I think we can safely make another true claim, that just because something is counter-culture does not automatically mean it is good.
There already exists the well-justified, addressed notion that just because something received accolades from the establishment, such as Grammy awards, or Academy awards, or if an artist achieves commercial success, none of this automatically means that the recipient of that stuff is actually any good. Talented, original, etc. I think that one is pretty well-established in the lexicon of the middle-class-white-kid-who-wants-to-play-free-thinker-intellectual-for-a-day.
They absolutely cannot stand an honest critique of a so-called artisan's work. Don't you dare offering a differing opinion from what the counter-culture alterna-circuit approves as accepted dogma.
The only opinion they tolerate is their own. That something is "groundbreaking, controversial, trailblazing, dance to the beat of their own drum."etc.
This is outside the mainstream, this is deviant. Therefore on principle it is automatically better than the mainstream. You better accept this as being better than the mainstream. Or else. "ohyourre not being true to yourself, oh you're just putting on a façade."
They do not want anyone to say what they <truly> think.
Well, what if I think it is utter trash?
What if I think there is just a whole lot of pomp and circumstance selling this crap to the public? And not a whole lot of talent being utilized to make this stuff? Not to mention, there is not a whole lot of evidence of talent displayed at all.
Then they spring back a whole lot of irritating blathering natter about how, "you are closed-minded; you are not truly expanding your horizons; you are not truly possessing artistic sensibility." They pipe up with, "you are not truly possessing a discerning eye; you are just looking at a gut reaction rather than taking the time to dig deep and find a more profound meaning."
Let us get one thing straight. The counter-culture types are every bit as adamant as mainstream folks are about enforcing their opinions onto others. They are shoving their viewpoints down people's throats.
If you do not like their brand of judgment, you are closed-minded. They hype up their endorsement of entertainment expression things that they want to impose and inflict on others.
But now I think we can [[[follow, trace, document, chronicle]]]] another one emerging.
I think this has been well established, it is now common knowledge that, just because something is mainstream does not automatically mean it is of good quality. Songs and musicians that win Grammies, The oscars movies, tv shows that receive much critical acclaim, et cetera -- these are not necessarily the best offerings out there. This idea has been successfully [[[grafted welded branded]]]] into people's collective skulls.
But I think now we need to address another issue that has risen to prominence. Just because something is counterculture, alternative, like "indie movies" does not automatically mean they are good, either. There is a sizable lot of entertainment material, which according to them is "unique, dance to the beat of their own drum, rebellious, goes against the grain," all that crap -- that actually sucks. Just because they purposely rebel against the established authority does not automatically mean they are better.
I'm sorry, did I shock you? I'm sure this revelation must jolt your sensibilities.
There already exists the well-justified, addressed notion that just because something received accolades from the establishment, such as Grammy awards, or Academy awards, or if an artist achieves commercial success, none of this automatically means that the recipient of that stuff is actually any good. Talented, original, etc. I think that one is pretty well-established in the lexicon of the middle-class-white-kid-who-wants-to-play-free-thinker-intellectual-for-a-day.
They absolutely cannot stand an honest critique of a so-called artisan's work. Don't you dare offering a differing opinion from what the counter-culture alterna-circuit approves as accepted dogma.
The only opinion they tolerate is their own. That something is "groundbreaking, controversial, trailblazing, dance to the beat of their own drum."etc.
This is outside the mainstream, this is deviant. Therefore on principle it is automatically better than the mainstream. You better accept this as being better than the mainstream. Or else. "ohyourre not being true to yourself, oh you're just putting on a façade."
They do not want anyone to say what they <truly> think.
Well, what if I think it is utter trash?
What if I think there is just a whole lot of pomp and circumstance selling this crap to the public? And not a whole lot of talent being utilized to make this stuff? Not to mention, there is not a whole lot of evidence of talent displayed at all.
Then they spring back a whole lot of irritating blathering natter about how, "you are closed-minded; you are not truly expanding your horizons; you are not truly possessing artistic sensibility." They pipe up with, "you are not truly possessing a discerning eye; you are just looking at a gut reaction rather than taking the time to dig deep and find a more profound meaning."
Let us get one thing straight. The counter-culture types are every bit as adamant as mainstream folks are about enforcing their opinions onto others. They are shoving their viewpoints down people's throats.
If you do not like their brand of judgment, you are closed-minded. They hype up their endorsement of entertainment expression things that they want to impose and inflict on others.
But now I think we can [[[follow, trace, document, chronicle]]]] another one emerging.
I think this has been well established, it is now common knowledge that, just because something is mainstream does not automatically mean it is of good quality. Songs and musicians that win Grammies, The oscars movies, tv shows that receive much critical acclaim, et cetera -- these are not necessarily the best offerings out there. This idea has been successfully [[[grafted welded branded]]]] into people's collective skulls.
But I think now we need to address another issue that has risen to prominence. Just because something is counterculture, alternative, like "indie movies" does not automatically mean they are good, either. There is a sizable lot of entertainment material, which according to them is "unique, dance to the beat of their own drum, rebellious, goes against the grain," all that crap -- that actually sucks. Just because they purposely rebel against the established authority does not automatically mean they are better.
I'm sorry, did I shock you? I'm sure this revelation must jolt your sensibilities.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment