4 ms·
I understand and agree, although some are somewhat preposterous and only ever made sense in context. I finally watched Easy Rider recently, and sure, the freedo
by toyg 5y ago
I understand and agree, although some are somewhat preposterous and only ever made sense in context. I finally watched Easy Rider recently, and sure, the freedom, riding with no protection, sleeping wherever - but it's such a mediocre, badly-woven film. Same for quite a few Stones songs and a lot of other '60s/70s stuff - except Jimi Hendrix, that man was an alien.
- wolverine876 5y agoCould it be that they just had a different agenda for their art than you do, and that the context and agendas changed over time? I find it more interesting to try to understand their time, to try to learn what their view of art was, what the norms were, what the context, was, and why - rather than try to judge their work by my standards, as if the changes of time have made my way superior.
- toyg 5y agoContext allows us to forgive some sins (which is what I was alluding to, in the first half of my comment on Easy Rider), not all of them. It is an objective fact that the centralization and scarcity of mass-media broadcasting, back then, effectively acted as a funnel towards certain works, amplifying their influence well beyond their merit.
- wolverine876 5y ago> It is an objective fact ... How is that claim 'objective'?
- LunaSea 5y agoPopular has never implied quality. Even more so now that the choice is practically infinite. No doubt in my mind that the Stones or the Beatles would be big in the 21st century if they were upcoming bands nowadays.