I was reading about a fun game on waxy.org entitled the Amazon.com Knee-Jerk Contrarian Game. Basically you pick some highly acclaimed works of art (say Casablanca or Catch-22) then view customer reviews by lowest rated first. There's plenty of examples posted on the comments for the entry on waxy, and they are very funny.
My personal favourite is the one claiming that Guns and Roses' Use your illusion i and II was more worthy of the praise usually directed at the Beatles' White album.
I was happily chuckling away at the many comics, enjoying the hilariously foolish nature of some of the opipions on show, and the clumsiness of their expression, but there was a voice nagging at me. It was the voice of a friend of mine. I'll call him Mr.C, 'cos he's a little shy (but his real name's John).
Now, Mr.C and I have had a number of discussions over the years, on the question of taste. Mr.C is very much of the opinion that everyone is allowed their own opinion, and that everyone's opinion is equally valid.
So as I was chuckling away at the bonehead opinons illuminated by the AK-JC game, his voiced appeared in my head.
Ah, but Joe...
said Mr.C
...just because these are classics, doesn't make them automatically good, it just means the critics liked it, it's all subjective.
But I'm thinking, is that true? Yes, everyone has their own opinion, but if something's hailed as a classic, and loved by many, surely it's got something going for it? When a work is widely critically acclaimed, but you didn't like it, it's reasonable to assume that maybe you missed something (seeing as so many have got so much from it). To assume that everyone else just likes it because they're told to, in some Emperor's-new-clothes type conspiracy, is faintly ridiculous, somewhat arrogant and, well, very funny.
This makes me think about a discussion on Aesthetics I had while in Holland on the Football tour (they're an intellectual bunch, our footy club...), but that's for another post, I think.
Add new comment