By Lauren Wissot
Recently, a fairly innocuous comment posted to my scathing review of Traitor at The House Next Door made my blood boil. The commenter suggested that I was speaking from an elitist point of view, that the film’s important themes needed to be put across through the director’s decidedly non-highbrow means in order for the general public to be able to absorb the message. The reason I found this comment so offensive is that it assumes the “movie-going public” to be somehow “dumber” than those of us who publish our takes on the movies. That “they” somehow don’t deserve any better. And I consider this an absolutely condescending, elitist POV.
As fate would have it, I happened to read this comment within an hour of learning of the death of one of my mentors from a stroke. Hanon Reznikov was Judith Malina’s artistic and spiritual partner for over three decades at The Living Theatre, the legendary anarchist collective that uses plays as tools toward enlightenment. Acting with the company for several years in the early nineties changed my life in many ways, but perhaps most importantly, it’s where the notion that “high-minded” ideas don’t belong to any class but should be available to all on equal terms was seared into my being. In other words, we didn’t perform a smart and sophisticated production for the rich donors at fundraising benefits and a “dumber” piece for the low-income families and homeless people on the Lower East Side free of charge. All our audiences were addressed in the exact same fashion—and encouraged to speak up and be heard just as much as the performers in our participatory productions. We learned something from every audience (each of whom deserved nothing less than our utmost respect) and our message always came across loud and clear.
This idea of the general public as a mass of sheep who don’t deserve to be challenged is an insulting myth. I know this because I rarely talk film with film critics. For example, a few weeks back I had fantastic afternoon sex with a hot bodybuilder—the tryst ending badly afterwards when we got into a heated debate over John Barrymore and Marlene Dietrich (who he feels are both vastly overrated). This former stripper/current personal trainer is the movie-going public.
I also happen to work part-time in a house of domination where a client with a tickle fetish recently spent his entire session discussing movies with me, from Hitch to the latest French art films—and, of course, disclosing which flicks to watch for tickle scenes. (Hint—“The Three Stooges” are a goldmine.) This businessman is the movie-going public. And by the way, the Ukrainian woman who serves as the house's evening manager spends her vacation time traveling the world attending film festivals. She also tutors me on Soviet cinema between answering phones and juggling clients. This professional dominatrix is the movie-going public.
And, more personally, as someone who cares passionately about cinema because it truly does transcend all these meaningless boxes we put ourselves into, but who’s never taken a film or writing—much less “film criticism”—class in my life, I am the movie-going public. And all of us deserve more for our eleven bucks.
Brooklyn-based writer Lauren Wissot is the publisher of the blog Beyond the Green Door, the author of the memoir Under My Master's Wings, and a columnist for Spout Blog.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
The Movie-Going Public
Labels:
Lauren Wissot
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
It's not a matter of what people deserve, though. It's abbout what they want.
The fact that your audiences actually bothered to pay attention and engage with you makes them an elite of sorts, regardless of their actual class. And any of those people you meet and talk film with are likewise inherently an elite, simply by virtue of the fact that they have the vocabulary to even have those discussions with you.
Lousy movies wouldn't get made if people didn't want to see them, wouldn't rather see the same formulas slapped together with little or no care over and over again than anything that makes them think, even a little.
You're right though. General audiences aren't dumb. They're deliberately heads-in-the-sand ignorant cowards. And I don't care if you think I'm being condescending.
God, amen. There is no excuse for lowering our standards, no matter who we are, from studio exec to screenwriter to critic to audience member. I'm just so tired of that attitude.
Amen!!
If I never hear the phrase "so it's not Shakespeare" ever again, I will be very very happy.
I have to say, Lauren, that I agree with the first comment. The examples you've given - a French art film enthusiast, a film festival globetrotter - are not the general movie going public. They're not professional critics who write consistently on film, but they certainly aren't an accurate representation of the average American movie goer.
Most Americans view film as entertainment and nothing else. I'm not saying that they're stupid, just that they choose to receive their intellectual stimulation from other sources (books, the newspaper, medical journals, etc.). Movies are about escape, about shutting down their brain for 2 hours and having a good time.
Take my parents, for example. My father has his Ph.D. in Computer Science, and my mother has her master's in literature, moonlights as a medical technician, and is an expert on Appalachian poetry and literature. They are not stupid people by any stretch of the imagination. But if they saw Traitor they would love it.
I agreed with the points made in your review, if not your tone, but my parents would not. If I were to engage them in a discussion afterwards and made all of the same arguments, their response would likely be, "Well I liked it. It was an exciting movie." They wouldn't process the heavy handed dialogue and trite "is he bad/good" tensions at all. They would just enjoy the twists and exciting showdown and go on their merry way. Does this make them stupid? No, of course not. It also doesn't mean that they do not like to be challenged from time to time by film. But on the whole, they are looking for an engaging piece of entertainment that doesn't insult them too much. Traitor would fit that bill perfectly, and your detailed critique would be seen as "high brow."
As the first commenter said, it's about what people want. And most people do not go to the movies to think, to struggle, or to analyze. They go to relax and wind down, which is why films like Disaster Movie continue to be made.
Let me second (or third, and beyond) the notion that most ignorance is willful. Incidentally stupid people are pretty hard to come by.
That being said, I wonder, what came first: the dumbed-down formula movie, or the taste-deprived audience?
How odd. I hit the bookmark for The House Next Door, and ended up at Penthouse Forum.
"For example, a few weeks back I had fantastic afternoon sex with a hot bodybuilder—the tryst ending badly afterwards when we got into a heated debate over John Barrymore and Marlene Dietrich (who he feels are both vastly overrated)."
Too much info, baby, nahmean?
"I also happen to work part-time in a house of domination where a client with a tickle fetish recently spent his entire session discussing movies with me, from Hitch to the latest French art films—and, of course, disclosing which flicks to watch for tickle scenes. (Hint—“The Three Stooges” are a goldmine.) This businessman is the movie-going public. And by the way, the Ukrainian woman who serves as the house's evening manager spends her vacation time traveling the world attending film festivals. She also tutors me on Soviet cinema between answering phones and juggling clients. This professional dominatrix is the movie-going public."
The Living Theater meets the Theater of Cruelty. The house madame sounds cool, though. Screenplay her ass.
evan,
Very good points. My aunt refuses to see any film with subtitles, which doesn't make her a philistine. (And I don't feel it's my "duty" to enlighten her by forcing Almodovar down her throat.) However, for every movie-goer like my aunt there's an inner city, public high school kid (like those attending my sister's world cinema class) who falls in love with Fellini. Nothing wrong with escapism - my point is escapism doesn't have to be dumbed down. And those who want to be challenged should have easy access to challenging films.
Sorry, buck naked, if you're offended. I'm not trying to be tabloid - this is my life.
Mostly, in order to make a living, I am a nanny. What I "want," anonymous, is quality. Whether it is an action film, or romance, or comedy. Not just an "escape" like Evan said. When I go to a film with a friend, we want to be able to TALK ABOUT THE FILM afterward...when I go to a film by myself, I want to be able to TALK ABOUT THE FILM with someone else another time...to see what they THOUGHT about it or to be able to THINK about why I recommend that they see it.
"Lousy movies wouldn't get made if people didn't want to see them", anonymous??? HAHAHAHAHA! Believe me, lousy movies will ALWAYS be made. They always have been, since the birth of cinema. It's a matter of volume. Some may be lousy because the acting, directing or editing is bad...some because, like ALL art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
It's sad that you don't care if someone thinks you are being condescending, maybe you'd learn a little about yourself if you cared. My head is not in the sand. And I am not a coward, "anonymous." My name is Vanessa Whitney and I like quality films.
let me just pile on here. my parents too are some of the most intelligent, successful, rational, and compassionate people i have ever met. however, they love Paulie Shore movies, the Da Vinci Code, and unoffensive romantic comedies starring our most beloved "aging" actors (i'm looking at you, Diane Keaton).
do i hate it? yes. they've even managed to co-opt my 35 year-old sister, who pretty much only watches Disney films and turns to "Lost" for her highbrow time. it has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with interests and personality. their personalities are simply not the types interested in analyzing "No Country" or dissecting "Citizen Kane".
i always remember the time when my father, a very successful banker, sat down with me to watch Glengarry/Glenross. i thought it would be perfect for him, being all business and such. after about 10 minutes he was done with it and left the room. i asked him why and he said, "i have to live that every day in real life. when i'm home, i don't want to be reminded."
kinda sums it all up.
...so wait, Traitor means I'd get laid if I saw it?
Why isn't this in the ads!?!?!
John, actually Traitor’s Said Taghmaoui did make my international hottie list at Spout today, you know, if that helps you out in any way…
You're not an elitist. But you are crass, vulgar and unprofessional.
Keep your sex life to yourself. No one cares. It has nothing to do with your worth as a film critic, so don't bring it into play.
Manny Farber is rolling in his grave.
It's not about you, sweetie. It's about the movies. If you intend to shock with such pronouncements, then at least admit to doing interesting. Fucking a bodybuilder is so '82.
Anon,
I've already apologized to buck naked for offending so that extends to you (and anyone else) as well. My point was only to use real life examples. If I'd had a blow out about Dietrich with my Dutch-Chinese sparring partner I would have said that.
Don't flatter yourself, Ms. Wissot. Nobody's actually "offended" by your allusions to "fantastic afternoon sex" with a "hot bodybuilder." More like amused/bemused by your clueless self-regard.
Here's how it works: When Pauline Kael wrote about how she and a former lover couldn't heal a rift in spite of their mutual recognition of the humanist "message" of "Umberto D.", the revelation of her personal life is arguably pertinent because it's helping her say something about how movies interact with people's actual lives; what they can and cannot do. Whereas to crow about great sex with a bodybuilder, and then report that its afterglow was spoiled by a random argument about Dietrich and Barrymore, is to create what any middle-school writing teacher would quite accurately call a "non-sequitur." Get the idea?
No, I didn't think you did.
I think it's half and half. All in all, society didn't invent movies for much more to be entertained. Define "entertainment" as you will, but the fact remains: folks probing movies for meaning in a day-to-day, consumptive, soul-searchingly analytical way are not the norm.
To me, your saucy bodybuilder story actually harkens back to another Kaelism - the one where, following George McGovern's defeat in 1972, she said "He lost? But all my friends voted for him!" Anyone who thinks this Great White General Moviegoing Public has even HEARD of Marlene Dietrich or John Barrymore is obviously grappling with some real myopia problems.
A challenge to an audience isn't worth anything if nobody accepts it. With this in mind, I'd say The Dark Knight blew more minds (in the good way) this summer than Traitor ever will.
"My point was only to use real life examples. If I'd had a blow out about Dietrich with my Dutch-Chinese sparring partner I would have said that."
Then why not just say you had a blow out about Dietrich with a bodybuilder and leave it at that? At first, I thought the whole thing was a joke, a parody; because when someone mentions having "fantastic sex" with a "hot bodybuilder" in a discussion of an entirely different context, it's only because she/he wants to brag about having sex with a bodybuilder.
I swear, the writing on this blog gets more self-involved and subpar by the minute.
I, for one, appreciate Lauren's candor. The mention of the tryst with the bodybuilder, segueing into their disagreement over Dietrich/Barrymore, flowed very nicely into the fabric of her reflections.
Lauren, you shouldn't have to apologize to anybody for anything, least of all for self-expression. It seems to me that your critics (the second anonymous and the deservedly-fired-from-Premiere worthless hack Glenn Kenny) cannot bear the notion of a woman openly expressing her sexuality. It is THEIR remarks that are vulgar, crass, etc. And their invocations of Farber and Kael as cudgels to wave in your direction are fairly typical of men who feel the need to put down a woman in order to make themselves feel superior. Kenny's hateful quip re "clueless self regard" couldn't be more applicable -- to himself. His comments here highlight only too well his own pomposity and that dreadful little smirky quality of his that he mistakes for insight.
Anyway, Lauren, you are a breath of fresh air.
And SheWarrior/Vanessa, you are spot-on re "It's sad that you don't care if someone thinks you are being condescending, maybe you'd learn a little about yourself if you cared."
Both this post and the nerve it touched in the comments section would seem to me proof that we need more women -- passionate women who live life -- writing about film and the other arts. And we need fewer heterosexual white men fobbing off their underdeveloped selves as critics -- you know the sort I mean -- those fellows, like Glenn Kenny, who will tumble into their anonymous graves perennially paraphrasing Pauline.
Until proven wrong, I'm gonna assume that "Mandinka" is Wissot-speak for "Sprezzatura." And if proven wrong, I'll get over it. Smirkily.
I'm... I'm highly disappointed that a discussion about not talking down to the audience - about a general respect for your peers, and connecting that with your relationship with films - has degenerated into a bunch of nasty comments lobbed back and forth.
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I mean, I go to a lot of places on the internet every day. I'll trade cartoon in-jokes with fanboys, discuss linguistics with authors and critics, I'll read political screeds from jet-setting new media pioneers, hear tragic anecdotes from shut-ins, and get tastes of the weird from folks exploring wild kinks. This isn't because I'm special or keep a particular circle of cool people - it's because all of these things and a thousand more are readily available.
What I see, every day, is that many - certainly not all, by ANY means, but many - of our smarter, more insightful female journalists, critics, and columnists are more and more often sexually frank; not because they're bragging, not because they're perverse, and not because they want extra attention - it's because it isn't that big a deal. At all. If that's what happened in the story, or if they're trying to make a point, or whatever - then why dance around it? Do we really need to faint every time a girl "mighta done it?" Aren't we all adults here?
...Well, judging from a few comments, perhaps not. But you've all got your own views on taste and propriety, and you're welcome to them - but I'd suggest a little soul-searching before you deride publicly, as some of us didn't consider this a particularly big deal until you made it one.
That said: I really think that the "heterosexual males" comment was really more of the same invective. But I AM one, and I'm liable to be biased.
all of you people giving Lauren a hard time really have some serious issues. it's her writing and she can do whatever she wants with it. the fact that you are THAT offended because she used "sex" instead of "something that doesn't involve sex", is hilarious and sooooo 1800's. just go vote for McCain and spread your repression on O'Reilly's website.
seriously, i will fight you all in the parking lot after school.
The way I see it, there are three problems with referencing "fantastic afternoon sex with a hot bodybuilder" in this piece.
First, it almost overwhelmed the rest of the article, if these comments can be taken at face value. Second, in a blog about cultural criticism, describing anything offhandedly as "fantastic" or "hot" without explanation is inexcusable. Of course, no explanation is forthcoming as to what exactly made this sex fantastic, so we are caught between a rock and a hard place - explicit sexual descriptions in a film blog on the one hand, degradation of the critical process on the other.
Third, and most important, it's fascism. Note the defenders of this piece. To a one, they have attacked its critics as sexually deficient, easily offendable or underdeveloped. What's the point? My opinion on film is invalid unless I have a culturally approved sex life and am willing to share it with strangers?
Sexual references of this kind are bullying. They are an attempt to humiliate your less "secure" or "sexually active" opponents into silence. And I note that at least two defenders seemed to think they were defending a woman first, a writer second. Yikes.
holy cow, has the banal and annoying argument about this post turned into an even more banal and annoying one about said transition? How about getting back on point, folks?
I think many of you are missing the point. The very notion that Ms. Wissot is dismissing the accusation of elitism leveled at her by using such esoteric examples as "fantastic afternoon sex with a hot bodybuilder", and working "part-time in a house of domination" where she is "[tutored] on Soviet cinema" by the house dominatrix undermines Ms. Wissot's position.
As a lifelong east-coaster recently relocated to the still undeniably metropolitan Atlanta, GA, I can assure you that Ms. Wissot is not part of the general public.
For those playing at home, my own Jiminy Cricket, Mr. Aaron A., reminds me that it was "Shoeshine" that Pauline Kael was writing about, not "Umberto D." Apologies for the slip.
From here on out, I'm going to try to shoehorn the phrase "fantastic afternoon sex with a hot bodybuilder" into any House article I write, as well as in the comments sections of other pieces. Others would be wise to do the same. Consider this a call to arms for all House writers.
When President Palin is in power, none of this outrageous smutty pussy talk will be tolerated! Enjoy it while it lasts, Ms. Wissot, you hussy.
Um, I figure if she'd written "fantastic afternoon sex with a spindly [or flabby] film geek" we'd all be silenced into contemplation.
Ross:
Can I have fantastic afternoon sex with a hot gymnast, instead?
Man, this was funny! Or woman!
So..
Maybe people aren't necessarily stupid. Maybe they just don't care? If it could be considered stupid not to care, maybe they are stupid; but let's consider that intelligence, and hence stupidity, can be measured in many ways and can be classified in many types and each person excels differently in the whole intellectual realm.
Back to Traitor which I don't care to watch; if it was purely marketing to make people aware of something important and it acheived it (and with people I mean the general public who seems to care little), then that in itself could be called an accomplishment; but that should not necessarily make it exempt of a "scathing" review as a movie by Lauren. As simple as that.
I in general agree that it is pitiful for moviemakers to conform to low standards; but then again, it might be good business; and then again, I think good business could still be done, and better, with higher standards; as well as "social" commentary in movies (if that is what the "innocuous comment" meant) COULD perhaps be even better achieved without condescending to lazy generalized expectations.
Michael -
Feel free to have fantastic sex with whomever you wish -- as long as it's in the afternoon and they're hot[1].
[1] And by "hot," I of course mean "available."
Steve Macfarlane said...I think it's half and half
In Beavis and Butthead voice... hee hee you said "half and half" heh heh -- sorry Lauren ;)
Seriously, except for the hot sex with a bodybuilder part, I could identify with Lauren's point of view.
Most of my buds don't look for deep meaning in the movies they see. HOWEVER, they are generally receptive to more in-depth discussions about themes and symbolism when I do engage them.
And Lauren, sometimes it cuts both ways. I wrote a piece on Cloverfield a while back (I hear some groaning) that suggested the movie, while certainly "light,", contained an underlying theme of romantic loss and consciously compared the monster to the jilted young man's rage. In that case, I got skewered for giving the FILM too much credit.
Fascinating article - even when you cast aside the "hot bodybuilder" (though that's certainly led to some interest offshoots in the commentary. I'm with Michael on mandinka's gender-baiting nonsense. What we need is not less underdeveloped white heterosexual males but less egotistical narrow-minded commentators categorizing everyone in the most banal, useless compartments possible while reducing cultural discourse to the level of "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina" - thank you, Kindergarten Cop. But I digress).
Lauren,
To respond to your real point:
Anonymous & Evan already tackled the points about elitism, to which you responded, "Nothing wrong with escapism - my point is escapism doesn't have to be dumbed down. And those who want to be challenged should have easy access to challenging films."
I wholeheartedly concur with your second point - and the advent of the Internet is increasing access. When you write "escapism doesn't have to be dumbed down" how do you mean exactly? That a film whose primary purpose is entertainment should also hold up to standards of quality and honesty and that it's totally kosher for a critic to attack it if it doesn't? I would agree with that too, so we're on the same page here.
"We learned something from every audience (each of whom deserved nothing less than our utmost respect) and our message always came across loud and clear."
Could you provide an example of this, particularly the "message coming across"? I do think different audiences, from different backgrounds, are going to - as a whole, not individually - "take" things differently. A higher education, which opens one's mind up to different ideas GENERALLY predisposes audiences to accept something they're not used to. What sort of theory, or better yet what conclusions, did you draw from your experiences with the Living Theater as to the different responses from different people? Another whole post on this subject, and how it relates to film viewing and criticism, would be welcome.
And I have to concur with the comments which questioned the "averageness" of your examples - not just that they're involved in the sex industry, but that they're all passionate about film. The "movie-going public" is MOSTLY populated by people who view movies simply as entertainment, on par with fast food or the bowling alley or a night out at a bar. It's only elitist to say so if you yourself don't have similar blind spots.
For example, I have friends who are obsessed with food - they take their time eating, go to a variety of restaurants, and try different things. I am more casual about a meal - it's just a source of sustenance, though occasionally I enjoy something really good. In this, I'm much like the average moviegoer. I don't begrudge my friend's "elitism" when it comes to food, nor would I expect them to begrude my lack of interest.
We all only have so many things we can focus on in our lives, and we all make a choice somewhere. Much as it hurts us moviegoers to see films brushed off as disposable commodities, don't we all similarly brush off something that other people take seriously? Maybe there's a good rejoinder to this, so please unleash it.
But there's a few discussions going on here. One is whether or not "entertainment movies" should also contain a modicum of art, or at least an acceptable amount of craft. Another is about how audiences respond to work - if taking a different approach is going to alienate the masses and if so what does that say about the approach and the masses? And, finally, HOW do we - as people who are more into movies than the public, but also want to see great movies reach them - respond to these questions' answers?
I'll refrain from offering all my thoughts on these matters - I've taken up enough space - but I would like to note that marginalization and sophistication don't have to be mutually exclusive, as they increasingly seem to be these days. Remember that The Godfather was one of the greatest films of all time AND the number-one moneymaker. Not just that, but people who liked it - film buffs or not - generally seemed to appreciate it on a deep level, not just as a "night's entertainment."
Can we expect a follow-up to your post? Lots to chew on (though you should probably leave out the sexual exploits as they're distracting from the good stuff).
Make that "I would like to note that popularity and sophistication don't have to be mutually exclusive"..."popularity" rather than "marginalization."
movieman0283,
In regards to your comparison of the general public's lack of interest in film and, say, your own lack of interest in food:
I would say that a good counter to that would be to say that, while many of us have some form of art we are passionate about above all others, we should at least recognise the worth in other forms and respect what they are capable of and can achieve. You may not be as interested in food as your friends and mainly view it as sustenance but if you can recognise it as something that can have great artistry put into it (and sometimes be very impressed by this in an individual meal), that already elevates you above the 'average moviegoer' we are talking about who thinks all films are nothing more than a way to waste a night.
movieman,
“When you write "escapism doesn't have to be dumbed down" how do you mean exactly? That a film whose primary purpose is entertainment should also hold up to standards of quality and honesty and that it's totally kosher for a critic to attack it if it doesn't? I would agree with that too, so we're on the same page here.”
Bingo.
"We learned something from every audience (each of whom deserved nothing less than our utmost respect) and our message always came across loud and clear…”
Short answer – of course everyone is going to “take” things differently because they arrive at a performance with different life experiences and POVs. It’s our job as artists to allow everyone to “take away” something. Theater, film are too often treated as linear art forms when they should be a prism in which to see the world, should be operating on several levels at their finest. It makes me laugh whenever I hear “well, it’s not Shakespeare” because this is precisely his genius. Shakespeare spoke to the masses with smart artistry – in their own plainspoken language. His plays are simple, easily understood, and brilliant as hell. You could be a peasant or a king and still take something away from his mass entertainment. This is the beacon we should be striving for.
“And I have to concur with the comments which questioned the "averageness" of your examples - not just that they're involved in the sex industry, but that they're all passionate about film. The "movie-going public" is MOSTLY populated by people who view movies simply as entertainment, on par with fast food or the bowling alley or a night out at a bar. It's only elitist to say so if you yourself don't have similar blind spots.”
You’re missing my point. I would never in a million years claim that my friends or me are your “average Joes.” What I’m saying is that we are part of the movie-going public because we go to movies just like you do, just like the average Joe does. We all deserve to have those movies operating at a higher level.
And to use the food analogy, it’s condescending to say, “Well, people in the ghetto love junk food so why bother setting up a green market in the Bronx?” Yup, there are going to be a great many people who ignore that green market (and I respect that decision), but there will also be a bunch who are thrilled to be fed with something other than junk food. Until we set up the green markets we won’t really know how many people will go to them.
I’m done for now as, yes, I’ve got my follow-up to work on.
cde.,
I guess the important distinction is whether the moviegoer thinks movies are just a way to waste a night FOR THEM, or if they think that movies have no potential beyond wasting a night, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is full of crap. Obviously the former is just being honest about their own preferences while the latter is a reverse-snob.
Lauren,
I wholeheartedly agree in principle, but in practice, in a market economy it's inevitable that things won't exactly work that way. For two reasons: 1) if a business (movie distributor, green market) can't reach a critical mass of customers to make their investment worth it, they will close the business. So even if there are a number of people interested in the product, if it's not enough to turn a profit, it doesn't matter. 2) Many businesses aren't willing to even take the risk - so perhaps there are untapped markets and a green market could succeed in the ghetto but nobody wants to invest - the risks seem to high for too little reward. Since I don't see us moving to a socialist system any time soon, the real boon here - for film - is the internet. Netflix, You Tube, blogs which can bring knowledge of film to anyone who's interested - breaching the academic threshhold...all of these can bring more movies to "the masses" instead of just "the elites." So with access increased all the remains is to expand knowledge - to get people interested in film as art in the first place. Which brings us back to your initial point: the artist's responsibility. Since they can no longer pretend that only "elites" have access to their work, will this change their methods and approaches? Should it? Where do we make the distinction between Shakespeare and dumbing-down? I look forward to the follow-up.
Now, if only we could find a way to e-mail food.
Post a Comment