How to Join
the Fashion Spot / the Sidewalk Café / Rumor has it...
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Rules Links Mobile How to Join
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
04-09-2011
  31
clever ain't wise
 
iluvjeisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toccata View Post
I went through her manifesto and made an outline of her points:

Paragraph 01 - She attacks critics for being consistently negative: focusing
more on the craftsmanship (intellectualism) rather than experience (feeling)
of the work. Then she reverses her position to make a requirement that critics
should first research and analyze a work so as to be insightful and not hurtful.
Flaw: She can't accept that some people do not share her emotional experience.

Paragraph 02 - She proposes the term 'Extreme Critic Fundamentalism' which
if anything, is meant to debase the whole art of criticism - and an art it is!
She furthers her argument that she wants reasons (scientific, mathematical,
and pertinent information) why her Titanic failed and other cruise ships
were successful - a bold affirmation of overblown ego madness.
Flaw: She condemns tastemakers while writing her own essay on proper taste.

Paragraph 03 - After establishing her wish to see objective criticism, she
goes back to her original metaphysical position with; soul, transcendence,
out-of-body, claiming a critic may not be in-touch with this faculty of sense.
Flaw: She forgot that a professional critic must use 'reasoned' judgement.

Paragraph 04 - She calls for a more modern approach to criticism, but is far
from clear on what it means. It seems like every sentence contradicts the one
previous. She is both for and against amateur journalism or more accurately
to her point, she wants Horyn to be more like a blog writer, in order to
separate herself from the common everywoman blog writer.
Flaw: She is for the modern approach only if it suits her, since this attack
stemmed from an emotionally-style critique, typical of blogging.


Paragraph 05 - She poses a jumble of rhetorical questions and calls for
the end of hierarchy or position.
Flaw: She condemns the privilege she abused when writing her opinion as a public declaration.

Conclusion: It didn't address Cathy but rather moved through her to
a much more universal critique of the art-critic and in that it was not well
argued. But it sounds high-minded and lofty. This has always been her
problem, she is too superficial and focused on appearance - the emotion of a
thing and not its substance which is what makes a real artist and what a real
critic praises.


Thanks for reading.
Interesting and well written! What do you mean by the very last bit (in bold)? The emotion of a thing is of the utmost importance in art...

  Reply With Quote
 
04-09-2011
  32
tfs star
 
Libra Skye18's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,540
Leeroi, there definitely wasn't any reason for Cathy to announce that she had stopped following Gaga on twitter. I found that little declaration more childish than anything else. Meh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TREVOFASHIONISTO View Post
But what Gaga is doing unlike Cathy is giving a valid reason for why Cathy's writing is considered wrong. In journalism you write without emotion and everything you state must be supported. It isn't about putting your feelings into it, but creating something that is valid and understandable to the mass. I don't understand why unfollowing was just so terrible. And just like you said you don't know why people can't take criticism, look at Gaga... who is allowing words of Cathy to cause her to write a whole column on her
As Leeroi already mentioned, Cathy just made negative remarks with nothing supporting her claims. I made mention about Cathy un-following Gaga on Twitter not because it was so terrible but merely to poke fun of how ridiculous I felt she sounded. It was as if her saying that she stopped following her was the biggest blow, when Gaga at that time had 12 million followers and now has over 13 million.

You're missing the point. Gaga has gotten criticism since she started. It's not that she can't take it, its the fact that Cathy was basically trolling. She had absolutely nothing to support her claims. Anyone can say 'Ugh, that's stupid' but someone like Cathy who has such a high position should be able to delve a little bit more into why she doesn't like something or someone.

So in essence its not that Gaga was criticizing Cathy and other critics for doing their job but rather for NOT doing their job. Some may not like it because they don't care for Gaga or because they feel that certain critics should be untouchable but I find nothing wrong with someone standing up for themselves and calling out those who choose to phone it in, as oppose to actually taking the time to deliver something with merit. *shrugs*

__________________
... Indifference is scary ~ Lady Gaga
  Reply With Quote
05-09-2011
  33
scenester
 
Toccata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Gender: homme
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by iluvjeisa View Post
What do you mean by the very last bit (in bold)? The emotion of a thing is of the utmost importance in art...
Hey iluvjeisa! Thank-you for asking, I'll clarify: When you say 'the emotion of a thing is of the
utmost importance in art' you mean you rank art based on your emotional reaction to it. Yes?
(You experience a song and if it induces a positive emotion you'll favour it above a negative)

If so, we can agree that you were responsible for interpreting the emotional content. No one
else can give it to you, you had to experience it for yourself. This is because art has no
intrinsic emotional value in itself. A cross is but a cross. To a Christian it is comforting, to
a Vampire it is repulsive, to a window it is a frame. It is its experience and nothing more.

Emotion is not inherent in a thing because we can disagree on the emotion attached.
My 'beautiful' may be your 'nothing special' and all of Western Music may be grating noise
to an African tribe. I know it's brief but I hope that's understandable and we can agree.

Although an artist starts with an idea, which by imagined-experience causes an emotional
potentiality, they create using dry materials (the note C is a frequency, paint is emotionless)
which is the essence shaped into form which is substance. When the material is formed in
a creative way it is praised for having substance value. When substance value combines
with a positive emotional experience, you have a masterpiece! That's what I mean.

  Reply With Quote
05-09-2011
  34
clever ain't wise
 
iluvjeisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toccata View Post
Hey iluvjeisa! Thank-you for asking, I'll clarify: When you say 'the emotion of a thing is of the
utmost importance in art' you mean you rank art based on your emotional reaction to it. Yes?
(You experience a song and if it induces a positive emotion you'll favour it above a negative)

If so, we can agree that you were responsible for interpreting the emotional content. No one
else can give it to you, you had to experience it for yourself. This is because art has no
intrinsic emotional value in itself. A cross is but a cross. To a Christian it is comforting, to
a Vampire it is repulsive, to a window it is a frame. It is its experience and nothing more.

Emotion is not inherent in a thing because we can disagree on the emotion attached.
My 'beautiful' may be your 'nothing special' and all of Western Music may be grating noise
to an African tribe. I know it's brief but I hope that's understandable and we can agree.

Although an artist starts with an idea, which by imagined-experience causes an emotional
potentiality, they create using dry materials (the note C is a frequency, paint is emotionless)
which is the essence shaped into form which is substance. When the material is formed in
a creative way it is praised for having substance value. When substance value combines
with a positive emotional experience, you have a masterpiece! That's what I mean.
Yes, a thing, according to the general definition, does not contain the neurons required to produce the physiological responses described as emotions. That's sort of obvious.

There are myriads of facial expressions that will cause a predictable response in neurotypical individuals. However, of course not in all individuals (such as autists or sociopaths).

So while a piece of art, unless it is a person who can also be a piece of art in my definition, cannot hold emotion itself, it can produce an emotional reaction in the viewer, of varying degrees of predictability. Much like a being in that sense, except instead of the physiological state you have the attempt of induction of a physiological state that the artist attempted to create through his work.

When I produce some form of "art" my sole driving force is to evoke an emotion. I want to produce a thing that can evoke emotion.


Last edited by iluvjeisa; 05-09-2011 at 10:52 AM.
  Reply With Quote
05-09-2011
  35
tfs star
 
glitterpeacock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Manchester
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,768
Toccata can you please send your outline to Lady Gaga and knock her off her high horse. I found her argument hypocritical and a pathetic if I'm honest.

__________________
I don't wanna be nice. I think it's clever to swear
  Reply With Quote
06-09-2011
  36
windowshopping
 
thesweetglory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Gender: femme
Posts: 10
I think that this is a sign that demonstrates that the figure of the journalist is undervalue! That's not fair!

  Reply With Quote
07-09-2011
  37
fashion insider
 
TianSoFine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: a metropolis of dreams
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libra Skye18 View Post
Leeroi, there definitely wasn't any reason for Cathy to announce that she had stopped following Gaga on twitter. I found that little declaration more childish than anything else. Meh.



As Leeroi already mentioned, Cathy just made negative remarks with nothing supporting her claims. I made mention about Cathy un-following Gaga on Twitter not because it was so terrible but merely to poke fun of how ridiculous I felt she sounded. It was as if her saying that she stopped following her was the biggest blow, when Gaga at that time had 12 million followers and now has over 13 million.

You're missing the point. Gaga has gotten criticism since she started. It's not that she can't take it, its the fact that Cathy was basically trolling. She had absolutely nothing to support her claims. Anyone can say 'Ugh, that's stupid' but someone like Cathy who has such a high position should be able to delve a little bit more into why she doesn't like something or someone.

So in essence its not that Gaga was criticizing Cathy and other critics for doing their job but rather for NOT doing their job. Some may not like it because they don't care for Gaga or because they feel that certain critics should be untouchable but I find nothing wrong with someone standing up for themselves and calling out those who choose to phone it in, as oppose to actually taking the time to deliver something with merit. *shrugs*
I completely agree with this.

__________________
*my twitter *my tumblr *my blog
  Reply With Quote
09-09-2011
  38
Looking Up
 
Squizree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Gender: homme
Posts: 18,545
Lady Gaga is clearly way above her head with that article she's written. I doubt she even wrote it herself.

The number one rule of interpretation is evidence. When you interpret anything, you must have clear and effective evidence to support your interpretation. I've read many of Cathy Horyn's articles and she's actually an excellent interpreter because despite her sharp and vicious tongue, she's convincing. THAT'S what sets her apart from the "online crowd". Horyn isn't an uneducated teenager, she's a learned woman who not only knows how to interpret something effectively but also knows how to write convincingly. And THAT'S why we have a hierarchy. Because it's necessary to separate the professionals from the amateurs.

Her whole "They care not for hierarchy or position" preach sounds like a bunch of socialist crap. It's a bullsh!t and hypocritical thing to say. Everyone cares about "hierarchy and position", ESPECIALLY Lady Gaga.

The funniest thing of course is the irony. Lady Gaga calling Cathy Horyn pretentious Oh Gaga, you're so stupid


Last edited by Squizree; 09-09-2011 at 11:16 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Tags
cathy, gaga, horyn, lady
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"


 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TheFashionSpot.com is a property of TotallyHer Media, LLC, an Evolve Media LLC company. ©2014 All rights reserved.