Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]""
- Thread starter jlee562
- Start date
Colin Droidmilk
Sr Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
Absolutely fine with me.
Absolutely fine with me.
JD
Master Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
'Significant' does not equate "better than" nor does it mean a comparison to anything. 'Most powerful' - well, that would depend on how she applies significant and what powerful means to her...
Why is Paglia's word as a critic held to more critique than others? She stated her case and now you want more because you have a hard to time understanding or comprehending her opinion?
Read the book, understand her words - don't just attack because 'George Lucas raped your childhood' or you don't like something he did.
Perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall her comparing it to anything. She said it was the most significant work of art (in 30 years).
'Significant' does not equate "better than" nor does it mean a comparison to anything. 'Most powerful' - well, that would depend on how she applies significant and what powerful means to her...
Why is Paglia's word as a critic held to more critique than others? She stated her case and now you want more because you have a hard to time understanding or comprehending her opinion?
Read the book, understand her words - don't just attack because 'George Lucas raped your childhood' or you don't like something he did.
JD
Master Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
Some folks just refuse to see what's right in front of them.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Some folks just refuse to see what's right in front of them.
jlee562
Sr Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
:facepalm
But that's inherent. People shouldn't have to qualify their opinion by telling you that its their opinion!
:facepalm
But that's inherent. People shouldn't have to qualify their opinion by telling you that its their opinion!
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
JD
Master Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
Of course, most of us will continue to question her opinion and attack because it's easier to bully through than have an open mind.
As someone who's actually paged through her book and read a great deal of the chapter in question, we don't appear to be the audience she is attempted to sell to.
Of course, most of us will continue to question her opinion and attack because it's easier to bully through than have an open mind.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
I highlighted something in your description of her statement, just for the sake of clarity.
Saying "Revenge of the Sith is artistically significant" would, indeed, not equate to "better than."
Saying "Revenge of the Sith is THE MOST significant work of art in 30 years", however, does. Or at least it says that it is more significant than any other artistic work out there.
That's rather an important distinction, and is the basis of my issue with Paglia's statement. It's also why the analogy to a movie critic offering a review of a single film fails. Significant != most significant.
Correct again, assuming we're talking about the term "significant" alone. "Most significant," however is absolutely a comparison.
You are right, however, at least in terms of what I've seen and read from her on this issue, that Paglia does not draw comparisons between ROTS and other works within the last 30 years, to describe why it is the most significant work of art. Nor does she compare Lucas to other filmmakers or artists in any other medium in the piece I cited to describe why Lucas is the most important artist of our time. She talks about why he's important. She doesn't talk about why he's the most important.
Which, again, from what I saw and read, she doesn't really do. She alludes to it, but she doesn't come out and say "Powerful works are works which do XYZ. Important artists are artists who do ABC. Significant works are works which accomplish QRS."
Because she invites critique.
She claims to be an expert on a subject, and then makes statements which are controversial at the least, and then doesn't back them up with any kind of academic or expert rigor.
We're supposed to take her word for it because she's an expert, yet she does nothing to demonstrate her expertise. In fact, her statements cut against such expertise.
Look, if I said "I'm an expert on history" and then said something like "The Black Death was one of the most economically significant events in history," that's not really much of a reach. It's not really all that controversial a statement. I still haven't demonstrated my historical acumen, of course, but it's less in question when I make a statement like that. If, on the other hand, I say "The invention of Silly Putty was the single most important economic event of the last century," well, I'm inviting both criticism of my point, and -- particularly if I fail to support my statement on why Silly Putty was THE MOST important economic event -- I invite a challenge to my very expertise.
Paglia makes a controversial claim, backed by purported expertise, but then does nothing to bolster her position -- again, based on what I've read, which is what I linked to. I freely admit that I haven't' read her book in its entirety, the chapter in its entirety, or even -- as you have -- the chapter in any brief fashion. Maybe she does better in the book. She doesn't do better in the article I cited.
No.
She stated her opinion, presented it as an expert opinion, and then offered nothing in support of the opinion. Everything I saw in the article to which I linked was her saying how "good" Lucas was. Nothing was said to compare him to other artists of our time to explain why he is the most important.
You say you've read her book or at least the piece on ROTS, and I have no reason to doubt you. I've asked you a few times now whether the linked piece is the same as her book. You haven't said one way or the other.
If it's the same piece, then my opinion of her work stands. If it's a different piece, then perhaps what she says in the book is better supported. I might still disagree with her, but at least she'd be backing up what she says with something, which is marginally better than simply stating an opinion boldly.
That said, if the piece in her book mirrors the same style of argumentation as the piece to which I linked...then she's really not making her case at all, but still claims to be an expert to whom people should pay attention.
I'm saying the emperor has no clothes. (Although perhaps "no force" would be more appropriate here.)
If that's what you think is behind my criticism of her, well, you're dead wrong. You're free to make that assumption if you like, but it's still wrong.
I highlighted something in your description of her statement, just for the sake of clarity.
Saying "Revenge of the Sith is artistically significant" would, indeed, not equate to "better than."
Saying "Revenge of the Sith is THE MOST significant work of art in 30 years", however, does. Or at least it says that it is more significant than any other artistic work out there.
That's rather an important distinction, and is the basis of my issue with Paglia's statement. It's also why the analogy to a movie critic offering a review of a single film fails. Significant != most significant.
Correct again, assuming we're talking about the term "significant" alone. "Most significant," however is absolutely a comparison.
You are right, however, at least in terms of what I've seen and read from her on this issue, that Paglia does not draw comparisons between ROTS and other works within the last 30 years, to describe why it is the most significant work of art. Nor does she compare Lucas to other filmmakers or artists in any other medium in the piece I cited to describe why Lucas is the most important artist of our time. She talks about why he's important. She doesn't talk about why he's the most important.
Which, again, from what I saw and read, she doesn't really do. She alludes to it, but she doesn't come out and say "Powerful works are works which do XYZ. Important artists are artists who do ABC. Significant works are works which accomplish QRS."
Because she invites critique.
She claims to be an expert on a subject, and then makes statements which are controversial at the least, and then doesn't back them up with any kind of academic or expert rigor.
We're supposed to take her word for it because she's an expert, yet she does nothing to demonstrate her expertise. In fact, her statements cut against such expertise.
Look, if I said "I'm an expert on history" and then said something like "The Black Death was one of the most economically significant events in history," that's not really much of a reach. It's not really all that controversial a statement. I still haven't demonstrated my historical acumen, of course, but it's less in question when I make a statement like that. If, on the other hand, I say "The invention of Silly Putty was the single most important economic event of the last century," well, I'm inviting both criticism of my point, and -- particularly if I fail to support my statement on why Silly Putty was THE MOST important economic event -- I invite a challenge to my very expertise.
Paglia makes a controversial claim, backed by purported expertise, but then does nothing to bolster her position -- again, based on what I've read, which is what I linked to. I freely admit that I haven't' read her book in its entirety, the chapter in its entirety, or even -- as you have -- the chapter in any brief fashion. Maybe she does better in the book. She doesn't do better in the article I cited.
No.
She stated her opinion, presented it as an expert opinion, and then offered nothing in support of the opinion. Everything I saw in the article to which I linked was her saying how "good" Lucas was. Nothing was said to compare him to other artists of our time to explain why he is the most important.
You say you've read her book or at least the piece on ROTS, and I have no reason to doubt you. I've asked you a few times now whether the linked piece is the same as her book. You haven't said one way or the other.
If it's the same piece, then my opinion of her work stands. If it's a different piece, then perhaps what she says in the book is better supported. I might still disagree with her, but at least she'd be backing up what she says with something, which is marginally better than simply stating an opinion boldly.
That said, if the piece in her book mirrors the same style of argumentation as the piece to which I linked...then she's really not making her case at all, but still claims to be an expert to whom people should pay attention.
I'm saying the emperor has no clothes. (Although perhaps "no force" would be more appropriate here.)
If that's what you think is behind my criticism of her, well, you're dead wrong. You're free to make that assumption if you like, but it's still wrong.
Last edited:
jlee562
Sr Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
This, this x1,000,000.
It's not just a matter of semantics. She's obviously thought through her argument. "Significant" does not inherently imply a qualitative superiority.
And Solo, I really don't get why you can't see where she is backing up her argument. I'll grant that the quote from the video is, shall we say, a more superficial treatment of it than what I assume appears in her book, but she IS making an argument and listing several specific points.
Here's the way I've interpreted her. Mind you, I'm not saying that I necessarily have "the" "correct" interpretation of her words, but here's why I disagree with your assessment.
First, the point about "significant" is important. Like I just said, it doesn't necessarily imply qualitative superiority. What I took away from it, is that ROTS is significant for the nature of its constituent elements (the cultural influence from opera, the combination of entertainment and political subterfuge); combined with the innovation of technology (because the imagined worlds of ROTS are a product of that technology); and the fact that the series has had such a deep and lasting cultural impact.
I take that to be a substantive argument, as much as one can be presented in a few minutes of video.
You of course don't have to agree with her, but I think it's unfair to say that she can't back up her argument because I think she did. And even if you don't accept what she said in the video as substantive, unless you've read her book, to argue that she doesn't back up her argument is inherently an argument from ignorance.
This, this x1,000,000.
It's not just a matter of semantics. She's obviously thought through her argument. "Significant" does not inherently imply a qualitative superiority.
And Solo, I really don't get why you can't see where she is backing up her argument. I'll grant that the quote from the video is, shall we say, a more superficial treatment of it than what I assume appears in her book, but she IS making an argument and listing several specific points.
Here's the way I've interpreted her. Mind you, I'm not saying that I necessarily have "the" "correct" interpretation of her words, but here's why I disagree with your assessment.
First, the point about "significant" is important. Like I just said, it doesn't necessarily imply qualitative superiority. What I took away from it, is that ROTS is significant for the nature of its constituent elements (the cultural influence from opera, the combination of entertainment and political subterfuge); combined with the innovation of technology (because the imagined worlds of ROTS are a product of that technology); and the fact that the series has had such a deep and lasting cultural impact.
I take that to be a substantive argument, as much as one can be presented in a few minutes of video.
You of course don't have to agree with her, but I think it's unfair to say that she can't back up her argument because I think she did. And even if you don't accept what she said in the video as substantive, unless you've read her book, to argue that she doesn't back up her argument is inherently an argument from ignorance.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
If all she was saying was that it is merely significant, I'd absolutely agree with you -- she's made her case. Whether one agrees with her assessment, well, that's up for debate, but she has, at least, made her case.
What she hasn't done, however, is made the case for what it is the most significant work of art -- in any medium -- for the last 30 years. That's not just a matter of semantics or misspeaking oneself.
She's drawn a comparison by that statement to ALL art created in the past 30 years, and said "This one is more significant than all of those."
Then, she goes on to describe why it is merely significant.
Let me put it this way. Let's say I make the following argument:
"Apples are the greatest food source that has ever existed. Apples are delicious, offering a variety of different flavorful experiences from the bright tones of the honey-crisp to the luxurious decadence of the golden delicious. Their colorful skin not only is visually pleasing, it also, like the skin of a peach or plum, seals the fruit in a protective coating that leaves it safe from predatory insects. Apples are available in abundance, and are relatively easy to grow. Therefore, apples are the best."
Question: Have I made an argument in support of apples being the greatest food source that has ever existed?
Answer: NO.
I've made many statements extolling the virtues of apples. What I haven't done, however, is address apples in comparison to any other food source, nor explain why they are better than those other food sources. I haven't even explained what the criteria for consideration as "the greatest" would be, to allow you to guess at why I think they're the greatest.
"But you talked about peaches and plums." Yes, I did, but I did not explain why the apple is greater than them. If anything, I only muddied the water of my central point by equating the apple with those other fruits, instead of distinguishing it from them. And, I've only addressed fruits.
"You did talk about all those positive aspects of the apple." I certainly did. But I didn't tell you if those are the things that make it better than, say, steak, or corn, or chicken, or asparagus. The stuff I talked about isn't even applicable to those other food sources, so who knows how I'd respond to "What about steak?" as a question.
That's what Paglia is doing with her statement. Does she defend the significance of ROTS? Yep. That she does. Does she defend why ROTS is THE MOST significant work of art in all media in the last 30 years? Nope. That she does not.
Part of what I think may be confusing folks is that they may interpret what she's saying as mere exaggeration. Kind of like someone who's really enjoying a glass of wine who says "This may be the best wine on earth." Well, obviously they don't REALLY think that, right? They're just digging the wine.
Paglia, however, is different. First, she's an authority on the subject she's discussing. She's not just someone walking out of a theater saying what an awesome experience they just had. Second, she's just put out a book examining various works of art and their significance, and the statement is being made as part of her publicity for that book.
What she does for a living is critique art (among other things). So, when she says "The most significant work in the past 30 years in any medium including literature," I think we are meant to take her at her word. She's not just expressing that she really really liked the film and weren't the lightsabre battles cool. She's saying something Important with a capital "I." In her capacity as an expert, she's making a qualitative judgment that the end of ROTS is the most significant work in all media for the last 30 years. That's a big step beyond merely exclaiming in an overly dramatic way what a great movie ROTS is.
If all she was saying was that it is merely significant, I'd absolutely agree with you -- she's made her case. Whether one agrees with her assessment, well, that's up for debate, but she has, at least, made her case.
What she hasn't done, however, is made the case for what it is the most significant work of art -- in any medium -- for the last 30 years. That's not just a matter of semantics or misspeaking oneself.
She's drawn a comparison by that statement to ALL art created in the past 30 years, and said "This one is more significant than all of those."
Then, she goes on to describe why it is merely significant.
Let me put it this way. Let's say I make the following argument:
"Apples are the greatest food source that has ever existed. Apples are delicious, offering a variety of different flavorful experiences from the bright tones of the honey-crisp to the luxurious decadence of the golden delicious. Their colorful skin not only is visually pleasing, it also, like the skin of a peach or plum, seals the fruit in a protective coating that leaves it safe from predatory insects. Apples are available in abundance, and are relatively easy to grow. Therefore, apples are the best."
Question: Have I made an argument in support of apples being the greatest food source that has ever existed?
Answer: NO.
I've made many statements extolling the virtues of apples. What I haven't done, however, is address apples in comparison to any other food source, nor explain why they are better than those other food sources. I haven't even explained what the criteria for consideration as "the greatest" would be, to allow you to guess at why I think they're the greatest.
"But you talked about peaches and plums." Yes, I did, but I did not explain why the apple is greater than them. If anything, I only muddied the water of my central point by equating the apple with those other fruits, instead of distinguishing it from them. And, I've only addressed fruits.
"You did talk about all those positive aspects of the apple." I certainly did. But I didn't tell you if those are the things that make it better than, say, steak, or corn, or chicken, or asparagus. The stuff I talked about isn't even applicable to those other food sources, so who knows how I'd respond to "What about steak?" as a question.
That's what Paglia is doing with her statement. Does she defend the significance of ROTS? Yep. That she does. Does she defend why ROTS is THE MOST significant work of art in all media in the last 30 years? Nope. That she does not.
Part of what I think may be confusing folks is that they may interpret what she's saying as mere exaggeration. Kind of like someone who's really enjoying a glass of wine who says "This may be the best wine on earth." Well, obviously they don't REALLY think that, right? They're just digging the wine.
Paglia, however, is different. First, she's an authority on the subject she's discussing. She's not just someone walking out of a theater saying what an awesome experience they just had. Second, she's just put out a book examining various works of art and their significance, and the statement is being made as part of her publicity for that book.
What she does for a living is critique art (among other things). So, when she says "The most significant work in the past 30 years in any medium including literature," I think we are meant to take her at her word. She's not just expressing that she really really liked the film and weren't the lightsabre battles cool. She's saying something Important with a capital "I." In her capacity as an expert, she's making a qualitative judgment that the end of ROTS is the most significant work in all media for the last 30 years. That's a big step beyond merely exclaiming in an overly dramatic way what a great movie ROTS is.
Last edited:
Colin Droidmilk
Sr Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
LOL!! This thread's got me rolling on the floor now. Haven't had this much fun in ages. Sadly I'm off to bed, though, and can't join in any more. See y'all in the morning, folks, have a good time! And Camille, honey, if you're reading, let me kiss your sweet but addled forehead goodnight, 'cos guess what - I don't hate you! I just think you're a dang fool for saying what you did!
LOL!! This thread's got me rolling on the floor now. Haven't had this much fun in ages. Sadly I'm off to bed, though, and can't join in any more. See y'all in the morning, folks, have a good time! And Camille, honey, if you're reading, let me kiss your sweet but addled forehead goodnight, 'cos guess what - I don't hate you! I just think you're a dang fool for saying what you did!
JD
Master Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
Well, at least you didn't drag your comments out on long, silly posts lambasting a critic for having an opinion. :lol
Nope, I didn't miss anything. She made a broad, sweeping statement not a direct comparison to anything.
Well, at least you didn't drag your comments out on long, silly posts lambasting a critic for having an opinion. :lol
JD
Master Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
As you stated, most of what's being judged here is a few lines of an article or minutes of a video. I find it hilarious that the folks interviewing her don't call into question her comments nearly to the extent that a few choice folks here are.
Some folks just can't get over someone having an opinion and backing it up.
Great post. Sadly, some folks are too caught up on someone having the (cough) audacity to name RotS as significant that they're blind to the facts that Paglia has actually backed up her statements with further fact and opinion.
As you stated, most of what's being judged here is a few lines of an article or minutes of a video. I find it hilarious that the folks interviewing her don't call into question her comments nearly to the extent that a few choice folks here are.
Some folks just can't get over someone having an opinion and backing it up.
JD
Master Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
Pull the blinders back.
...and as NAZGÛL already stated "If you cant see the connections, I cant help you." Because if you don't see how comments to this can't be tied to a type of internet bullying - well you never will.
Pull the blinders back.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
Blinders, says "someone" who either doesn't understand or refuses to admit that "the most significant work of art in any medium including literature for the last 30 years" is in and of itself a comparison to EVERY WORK OF ART IN ANY MEDIUM CREATED IN THE LAST 30 YEARS.
You keep on keepin' on there, "someone." Bless your heart.
Blinders, says "someone" who either doesn't understand or refuses to admit that "the most significant work of art in any medium including literature for the last 30 years" is in and of itself a comparison to EVERY WORK OF ART IN ANY MEDIUM CREATED IN THE LAST 30 YEARS.
You keep on keepin' on there, "someone." Bless your heart.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
JD
Master Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
I've been over the interview again and no where did I hear her say "Revenge of the Sith's lava is so much more vivid that the lava in everything" or "...the music along with the choreography is much more louder than everything." :lol
In fact there is no comparison at all. Paglia is making a statement. Period. Debate it all you wish, doesn't make it true.
How do you make a direct comparison to everything?
I've been over the interview again and no where did I hear her say "Revenge of the Sith's lava is so much more vivid that the lava in everything" or "...the music along with the choreography is much more louder than everything." :lol
In fact there is no comparison at all. Paglia is making a statement. Period. Debate it all you wish, doesn't make it true.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Re: Camile Paglia on ROTS: "most significant work of art in any genre...[in 30 years]
I'm making a statement, not a comparison according to you. Except, most others than you, would see I'm dissing every other type of drink with that statement, so am making a very definite comparison and finding that singular one - Pepsi Max - to be better than everything else.
And as with any statement, there are those who agree and there are those who disagree... but about her not comparing to anything is just bollocks.
I'm making a statement, not a comparison according to you. Except, most others than you, would see I'm dissing every other type of drink with that statement, so am making a very definite comparison and finding that singular one - Pepsi Max - to be better than everything else.
And as with any statement, there are those who agree and there are those who disagree... but about her not comparing to anything is just bollocks.
Similar threads
