> trying to optimize specifically for that difference instead of for the thing-in-itself.
I think of (and accuse works of!) this as the trappings of quality. Some extremely successful high quality art piece will use a technique effectively, and then people will copy the technique but not make it actually work. Like, having an unclear ambiguous ending to a story can be really impactful, but now that's a very trendy thing to do even when it doesn't really work, and I like to point and say that it's get the trappings of profundity without the actual profundity
I -think- there's an underdiscussed aspect of this discourse that you touch on here, that there's two sides to criticism-of-art coin: there's criticism that's Love of the Thing, interested in picking it apart to enjoy how its components make part of the whole, and criticism that's mixed gatekeeping/filtering for the non-enthusiasts. There's probably a mix of leisure time/attention constraints and art oversupply that necessitates a critic as being a guarantor of quality, but where this becomes friction/confusion on taste is that the critics are often not themselves guaranteed to be enthusiasts versus the position of critic being a status marker and so their preferences are more likely to be unhinged from actual quality.
>>"Hm, a quality of great art is that it’s not exhausted by the first viewing or the first reading, it always has more to give,” and they respond to that observation by making something that is inaccessible on first viewing/reading.
. . . frustrating when density, ambiguity, or obfuscation is used like a spike strip under the wheels of a reader's pursuit of meaning, as if difficulty - however artificial - makes a piece deeper or more profound.
I’m trying to grasp your point about novelty. To my mind, trendiness is the opposite of novelty. It’s the thing that everyone else is doing right now. As someone with ADHD (and other weird neurodivergencies), seeking and creating novelty is a big part of why I read and write at all. It certainly isn’t all I’m after in a piece, but it has a high priority. For me, the biggest problem with novelty is that too much of it can slip into the inaccessible category, because most readers (even snooty lit fic readers) prefer recognizable tropes and the comfort of familiarity. But I guess I can see how trying for novelty, when it’s not a natural inclination, might result in trendiness.
yeah, i basically think people are really bad at reaching directly for novelty when they’re making things. or….at least….i am……….but like, it’s a known thing that all eg experimental poetry tends to sound the same. i think trying directly to get novelty is less likely to work well than just, trying to do honest good work in or about a new technological or social environment, does that make sense?
Fair enough. I guess I don’t consciously seek novelty either. I just can’t help going there. I have to make an effort to reign in the weirdness so that it’s not too idiosyncratic for readers to connect with.
> trying to optimize specifically for that difference instead of for the thing-in-itself.
I think of (and accuse works of!) this as the trappings of quality. Some extremely successful high quality art piece will use a technique effectively, and then people will copy the technique but not make it actually work. Like, having an unclear ambiguous ending to a story can be really impactful, but now that's a very trendy thing to do even when it doesn't really work, and I like to point and say that it's get the trappings of profundity without the actual profundity
I -think- there's an underdiscussed aspect of this discourse that you touch on here, that there's two sides to criticism-of-art coin: there's criticism that's Love of the Thing, interested in picking it apart to enjoy how its components make part of the whole, and criticism that's mixed gatekeeping/filtering for the non-enthusiasts. There's probably a mix of leisure time/attention constraints and art oversupply that necessitates a critic as being a guarantor of quality, but where this becomes friction/confusion on taste is that the critics are often not themselves guaranteed to be enthusiasts versus the position of critic being a status marker and so their preferences are more likely to be unhinged from actual quality.
>>"Hm, a quality of great art is that it’s not exhausted by the first viewing or the first reading, it always has more to give,” and they respond to that observation by making something that is inaccessible on first viewing/reading.
. . . frustrating when density, ambiguity, or obfuscation is used like a spike strip under the wheels of a reader's pursuit of meaning, as if difficulty - however artificial - makes a piece deeper or more profound.
I’m trying to grasp your point about novelty. To my mind, trendiness is the opposite of novelty. It’s the thing that everyone else is doing right now. As someone with ADHD (and other weird neurodivergencies), seeking and creating novelty is a big part of why I read and write at all. It certainly isn’t all I’m after in a piece, but it has a high priority. For me, the biggest problem with novelty is that too much of it can slip into the inaccessible category, because most readers (even snooty lit fic readers) prefer recognizable tropes and the comfort of familiarity. But I guess I can see how trying for novelty, when it’s not a natural inclination, might result in trendiness.
yeah, i basically think people are really bad at reaching directly for novelty when they’re making things. or….at least….i am……….but like, it’s a known thing that all eg experimental poetry tends to sound the same. i think trying directly to get novelty is less likely to work well than just, trying to do honest good work in or about a new technological or social environment, does that make sense?
Fair enough. I guess I don’t consciously seek novelty either. I just can’t help going there. I have to make an effort to reign in the weirdness so that it’s not too idiosyncratic for readers to connect with.