A comment on a post
by Ann Midgette of the Washington Post
got me thinking about the frequent use of certain words in cultural criticism
(both professional and amateur), what they mean, what they are meant to mean,
and what it means when they are used.
Commenter franklinmjohnson allows as how
. . . most of [contemporary music], with a few notable
exceptions, is self-indulgent, pretentious, and atonal to an unlistenable
Again, I’m not here to comment on franklinmjohnson’s
comment, but rather to note some of the terminology he
uses, because it shows up a lot in writing about culture.
excessive or unrestrained gratification of one's own appetites, desires, or
What does it mean when we think of an artist as
“self-indulgent”? I’m honestly confused here. Are we supposed to be
offended/annoyed by the fact that the artist created the art they wanted to
create? “Who is this [name of composer] thinking that we are interested in what
[s]he thinks music is?” I genuinely don’t get it.
I remember a number of critics and moviegoers using
“self-indulgent” as a club with which to pummel Paul Thomas Anderson’s Punch-Drunk Love
attention was paid to the vibrant color-fields that appeared off-and-on
throughout the film. These are an instance of Anderson’s self-indulgence, in large
part because they don’t advance the story.
What these critics and moviegoers seems to want is for the
artists to keep anything out of the artwork that the audience member doesn’t
think belongs there. That the art work should conform to exactly what the
audience member think should be there; that the work of art conform to the
audience member’s appetites, desires, and whims.
making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing);
expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or
I think the charge of pretentious in arts criticism is
closely related to that of self-indulgence, but they aren’t quite the same. I’m
not sure what franklinmjohnson means here, but I suspect it has to do with the
idea that composers of “atonal” music are making “unjustified or excessive
claims” about the value of their music. I don’t know for sure, but at the same
time how do you know what claims the composer is making for the music?
Offending the sensibility by being played on the same concert as Beethoven?
Most frequently now, and especially in writing about film,
“pretentious” seems be used interchangeably with “difficult”, “ambitious”, or
even “serious”. It’s not always used as a negative—I read a positive review of
Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life
that said the film was, at times “overly-pretentious”. This made absolutely no
sense to me until I was looking up the definitions for this post:
2: making demands on one's skill, ability, or means
OK; Malick certainly does make these demands, as do many
artists in all media, and from all periods. But I wonder if the writer (and
others who use the word) knows about that second definition. If he did, hats
off to him. But the word still has negative connotations, even with that
meaning. In any case, I like it when artists make demands on my skill, ability,
[Special Pre-Publication Update:
BREAKING! In an article
published today in Slate, David Haglund notes some interesting and substantial
similarities between Mr. Malick and novelist Marilynne Robinson (Housekeeping
, one of the most
hauntingly beautiful novels I have ever read). Mr. Haglund quotes Ms Robinson’s
observation (from a recent essay) that the “locus of the human mystery is
perception of this world”, and notes that it “would have made an apt, if
somewhat pretentious, tagline”.
Sigh. Why is a phrase that is a finely-stated observation
about what it means to be human apposite in an essay and pretentious when part
of the supporting apparatus of a serious film? Is it a genre or medium thing?