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

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

corporates influencing self identities

yay full house

The writer clearly doesn't hate pop music, and nor do I

it's totally immaterial, it's not a negative quality, but anybody who writes a wrinkled brow piece about "poptimism" in 2015 does not get popular music and wants to draw hierarchies. good for them! get on with it

"where are the people criticising today's hottest pop stars?" you're on the internet dude, there's fucking millions of them

"actually, it's about ethics in music journalism"

idiocracy

what's pop music

you asking me, Noel Coward or John Julius Norwich?

Was gonna crossly point out that this thread shd be about forms OTHER than music, then took a closer look at this revive and uh carry on

The article pays lipservice to the real issue here - the marketisation of all online editorial decisions and the click-chasing culture that results, but blaming that on "poptimism" shows that the writer doesn't actually understand what he's talking about, and his use of the Arcade Fire and Drake to illustrate that point is hilarious.

Feel obliged to point out the irony in his "no one would say 'poptimism' in a nightclub" remark*, considering the phrase was coined to promote a club night.

*Even if it is probably true, if only because 'poptimism' only actually exists when it is misused on the internet.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Mr_tayto.jpg

Yeah, the writer uses some weird examples - U2 to signify rockism comes off a bit weird, unless we're talking the most oafish form of rockism that would also claim rock supremacy for, say, Glasvegas

Would like it more if his angle concerned the ignorance many critics show towards the avant-garde or even the unheralded lower echelons of pop, but then I doubt he's a Micachu fan

adjective
1.
understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite:
poetry full of esoteric allusions.
2.
belonging to the select few.
3.
private; secret; confidential.
4.
(of a philosophical doctrine or the like) intended to be revealed only to the initiates of a group:
the esoteric doctrines of Pythagoras.

I don’t think you can talk about progress in art—movement, but not progress. You can speak of a point on a line for the purpose of locating things, but it’s a horizontal line, not a vertical one. Similarly the notion of an avant-garde is a bit off. The function of the advance guard in military terms is exactly that of the rear guard, to protect the main body, which translates as the status quo.

ILM poptimism gets owned again and no one can come up with a coherent response that isn't just 99% ugh snark

Snark

✓