11/22/2019
By Alex Ness
Writing about Robert E. Howard and why I like his work despite various critic's having averse opinions upon his work, led me to receive a few emails asking what I like other than his work, and it made me wonder upon the nature of taste in popular media.
We are obviously free to like whatever we like, and that remains true even if you live in a country with a repressive government that disallows various forms of media, or subject matter therein. No one has an honorable reason to shat upon your taste, whatever your taste is. I might not think porn is a valid genre of art, but others do, and it is legal, when not illegal in content, so, I say, if that floats your boat, do it. Watch it, enjoy it. But, that isn't the same thing as saying, because you like it, it is of a higher quality than other things that you do not enjoy. That isn't aimed at saying you like shit. I am not believing that either. I am saying, you are allowed, and free to pursue your enjoyment of anything.
So what happens if your enjoyment of a medium leads you to doing things you see in such a thing? That isn't really the bigger issue, is it? If you are watching Star Wars and whack your younger brother over the head with a giant foam fake sword, you aren't actually doing anything, are you? Now, it could be argued that porn is meant to inspire behavior, but, for the purpose of this, let me say, I am not going to suggest that. But if you get frisky and act the scene you saw, that isn't a bad thing, unless of course you are banging the cat, or doing illegal things to people who didn't give consent. My mother once said my brother's enjoyment of action movies was unhealthy. If those movies had actually encouraged him to become a mercenary and kill folks, I'd agree. Honestly though, my mother was not actually worried about that. Her moral judgment was about what he watched, and that judgment of taste is really unfair nor is it in any way accurate. I've heard it said that any medium of creative expression is meant to raise the human spirit or conscience, to transcend our lives in the mud and grime, but I do not agree with that statement. One person's trash is another's treasure. In fact as Ezra Pound said, “Good art however "immoral" is wholly a thing of virtue. Good art can not be immoral. By good art I mean art that bears true witness, I mean the art that is most precise.”
It has always been the complaint by critics of various media that the greatest literature or film or music isn't as popular as works of far less quality, and that higher art and concepts need to be read. It has always been a response to such a complaint that the masses like what they like and they are not wrong for liking something. I can say without any hedging of my point, that you cannot lead people into like something that they do not like. If they do like something great, it is their sense of taste and not your own that led to their appreciation of it. Someone once said to my saying I didn't like eating a certain food, that I just needed to try more of it to build a sense of taste. Well, that is like making a person read a genre that they have no desire to be exposed towards, watch a documentary about paint drying, or cause a pacifist listen to a bunch of people singing a song about crime or violent acts and then demanding that they like it. If it happens that you share a book or movie or CD of music, and you've expanded a person's enjoyment of creative works, that is awesome, but it is a very long road with very few success stories.If you think I do not believe what I just said, you are wrong. I write poetry and try to sell it. It does not sell easily, nor do I receive much feedback that is positive. I write because it needs to be written, so, my motives for writing isn't to exalt or transcend, it is purely aimed at expression. While some think of poetry as a high brow form of writing, I do not. It is a form. It is neither positive nor negative. It is rap versus singing, it is a comic book versus a movie. It is just a way to express. However, I've also given away, freely, more than a thousand comics, as many books, and even some music, and usually found that my efforts to evangelize the various people I encountered with great works failed. Whatever genres, and forms of media I shared, getting people to like what they do not, try what they've never tried, and grow taste is very difficult. Some one told me how a certain crime fiction writer was the best of his class because of the depth of research, and that other writers might know something, but their works were tawdry and vulgar and focused upon the emotion and capricious aspects of human nature, rather than a deeper study if non fiction, or a deeper look into the mind of the criminal, if fiction. This reminded me of Mickey Spillane's comment about mass popularity versus high culture esteem. "Those big-shot writers … could never dig the fact that there are more salted peanuts consumed than caviar."
Obviously, people like what they like, and we rarely find people who, as a whole, find the same enjoyment for the creative materials we enjoy... however. There is something else to say. You can respect a person's work, without loving it, have the same taste as a person, but find the creative works they make to be out of your area of interest or taste. I respect many people, but I don't assume shared interests between you and them that therefore you are going to like the things that they place into a form and somehow share. This isn't saying much, it is obvious, but, I should say, it can be very surprising to learn you share a love of Star Wars with a 90 year old retired minister, or that you can learn that Ezra Pound poetry moves a person you thought would have hated it. That doesn't mean that if the person you share an interest area with creates something, it will be a thing you like, or even not like, you cannot predict that, I think.The germ of inspiration to write this came not from deeper thought, as much, as frustration with others who try to poop on what people like. If you bring up a variety of creative works you become judged for it, and thought to be a moron or low brow neanderthal to some. My experience is, we've all this one life, and I am not going to be a slave to anyone else's taste. That often leaves me with less to watch, listen, play or read. That is, most of the world we live in tries to create work that will be popular, and if it becomes popular, there will be more like it. Being original is often thought a risk, because, if someone has never seen something like that, why would they ever want to try it. Some people love adventure, but as time has gone by I've watched people choose the same old thing over and over again. I titled this about a cereal that had advertising that suggested just because you don't like it, others don't necessarily think or feel the same. And if Mikie liked that cereal, maybe it was good.
I have a friend, have for about 15 years and I have worked with him, and we've shared a number of projects and chats. Michael May is deeply kind and a very generous soul, and I love him, not in the gay way, but if I were gay, hell yeah. He and I over the years have cross pollinated the others taste areas, but this has been rare. Michael is a writer as well as a day job, being a father and does great things in the world of ministry. When he suggests I need to read this, he loves it, I do try it. But the results have almost never been my being in agreement. We might in fact liked the same issue of a comic, but when we discussed it, his reason for liking it was X, and my reason for liking it was Y. And his areas of interest or their form might be the same as my own, but the various products from those areas are unlikely to work for both of us. I remember reading an article he wrote about a comic he enjoyed, and I had read the very same thing and thought, ew, why the hell did I just read this.
Water is wet, sky is blue, grass is green, yes, all of this is stuff we should know by now. But, there are a couple different things to consider. As a writer I think Michael writes well, but more importantly for this, he is fantastic at creating his prose, and I am interested. When he and I have created projects, I will have an idea, it will germ, but I think in poetry, Michael thinks in prose, and the result is, he looks at what I've said, and makes it work for a broader audience. He inspires me by his way of creating, but he is more than just a writer, he has interests and ideas that I'd never come up with, if I had not interacted with him. Thanks to mutual friend Joe Kinski Hilliard for his suggestion, in 2004 that Michael and I would be fast friends. I don't wonder if I hadn't experienced Michael's work that I'd assume that I'd like it. If I am honest, and I hope to be, if all I knew about Michael was how different his taste was from mine, I'd have assumed that what he wrote was not to my taste, and that we probably are so different we can't be friends. And that'd be wrong.
My point is, and yes I do indeed have one, that our tastes may vary, or they might well intersect, but taste isn't the same as respect, admiration or appreciation. So, if you think poetry sucks, it might, and mine probably would suck in your mind if you think all poetry sucks, but if you just reduce your level of distaste for something, you might find layers of worth, even in things you didn't expect to be good. If you explore an idea, you might find it to be worth your time however that idea has been creatively expressed. A former friend of mine and a friend of Michael had vastly different outlooks on the things from popular media that I liked. That was all fine. But I often found myself thinking, how can he think like that and still like my work. I am not sure he still likes my work, we've not communicated in years, but, it leads me to think, just because you have a different outlook, doesn't mean you can't enjoy the products they produce, ideas they have, or their motives to create.
SLIGHTLY CHANGING THE SUBJECT
Things I've been liking lately:
Netflix Ultraman is the greatest animated series I've ever watched and I am genuinely worried that when the series is over there will not be anything like it to replace it. It is a brilliant sequel to the original series which I do love, but more from nostalgia than deeper thought. This work takes the past, makes it part of the layers of the present, and tells a story that goes WAY beyond anything I've ever seen before. I truly, and deeply, love it.
The music of Aaron Kerr. The music artist I interviewed a short while back has a deeply moving quality of music he has created, and before you ask, I can't really say the genre, it absorbs and uses so many different genres it would be silly for me to try to say. It moves me for the depth of originality, the listenability of it, and how it approaches rather deep ideas without feeling like it has made itself better and higher over the listener.
A Brief History of The Normans, The Samurai, The Vikings, The Celts by various writers. This series is fantastic. I've reached a place in my work and research that I am familiar with the subjects I write about, and just need a quick refresh of facts and statistics and dates. I read and research all of the subjects I write about, thoroughly, for instance my book, with friends helping, Autumn Painted Red required a mastery of the facts and thoughts about the subject. (*more below). This series is less about creating new ideas, while I like knowing more, it isn't the point of this series. It is to capture a large movement or event, and make it easy to know the overall entirety of the subject.
(*I acquired and read more than 25 different books, and watched numerous documentaries. I might be wrong in who I thought was the culprit, but, thanks to the work researching it, I am very content with what I did. That isn't to suggest that it is perfect, and as I suggest, I could be wrong on who I think did the terrible crimes, but it remains a work I am proud of. I should briefly note, that while I still trust the source of the work, there are many competing theories and I have an open mind about it all. I was excited by the "news" that DNA from an item led to identification of the contributors of the DNA, but, I've read that there are more than a few reasons to doubt.)
No comments:
Post a Comment