From david turgeon Sent Thu, Aug 26th 1999, 21:58
From david turgeon Sent Thu, Aug 26th 1999, 21:58
sorry, this isn't very idm-related but once again i have to stand up for evil, evil intellectualism. > What I don't > understand is why any truly intellectual person would want to go around > talking with their brain up their ass, because if they were a true intellect > they would be able to convey their knowledge clearly and effectively to a > crowd of any IQ. this is the kind of argument an ignorant person would make to justify their ignorance. don't be fooled. certain facts take time, work, & a certain knowledge of facts, useful terms, conventions, etc. in order to assimilate them. i don't know anyone, of any iq, who could wholly explain quantum mechanics without having to explain certain related things first (relativity, some elements of astrophysics, etc.). you could try a metaphor, but as useful as that can be in many cases, in the end it'll be just that, a metaphor, not a real verifiable proposition. the conventions which make up intellectual talk (such as the dreaded 'long words' & other obscure terms) can be, & are, in the worst cases, misused to give a false pretense of intelligence. in this i agree with you. also, some intellectuals (scientists especially) are notorious bad writers -- which i suppose is why they're scientists, not writers -- & can sometime mingle the simplest sentence into something barely recognizable. i will concede that too. but to dismiss intellectual language completely is nothing but an ignorant's tool -- all you're doing is concentrating on the bad aspects while forgetting that all cannot be understood clearly within a basic vocabulary of 10,000 words. that just can't happen. besides, you said yourself that anyone with some work can comprehend these things -- it's not so much a matter of intelligence but of _knowledge_. & once you gain knowledge, you even get the added bonus to be able to detect what's bullshit & what's not in intellectual litterature. also, a healthy, correct use of 'long words' can only render a text clearer, instead of having it lose itself through murky structures of 'simple words' meant to explain complex concepts & phenomenae which they weren't intended to describe in the first place. so why dismiss it at once? > But what disturbs me is the part of your message I left above. I don't > see how anyone can take music too seriously, or any passion for that matter. > Where would we be if we told Dali, Michaelangelo, or R Crumb that they took > painting to Seriously. What would music be like if we told Mozart, Miles > Davis, or Biafra that they took music to seriously. And what if Einstien, > Newton or Steeve Case got a notion in there head that they were taking > science to seriously, or even what would the state of philosophy be if we > told Buddha that he took meditation to seriously. Anyway my point is great > things are born from great passions. musicians can, & should be serious about their music, as you pointed out. but a critic's work is to place art into a context, not to act as if they created it themselves. the best pieces of musical criticism assume their subjectivity & try to present the reader a way of seeing a specific work of art, _knowing_ that it's just that, one way of seeing it, not the end of all opinion on the matter. sure, they can be passionate all they want about their work, but their work is criticism, not music. a critic who takes something too seriously usually won't be able to explain why the thing they're criticizing is the most wonderful gem (or worst piece of trash) they have ever encountered. all they'll ever say can be summed down to: 'i like/hate it'. & that is it. & sure, have an opinion, but if your entire criticism is nothing but an attempt at an argument in favor of your particular opinion, then your writing isn't worth anything more than me saying: 'the backstreet boys suck' to an army of prepubescent girls. > ps. on a side note DJ shadow is another one of those that talks to much of > that intellectual mumbo jumbo. you must mean dj spooky. -- david