*Disclaimer & spoiler*
This is ‘shit’.
You will probably find it boring and irritating as chewing stale crusty bread – stale crusty confusing bread at that (at least until the Starwars kid – then same again until the end).
Introduction:
I’ve touched on this before, and recalling Dead Poets Society and the ‘Quality’ essay challenge, I figured I’d stab about at the concept and eek out a few possible truths and a whole bucket load of BS (no doubt).
If I had been a decent student back in the day, or if I was even well read in philosophy or had a good memory or a thirst for research, I’d be able to shoot off references for most ideas I’m about to tackle. Little of that is true in my case, it all comes from my tiny mind, but if you care to read and point out the various relevant thinkers, names for concepts and schools of thought, go for it. I’ll then endeavour to enlighten myself on the people, facts, figures and dates (but that’s not a promise).
Quality
What I’m looking to speak about is objective quality. I am not talking about individual taste or something that is popular. That said, these things may be indications of the presence of quality as objective – if such a thing actually exists.
What makes a ‘beautiful’ sunset appealing and inherently beautiful rather than say, a piece of turd?
A piece of shit looks ugly and smells bad. In evolutionary terms shit is unappealing because it leads to sickness – we are innately programmed to be disgusted by it for our own survival.
But a sunset?
A more beautiful sunset?
Buffalo tomatoes vs. buffalo mozzarella?
Techno music versus rock?
Perhaps these things can be explained in evolutionary terms. Allergy, taste, opinion, recommendations, peers, community… and loads of [what word could I use here to up the quality of this piece?… eh… uh…] stuff.
It’s true that high recommendations can prove popular.
…when the most powerful dictate taste. And those with the power (the strong) would have the ‘best taste’.
Popularising something lends a spirit of community and a strong community (especially with ‘good taste’) will survive over a less discerning bunch. This is why champagne tastes better than cider and the rich (the strong) drink champagne and the poor, cider. As an aside though, we have to note that champagne may not necessarily taste ‘better’ to the poor.
I’m getting bogged down in evolutionary theory when I wanted to look at the issue on a more metaphysical level.
Like, what is quality in itself? What is the essence of ‘objective’ quality?
Popularity is nothing. What is ‘good’ about this?
Ten and a half million views. Sure, it’s a bit funny. It’s a lot freaky when you think about it. But it’s ever more freaky when you consider its popularity. And especially considering that in terms of its quality. It’s pure kak. It’s even beyond “so bad its good”.
But we’re on shaky ground here becasue I’m introducing my personal opinion. And for every ten and a half million viewers (or however many there actually has been) there is at least one who will genuinely believe that the video is ‘good’ enough to warrant such popularity.
Actually, the whole argument for objective quality tumbles flailing to the flaming pits having introduced any element of subjectivity.
Balls.
I suck.
But why do I suck? And why didn’t I use ‘better’ words to express that? Could I have expressed it ‘better’ and what determines whether I could have or not?
It was succinct and apt and fully expressed but was certainly lacking in grace, skill and intelligence.
As an aside is miscommunication and misinterpretation. Someone just read the “Balls. I suck.” over my shoulder [nice] and suggested I not put those two phrases in the same sentence. They aren’t in the same sentence, but that’s beside the point…
…or is it? Is it an aside at all?
What if there is such a thing as objective quality and while we all get a sense of it (sunset vs. gloomy grey sky), we misinterpret it to varying degrees depending on our own interpretive/perceptive processes (as influenced by genes, environment, society, culture etc.)
And so Bach, The Beatles and The Venga Boys achieve varying degrees of popularity despite having a set and quantifiable (but not yet measurable) amount of objective quality objectively attributed to them.
I purport that there is. There definitely is. It’s why I can say I may prefer The Beatles of the three, but The Venga Boys are clearly the shittest and Bach the best. It’s why I can see the qualities in something I don’t personally enjoy that someone else could.
It also fully explains why the quality of a given thing can improve for someone over time – because they start to ‘get it’ – the more they understand the less they misinterpret. They also perceive it more clearly.
Contexts such as society and culture also help this process which is why Shakespeare is ‘shit’ to a school kid but is great when studied over time and with more understanding of the context, the time and place (and the references to times and places and people etc. within it) in which it was written.
The clincher, for me, is 180 degrees to my own argument.
It’s purely subjective, and it’s the notion that I definitely could have spent more time and effort crafting this and making it ‘better’.
More descriptive and/or apt words, clearer ideas, less clunky, rambling construed bullshit.
It does not have the potential [another day’s ‘idea stabbing’?] to be the greatest piece ever written (and if quality was truly subjective and objectively unquantifiable, that statement couldn’t be true) but it certainly is not as well written as it could be.
But enough of me and my qualities, the real question is: was it well read?
Life On Mars? 