4 ms·
"Must be allowed to” sounds like a weasel word. It is not illegal to make bad work. I doubt any contract an artist signs usually has a clause against producing
by LudwigNagasena 3y ago
"Must be allowed to” sounds like a weasel word. It is not illegal to make bad work. I doubt any contract an artist signs usually has a clause against producing bad work either. That phrase may sound sophisticated and provocative but it means nothing, at least to me.
- dghf 3y agoIt seems pretty clear to me, especially with the context provided in the article itself: don't judge an artist solely by the last thing they made; don't write them off just because they're going through a bad patch.
- awestroke 3y agoPeople must be allowed to judge and write off artists solely based on the last thing they made
- nabla9 3y agoPeople are reading this text in two ways: 1) A suggestion is made for the readers and to the society to change how the judge and think about artists. 2) Writers tries to convey new norms, forbid judgement. What do you think the writer tried to do here?
- User2000 3y agoIt is preferable to take a more nuanced approach to judging artists, looking at their entire career and recognizing the inherent subjectivity of artistic appreciation, but people have a perfect right to judge an artist on a work of art, it simply shows a certain closed-mindedness
- falcolas 3y agoAt the same time, artists of every kind have to contend with the fact that this is currently a golden age for art. We are confronted with more art of every kind than we could ever consume. The cost for moving on has never been lower. So while an artist should be allowed to have down periods, it also shouldn't be surprising if people move on. We're not looking for needles in haystacks anymore, we're looking for needles in a stack of needles. There may be value in coveting needles and hay from a particular artist, but that's an intensely personal decision to make.
- ly3xqhl8g9 3y agoDepends on whether the artist "owns" themself. If I go to a Harry Styles concert and the guy is unable to perform on the stage, I should get a refund, the corporations behind Harry Styles failed to deliver a product. If I go to a Marc Rebillet [1] concert, well, I know exactly what I am getting even if Marc is barely able to yell 3 times in the microphone (and those screams would be exquisite anyhow). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sytXwAvAdL4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sytXwAvAdL4
- Archelaos 3y agoThe article makes it clear that it is about social pressure, not legal obligations.
- nabla9 3y agoIt's not a sophisticated way to write. If you get stuck on words, expressions, or idioms and constantly interpret them wrong, it usually means that you can't parse context well. If the expression "must be allowed" bothers you in this text, your OECD literacy level is most likely below 3. It's easy to fix if you start reading more books, you start to improve.
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoI don’t mean that it is written in contrived manner. I mean that it is vague. There is no context, there is only a clickbait title.
- nabla9 3y ago> I mean that it is vague. There is no context, there is only a clickbait title. If you can't parse the context from the writing, there is no context for you.
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoIt seems like you can’t parse the context of my writing and the problem lies way deeper than your level of English.
- p_j_w 3y agoGiven that your writing supports the notion that he knew exactly why you said what you said, it seems like he can parse the context of your writing just fine.
- RugnirViking 3y agoyou are behaving quite patronising to this guy for no reason. He is challenging the premise of the piece and you are telling him he is too stupid to read the piece at all. Do you not see the irony here? Commenters, too, should be allowed to have bad takes
- femto 3y agoTo my mind "must be allowed to" an English idiom. The "must" is a form of exaggeration, the effect being that the speaker is acknowledging that they are stating an opinion.