« Eva rocks | Main | calvin explains it all to you »

May 30, 2005



Thank you for the interest in my comment. When reading your ponderated analysis, I felt as you mentioned you had felt before, i.e., that I didn't take the necessary time to calmly show not only my point, but also some perspective, some self-criticism or self-moderation. This, I must say, is due mainly to the total lack of time in the last days - which does not prevent me from spoiling myself in blog-reading (and reacting), but does make it easier to over-simplify, or write plain silly. The reference to Shusterman without explaining anything was mainly because of that rush. Personally I find people referring to (especially philosophical) authors without explaining a thing quite arrogant. I am still out of time though, so in the meantime let me refer you to three sites that might serve as an introduction to his thought on high and low art: a seriously oversimplified one, a slightly "poppy" oversimplified one, and a heavy duty philosophical one (an interview, actually). I hope to have some time for a calmer discussion in slightly over a week (=ages in blog time...)


JL: I think we're on the same page on movies. I don't see many ouside the sensory-driven, roller-coaster ride variety (like Star Wars). Potentially as a reaction, I admit, to the degree to which it occupies this middlebrow consensus; also as an actual, visceral reaction to the limitations of the genre, I don't pay much attention to them or seek out the best movies.

The comments to this entry are closed.

From the Bookshelves


  • Send email to modkicks at yahoo dot com