|This is me, looking constipated|
because I am slightly miffed.
You should see me angry.
A good example has recently occured over an old post of mine about why I dislike opera. This was always intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek (not least because a good friend of mine is an opera singer), but does express some genuine dislikes I have. Realistically there is no real right and wrong about an issue like this. Whether a piece of art is good (or art at all) is purely subjective.
Recently I've had a few comments from an anonymous poster and I just wanted to make a few comments about these.
First there is that anonymity. I have nothing against this per se - it can be practically easier to make comments this way - but when you come in on the attack, I think it is only polite to be honest about who you are.
Then there are some of the specifics:
- 'This is the problem with the internet,' (s)he says. 'It gives a voice to self-important, ill-informed heathens.' Ah yes, the ad hominem attack. The last resort of those who don't have any legitimate arguments. (Oops, was that a recursive ad hominem attack?)
- 'Your sarcastic put downs don't impress me.' I have no interest in impressing you. My remark was sarcastic - I retain the right to be sarcastic on my own blog - but with good reason.
- 'Understanding the true brilliance of a work like Tristan demands a certain higher mindedness that most people don't possess.' Ah ha! Now we have it. The common herd don't appreciate great art. I would suggest that if it's true that a work of 'art' can only be appreciated by the cognescenti it isn't art at all, it's just showing off. 'Aren't I clever,' it says. Art is a medium of communication. If ordinary people can't appreciate it, it's bad communication and bad art.