Friday, August 17, 2012

Sometimes, you like an article just because of the way the words are arranged

I clicked on a link hoping to see some boobies … oh, c'mon, that's not why. This is the New York Times.

I clicked on a link expecting to sneer at some bluenosery, due to the blurb ("Bared flesh is common in experimental modern dance. And sometimes — infrequently — it succeeds."), but I was happily surprised by Alastair Macaulay's "Nakedness in Dance, Taken to Extremes." Here are just three of the reasons why.

• I am now aware of the pejorative term Hooray Henrys.

• I just love inside baseball asides, even when I have no idea what they mean, just because the precision sounds so good: “Crotch (all the Joseph Beuys references in the world cannot heal the pain, confusion, regret, cruelty, betrayal, or trauma....)”

• A rare sensible statement on art versus porn:

When I tell friends of these viewings, they inevitably ask: Where is the line between art and pornography? But there’s always been a huge overlap between the two; you can see scenes of copulation on Greek vases and Indian temples. What’s more, many works of art have seemed pornographic without nakedness. Many of us are tempted to talk as if art = good, pornography = bad. Yet that’s wrong too. Much art is poor, while the novels of the Marquis de Sade are pornography taken to a brilliant, horrifying and extraordinary peak.

The entire article is much more graceful than snippets presented in bulleted list form would suggest. Go read, for pleasure. And rejoice in your membership in the cultural elite, or at least your want to be.

(?)

5 comments:

TC said...

I followed the link to Hooray Henrys and think we now need some phrases for Republicans and others who deny climate change.

As hot as the collar of a climate change denier(or is it "denyer?"

As nervous as a deny-er in 120 degree weather.

Deny-er summer

Brendan Keefe said...

Hee! I was trying to think of a good joke in re American HHs, but for the life of me, I could not bring myself to suggest that, say, The Donald is "upper class." Loudmouthed, ineffectual, and a fool though he well is.

I would spell it denier if I had to choose, but in the context you mention, I usually go with denialist. Partly for the sake of disambiguation, but mostly because the -ist suffix seems to get their goat more, since they themselves love to yell about elitists, Darwinists, evolutionists, and so on.

TC said...

You'd be correct with denier, but it looks like a weight of nylon stocking rather than a person who denies, but I like denialist although the spell checker says no.

de·ni·er1    [dih-nahy-er] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies.

Brendan Keefe said...

Yeah, I think I might have had to add denialist to my personal dictionary, too, but I must say, I am not alone.

TC said...

I guess being a god denialist is better than being an atheist -- or maybe not, but I like the sound of that. Somehow it sounds more proactive than just an a-something. Sort of like a political denialist has more punch and specificity than "apolitical."

ShareThis