3 ms·
Allusions are elitist. Art always exists in some context, even if it's only the language of the work and its setting. Allusions add to that context, but in a
by rectang 2y ago
Allusions are elitist.
Art always exists in some context, even if it's only the language of the work and its setting. Allusions add to that context, but in a way that insidiously empowers a handful of authority figures.
Allusions make interacting with a work akin to a treasure hunt, where the audience uncovers the author's "true intentions" clue by clue through consuming outside commentary. The clues are sourced from cultural authorities, including critics (such as NYT poetry columnists), academics, and sometimes the authors themselves.
I reject this gatekeeping, preferring to elevate the hyperspecific experience of the individual audience member above the experience that authority figures seek to browbeat into the the audience.
Every individual first experiences a work with only the context that they bring themselves, and that individual's first interpretation is completely valid. Their own emotional, instinctual reactions are "correct" for them, even when they fail to acknowledge allusive references or otherwise clash with author intent.
"Popular" art which stands on its own without needing critical interpretation does more for its audience than art which requires the accompaniment of a cultural tour guide. And audiences sense it, which is why popular art will always be popular.
- jal278 2y agoThis is naive 'populism': There's no way to avoid 'allusion' writ large -- e.g. do you object to biblical references, or to references to particular experiences that only some people have (heartbreak, death of a father)? Sure, some communities basically 'write for themselves' in a way that becomes inaccessible to outsiders w/o a lot of work. But that's fine -- I like a McDonald's hamburger as well as really nuanced flavors (for whatever reason I like nuance in how I make oatmeal that likely few others probably appreciate). Film buffs like the nuance/allusions in that medium; etc. Your comment seems like: "The stuff I like is the best and does the most for humanity" -- I think there is indeed an argument for art that is broadly appreciable, but your comment is a form of the 'gatekeeping' you criticize -- it's gatekeeping for art that doesn't require a lot of effort (for you, and those like you) to appreciate.
- rectang 2y ago> do you object to biblical references, or to references to particular experiences that only some people have (heartbreak, death of a father)? I mean allusions as discussed in the NYT article: "poetic references", or what we might also call "literary allusions". > "The stuff I like is the best and does the most for humanity" Fortunately, broadly appreciable art thrives independently of advocacy from me or anyone else.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- miltonlost 2y ago> "Popular" art which stands on its own without needing critical interpretation does more for its audience than art which requires the accompaniment of a cultural tour guide. And audiences sense it, which is why popular art will always be popular. Miley Cyrus' "Flowers", a pop song, alludes to a Bruno Mars song "When I Was Your Man". Allusions exist all over, of many different brows. There's nothing insidious about Dante alluding to Greco-Roman poets as well as his Italian political contemporaries.
- 52-6F-62 2y agoLOL Peak HN. “If it isn’t computers or viable within materialist reductionism and requires attention or effort then it’s elitist” Maybe you just need to study more. I wouldn’t want a half baked english student (in some perspectives, I might qualify as such) making judgement calls over the validity of one design approach over another when it comes to nuclear reactors. Poetry is nuclear reactor of the soul and should be treated with as much reverence in your approach. What you think you understand is just a few glances at shadows. Keep going.