Quote:
|
Originally Posted by swa(y)
look what a figures like kurt cobain has to say about black flag, then look at what thurston has to say about them. not that one persons opinion is more important than the other....but ones going to talk about it more from a historical perspective, like lecturing...to where the other is more prone to talk about it from a more personal perspective....how the music influenced them personally and what it meant to them as an individual...as opposed to what it meant to the history of music as a whole. i think both have their places, and no, im not saying one is better than the other. its important to have both sorts of individuals....but i relate more to the person that can say what black flag means to them as an individual, than the person that wants to say what black flag did to shape punk rock, metal (which they seemed to have a pretty major influence on....i hear black flag all in pantera).
|
I think you missed a consistency to your argument, again. One talks about it in the way they want to talk about it, which is true to themselves. Another talks about in a different way, also from their own perspective and experience. One is slightly more akin to the language of academia, and reveals one side of a cultural event. Another talks about in a different language, alien to academia, and reveals another side of a cultural event. Neither side are incommensurable, neither epistemically sovereign. The point is that both are expressing what the cultural event means to them as individuals - you side with one side, that's fine. I generally prefer the (alleged) opposite. The 'academic' side appeals to some sort of cultural ossification, or worse, to the objective, but this at no point seals the personal interpretation into some hermetic academic bubble.
I talk/ write, mostly, on the [arguably faux-] academic side of things; I'm not going to stop doing so, because that's how I react to the world. My personal interpretation.
Also, I'm still annoyed* by your fetishisation of poverty. Generally speaking, good artists make good art, although there's the ocassional shit artist making good art, and a great many good artists making shit art. Lou Reed's dead posh. As is William Burroughs. Oasis aren't. Social demographics in relation to art don't really prove anything except as an observation of the artist's social demographics, which is an entirely pointless point.
*In theory - this is argumentative practice, after all.