4 comments

• 

  MikeT

  1 year ago

  The critics fall down in another way. They fail to see the irony that they too are, in general, products of the common, vulgar culture. The vast majority of them can hardly be accused of being the sort of gentry that used to be the primary buyers of culture, that ended up giving us what these people today refer to as "high culture." It is a putting on of airs, nothing more.
  reply
• 

  Noah Clements

  1 year ago

  It's sort of a strange argument to say that newspaper literary critics were in any way of higher quality. Although most newspaper book reviews are written by people who are authors themselves, these reviews are too often driven by hidden jealousies or the kindness of personal friendship.
  

  
  
  I think Carr may have actually had a point about the music of LP's, although I really do enjoy the freedom of buying the tracks I want. Art is of course shaped by the medium. A musical experience that plays out over 34 minutes (or 60 some minutes like Radiohead cds, who refuses to let its cd OK Computer be sold by the track) is simply different than one limited to 4 minutes or so. There was an article in the Times not too long ago about how many people view movies in these tiny personal screens, and questioning what movies will look like when designed to take these screens into account. It's fine to appreciate the new while still lamenting the death of the old.

  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  Great post, Tim.
  
  But this is also part of a long-running historical process, just accelerated by the internet. I have no doubt that the monks who hand-copied books bemoaned the rabble that could produce books after the printing press was invented...
  reply
• 

  Erik

  1 year ago

  My take on the Bikerts article was that he was most perturbed by the loss of a centralized discourse, of anchors in the storm, as it were. Back in the good old days, you knew that everyone had seen Walter Cronkite tell it like it was. You knew that everyone of substance had read the latest Pauline Kael review.

  
  

  But that centralization was, as you pointed out, was the product of technology. The same forces that gave rise to the NYT gave rise to USA Today. The same medium that brought us Kronkite now brings us O'Reilly and Geraldo (not to mention Access Hollywood and MTV Cribs).

  
  

  More outlets equals more chaff. But it also means more wheat. There is plenty of of deliberate, well-considered content on the Web. There is also plenty of Web content that would be impossible in the print medium, particularly with regard to niche markets. Groklaw, The Patry Copyright Blog, and your own fine online publication spring immediately to mind.

  
  

  Ultimately I think this is a discussion about form, rather than substance. Criticism now comes in more shapes and sizes than it did in the past, which I suppose can be frightening. But taking it down off the pedestal and bringing into our daily lives feels like an advance to me.

  reply