Monday, 11 February 2008

Chumpatizing

I've just got into "Sally Shapiro". I know that's old news already, but liking a record makes me want to find out more. So I read around a bit, and find the "Pitchforkmedia.com" review. Here's the conclusion:

"The Web's cacophony privileges criticism. You won't find God in scriptural commentaries, or save any children watching Hotel Rwanda, but you can fall in love to "My Love" (in theory). If verbalization is inherently reductive, then writing about music is a way to encode the moment loss-free. The track always endures. In his book Air Guitar, MacArthur Fellowship-winning arts critic Dave Hickey explains: "Even though my writing about art might momentarily intervene between some object and its beholders, the words would wash away, and the writing, if it was written successfully into its historical instant, could never actually replace the work or banish it into the realm of knowledge." All that lasts is music; Shapiro and Agebjörn know."

er? I think this reviewer should get some writing advice from Mr Awesome.

Oh, man, I want to let it lie, but I can't. What does it mean? What does this mean:

"If verbalization is inherently reductive, then writing about music is a way to encode the moment loss-free."

I let it go around and around my head, and I just have no idea what I'm supposed to think. Have I become stupidized? I were thinking about art t'other day, and how if you want to, for example, paint something you feel, that's probably because you can't express the feeling in words. If you could express it in words, well there'd be no point in translating it into a painting, would there? Ergo, Pitchfork reviewers should give up trying to express in words what is expressed in music for a reason - the reason being it can't be expressed in words.
Or maybe they get paid by the word, in which case I sympathise totally.

No comments: