Every Opinion Counts (So Long As I Agree With Them)
Honesty is hard to come by.
Think about how often you consider a thing about someone that you never say. Even the staunchest critics amongst us keep SOMETHING to themselves.
More consider how very difficult it is to ascertain what people think of you. And while a number of us may opt (or cop) to not care what people think of us, the fact remains that it would be very difficult to pull pure honest thought about you from the average person, whether they know or care for you or not. We are socially conditioned to say whatever we like...so long as you never say the bad things about someone to the person in question. It's bad form, criticism. Doesn't stop people from BEING critical, but it certainly keeps them from advancing critical thoughts (again, unless the object of that criticism isn't in the vicinity of or likely to cross the path of said criticism).
Honesty is hard to love.
Receiving criticism is difficult, to say the least. I have known only a few individuals in my life who could accept criticism with the strength that most people imply they possess when they say, "I can handle your opinion." It is a rare thing, to be able to absorb and learn from criticism, valid or otherwise. It takes not only special tools to navigate, but a certain strength of character and self-resolve to blend it into the stuff of one's being; to make it relevant where it is truly applicable, or to dismiss that which is irrelevant but ONLY that which is irrelevant. It goes without saying that this person is exceedingly rare, and where they exist they exhibit this characteristic in all facets of their life, not just the parts that they put on display under the umbrella of art or rhetoric or some equally publicly accessible thing.
Being able to be honest is a gift, but it’s the Christmas fruitcake type of gift: offering it proves that you thought of the person, but we can’t tell if you’re offering sustenance or being socially lazy.
Then: poets.
Saying something about a poet these days isn't what it used to be a hundred years ago. Back then, poetry wasn't something that everyone did, or even conceived of having the option to perform. Everyone who had a bad day in the fields or just broke-up with the blacksmith down the street didn’t suddenly take to the stage at the local saloon and read the treatise of their heart to strangers. For the most part, there were people who wrote poems and everyone else.
Today's American (at least) poet is defined less so by trade, craft or title than by function. Now? Anyone who writes a poem can be considered a poet. And while much of this change is merely a reflection of the self-help mores of our oh-so modern society, there is meat - and plenty of it - to this definition that was lost in the mission of the many craftsmen of old. Poetry - like any art - belongs to anyone who finds it, either in the seat of artist or the seat of audience. The blessing of poetry is that anyone can do it...and the curse of poetry is that anyone can do it.
To paraphrase Harlan Ellison, opinion is one thing, informed opinion another. We all have both of these depending on the situation (though more of us have less of the second than we're aware of). Allowing anyone to take on the mantle of poet allows for anyone's agendas, values, beliefs or opinions to be applied to the title. This is as it should be. At the same time, opinions OF the art that comes from contact with the work of these poets - in fact, ALL poets - is equally open to interpretation and relevancy...but not so much a social value.
I recently received an email - not personally per se, but as part of a group newsletter - from a poet who took to task the notion of "family" as it concerned the Slam community, specifically the community of official slams: PSI, NPS, iWPS, certified venues and the like (slams I've never heard of need not relate). Her email is filled with references culled from online journals and God knows where else and one can't help but note the timing of this newsletter in relationship to her own trajectory in the Slam community. Much of it admonishes those who would rain on the parade of poets who scored well at the most recent national competition (which to her mind, in part, means they were good on some level. And by the way? Some of you are just haters. And some more of you? You aren’t as good or smart as you think you are) by deigning to level a negative opinion about said poets (blatantly advertised personal opinions in numerous instances).
The email is not unique or even special in this way. This sort of position is lobbed about on a daily basis in SOME poetry forum or another, Slam or otherwise. My problem isn’t with her opinion (though I do not share much of it). My problem is with her problem with anyone else’s opinion she doesn’t agree with who bothers to make their opinion known.
A frequent mantra of those sensitive to the critical is, “What can be gained from relaying a negative opinion?” The answer is simple: plenty...assuming the opinion is informed and well-meaning (if not in the artist’s interest then the art’s). Critically informed opinions keep people from spending time and resources on un-worthy things. Critically informed opinions are how things are discovered. The voicing of critically informed opinions are what differ humans from every other creature on the planet (yes, baby, even the dolphins). Questions about how things are done and why they’re done at all are important questions to ask. They are, in fact, necessary.
Of course there are miserly, self-important, jaded, miserable people with more time, eloquence, intelligence and internet access than they deserve; no one with even a mildly ruffled copy of Oscar Wilde quotations in their back pocket and half a brain in their head would argue otherwise. I am also of the mind that these “critics” are as dangerous as those who would silence all criticism in the name of boundless love and retarded meaningfulness. But to de-fang a meaningful, well-intentioned, erudite mind - or worse, trend of voices - in the interest of preserving some sense of communal teat-sucking and a false sense of artistic graduation is not only wrong, but devastating to the development of the art in question. This is how art GROWS, by taking the high road and the hard lumps.
“Every opinion counts.”
Contrary to popular belief, every opinion doesn’t count. Every opinion has a right to exist, but every opinion isn’t - and shouldn’t be in every situation - considered of possessing the same value, which is what saying “every opinion doesn’t count” really means. It isn’t merely an Orwellian charge to confiscate one’s mind and tongue tossed about by some grossly over-bearing critic (though it certainly isn’t uncommon for such a thing to come from these quarters). I don’t care that my niece thinks Kraftwerk’s “Computer World” album is a bunch of noise. Vanessa’s almost three, and her opinion of a record for my listening pleasure means very little to me because she doesn’t have anything else to compare it to except the theme song to "Spongebob Squarepants". She has every right to her opinion, but it is utterly uninformed and devoid of reference, context and much else of any artistic or critical measure. Her opinion of “Computer World” holds almost no value to me whatsoever, and not because I love Kraftwerk so much that I cannot be swayed on the matter (though I do and I, in fact, cannot be swayed on the matter of its genius).
This is why I’ve avoided many of the conversations in this regard of late: people aren’t as thick-skinned as they think they are, but by this I don’t just mean that people can’t take criticism. I also mean that they refuse to deconstruct their positions beyond what they believe to be right. A good critic - a real, true critic - is willing to risk being wrong if it means a truth will come out in the end. I’m willing to deconstruct every word that comes out of my fingertips for meaning and relevancy, even if it means my position has to change. That’s LEARNING. I LIKE learning.
I'm just sayin'.
Think about how often you consider a thing about someone that you never say. Even the staunchest critics amongst us keep SOMETHING to themselves.
More consider how very difficult it is to ascertain what people think of you. And while a number of us may opt (or cop) to not care what people think of us, the fact remains that it would be very difficult to pull pure honest thought about you from the average person, whether they know or care for you or not. We are socially conditioned to say whatever we like...so long as you never say the bad things about someone to the person in question. It's bad form, criticism. Doesn't stop people from BEING critical, but it certainly keeps them from advancing critical thoughts (again, unless the object of that criticism isn't in the vicinity of or likely to cross the path of said criticism).
Honesty is hard to love.
Receiving criticism is difficult, to say the least. I have known only a few individuals in my life who could accept criticism with the strength that most people imply they possess when they say, "I can handle your opinion." It is a rare thing, to be able to absorb and learn from criticism, valid or otherwise. It takes not only special tools to navigate, but a certain strength of character and self-resolve to blend it into the stuff of one's being; to make it relevant where it is truly applicable, or to dismiss that which is irrelevant but ONLY that which is irrelevant. It goes without saying that this person is exceedingly rare, and where they exist they exhibit this characteristic in all facets of their life, not just the parts that they put on display under the umbrella of art or rhetoric or some equally publicly accessible thing.
Being able to be honest is a gift, but it’s the Christmas fruitcake type of gift: offering it proves that you thought of the person, but we can’t tell if you’re offering sustenance or being socially lazy.
Then: poets.
Saying something about a poet these days isn't what it used to be a hundred years ago. Back then, poetry wasn't something that everyone did, or even conceived of having the option to perform. Everyone who had a bad day in the fields or just broke-up with the blacksmith down the street didn’t suddenly take to the stage at the local saloon and read the treatise of their heart to strangers. For the most part, there were people who wrote poems and everyone else.
Today's American (at least) poet is defined less so by trade, craft or title than by function. Now? Anyone who writes a poem can be considered a poet. And while much of this change is merely a reflection of the self-help mores of our oh-so modern society, there is meat - and plenty of it - to this definition that was lost in the mission of the many craftsmen of old. Poetry - like any art - belongs to anyone who finds it, either in the seat of artist or the seat of audience. The blessing of poetry is that anyone can do it...and the curse of poetry is that anyone can do it.
To paraphrase Harlan Ellison, opinion is one thing, informed opinion another. We all have both of these depending on the situation (though more of us have less of the second than we're aware of). Allowing anyone to take on the mantle of poet allows for anyone's agendas, values, beliefs or opinions to be applied to the title. This is as it should be. At the same time, opinions OF the art that comes from contact with the work of these poets - in fact, ALL poets - is equally open to interpretation and relevancy...but not so much a social value.
I recently received an email - not personally per se, but as part of a group newsletter - from a poet who took to task the notion of "family" as it concerned the Slam community, specifically the community of official slams: PSI, NPS, iWPS, certified venues and the like (slams I've never heard of need not relate). Her email is filled with references culled from online journals and God knows where else and one can't help but note the timing of this newsletter in relationship to her own trajectory in the Slam community. Much of it admonishes those who would rain on the parade of poets who scored well at the most recent national competition (which to her mind, in part, means they were good on some level. And by the way? Some of you are just haters. And some more of you? You aren’t as good or smart as you think you are) by deigning to level a negative opinion about said poets (blatantly advertised personal opinions in numerous instances).
The email is not unique or even special in this way. This sort of position is lobbed about on a daily basis in SOME poetry forum or another, Slam or otherwise. My problem isn’t with her opinion (though I do not share much of it). My problem is with her problem with anyone else’s opinion she doesn’t agree with who bothers to make their opinion known.
A frequent mantra of those sensitive to the critical is, “What can be gained from relaying a negative opinion?” The answer is simple: plenty...assuming the opinion is informed and well-meaning (if not in the artist’s interest then the art’s). Critically informed opinions keep people from spending time and resources on un-worthy things. Critically informed opinions are how things are discovered. The voicing of critically informed opinions are what differ humans from every other creature on the planet (yes, baby, even the dolphins). Questions about how things are done and why they’re done at all are important questions to ask. They are, in fact, necessary.
Of course there are miserly, self-important, jaded, miserable people with more time, eloquence, intelligence and internet access than they deserve; no one with even a mildly ruffled copy of Oscar Wilde quotations in their back pocket and half a brain in their head would argue otherwise. I am also of the mind that these “critics” are as dangerous as those who would silence all criticism in the name of boundless love and retarded meaningfulness. But to de-fang a meaningful, well-intentioned, erudite mind - or worse, trend of voices - in the interest of preserving some sense of communal teat-sucking and a false sense of artistic graduation is not only wrong, but devastating to the development of the art in question. This is how art GROWS, by taking the high road and the hard lumps.
“Every opinion counts.”
Contrary to popular belief, every opinion doesn’t count. Every opinion has a right to exist, but every opinion isn’t - and shouldn’t be in every situation - considered of possessing the same value, which is what saying “every opinion doesn’t count” really means. It isn’t merely an Orwellian charge to confiscate one’s mind and tongue tossed about by some grossly over-bearing critic (though it certainly isn’t uncommon for such a thing to come from these quarters). I don’t care that my niece thinks Kraftwerk’s “Computer World” album is a bunch of noise. Vanessa’s almost three, and her opinion of a record for my listening pleasure means very little to me because she doesn’t have anything else to compare it to except the theme song to "Spongebob Squarepants". She has every right to her opinion, but it is utterly uninformed and devoid of reference, context and much else of any artistic or critical measure. Her opinion of “Computer World” holds almost no value to me whatsoever, and not because I love Kraftwerk so much that I cannot be swayed on the matter (though I do and I, in fact, cannot be swayed on the matter of its genius).
This is why I’ve avoided many of the conversations in this regard of late: people aren’t as thick-skinned as they think they are, but by this I don’t just mean that people can’t take criticism. I also mean that they refuse to deconstruct their positions beyond what they believe to be right. A good critic - a real, true critic - is willing to risk being wrong if it means a truth will come out in the end. I’m willing to deconstruct every word that comes out of my fingertips for meaning and relevancy, even if it means my position has to change. That’s LEARNING. I LIKE learning.
I'm just sayin'.