The Art of Talking Art

Something that occured to me last night was that the 'literary novel' is another of those 'coterie' things.

Sir Terry Pratchett once wrote that he had 'been accused of literature'. So when I saw him (at a book signng), I asked, "How do you plead?" He replied, "Not guilty."

Then he appeared on one of the BBC's more preciously arty book programmes. Next time, therefore, I said, "You've been on The Book Programme [or whatever it was] so you must be guilty of literature."

He replied, "No, no, they just wanted the novelty of having somebody on the programme whose books actually sold."

Look at the sales of 'literary' novels and you'll see what he meant. Did Goethe or Dumas or Dickens write 'literature'? No: they wrote to sell, and were bloody good writers as well(though it's sometimes a bit obvious in his later work that Dickens was being paid by the yard).

Cheers,

R.
 
It seems to me that most "art historians" are pretentious snobs who are more taken with their ability to write in obtuse language than in critiquing art. Most of the time, when you get to the end of what appears to be a paragraph, you have to go back and try to figure out what it's trying to say. They sure didn't pass English Composition IA.

As for APERTURE, it's often a case in point. I subscribe to the magazine, but I sometimes get a little annoyed at their avant-garde tastes and feminist-pushing. A lot of what they publish only touches the fringes of photography. And since Hoffman died, they seem to have a problem settling on an "executive director", maybe because Melissa Harris (his wife) runs the show and nobody argues.

When all is said and done, who gives a toot what the critics think? Who set them up as the last word? It's just sombody's opinion, like anything else.
 
Well this has certainly had a makeover since my last visit … some major alterations … impressive

Lost quite a bit of clutter actually … shame about the collateral damage, but there you go
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom