In spite of the negative connotations implied by your article's title (is it snobbery to value artistic expression and intellectual nuance?), I nonetheless think you are very much on track here. Like you, I am decidedly liberal and small-D democratic in the vast majority of my views. But as something of a free speech absolutist, I often find myself at odds with the gatekeepers of "cancel culture" who usually share my other values. Why must we choose between loving art and loving what is popular? Isn't it possible to relish Chopin AND Beyonce? In countless visits to art museums, I have seen many works that I could appreciate artistically, but nonetheless would never have hung in my own home (even if I could have afforded to do so!). This kind of thinking seems very much at the root of the anti-intellectualism discussed in Tom Nichols' excellent book, "The Death of Expertise". In the book, Nichols contemplates how it is that we have evolved a society where so-called "liberal elites" are associated with epistemological pursuits while everyday folks wear anti-intellectualism and even outright ignorance like badges of honor. While his book came out in early 2017, it was based on a long article Nichols wrote in the pre-Trump era. His prescient assessment of a broad trend in society is now a description of how we operate in the U.S. overall. RED = overwhelmingly white, Christian, rural, working class, less educated, more likely to own guns, and so on... BLUE = diverse, secular, urban, intellectual, elitist, etc. Now, we may add to that list, as your article suggests, RED = popular culture and expression filled with "empty calories", while BLUE = artistically meritorious and painfully "politically correct", where all expression must pass through the filters of self-anointed gatekeepers. Why can't I enjoy a Twinkie AND watch an August Wilson play?
But I think what's interesting, and part of what's being lamented here, is that Blue World now doesn't give a shit about artistic merit either, and substitutes "being popular with the right kinds of people and ticking the right identity boxes" for a discussion of quality.
I guess as a former (?) writer for Pitchfork this all rings true to me. Also thank you for stating poptimism's initial claim is simply being a mainstream cultural critic, which was again put forth in the New York Times, not some small art publication or fanzine.
OK, hold on a sec. You would know this better than me, probably, but I don't think that the formulation of "poptimism" Ross is using here is correct. (Because if it is just taking pop culture seriously, then that would make literally every "serious" art critic a poptimist and render the concept ragged to the point of uselessness.) Poptimism as I understood it in the '00s was framed as a counterweight to "rockism," typically arguing that the framework of music criticism at Rolling Stone et al was weighted towards the album vs the single, the composer vs the singer, the "real" vs the "fake," etc etc, and that these attitudes often resulted in female artists being dismissed as disposable, frivolous, lightweight, etc. The quintessential poptimist in these terms would be someone like Ann Powers, not some uncritical Swiftie. Maybe that's shifted over the years, owing to the tumblrization of culture writing - again, you're the Pitchfork writer!! - but certainly that's how I understood it a decade ago.
But the '00s poptimist viewpoint, transposed into film criticism, is one that I think is pretty unambiguously correct when talking about what's showing at your local theater. Yes, it is bad that there is no space for a latter-day Martin Scorsese in the current media landscape. It is also bad that there is no space for, say, a latter-day Nora Ephron. "Serious" cinema, as formulated in articles like this, never includes, e.g., period dramas or movie musicals; "frivolous" cinema, as formulated in articles like this, never includes, e.g., movies where Keanu Reeves dual wields AK-47s. I know plenty of self-professed film guys who dismiss the MCU as IP-driven jingoistic empty spectacle who wouldn't shut up about how great the new Top Gun was. Just because "oh you just like white guy movies for white guys" can be wielded spuriously or maliciously doesn't mean the feminist critique of a certain mode of film snobbery is wrong.
I mean, I think "maybe that shifted over the years" is the answer here. Whatever poptimism was intellectually and originally, it has become a lot of people screaming that you're not allowed to criticize any Kpop bands and if you do you're racist. The discourse was completely overwhelmed by raging stans.
Yeah, that basically answers it. I wish the original point held up better but since I think critics and subsequent champions really perverted it. However, it may have just been a poor framework in the end.
I appreciate this article and it is, indeed, fine to be a snob. But having come out of the tail end of the AOR era as a musician, the culture of old-school rock criticism really was terrible and killed a lot of great music in the crib (this was a time when women had to be pretty assertive just to get a decent sound check). While I have no problem believing "poptimism" is now a pernicious trend (and have no interest in verifying this), there are way fewer pain points that prevent creative output from making it to market, despite awful social media campaigns pushing back on that.
Most music criticism just reads like a long, miserable status negotiation to me, but there are definitely standouts. I vastly prefer the kind of critics that get people to listen to any and everything they think is interesting, even the stuff they pan. And I *love* the writers who highlight the weirdness of fandom and help other people find a way into music they would never otherwise enjoy. Because music is to be enjoyed!
In spite of the negative connotations implied by your article's title (is it snobbery to value artistic expression and intellectual nuance?), I nonetheless think you are very much on track here. Like you, I am decidedly liberal and small-D democratic in the vast majority of my views. But as something of a free speech absolutist, I often find myself at odds with the gatekeepers of "cancel culture" who usually share my other values. Why must we choose between loving art and loving what is popular? Isn't it possible to relish Chopin AND Beyonce? In countless visits to art museums, I have seen many works that I could appreciate artistically, but nonetheless would never have hung in my own home (even if I could have afforded to do so!). This kind of thinking seems very much at the root of the anti-intellectualism discussed in Tom Nichols' excellent book, "The Death of Expertise". In the book, Nichols contemplates how it is that we have evolved a society where so-called "liberal elites" are associated with epistemological pursuits while everyday folks wear anti-intellectualism and even outright ignorance like badges of honor. While his book came out in early 2017, it was based on a long article Nichols wrote in the pre-Trump era. His prescient assessment of a broad trend in society is now a description of how we operate in the U.S. overall. RED = overwhelmingly white, Christian, rural, working class, less educated, more likely to own guns, and so on... BLUE = diverse, secular, urban, intellectual, elitist, etc. Now, we may add to that list, as your article suggests, RED = popular culture and expression filled with "empty calories", while BLUE = artistically meritorious and painfully "politically correct", where all expression must pass through the filters of self-anointed gatekeepers. Why can't I enjoy a Twinkie AND watch an August Wilson play?
But I think what's interesting, and part of what's being lamented here, is that Blue World now doesn't give a shit about artistic merit either, and substitutes "being popular with the right kinds of people and ticking the right identity boxes" for a discussion of quality.
You'd like my class. Students ate Hot Cheetos (yuk) while we read "Fences". Both were enjoyed immeasurably.
“If the only gatekeepers to movie stardom came from Tarantino and Scorsese, I would never have had the opportunity to lead a $400 million plus movie.”
What an idiot. Tarantino has put more nonwhite stars in his movies than I can count offhand.
I guess as a former (?) writer for Pitchfork this all rings true to me. Also thank you for stating poptimism's initial claim is simply being a mainstream cultural critic, which was again put forth in the New York Times, not some small art publication or fanzine.
OK, hold on a sec. You would know this better than me, probably, but I don't think that the formulation of "poptimism" Ross is using here is correct. (Because if it is just taking pop culture seriously, then that would make literally every "serious" art critic a poptimist and render the concept ragged to the point of uselessness.) Poptimism as I understood it in the '00s was framed as a counterweight to "rockism," typically arguing that the framework of music criticism at Rolling Stone et al was weighted towards the album vs the single, the composer vs the singer, the "real" vs the "fake," etc etc, and that these attitudes often resulted in female artists being dismissed as disposable, frivolous, lightweight, etc. The quintessential poptimist in these terms would be someone like Ann Powers, not some uncritical Swiftie. Maybe that's shifted over the years, owing to the tumblrization of culture writing - again, you're the Pitchfork writer!! - but certainly that's how I understood it a decade ago.
But the '00s poptimist viewpoint, transposed into film criticism, is one that I think is pretty unambiguously correct when talking about what's showing at your local theater. Yes, it is bad that there is no space for a latter-day Martin Scorsese in the current media landscape. It is also bad that there is no space for, say, a latter-day Nora Ephron. "Serious" cinema, as formulated in articles like this, never includes, e.g., period dramas or movie musicals; "frivolous" cinema, as formulated in articles like this, never includes, e.g., movies where Keanu Reeves dual wields AK-47s. I know plenty of self-professed film guys who dismiss the MCU as IP-driven jingoistic empty spectacle who wouldn't shut up about how great the new Top Gun was. Just because "oh you just like white guy movies for white guys" can be wielded spuriously or maliciously doesn't mean the feminist critique of a certain mode of film snobbery is wrong.
I mean, I think "maybe that shifted over the years" is the answer here. Whatever poptimism was intellectually and originally, it has become a lot of people screaming that you're not allowed to criticize any Kpop bands and if you do you're racist. The discourse was completely overwhelmed by raging stans.
Yeah, that basically answers it. I wish the original point held up better but since I think critics and subsequent champions really perverted it. However, it may have just been a poor framework in the end.
I appreciate this article and it is, indeed, fine to be a snob. But having come out of the tail end of the AOR era as a musician, the culture of old-school rock criticism really was terrible and killed a lot of great music in the crib (this was a time when women had to be pretty assertive just to get a decent sound check). While I have no problem believing "poptimism" is now a pernicious trend (and have no interest in verifying this), there are way fewer pain points that prevent creative output from making it to market, despite awful social media campaigns pushing back on that.
Most music criticism just reads like a long, miserable status negotiation to me, but there are definitely standouts. I vastly prefer the kind of critics that get people to listen to any and everything they think is interesting, even the stuff they pan. And I *love* the writers who highlight the weirdness of fandom and help other people find a way into music they would never otherwise enjoy. Because music is to be enjoyed!
I think the grievance culture is fueled by people who don't know what the real problem is - the uneven way that power/money is distributed.
The sources of our woes are largely economic.