Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Lady Gaga takes tea with Mr Fry
May 28, 2011 7:14 AM   Subscribe

Lady Gaga takes tea with Mr Fry (full audio interview here). [via]
posted by nam3d (66 comments total) 15 users marked this as a favorite

 
Needs more meat dress.
posted by Fizz at 7:31 AM on May 28, 2011


That "Judas" single is catchy.

It's got a good beat and you can dance to it.
posted by Trurl at 7:54 AM on May 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


Almost an hour has passed and this post has elicited only 2 comments. Has the MetaFilter GaGagasm finally shot its wad?
posted by Daddy-O at 8:06 AM on May 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Mr Fry is too much the fan of the Lady, and I am too (pick one: old, deaf, thick) to 'get' her music... nonetheless it was a very good read about the encounter between two interesting people.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:08 AM on May 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


If art is a lie, then I will tell that lie every day until it’s f****** true

I'm with Mr. Fry--there's something of genius in this young Lady. If a spaceship landed and the occupant emerged saying, "Take me to your leader", I think it would be worthwhile to point the alien in Ms. Gaga's direction. Not necessarily to provide a typical example of the rest of the planet's inhabitants, rather, just to make a good first impression.

What a great piece - thanks for linking this.
posted by buzzv at 8:12 AM on May 28, 2011 [4 favorites]


I liked this for the comparison between Gaga and Wilde that Fry made. I think it's apposite, and I think that it explains why Gaga gets Fry so excited.

Actually the bit about the profundity of the surface also made me think of his love of Apple, although that's a digression (and that's not intended to say there's nothing below the Apple surface).
posted by jaduncan at 8:25 AM on May 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


metasplode
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:28 AM on May 28, 2011


You'd think that there would be safety regulations in place, to avoid their close proximity achieving a critical mass of AWESOME.
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 8:31 AM on May 28, 2011 [8 favorites]


If you hanker after Mr Fry's tweed jacket, here's this morning's tweet with details:

For those who prefer my tweed jacket to @LadyGaga's outfit: it was made by Pip Howeson (my nephew's GF and lovely)
posted by humph at 8:37 AM on May 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


Todays Danny Baker show had him on talking, at least partially, about the interview as well. Podcast ( Fry is on about 46 minutes in to mp3 )
posted by stuartmm at 8:38 AM on May 28, 2011


Direct link from the Tildesley site.
posted by CarlRossi at 9:29 AM on May 28, 2011


Weird. Normally the FT doesn't assign slavering devotees to interviews and profiles.

Twice the I don't care about money line, and not once called on it. Hmm.
posted by IndigoJones at 10:28 AM on May 28, 2011


If art is a lie, then I will tell that lie every day until it’s f****** true

Nonsense, for art to be a lie there would need to be an art that isn't a lie, but art isn't concerned with truth nor can it be examined within the context of a truth-false-tertium non datur logic, so any art can't possibily be a lie.
posted by elpapacito at 10:36 AM on May 28, 2011


For the record, this is the Camille Paglia essay noted.
posted by IndigoJones at 10:47 AM on May 28, 2011


For the record, this is the Camille Paglia essay noted.

"In Gaga’s manic miming of persona after persona, over-conceptualised and claustrophobic, we may have reached the limit of an era…"

Paglia you hack, how little sense of self-examination or irony you have.
posted by jaduncan at 10:51 AM on May 28, 2011 [9 favorites]


I find it bemusing that Gaga continues to preach the gospel of "being who you are" while simultaneously being about the most "artifice"-ial and studied celebrity I can think of. There is literally nothing "real" about this gal, if by real you mean genuine, natural, unstudied.


The above is not a criticism, just an observation.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 11:05 AM on May 28, 2011


Paglia prefers Madonna Classic.

So do I. But there's no need to get pretentious about it.
posted by Trurl at 11:20 AM on May 28, 2011


She is scary because she keeps moving, conceptually. I like that in an artist.
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:41 AM on May 28, 2011


But there's no need to get pretentious about it.

To know Paglia is to know that there is a need to get pretentious about everything.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:03 PM on May 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Fry is the quintessential quester and I happily look wherever he points. Before television fast tracked so many, especially gay, cultural icons, the pace of social change was glacial. As for Lady Gaga's artifice, I believe we are meant to understand that she is her medium. She exposes us to ourselves for we all are made of artifice. Whoever among us is surely without it may cast the first stone.

(And yes, it is fun being able to recall the shock and cultural changes symbolized by the advent of bobbysoxers, Elvis on TV, Janis Joplin, Cher, Bette Midler, Dolly Parton, Madonna, Oprah, Ellen Degeneres and, now, Lady Gaga. And the long ago darlings like Dorothy Parker and Bennett Cerf.)
posted by Anitanola at 12:20 PM on May 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


I have to say this much about Gaga -- she gives good interview. Her interview at Google was equally seemingly heartfelt and interesting and self-reflective.

I'm still waiting for the equivalent in Gaga's career of Madonna's Like A Prayer album. That seems to be the moment where Madge crossed out of being a pop star and into being something a bit deeper. And despite Gaga's declarations about what her albums' messages may be, the disconnect between the content of the music and the content of her videos and her public performances of those same songs make me feel uneasy about there actually being a real thread of meaning which is drawn through any of her projects.

It's like Lady Gaga is a prism or Icelandic spar, with different images being discovered depending on what angle you view her through, but without a real unifying whole behind her other than her physical self, which she keeps well decorated underneath outlandish clothing and stunt appearances.

I'm curious to see where she is five or so years from now... and I'll keep watching. But for now, it'll be from the edge of the pool and I'm not going to dive in until I know the true nature of the water.
posted by hippybear at 12:42 PM on May 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


See, I keep wondering who she is with no makeup and with no weird clothes, just, say, sitting beside a swimming pool with a diet coke or something...I get the impression she is deliberately always "on" and I want to know who the person is when she *isn't* on.

That is what she refuses to show us, and that is what I would consider real.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 1:19 PM on May 28, 2011


I just kind of think of her as our Oscar Wilde.

/not Bunburyist.
posted by digitalprimate at 2:59 PM on May 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


That is what she refuses to show us, and that is what I would consider real.

You may be interested/discomfited by the works of Walter Benjamin and Judith Butler.
posted by rhizome at 3:39 PM on May 28, 2011 [2 favorites]



That is what she refuses to show us, and that is what I would consider real.

You may be interested/discomfited by the works of Walter Benjamin and Judith Butler.


Or in the audio interview, part 3: masks, where they adress this specifically.
posted by ts;dr at 4:26 PM on May 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


I liked this interview a lot -- a little fawning, sure, but I like that Stephen Fry wants to understand where she's coming from and approaches her from a place of respect. I'm cool if people want to dismiss Lady Gaga -- certainly, not everyone has to like her -- but I do think she's doing some pretty cool things.

I'm not trying to pull the whole "She's really young" but well, she's 25. She's having fun at being weird and I think still learning what she's trying to say. I like the album Born This Way more than I thought I would -- it's definitely a little bit too much of the "Yay for the freaks!" but there's also acknowledgement that being different is a struggle. And that makes it more interesting than it could've been.

She seems pretty smart and fairly reflective and enjoying the freedom she has right now. Yeah, I get she's probably a little full of herself but she also strikes me as pretty genuinely sweet and caring. She was also adorable and funny in a few skits on Saturday Night Live last week. For all her artifice, I admire she doesn't mind looking silly and seems very comfortable with herself. That's pretty cool to me.

(And on her performance of "Born This Way" yesterday on Good Morning America, she climbed in a vat of black goo. It was one of those moments where I just stopped and thought "Is this really happening? On morning TV?" That she's unafraid to do weird and gross things makes her a more appealing pop star than someone like Britney Spears or Christina Aguelira ever were.)
posted by darksong at 4:31 PM on May 28, 2011


Folks,
She'd be just like your most flamboyant sister, You know, the one that wore nylons to where the bus picked us up, only an -30 below. Those of us from big families know what I'm talking about.
posted by primdehuit at 5:10 PM on May 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


Twice the I don't care about money line, and not once called on it. Hmm.

IndigoJones, your link doesn't exactly accuse her of greed. A former producer is suing her for money he claims she owes him, and her lawyers are resisting his claims in court. She did however pay him to the terms of the agreement, as she & her lawyers see it.

Would you feel better if she cut a blank check to everyone who asked for more? Instead of damning her to Mammon, why don't we let the courts consider the facts we know nothing of?
posted by IAmBroom at 7:12 PM on May 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


The comceptof authentic indenity is something I deal with a lot in my work and have friends who have basically made it their life's art so forgive me for being long winded.

Beauty is unfair. Natural is unfair. However anyone can construct a persona, create their own indenity and it doesn't have to be bound to physicality or even reality. This has been the rallying cry of theatre for centuries, even winked out in the lines of Hooray For Hollywood. born This Way holds hands with This Is Who I Am On The Inside.

So I admire the constructed, artificial Persona to the tyrannty of the real, because I think creativity is a primal human drive right along with sex and hunger. I think authencity is a trap, and sometimes used as a club. I've noticed when it comes to issues of realizes, almost no one is real enough.

Considering this taps into a lot of what Paglia wrote in Sexual Personae, her essay is more laughable then most of Pagila's stuff. Oh Camille, you can't even do art criticism well anymore. Sigh.

As for " what are they really like ...no really really" that line has come up among several friends who do the la vive belle are just constantly stumped by this question? What d they mean who is the real X? I am the real X! I don't wear stage outfits to go. To the store, but I wear the kind of stuff I like which isn't too far from the kind of stuff I like to wear on stage. Gaga herself has said , this is what I am, I wear this to go grab a soda from the store and yes I have on my big sunglasses because I like this. There isn't a real me. This is the real me. This is the me I wanted to be. Or to quote Ab Fab: I don't ACT this way. I AM this way.

I think it has something to do with pele for whom their life is their job and their job is art and
posted by The Whelk at 12:05 AM on May 29, 2011 [7 favorites]


There isn't any meaningful distinction between the two.
posted by The Whelk at 12:05 AM on May 29, 2011


And here she is at a baseball game, not expecting to be photographed.

I prefer the " no, really, this is who I am " to " shucks I'm just a simple homebody at heart."

Like mentioned unthread, very Wilde.
posted by The Whelk at 2:02 AM on May 29, 2011


But Whelk, it still seems a lot (in her case at least) of Striving to Be instead of just Being. I am not talking about dressing differently because you like the outfit, I am talking about HAVING to dress a certain way even if you are going to the corner for a soda because That Is What I Am instead of maybe once in a blue moon just pulling on a pair of jeans and going without makeup.


It frankly sounds exhausting.

Oh, and I have nothing against personas. They are fun. But having them totally take up one's life sounds scary to me.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:27 AM on May 29, 2011


St. Alia of the Bunnies: "But Whelk, it still seems a lot (in her case at least) of Striving to Be instead of just Being. I am not talking about dressing differently because you like the outfit, I am talking about HAVING to dress a certain way even if you are going to the corner for a soda because That Is What I Am instead of maybe once in a blue moon just pulling on a pair of jeans and going without makeup."

I get what you mean, but I'd mix with that a healthy portion of unbecoming what one is not- as a recovered ex-Catholic and staunch individualist myself, I can appreciate the struggle to find oneself beneath the layers of what we are supposed to be.

I guess you could still argue there is artifice, but it would be imposed artifice vs. the persona we chose for ourselves. Yeah, I'd go with the latter too.
posted by Mr. Crowley at 7:39 AM on May 29, 2011


But Whelk, it still seems a lot (in her case at least) of Striving to Be instead of just Being. I am not talking about dressing differently because you like the outfit, I am talking about HAVING to dress a certain way even if you are going to the corner for a soda because That Is What I Am instead of maybe once in a blue moon just pulling on a pair of jeans and going without makeup.

It frankly sounds exhausting.

Unless, of course, you are more comfortable in the clothes you choose rather than jeans and no makeup.
posted by jaduncan at 8:42 AM on May 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


I prefer the " no, really, this is who I am " to " shucks I'm just a simple homebody at heart."

I imagine there's a certain point, well illustrated by that set of images, where you can pretty much assume that you're always getting photographed. I don't think it's evidence of who she "is," but frankly I think that whole line of investigation is pointless anyway.
posted by rhizome at 11:08 AM on May 29, 2011


See, I keep wondering who she is with no makeup and with no weird clothes, just, say, sitting beside a swimming pool with a diet coke or something ...I get the impression she is deliberately always "on" and I want to know who the person is when she *isn't* on.


I don't see why you need to know who she really is, that's not her job, and it's not your right. Performers give you a performance, not their personal lives. If you don't like the performance, then she's not your cup of tea, why worry about it? I find the country star persona to be kinda gross with the studied down home ordinariness; it seems really disingenuous, but I don't need any of them to do something that will prove themselves to me. That's just weird.

Disclaimer, I guess? I have family that tours with her & she's met and charmed the living daylights out of my 76 year old uncle who wouldn't brook a fake to save his life. From all accounts she's just Stephanie when she's not on stage or out in public.
posted by zarah at 2:08 PM on May 29, 2011


From all accounts she's just Stephanie when she's not on stage or out in public.

Well, that's good to know but you would never know it from her interviews. I don't need to know who she is when she's not performing because I don't know HER but I just find it strange that her message is "be who you are" when her theater screams exactly the opposite.

I find the country star persona to be kinda gross with the studied down home ordinariness

Well, let's take the new American Idol as an example-one of the reasons I am sure he won is the very fact he seems to be exactly what he is, period. Country fans like their stars to be "real."

And for what it's worth, as a person who is a fan of all kinds of genres, my litmus test for what I like is-it has to be real and genuine and a real offshoot of who the performer/artist really is. Artifice is fine for stage shows, that's what it's for, but in my music I prefer "real" and "genuine."


I still get the impression that most of Gaga's interviews are totally her bs'ing her interviewers. And sometimes, herself. But hey, she makes bank at it.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 3:30 PM on May 29, 2011


Interviews are just art with less props.
posted by The Whelk at 4:03 PM on May 29, 2011


And just from personal experience from hanging out with people who get the " but what are you Really Like? " question a lot ...it's confusing. They don't have an answer."

I am reallly like this, maybe I'm more relaxed with friends or less made up around my house playing with my cat but isn't everyone? It's not like this elaborate mask I have to remove and under it is this whole other person. " is the general sentiment I hear.

And I still think authenticity is bunk.
posted by The Whelk at 4:15 PM on May 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


And I still think authenticity is bunk

Why's that?

See, you, whelk, are authentically you-at least from what I see here. Your oddities are organic. I seriously doubt La Gaga's oddities are.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 9:11 PM on May 29, 2011


Thats a huge presumption, and from knowing similar people at varying levels of fame, I know their oddities are organic to them.

This is why I think authenticity is bunk. It turns into a No True Scotsman argument almost instantly. Really real is never real enough.
posted by The Whelk at 1:30 AM on May 30, 2011


Gaga's outfits may be merely part of her act but she's also your archetypal Romantic living her life as art in the tradition of Dali and that guy with the lobster. Complaining that she ought to be more "just folks" is surely missing the point.
posted by Coaticass at 1:56 AM on May 30, 2011


Didn't say she should be "just folks." I just have a sense that she is putting an ungodly amount of energy into that persona of hers-or at least wants the public to think she is.

And Dali was organically nuts. Great draftsman, great artist, but the man was organically tripping.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:42 AM on May 30, 2011


Eh, I don't see how it would take a huge amount of energy to wear fun costumes (and they do look like a lot of fun) and make sure that you always look so outrageous the paparazzi won't recognise you if you take off the wig and giant sunglasses and put on some pants. More people would do the costume thing if they didn't have to work in a standard job. I know one woman who deliberately got a promotion away from the customer service side of her profession just so she could wear more outrageous outfits without upsetting the clients. She has a lot of fun, her hair colour changes regularly, she sews her own stuff because she can't buy things as interesting as she'd like to have. And yet she's a very down to earth and sensible person, organised and quick off the mark. She just enjoys wearing weird stuff.
posted by harriet vane at 7:14 AM on May 30, 2011


I like the match—both figures are dreadfully over exposed. One can't swing a sack of almonds without knocking into them.
posted by oxford blue at 10:14 AM on May 30, 2011


The article's bit on Gaga's professional perfectioinism in terms of staging and performing also seems like hard work, cause it is, cause it's part of the job which is part of life. If constant rehearsals and costume changes were a chore, one presumes she wouldn't do it. There are lots of jobs you can do in the same industry that aren't in front of the camera or require that kind of hard work.

Which cycles again to my earlier point: why do all of this? Cause that's who they are and what they want to do. I happen to like lots of 19th century fippery in my clothing. Does it take more time? Yep. It is it sometimes a chore? A bit. Do I enjoy the hell out of it? Oh yeah. Am I going to stop? Not if I can avoid it.

Nothing more authentic than that.
posted by The Whelk at 10:18 AM on May 30, 2011


The Whelk: Fine and Dandy

or is that "a dandy"?
posted by hippybear at 10:27 AM on May 30, 2011


I pefer flaneur.

As for the music, I'm also waiting for a really WOW album, the Fame Monster was close, but not. Quite. There. And a lot of Born This Way sounds like a step backward, honestly. Although the mainstreaming of really heavy clash techno beats into modern pop has been amusing.

I'd like to hear her rock a bunch of piano- based been don wrong songs. I have a feeling she could hit the New Oreans songbook out of the park.

Interesting to think how much her current, BTW imagery is based on organic horror. The fact that it's completely mainstream is utterly, utterly delightful. Like if Mobeius designed a pop star.
posted by The Whelk at 10:40 AM on May 30, 2011


All I know is when Gaga does Gaga it seems forced and fake. With mefi's own Whelk-well, he just seems naturally Wildean.

Remember how Madonna changed personas over the years? It was theater, yes, but it never seemed forced, it seemed like she was organically going from persona to persona but it was all her. If Madonna is cane sugar, Gaga is aspertame.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 11:33 AM on May 30, 2011


You can't make some dishes without aspartame. Doesn't taste right with real sugar.

To each their own amuse bouche.
posted by The Whelk at 11:48 AM on May 30, 2011


You can't make some dishes without aspartame.

*blink* You have a recipe book which requires aspartame instead of actual sugar? I've never heard of such a thing for home cooking, and would welcome a link to such a recipe.

If you're just making a point about how Gaga is different from Madonna because what they're achieving is different, I'll accept that. But that's a really odd way to put it, and I suspect has no actual analogue in real life experience.
posted by hippybear at 11:57 AM on May 30, 2011


Remember how Madonna changed personas over the years? It was theater, yes, but it never seemed forced, it seemed like she was organically going from persona to persona but it was all her.

Yes, but it was all artifice, right? I mean...theater.

Just because it didn't "seem forced" with Madonna but it does with Gaga? Sorry, but pinning all of this on they way it "seems" to you is all about your interpretation of motives that you have absolutely no idea and are merely guessing and assuming. How do you even know how much "energy" she puts into it? I'm guessing she has a stylist who comes up with a lot of it and lays the outfits out on the bed the night before. I think you may also be misremembering Madonna's authenticity.

Gaga and Madonna are similar in that they're both invoking personas developed in the service of furthering a business model that depends on remaining popular.
posted by rhizome at 12:29 PM on May 30, 2011


There are a few desserts and drinks that really need aspartame or they don't hold together well. It was a metaphor and thus imperfect.
posted by The Whelk at 12:56 PM on May 30, 2011


Well, being the same age as Madonna and having "grown up" with Madge mediawise, I can certainly compare how she relates to her fans thru media with how Lady Gaga does it.

Maybe I can't articulate it, but darn it, there's a difference. With Madonna, she was either performing or not. With Gaga, it's all performance art.


(I'm not talking about private life here, just how each performer relates thru media whether on or off stage.)

Whelk is fine with artifice, while I am saying I prefer my entertainers to be real. In that I enjoy art that is an expression of the actual person rather than a projected persona of the person.

I would call Johnny Cash an example of the latter. Perhaps Springsteen as well.

To go further with this, I prefer the artist to perhaps not get in the way of the art. Maybe that isn't possible with drama or performance art, but since I am mostly speaking of what I like as far as music....
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 1:03 PM on May 30, 2011


Oh, and bear in mind I am sort of thinking out loud with all this. Lady Gaga does fascinate me (well, so does the Whelk in a way.) But I do see differences.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 1:06 PM on May 30, 2011


I would say that, for all intents and purposes, the projected personae is no different than the art, they are both creations.

But this almost seems like a conflict of media. The above statement works well for theatre, but not in say writing, where the author is bunk.

I fade Gaga as primarily a Stage phenoenom, a being of theatre, so any talk of authencity is beside the point,
posted by The Whelk at 1:26 PM on May 30, 2011


So, then, maybe I should think of Gaga as primarily a performance/theater artist, period. Whereas Madonna would be more a vocalist who has personas.


Then I have to ask myself if Gaga's performance has anything to do with Gaga the person or not. Perhaps it really doesn't matter.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 2:29 PM on May 30, 2011


Nope, it doesn't!

Weeeeeeeeeer I love talking about art weeeeeeeeeer
posted by The Whelk at 2:54 PM on May 30, 2011


Young man, those two nice people over there are trying to have tea. Now you get a towel and clean up all this weeeer you just sprayed around and then maybe we can get back to talking about art.
posted by hippybear at 2:57 PM on May 30, 2011


You can't make some dishes without aspartame. Doesn't taste right with real sugar.
posted by The Whelk at 5:48 AM on May 31 [+] [!]

Yes, you're quite right. I've got one right here: Rat Poison, Serves 180.
posted by oxford blue at 6:24 PM on May 30, 2011


I'm late to this thread, but I should mention that I had Camille Paglia as a professor last semester (and I get her twice again this semester! Hooray! She's incredible), and there are two things worth noting about her:

— She's got work of great critical depth, and still turns out some really interesting work, but her newspaper columns all seem to be an extension of her in-person dialogue, which is occasionally brilliant in its leaps but is not at all what you'd call critically rigorous. Read her articles because she'll occasionally say something fascinating, but immediately disregard all the sillier things; I can assure you that you're taking her words more seriously than she does;

— The entirety of her grudge against Lady Gaga (seemingly) comes from the fact that YouTube's recommendation algorithm will recommend you listen to Bad Romance or Born This Way after you watch basically anything. She sees YouTube as a great compendium of art which was previously inaccessible to most of the world (and her classes consisted half of her bringing up rapidfire successions of quick clips that would demonstrate certain cultural shifts), but she's not an Internet diehard, so she sees YouTube's lame-ass recommendations as signs that our entire culture is superfixated on Gaga (which it's not, but which is a hilarious assumption to make).

In other words, it's an amusing misunderstanding that only gets taken seriously because we assume Camille is thinking about Lady Gaga way more than she is. Don't take her essay as a sign that she's sad or disgraceful. When she talks about the things she's really interested in, she's razor-sharp and almost mindblowingly quick (she'd talk twice a week for eighty minutes straight without taking a single breath and cover vast swathes of knowledge). But I don't think she sees herself as an important icon (except maybe that she notes how many other people respond to what she says); she seems to be focusing on her own areas of passion without regard for whether they're the most culturally cutting-edge. Sometimes it means she talks about subjects which I'd never even think were interesting without her. Other times it means she writes self-indulgent essays about how much Lady Gaga's YouTube recommendations bother her.
posted by Rory Marinich at 12:13 PM on June 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


I have no opinion about Lady Gaga's personality or music and I refuse to contrive one for the purpose of this thread, but...

She wears awesome stuff on her head. And I'm okay with that.
posted by ardgedee at 3:49 PM on June 1, 2011


I will always respect Camille for Sexual Personae, which kicked off my self thought education in the arts and aesthetics and art history, but I can still think she's pretty pants.
posted by The Whelk at 3:58 PM on June 1, 2011


And I can still think she's a worthwhile and serious art and culture critic while still thinking she's rambling and odd and polticitally tone deaf.

You know, like Ruskin.
posted by The Whelk at 4:02 PM on June 1, 2011


Rambling and odd and tone deaf are all pretty accurate, tbh.
posted by Rory Marinich at 4:38 PM on June 1, 2011


Not to continue a derail, but people give Camille Paglia a much harder time for that stuff than they give pretty much anybody else. It's like anti-intellectualism turned on its head: "If you're supposed to be so smart, then why aren't you perfect?"
posted by rhizome at 7:02 AM on June 3, 2011


« Older Running seems to allow me, ideally, an expanded co...   |   Spock in retirement, aka Bruno... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments