tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post3118133366210478237..comments2023-09-20T14:34:21.102+02:00Comments on Postcards from the Gods: On taste and "truth"Andrew Haydonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-91563109685675279262009-01-30T10:38:00.000+01:002009-01-30T10:38:00.000+01:00The distinction between Himalayan criticism and th...The distinction between Himalayan criticism and the incorrigibly subjective is really helpful and suggestive. But the way you describe them sound like one is evaluation (did I think it was good) and understanding (placing it in various contexts). This seems to suggests that saying whether a show is good or not is 'purely' subjective. Given that reviews tend to be evaluative, why write them? It would be like writing articles on whether I have a headache or not.<BR/><BR/>When I read a review, I tend to assume that there's something I can share in, that it's not purely the randomness of their opinion, but I might be able to agree with them (or, if I know more about their prejudices, understand why I won't agree with them). Which is why I bring up Kant, because he wouldn't accept the distinctive between private/subjective/evaluation and public/objective/understanding, and argues that evaluation has a subjective component but an objective and universal component as well.<BR/><BR/>I liked On Religion in some ways. Not because I thought it was an artistically fully realized show, but I liked the idea of a show like that and was prepared to go with the good intentions. This may be a crap reason, of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-58855452578527166782009-01-28T21:26:00.000+01:002009-01-28T21:26:00.000+01:00I think you can make distinctions between what is ...I think you can make distinctions between what is incorrigible subjective experience (basically, whether one enjoys a play or not, which is something that simply can't be argued with) and other judgments that are more about looking at what it is and palcing it in contexts of various inds. The second (critical engagement, I guess) is more interesting; the first is what Brustein, I think, called "Himalaya criticism". They are always going to be confused, and the line is admittedly fuzzy; but there is a perceptible difference. In that review, I dramatised a bit of the second kind of judgment with a fillip of the first. Which seems perfectly fine to me.<BR/><BR/>The difference is basically whether there are "crap reasons" or not for saying what one says. I'd love to hear your reasons for liking that play one day. Hindsight has not made it any less mediocre for me.Alison Croggonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398213223487458758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-6155676748017572452009-01-27T19:24:00.000+01:002009-01-27T19:24:00.000+01:00If you take a Kantian line on artistic disagreemen...If you take a Kantian line on artistic disagreements, we disagree because artistic judgments have a universalist character. They're not just subjective in the way that, say, having a headache is subjective. They aspire to general acceptance. Which is why we have conversations about theatre (and make compilation CDs for people, and why reviewers exist). And Kant does seem to think this isn't an illusion (we really are disagreeing meaningfully when we disagree about our artistic judgments) but it also does seem to imply that when two people disagree about art, one of them must be mistaken in some way.<BR/><BR/>No reason why you should take a Kantian line though.<BR/><BR/>On another point: "I'm basically with the post-structuralists on truth up to the point where they get all impenetrable and start claiming that something like WWI isn't verifiable". I'm not sure what that point is. If it's self-evidently true that WWI (or maybe the Holocaust is a better, more ferocious example) happened, why can't it be self-evidently the case that lots of other things are true too?<BR/><BR/>And then you get into the curly problem that if you think truth is purely subjective what does it mean to say "I'm basically with the post-structuralists on truth"? Is that statement true? Is it true that the post-structuralists have a position on truth?<BR/><BR/>I'm all for recognising the complexity of the world and that the things that seem self-evident to us can be refreshingly challenged by taking other people's views seriously, but I fear there's a dodgy rhetorical strategy at work here: (a) define truth in some inordinately metaphysical way (absolute, eternal, unchanging truth), and then (b) point out we can't have access to that sort of truth because we're always inserted in culture, (c) pronounce truth as relative. <BR/><BR/>Just thought I'd get that off my chest. Great piece, lovely debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-4179417113265368742009-01-27T05:27:00.000+01:002009-01-27T05:27:00.000+01:00It's interesting that you alight on the "On Religi...It's interesting that you alight on the "On Religion" debate - as it was originally titled. <BR/><BR/>Full disclosure - I'm pretty good friends with Chris Haydon (no relative) who co-wrote the piece... - I liked it a lot. And not for crap reasons...Andrew Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-56346143907902269242009-01-27T01:38:00.000+01:002009-01-27T01:38:00.000+01:00Hi Andrew - you could look at the - well - lively ...Hi Andrew - you could look at the - well - <I>lively</I> thread that follows my review of <A HREF="http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com/2009/01/review-grace.html" REL="nofollow">AC Grayling and Mick Gordon's play GRACE</A> (on now in Melbourne) for some illumination on why discussion is not necessarily, per se, an unadulterated good. <BR/><BR/>I am a critic who encourages debate. I have it on constant record for four years now. And I've had some fascinating and enjoyable conversations with people with whom I basically just disgree. That's the up side. The down side is what you're complaining about here. <BR/><BR/>I just wish people would learn how to disagree. Isn't that a mark of civilisation? What I often get is a kind of outrage that I should dare to state a point of view that is at odds with someone else's. It is possible to disagree with someone and yet still to respect their argument but, sadly, some people seem to find this hard to negotiate. What you get instead is basically personal insults, the questioning of one's character and professional discipline/skills/right to think/write/be alive on the same planet. And, frankly, it's dull, dull, dull.Alison Croggonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398213223487458758noreply@blogger.com