they're only really absent in areas without proper rockism but my ignorance is betraying me here - I've no idea if rockism and popism exists in the world of, say, topiary.

Was going to mention Manny Farber too, although not so much that essay, more his example throughout Negative Space. You see the reviews of B&W b-films (actually I haven't seen enough of those) and then he ends w/Fassbinder and Structuralist cinema.

But beyond that, its something more ingrained in in film culture and the way cinema worked. Lotsa auteurs never forgot -- while shooting in beautiful colours and framing the image -- that it was all to show that people's faces (and women if you were male) were beautiful. Yes you add more but its not something that is forgotten about.

Although now we are all well into a separation.

Don't really like the way the question is phrased. I don't think it needed poptmism to come along -- insofar as it is a thing at all and I'm not sure on that -- for people to have a problem w/ guilty pleasures.

I mean really the question should be turned inside out - the question is the extent to which other art forms erect objective (or more often pseudo-objective) measures of quality. You need that to happen first before popism can exist.

garden gnomes still prohibited from display at the chelsea flower show iirc

^pleasingly gnomic interjection from nickb

Gnome Chomsky over here weighing in

Both people are talking about mass market products, but one of them wants to elevate one product above others, whereas the other just enjoys the product for itself without caring about its status.

imo there are regular large-scale-hits that people can treat as *real books* (eg The Corrections, maybe Gone Girl more recently, David Nicholls even, David Mitchell… it's not an especially coherent list).

I don't think it maps especially well to a "Jake Bugg – *real music*" (haha though ok, I like particular forms of psychological and domestic realism as equivalent to 'plays a real instrument'), just because the histories, borderlines, means of transmission, cultural positions are so different.

, a real book as opposed to an ebook or whatever, apparently timeless and classic, authentically created as an artistic expression and not specifically created for an existing market. Steinbeck maybe, or Kerouac?

I'd see someone like Roth in a Dylan/Stones-ish role of 'The Real'.

oh shit david mitchell is radiohead

& i think an active(*) poptimism of books would/does look like what I've seen of the fandoms – participatory, creative, partisan about characters, etc etc. But as ppl have said upthread it doesn't really occupy the same space as the self-conscious literary world, they just don't rub up against one another enough to generate friction/a theorised debate.

(one cause of that I suppose is that you'd rarely accidentally read The Hunger Games whereas – particularly in youth/20s – you just hear an awful lot of stuff everywhere. Also see times - hours vs minutes to consume book vs pop song)

(*) as opposed to just really enjoying eg urban fantasy

hey just don't rub up against one another enough to generate friction/a theorised debate.

Janeites might be a flashpoint.

There's still a big (albeit shrinking) contingent in the world of classical/notated music that looks down on all pop whether it's Beyonce or Led Zeppelin or "art-rock"

yeah thinking of the kind of fusty Private Eye mentality where all one has to do to get themselves into Pseud's Corner is equate any sort of non-classical/jazz music with established notions of Art

what did you think about mad max whiney

mainstream movie critics has always been populist/poptimist - the shitty local critic who ends with "FUN!" for every review of a summer blockbuster and with the snobs it sorta happened already with the future French new wave guys when writing and loving mainstream American filmmakers like Hitchcock and Preminger and it's never really left -- annoying aspect is that they can act self-righteous about loving popular movies now too.

whiney ffs

Whiney otm about marketing of TV. I think TV is much better than it used to be but also think long-form serialization is mainly a crass capitalist move more than an artistic one.

I think w the rise of Facebook and Myspace and social networks where most of your profile is made of products you consume has lead to an era where consumers are more vigilant than ever about being better at consuming than their peers.

Mainstream film critics might be populist but they all hate Adam Sandler and don't his movies still make tons of money? Also Paul Blart, etc.

trenchant thread

Mainstream film critics might be populist but they all hate Adam Sandler and don't his movies still make tons of money? Also Paul Blart, etc.

But do poptimist music critics love e.g. Nickelback?

But do poptimist music critics love e.g. Nickelback?

No, because poptimist criticism defines pop aesthetically (music by black people, mostly, that you can dance to, mostly) rather than by the numbers (music that's popular = pop). Thus a rock band (e.g. Five Finger Death Punch or Theory of a Deadman) can have multiple high-selling albums out, with songs that get played all day long on rock radio formats, and never draw the attention of critics, because a) there's no big rock radio station in New York, and b) a lot of music criticism these days is about preening for other critics (cf. the annual EMP Pop Conference, which I have presented papers at twice), and if a band is just four white guys with electric guitars, there's no intra-group status to be gained by, and therefore no value in, analyzing their work.

mj eddie vedder eating popcorn.gif

No, because poptimist criticism defines pop aesthetically (music by black people, mostly, that you can dance to, mostly) rather than by the numbers (music that's popular = pop)

This entire post is so wrongheaded that I had to just check to see if you were Raccoon Tanuki.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBTzbKx0jo

^curvy Columbia dive

when poptimists stare into the void, Nickelback stares back at them and smirks.

I don't know everything all ya'll are talking about, but it might also be fruitful to talk about how the music is used?

Everyone already knows that when you give someone a dime for something that costs five cents, you're going to get a Nickelback.

See the increase in the auteur theory (ie., saying "showrunner" instead of the less-sexy "executive producer").

These two titles are very far from interchangeable and while the former might usually be the latter as well, they're not the same job

Art historian here. Visual art had its "popism" moment in the nineteenth century, with the advent of photography. Critics argued over whether these machine-produced images could be "art". Ditto the value of mass-produced images such as book and magazine illustration. Would be worth reading the anti-photography essays published at the time - these would be the "rockists" - no?

Photography's influence on painting is a fascinating topic.

Also you misunderstand me, and also take my earlier post too seriously. I DO think that rockist critics who demand that hard-working people listen to their twenty-five essential rock albums are being classist. I don't have time in my stressful working life to listen to boring depressing shit like Astral Weeks. A liberal music writer ought to understand labor and economics better. NOT that Van Morrison exploits workers, but I think critics do. Or at least lack sympathy for them.

the working class find it very hard to avoid rockist music critics

From the boss' kids'Mecca that is ILX. I come from three generations of steelworkers AND attended an elite university. I know both sides.

Rock music is working-class AND black in origin, it is amazing how many white male critics and editors pay no mind to this, nor are they grateful to the originators of a music that they STOLE. I don't like some privileged ass telling me that I'm not musically literate enough because I didn't like his pet rock albums. Ditto for rich old white guys who sneer at blue-collar students who haven't read all of the "great books".

The working-class has every right to read bullshit criticism produced by the bosses' class. Don't think they don't. Esp. when critics pretend to be "liberal".

Jesus be quiet

critics exploiting workers, what is the world coming to

There is something suspect about all these critics who put all these long movies like the Godfather on "Top Ten" lists when they could be recommending Youtube clips or 30 second ads to the overworked masses

xxp
it must have been pretty shit for that first generation of your steelworker heritage, waiting for the Bessemer process to be invented and just making horseshoes and stuff in aid of sending a future progeny to an elite university centuries later:p

astral weeks is a dope album fuiud

would rock critics still be rockist/classist/racist if they recommended "are you experienced?" to their working class readers instead of "astral weeks"?!?

i guess the only way you could be more "film poptimist" is stanning for Pitch Perfect 2

That would indeed be much more "film poptimist," in that one notable feature of poptimism is "what if we accorded mass media whose primary audience is women something like the same benefit of the doubt we do mass media whose primary audience is men."

I tried to get my head around the idea that e.g. Brian Ferneyhough is in fact exploiting the proletariat by by writing difficult complex music. Then I decided to revolt against the unpaid labour of thinking about it.

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Monday, May 25, 2015 4:43 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is similar to what Cornelius Cardew argued in Stockhausen Serves Imperialism (1974), isn't it?

i posted some stuff about popism and capitalism earlier on this thread, in a piece on gawker linked on taylor thread similar ideas are expressed, a decent read apart from the somewhat polemical tone:

... the part of Taylor’s persona that doesn’t get talked about enough: she is a ruthless, publicly capitalist pop star. To think of her as womanhood incarnate is to trick oneself into forgetting about “Bad Blood” and “Better Than Revenge.” Swift isn’t here to help women—she’s here to make bank. Seeing her on stage cavorting with World Cup winners and supermodels was not a win for feminism, but a win for Taylor Swift. Her plan—to be as famous and as rich as she can possibly be—is working, and by using other women as tools of her self-promotion, she is distilling feminism for her own benefit.
http://gawker.com/taylor-swift-is-not-your-friend-1717745581

how is feminism the way this writer defines it possible in a society that's not capitalist?

Are you referring to this paragraph?

I often have conversations with my female friends about the two sides of feminism: the complimentary, bestie feminism—the kind that Swift is currently selling—and the cutthroat, realistic, we-exist-in-this-male-world-too feminism, the kind that expects women to act to standards that have already been set for us, and to do so by acting better and stronger and in alignment with each other. I think that neither are necessarily “wrong,” though I do often find myself on the latter side of the fence.

If so, it's pretty late in Denmark and I'm not clearheaded enough to understand what it's supposed to mean. But I thought the point about Taylor's capitalist values was relevant (although I'm sort of feeling that maybe other people itt will find it too self-evident to be mentioned).

Maybe both sides are just different points of view seen through this critical lens that is being reduced into yet another cultural football team.

Is a non-capitalist pop star possible?

I thought popular music depended on the existence of capital.

Just thinkin' aloud here.

Taylor Swift Burn a Million Quid

cultural football team hehe

Were there stars in communist Russia? Jurij Gagarin? Anyway, I agree, in a capitalist society it's hard to imagine pop being in opposition to capitalism. But maybe some pop embraces capitalism more than other - or maybe Pitbull (my go to reference, but really, the guy had a sponsorship deal with Kodak where he would say the word "Kodak" in his songs) is no more capitalist than the Beatles were, he's just up front about it?

I'm pretty much repeating myself here - but I thought it was nice to see an article/thinkpiece that pointed out however obvious, that there's some tension between the down-to-earth-friend and larger-than-life-business Taylor Swift.

flappy bird heroically stanning for the angry birds movie reminded me of this thread

Feel like a lot of people used to be into way more interesting stuff.

they were also shorter and lived near the water

I'm picturing intelligent people looking in the mirror and crying after a long degrading day of writing and arguing about mediocre pop film and tv.

I'm picturing a tree

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQDeU6dHX-c

I'm picturing a tree

― saer, Thursday, 6 July 2017 14:33

I hope it's an interesting tree.

And when I die, I want to be a ghost that feeds on the regretful tears of dying popists who went too far in their apologia and analysis.

Before I die there will be ghosts who suck the tears from my eyes because I spent so much time sneeringly lurking around discussion of mediocre to poor pop culture.

Morbius will feed these ghosts more than I will.

They will whisper to me about the potent flavour of my Ready Player One movie vintage tears.

Last night a ghost said all this intermittently when sucking on my eyes...

"You wanted to remove that Ready Player One movie thread bookmark, you wanted to spend your life more meaningfully, but you were just like the rest of them, far too weak to resist.

You told yourself that there might be something that made it worthwhile, like that hilarious Jared Leto fashion photo sequence in the Suicide Squad movie thread, but even that wasn't justification enough. No ILX poster has the power to save these threads.

Those Mahavisnu Orchestra, Judas Priest, Sisters Of Mercy, Mahler, Sibelius, Delius and Incredible String Band box sets and Cardiacs piles have been sitting unfinished for years and you still look at these threads. "

Then it told me about Οὖτις's delicious Game Of Thrones tears.

lol

flappy bird is giving this a good go maybe

Poetry rockism: http://www.pnreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/scribe?item_id=10090 - the terms of this argument are more or less identical to ye olde rockism-about-rock.

The controversy sparked (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/23/poetry-world-split-over-polemic-attacking-amateur-work-by-young-female-poets ) suggests poetry anti-poetyrockism is nascent, or at least possible.

Unfortunately the Poetry world is always full of this “THis is not real poetry” shit. I remember when political poetry wasn’t real poetry, or performance poetry wasn’t real poetry or LANGUAGE poetry wasn’t real poetry or basically anything that was not to the taste of the editors of the twenty or so highest profile journals wasn’t real poetry (this used to include most poetry by POC.) I’m not sure why different genres of writing can’t be allowed to co-exist—like, are Dance music writers always issuing denunciations of Metal?

Protecting standards used to be a big deal in academic writing programs. I remember a fiction professor on the first day of class handing out an essay he had written explaining what was literary fiction and what was genre fiction and why the latter was inferior. He compared Moby Dick and Jaws because they were both about sea creatures.

cross-ref w/ literary clusterfucks thread

just read the links on the pre-bump revive. i mean the poetry she's critiquing is properly ghastly tbh

I'm afraid many "clever, insightful" critics tend to be big fans of shaming the unwashed masses. I said fuck it a long time ago and got a subscription to Entertainment Weekly.

― Darin, Thursday, July 3, 2014 3:04 PM (five years ago) bookmarkflaglink

thread honestly should have been over here, this is the undercurrent of so much discourse that purports to be about something more elevated than this

https://giphy.com/media/94EQmVHkveNck/200.webp

Lemme try that again:

http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/94EQmVHkveNck/giphy.gif