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

Lovecraft, Shirley Jackson and plenty of old ghost story and gothic writers. There are quite a few contemporary horror authors who are pretty well respected but just aren't that well known.

Been reading (horror/weird fiction critic, scholar, editor) ST Joshi recently and he points out several times that a large amount of the most famous writers of 1700s to early 1900s had a few if not a whole chunk of horror stories, some of these writers are only remembered or just best known for their horror stories. In Britain major publishers were fine with printing horror at a time when in America the genre was too associated with lowly pulp magazines; I think Britain changed its mind in the 50s.

The conversation about genre fiction acceptance is overdone but Jeff Vandermeer wrote a really good piece about it.
http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/vandermeer_11_07/
Bruce Sterling insulting another writing by calling her "Shania Twain" might be relevant here.

writer not writing

One of the things that makes it hard to draw parallels in other media re the rockist/poppist dichotomy:

Rockism (re music) wants to value forms of musical creation that provide some guarantee (supposedly) of authentic self-expression, with a minimum of artifice (there's obviously a slew of dubious assumptions at work here, but as I understand it that is the ideology: distortion pedals are seen as extensions of the guitar which itself is an extension of the musician's body (loins really)). The thing about fiction (in books or film), however, is that the entire enterprise is about artifice. Works that are relatively direct expressions of the creator's inner soul are a specialized few (poetry provides lots of room for this, but these days it is a specialist genre read by few).

Painting is another beast altogether. I suppose expressionists of various types (Van Gogh, Pollock, etc) embody some rockist values, but the issue of representation or truth value seems so different here than in music, that I can't get my head around how you can fully deploy the dichotomy in this context.

There are actually a number of Horror dudes who get mainstream praise, Thomas Ligotti, Nate Kenyon, Laird Barron. you could add Brian Evenson too, though he has a range.

There's sort of a highbrow small press Horror writing world going back to those T.E.D. Klein Twillight Zone Magazine days and centering around Cemetary Dance

Glamorizing alcoholic/addict poets/writers feels like a rockism, the idea of suffering for your work in order for it to be great. The suffering artist given license to indulge themselves for the public as long as they can be sacrificed as cautionary dreamers.

popism is a myth perpetuated by those who give credence to other myths

so is zeus but he has awesome lightening bolts and shit

that was CGI:(

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?

― I am Nicky-napped

Haha, away from smartarse music forums I find exactly the opposite to be the case! I know plenty of people who would be perfectly cool with watching an Adam Sandler movie or whatever as just a bit of fun, but turn their nose up massively if you admit to digging a cheesy pop song.

Music is generally seen as far more of a lifestyle/philosophy signifier than any other artform in my experience.

I don't think that the popism vs. rockism model of discourse fits literature very well. But then, I don't think it fits music all that well, either.

In regard to literature, authors each have some end in view when they write a book, but they differ greatly in what those ends might be and in their ability to achieve their ends. A well conceived and well written book does what it sets out to do and speaks to the audience it was written for.

I read The Da Vinci Code and found it to be an excellent book of its kind. I found the same to be true of Infinite Jest and 2666... just to pick two other recentish examples of books that connected with their audience. There is no earthly reason why one ought to set up any of those three books as being in opposition to, or antagonism toward, one another. They aren't.

There was a bit of rockism/popism in the lit establishment's hatred for Stephen King in the 70s and 80s (with Harold Bloom continuing it into the 90s and beyond) and the influence he was actually having on future literary novelists growing up in that period.

Harold Bloom is exceedingly well-read and thoughtful, but he can also be a pompous ass. That can happen when one is a serious person and begins to overapply that seriousness to oneself.

I remember a fiction writing teacher passing out an essay he'd written about why "mainstream fiction" (literary) was superior to genre fiction--because tv and the movies had made plot-dominant fiction obsolete.

I can understand why people might get annoyed at King's success and winning the American Letters award, even if someone totally loves his work, I don't know how they could deny how severely flawed his work often is. I don't think it's pompous to say he isn't a great writer and that other writers maybe deserve that success more.

I read King's acceptance speech for the award and he sort of said he was claiming it on behalf of all the bestseller authors who weren't really that respected. It was a nice speech but I didn't agree at all that people should pay attention to whatever is popular in your culture. If I did that I'd be totally miserable and never have time for what I really liked.

There's a median between "S.King is a great writer who deserves big time awards" and "S.King is a sign of culture decline who sholuld never be taken seriously by any SERIOUS person" that I don't think many gatekeepers respected.

in 70s/80s I mean

I've always thought 'poptimism' had a lot to do with acknowledging other people outside of white males with guitars. The problem is, (almost) all the mainstream films are made by an elite of white male directors, serving up stories of other white males proving there mettle as white males. There really isn't anything filmicly to most genre-films, which sets it apart from an oscar contender. And when there is - be it Michael Mann, Paul WS Anderson or the LEGO Movie - the critics usually point it out. Plus there is the whole history of weird pulpy stuff becoming acknowledged: spaghetti westerns, film noir, wuxia, grindhouse, etc.

I've been wondering recently what people mean when they dismiss a book or a tv drama as "not serious".
Seriousness isn't objectively measured, but how serious does anything need to be? Seriousness of the effort in creation or seriousness of subject matter? Is seriousness equated with quality?

I see the word used over and over by critics and I find it quite suspect a lot of the time. Usually by people who have overly specific criteria for deciding what is worthwhile.

Tristam Shandy is not a serious book. To which I say, "Hurrah!"

It's possible to put forward a very serious subject with real lightness of touch, I think that's what I'd say to someone who wanted everything serious - like The Wire is about awful things but the plot moves so gracefully and the characters have this wit

And speaking of 'Why so serious?' that recent good Batman film with the joker in it was a more or less pitch perfect picture of evil put across with silly costumes, almost literal clown costumes in the joker's case, and car chases, explosions, etc

a film that spawned a slew of light-hearted silliness

Does "poptimism" really exist in the U.S.?? I think chart hits are more respected today than it was twenty or thirty years ago... but not as much as it was in the sixties. But it seems to me that the term "pop" is quaint here in the states.

no it isnt

I'm not sure that the popist equivalent of writing about books/movies/tv is necessarily "I enjoyed it because that scene was awesome, and then X made my cry and OMG what is going to happen to becky?"

I would have thought a more obvious model is, say, the rigorous even-handedness of Emily Nussbaum w/r/t TV. If anything, I would say that when e.g. Nussbaum criticises 'House of Cards' for not being as good as 'Scandal', it feels a lot less self-consciously oppositional than a music equivalent of that comparison would be.

That's because the spectrum of visual media that Nussbaum acknowledges is so attenuated that any stark opposition is difficult. I find this more pernicious.

I don't know, I would have thought that oppositional approaches are easier the less material you're working with. Certainly music fandom normally works that way.

The bigger issue with TV - but it applies to film, books etc. as well - is that TV fandom is less tribal in nature.

Less tribal, absolutely. Hard to imagine anything like the viscerally felt "Disco Sucks!" phenomenon of the late 70s/early 80s (which was rockism running amok, after all) in other media.

One thing about music that seems unique here is the extent to which it involves the body. I mentioned this upthread in terms of the production side of things, but it's possibly even more relevant on the consumption end. "Pop" is, among other things, the music of the dance floor. The body is engaged in very specific ways quite distinct from the rockist context (with its head nodding, head banging, and occasional thrashing). This physical dimension means that more intimate things seem to be at stake with music, including different notions of masculinity.

has anyone read renata adler's 70s/80s thing on pauline kael

Now, when a pop star reaches a certain strata of fame — and we’re talking Beyoncé, Drake, Taylor Swift, Arcade Fire levels here — something magical happens. They no longer seem to get bad reviews. Stars become superstars, critics become cheerleaders and the discussion froths into a consensus of uncritical excitement.

This is the collateral damage of “poptimism,” the prevailing ideology for today’s most influential music critics. Few would drop this word in conversation at a house party or a nightclub, but in music-journo circles, the idea of poptimism itself is holy writ.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/at-the-top-of-the-pop-music-heap-theres-no-criticizing-the-view/2015/04/16/d98d53a8-e1f2-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

personally i drop the word poptimism in conversations with my dog but she always looks at me like she has no clue what i'm talking about

goddd get one irony, Karl's dog

Critics who would trash Taytay, Beyonce etc simply don't tend to review them - music reviewing has specialised to a degree imo

The only place non-Taytay fans will come into critical contact with Taytay is in an ROY poll, with superb consequences

EOY, even

meta music crit is so pass-agg. there are only like 10 music critics in the world. this article would be more honest (tho also more vulgar) if it was like "hey X, u have shitty taste in music. stop voting in the EOY polls."

u missed the il

there are only like 10 music critics in the world.

And there are 143 of them on ILX.

Left a yet out there... but it'll do.

it's the same 10 critics each with a dozen sock puppets

Taytay??!?

really????

http://directory.ucanews.com/uploads/dioceses/promo/1357813593.jpg

new board description

Mordy otfm

That's a great article btw. Doesn't mention/take a crack at Pazz'n'Jop, but that's presumably because the writer is complicit

Great but I must add only as relevant as music criticism is

*cough* no

hmm?

i don't know if it's good or not that we now have a climate where people who don't like pop music feel like they have to take a 20 mile detour in their "i don't like pop music" articles but tbh if you don't like pop music that's lovely, just write about something else and stfu about pop music