Even though you couldn't have done better yourself

[Duke]

This is more something that I'd put in my blog, but I'll see if it generates some discussion here. I feel like it's a commentary on the state of reality and internet forums at the same time that introduces an idea that I figure has to be right.

So, the idea that I was pondering last night while asleep was that I'm pretty good at identifying why certain things are bad. Movies, songs, ideas, and everything else are things that I'm very critical of.

At some point in my life, I started trying to look for the good in everything. It sucked to know only why everything sucked, and I started seeking happier times. When I see movies now I can appreciate them for even a single good line, scene, or image. This all came from a desire to stop hating the world, and to stop hating how flawed everything was.

I don't want to talk about the result (my enjoyment of terrible movies with one terrific line), but what led me to that. And it all stems from finding fault in everything.

When I was a kid, people would tell me not to criticize others for screwing things up unless I could have done it better myself. It made sense at the time, but I think that that idea is fundamentally flawed.

Ice skaters that fell on TV really did screw up, and it was obvious that they screwed up. Who cares if I can't do better than that? I can identify the mistakes as well as someone who could do what they did. Certain books that were written more expertly than I was capable of at the time indeed sucked, and I could point out the myriad of errors that they contained. Yes, being able to truthfully say that I'm a more capable writer than some published authors says much more about their lack of ability than my possession thereof, but that's also beside the point.

So there's no surprise here - everyone can be a critic. We all knew that. What we may not ave realized is that the majority of those people can be right in their criticisms. And how could the majority of people be right about anything? People are idiots.

The answer to that, I decided, is in the fact that deconstruction is far simpler than creation. Pointing out a typo or word misuse in a post is easy. You find a mistake, reference it, and you're right that the creator screwed it up. Ignore, for a minute, the fact that they had to produce several thousand words to get their point across. Just note that one of those being out of place is a mistake that you can attack, correctly, as an error that can be said to suck.

Scientists likely understand this, as theories can take years of study and reflection to develop. One counterexample is enough to destroy the whole thing. Mathematicians might understand this too. Proving things by counterexample is usually simpler than induction.

So what's my point? That you can read this fairly lengthy post, find numerous grammatical errors, factual mistakes, and even an error in judgment as far as posting it at all, and you'll be right that it sucks because of that. I do not contest the idea that this post sucks and is worthless, whether you could have done better yourself or not.

What I'd like to see discussed: creation vs deconstruction, and observations being unqualified and correct at the same time. Tie the discussions to movies if you feel like it.

[MrWookie]

I like the Lounge for this sort of post. It may not get dozens of responses (here or anywhere, really), but I think it's interesting to read.

[Coffee]

Creation is always harder than destruction. The great tragedy is the equal standing of destruction to creation in the eyes of the world. For every successful filmmaker, there is a successful film critic. For every successful musician, there is a successful music critic. Yet, there is a clear discrepancy between the two.

I am a very talented musician. I sang at the collegiate level with no prior musical training. I have recorded songs and had them played on the radio, and even though I now have to look for a "real" job, I am still able to play a gig professionally here and there. In my professional life, since I was 19, I have written hundreds of songs. Of those hundreds, I consider less than 20 to be of professional quality. Now...it is possible that my ear is too critical of myself(and certainly, others have said as much), but honestly, there is a quality to professional-level creation that my ear, your ear, and everyone's ear just knows. To a certain extent, quality is objective, not subjective. Even though I don't particularly venerate the legacy of Nirvana, I recognize the value of their contribution, most notably on Smells Like Teen Spirit. Like it or not, that song is of a superb quality.

The problem I have with the Internet generation is the fact that for the first time, quality may be openly mocked, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Case in point: I believe that Children of Men was the best movie of 2006. Now...I don't believe that most people will share that notion, BUT...it is impossible to call it a poorly-made movie that lacks the quality of true creation and invention. And yet, the Internet gives voice to the ability of a selected few to decry it as a worthless movie. Their only qualification is their malcontent with essentially everything, simply because their self-identity reinforces itself through rejection.

In essence, many people base their entire character on the Broken Window fallacy. I, for one, get very angry at blanket dismissals of propositions, simply because the propositions are slightly outside the standard deviation of ideas. The problem is that destruction and inadequacy are the known, and success and creation are the unknown. It takes balls to create. For a long time, I was scared to write songs, because it is frightening to sign your name to anything. However, legitimizing pessimism, ergo legitimizing fear, is the path to subservience and prostration of our species.

[HarryW]

I don’t see deconstruction and creation as being separate processes. The concept of an artist pulling something from nothing is ridiculous. The draw of art is synthesis - seeing how the artist takes the work of his predecessors and rearranges it. If the artist does not deconstruct other’s works his own works are unintelligible.

Synthesis happens in every aspect of a persons life. The brain contains a lifetime of information and it’s always rearranging it, trying to find better solutions. Example: there’s this video I saw online. It features several black men humping furniture, walls, tables, etc. One of those guys must have been humping something and thought: hey, why not have several of my friends hump various things and videotape it. Somehow this guy convinced his friends to take part in this exercise and now we can reference it (and if you couldn’t before, you can now). His thoughts on humping walls are now known to us (for!).

The ideas of the world are shared. Internet forums are the subconscious of humanity made manifest. It’s easy to see why there is so much negativity and criticism out there. It’s like that one chap said: “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation.” The internets put the microphone to the lips of these people.

About the ice skater: some folks watch Nascar for the wrecks. When a car ends in a flaming heap of metal, those people are happy and, for them, the race is perfect. A racing enthusiast will say the guy failed, a crash enthusiast will say the guy succeed. Perspective is the key to criticism. If a critic doesn’t share your conception of reality, you won’t agree on much.

I admire your ability to find the fragments of good in things, Duke. We all do this to varying degrees everyday. We imitate what we find pleasing in each other, whether it’s the way we dress, the way we walk, the phrases we use, etc. The trendsetter is the guy who looks to the most sources.

“For a long time, I was scared to write songs, because it is frightening to sign your name to anything.”

I understand this too well. Nothing is harder than taking a chance. To make it worse, people are quick with scorn for those with courage. It’s like the guy said: “Hell is other people.” I think it would be lonely without other people, but I know it’s lonely with them.

This seems like the proper amount of stream-of-consciousness rambling. There is a lot I wanted to say, but it seems like I missed the mark. It does provide an example of my subjective reality.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
Creation is always harder than destruction. The great tragedy is the equal standing of destruction to creation in the eyes of the world. For every successful filmmaker, there is a successful film critic. For every successful musician, there is a successful music critic. Yet, there is a clear discrepancy between the two.

I am a very talented musician. I sang at the collegiate level with no prior musical training. I have recorded songs and had them played on the radio, and even though I now have to look for a "real" job, I am still able to play a gig professionally here and there. In my professional life, since I was 19, I have written hundreds of songs. Of those hundreds, I consider less than 20 to be of professional quality. Now...it is possible that my ear is too critical of myself(and certainly, others have said as much), but honestly, there is a quality to professional-level creation that my ear, your ear, and everyone's ear just knows. To a certain extent, quality is objective, not subjective. Even though I don't particularly venerate the legacy of Nirvana, I recognize the value of their contribution, most notably on Smells Like Teen Spirit. Like it or not, that song is of a superb quality.

The problem I have with the Internet generation is the fact that for the first time, quality may be openly mocked, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Case in point: I believe that Children of Men was the best movie of 2006. Now...I don't believe that most people will share that notion, BUT...it is impossible to call it a poorly-made movie that lacks the quality of true creation and invention. And yet, the Internet gives voice to the ability of a selected few to decry it as a worthless movie. Their only qualification is their malcontent with essentially everything, simply because their self-identity reinforces itself through rejection.

In essence, many people base their entire character on the Broken Window fallacy. I, for one, get very angry at blanket dismissals of propositions, simply because the propositions are slightly outside the standard deviation of ideas. The problem is that destruction and inadequacy are the known, and success and creation are the unknown. It takes balls to create. For a long time, I was scared to write songs, because it is frightening to sign your name to anything. However, legitimizing pessimism, ergo legitimizing fear, is the path to subservience and prostration of our species.

[/ QUOTE ]

nice post, Coffee.

Simply put, Creation takes balls. Deconstruction takes piss. No critic will ever have the feeling of finishing a screenplay, a movie, a song...because of that, they take out their frustrations on people who can do what they can not. I'm not saying their criticisms can't be valid, but I always take it better coming from someone who has created more than a negative reply.

You know the old saying: Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym!

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see deconstruction and creation as being separate processes. The concept of an artist pulling something from nothing is ridiculous. The draw of art is synthesis - seeing how the artist takes the work of his predecessors and rearranges it. If the artist does not deconstruct other's works his own works are unintelligible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because someone said there is nothing new under the sun doesn't mean it's true. To assume that everything that is created is basically an interpretation of something else is narrow minded and short sighted. To then give such an interpretation less credit artistically which is what you seem to be doing is inherently negative and will lead an artist to vitriol not beauty.

Everyday art is created that is new and the likes of which have never been seen before. No one who creates this art lives in a vacuum where they have never seen contemporaries work before, however for every object that extends an idea to a new place, or fills out an idea there are entirely new ideas as well. Both are equally valid and equally difficult to produce.

The most daunting thing in an artists world is emptiness; the blank page, the empty score, the unexposed film. Figuring out something interesting to put on that page is a completely separate process from looking at a finished work and poking holes in it. First off, the holes have generally been well defined for decades and serve as a checklist to the critic. Secondly, when an artist is facing their critics see how many people are watching the critic. Being the focus of attention is inherently harder than focusing your attention on one person. A large percentage of people list public speaking as their biggest fear for just this reason. And finally, a critic hides behind the work they are critiquing. A critic risks nothing stating their opinion of a work while an artist has invested a part of themselves in what they do.

This isn't to say there isn't value in a good critique or that all critics lack any artistic ability, this is obviously incorrect. The idea that my work is "just" anything is uncomfortable and the idea of a "collective unconscious" just strikes me as silly.

[HarryW]

“To assume that everything that is created is basically an interpretation of something else is narrow minded and short sighted.”

So it is. A broad mind is a slippery subject. I do wear glasses, however.

“To then give such an interpretation less credit artistically which is what you seem to be doing is inherently negative and will lead an artist to vitriol not beauty.”

I didn’t mean to give interpretation less credit “artistically”. The concept of giving less credit is nonsensical in my system as synthesis is the only process. It can’t be less than another process as there isn’t one.

“Everyday art is created that is new and the likes of which have never been seen before.”

I am excited about this. I would hear about the innovative art being created. I don’t mean to sound negative or combative. I am very interested in the what you interpret as never been seen before. As you said, my view is pessimistic, but I am not opposed to optimism. Show me the way.

“No one who creates this art lives in a vacuum where they have never seen contemporaries work before, however for every object that extends an idea to a new place, or fills out an idea there are entirely new ideas as well.”

Here is an example to illustrate my perspective. There’s this movie, Pulp Fiction, and I was young the first time I saw it. I hadn’t watched many films in those days. I was amazed and excited by the scope and the genius of this movie. It did many things I had never seen done in a film before. Now when Pryor saw this film, he saw all the parts Tarantino lifted from previous films. It was not new and exciting for him. The story was the same for both of us, but his wider appreciation of cinema gave him a different opinion.

My point is originality is a matter of historical perspective. This applies to films, books, tv, paintings, music, etc. When someone says “oh that’s been done before” it doesn’t apply to someone unfamiliar with the previous iteration. The joy of life is experience. Without being able to experience “new” things there wouldn’t be the moments of originality and discovery, such as watching Pulp Fiction for the first time and realizing the time line is jumbled.

“A critic risks nothing stating their opinion of a work while an artist has invested a part of themselves in what they do.”

The creation, or synthesis, of art is the artist’s critique. Artists have ideals and agendas just as critics do. This is not a slur or a slander.

“The idea that my work is "just" anything is uncomfortable and the idea of a "collective unconscious" just strikes me as silly.”

The construction of my mind forces me to look for the links between all things. Whether the idea of a collective unconscious is silly or not, our words have affected each other and those who have read them. In time, we’ll forget this conversation, but the impact on our minds and personalities is already present. It’s just another experience. Living art.

[Duke]

It's nice to see that some pretty good posts were spawned here. Good work, all.

The only thing that I would like to clarify is that I don't internalize the concept of creation any differently than what was offered above as synthesis. Even the idea that it could be possible to create universes through a method of nuclear reaction, which would obviously create a lot of something out of a lot of nothing, is still the culmination of a vast array of earlier study, and is therefore obviously synthesis.

You can basically prove that creation is the same thing as synthesis by looking at the internet. The result of allowing people from everywhere to share ideas immediately has aided in the acceleration of progress. There is a reason that 2007 is more different than 1997 than 1997 was from 1987.

I guess I just want to say that whatever we see as creation is really the product of synthesis, no matter how you look at it. In usage, I think that people implicitly admit to this correlation.