MacArthur's new fellows
September 23, 2008 4:41 AM Subscribe
2008 MacArthur Foundation "Genius" grants announced. Probably the biggest name is the New Yorker's music critic Alex Ross.
Previous winners include David Foster Wallace, Octavia Butler, Jorie Graham, and a whole lot of other brilliant folks.
Previous winners include David Foster Wallace, Octavia Butler, Jorie Graham, and a whole lot of other brilliant folks.
I should be nominated for my outstanding work in the field of snarky comments.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:55 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:55 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
We discussed the work of at least one winner, Marin Soljačić, in this post on wireless power transmission.
posted by Mapes at 4:55 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by Mapes at 4:55 AM on September 23, 2008
If I was a rich person, I would set up a foundation to help the disadvantaged not overachievers.
posted by dydecker at 4:59 AM on September 23, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by dydecker at 4:59 AM on September 23, 2008 [3 favorites]
Leila Josefowicz playing the fiddle.
Tara Donovan stacking straws and stuff.
posted by pracowity at 5:05 AM on September 23, 2008
Tara Donovan stacking straws and stuff.
posted by pracowity at 5:05 AM on September 23, 2008
If I were a rich person, I would set up a foundation to education the public on the nature of counterfactual conditionals and how to posit them grammatically.
posted by DU at 5:05 AM on September 23, 2008 [17 favorites]
posted by DU at 5:05 AM on September 23, 2008 [17 favorites]
To education the public indeed.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 5:10 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by a robot made out of meat at 5:10 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
If I were a rich person, I would set up a foundation to explain DU's comment to dydecker.
And I would take everyone out for pizza.
posted by From Bklyn at 5:11 AM on September 23, 2008 [2 favorites]
And I would take everyone out for pizza.
posted by From Bklyn at 5:11 AM on September 23, 2008 [2 favorites]
DU is wrong. I'm never going to be rich person so my sentence is correct.
posted by dydecker at 5:23 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by dydecker at 5:23 AM on September 23, 2008
Wait, all I need to do to get rich is switch all my sentences from "were" to "was"? *quits jobs, buys Jacuzzi and Hummer*
posted by DU at 5:34 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by DU at 5:34 AM on September 23, 2008
Ross deserves it. No matter how messy Earth X became, his work on Kingdom Come was genre-defining.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:38 AM on September 23, 2008 [5 favorites]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:38 AM on September 23, 2008 [5 favorites]
Walter Kitundu! Yay! Previously and previously-er on Mefi.
Again, I say Yay!
posted by rtha at 5:55 AM on September 23, 2008
Again, I say Yay!
posted by rtha at 5:55 AM on September 23, 2008
The links at previously-er are borked, but you can listen to some of Kitundu's music at his home page. Good stuff.
posted by exogenous at 6:00 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by exogenous at 6:00 AM on September 23, 2008
It is good to see a fellow anesthesiologist in the list; I thought I had seen mention of his work on metafilter before but a cursory search fails to turn up anything.
posted by TedW at 6:03 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by TedW at 6:03 AM on September 23, 2008
Also, some of - many of? - the MacArthur fellows become overachievers because they were disadvantaged. And their work may and often does directly affect and assist the disadvantaged: Will Allen, urban farmer; Regina Benjamin, rural family physician; Wafaa El-Sadr, ID specialist and HIV/AIDS treatment expert.
Then the artists, of course - the ones who have worked in tiny theaters for years doing amazing things, the ones who have taught kids to understand some crucial thing about creativity or a new way to see something.
Overachievers? We should be lucky to have more overachievers like these folks.
posted by rtha at 6:04 AM on September 23, 2008 [6 favorites]
Then the artists, of course - the ones who have worked in tiny theaters for years doing amazing things, the ones who have taught kids to understand some crucial thing about creativity or a new way to see something.
Overachievers? We should be lucky to have more overachievers like these folks.
posted by rtha at 6:04 AM on September 23, 2008 [6 favorites]
Alex Ross? A music critic wins a MacArthur? I always resent somebody winning one of these who writes about people who make stuff instead of making stuff, unless the writing so originally frames the making that our understanding is radically refreshed. But Ross is not a critic of striking originality. He bemoans the false imposed boundaries of genres, particularly between classical and popular music. That is not new, right? The guy is good at framing Radiohead for the aspiring haute bourgeois liberal conformists who take the New Yorker as gospel. His reinforcement of Radiohead as the one "smart" band, because they listen to Messiaen, is annoying. Isn't there room for more than one "smart" rock band? One that hasn't been designated as such by every other critic and lagging underexposed hipster? One that isn't as self-consciously "smart," maybe has a sense of humor? Middlebrow avant garde.
posted by framedmistake at 6:16 AM on September 23, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by framedmistake at 6:16 AM on September 23, 2008 [3 favorites]
Forget about the specifics: There's something that seems fundamentally wrong about a "genius grant" that's awarded to a newspaper music critic. Especially one with a steady gig that depends on finding clever ways to say the same thing every few days and make it sound new.
For that matter, I propose that we institute a moratorium on use of the term "genius" unless we're referring to supernatural spirits or [albeit dubiously] quantifiable intellectual task-performance metrics.
posted by lodurr at 6:27 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
For that matter, I propose that we institute a moratorium on use of the term "genius" unless we're referring to supernatural spirits or [albeit dubiously] quantifiable intellectual task-performance metrics.
posted by lodurr at 6:27 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
JHU Represent! If only I had some snark to dish about this lady, but alas she's classy and a decent writer.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:28 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:28 AM on September 23, 2008
Not many economists or bankers in there, I see.
posted by Hogshead at 6:28 AM on September 23, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by Hogshead at 6:28 AM on September 23, 2008 [3 favorites]
the ones who have worked in tiny theaters for years doing amazing things
The day before Lee Breuer's award was announced I was talking with him while he carefully tapped the coffee grounds from an empty cup and ate them because he couldn't afford a second cup.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:30 AM on September 23, 2008 [3 favorites]
The day before Lee Breuer's award was announced I was talking with him while he carefully tapped the coffee grounds from an empty cup and ate them because he couldn't afford a second cup.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:30 AM on September 23, 2008 [3 favorites]
If I were a rich person, I'd set up a foundation to keep more of my money to myself.
posted by willmize at 6:36 AM on September 23, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by willmize at 6:36 AM on September 23, 2008 [2 favorites]
... which is a bizarre practice, since they have more or less no nutritional value and all the caffeine would have been leached out on the first cup.
posted by lodurr at 6:37 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by lodurr at 6:37 AM on September 23, 2008
I work for a farm that sells at the farmers markets here in Chicago. One of this year's recipients — Will Allen — sells at some of the same markets we do and I've had a chance to meet him in past years. I wish I had something clever to say, but really I'm just commenting to say that it's tremendously exciting to see one of the "good guys" win.
posted by veggieboy at 6:39 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by veggieboy at 6:39 AM on September 23, 2008
I always resent somebody winning one of these who [etc.]
MetaFilter: I always resent.
posted by languagehat at 6:41 AM on September 23, 2008 [7 favorites]
MetaFilter: I always resent.
posted by languagehat at 6:41 AM on September 23, 2008 [7 favorites]
Yeah, I can't believe that Alex Ross got the MacArthur for his hardware reviews.
posted by lukemeister at 6:42 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by lukemeister at 6:42 AM on September 23, 2008
I think "genius" is being used rhetorically, it's not like they are being knighted as officially "genius", whatever that means. As Will Allen, urban farmer says in this 2 min YouTube clip, he could care less about the award, the money is helpful, but the real benefit is the press exposure so he can build on his work with new investors and people interested. Ideally the award is not an end, you don't sit back and rest on your laurels, but a beginning, a spring-board to do more.
posted by stbalbach at 6:42 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by stbalbach at 6:42 AM on September 23, 2008
Yeah, I am also perplexed by Ross winning this. He's crypto-boring.
posted by avianism at 7:02 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by avianism at 7:02 AM on September 23, 2008
I always resent somebody winning one of these who writes about people who make stuff instead of making stuff...
Criticism is "stuff." Good criticism is good stuff.
posted by neroli at 7:06 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
Criticism is "stuff." Good criticism is good stuff.
posted by neroli at 7:06 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
I've heard, from a friend whose mom got a grant, that she used some of the proceeds for liposuction. Also, I have beaten another grantwinner BADLY at Trivial Pursuit. Genius, my ass.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 7:17 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by bitter-girl.com at 7:17 AM on September 23, 2008
dydecker: If I was a rich person, I would set up a foundation to help the disadvantaged not overachievers.
DU: If I were a rich person, I would set up a foundation to education the public on the nature of counterfactual conditionals and how to posit them grammatically.
And if I were a rich person, I'd buy dydecker a comma and DU a beer.
posted by three blind mice at 7:19 AM on September 23, 2008
DU: If I were a rich person, I would set up a foundation to education the public on the nature of counterfactual conditionals and how to posit them grammatically.
And if I were a rich person, I'd buy dydecker a comma and DU a beer.
posted by three blind mice at 7:19 AM on September 23, 2008
Hey, do you think I could win one for my mad Trivial Pursuit skillz? hmm...
Also, dude. Fiber artists like me never win anything. It's always sculptors and people who work with metal and big dangerous things. Apparently textiles aren't cool enough for y'all. Never mind that textiles enabled CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 7:23 AM on September 23, 2008
Also, dude. Fiber artists like me never win anything. It's always sculptors and people who work with metal and big dangerous things. Apparently textiles aren't cool enough for y'all. Never mind that textiles enabled CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 7:23 AM on September 23, 2008
Never mind that textiles enabled CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT.
Before I clicked on that link I knew it was going to be for Elizabeth Barber's book. She was my first linguistics teacher and is largely responsible for there being a languagehat at all (not to mention for my wasting years of my life in grad school, but that's a rant for another day).
posted by languagehat at 7:46 AM on September 23, 2008 [3 favorites]
Before I clicked on that link I knew it was going to be for Elizabeth Barber's book. She was my first linguistics teacher and is largely responsible for there being a languagehat at all (not to mention for my wasting years of my life in grad school, but that's a rant for another day).
posted by languagehat at 7:46 AM on September 23, 2008 [3 favorites]
I think "genius" is being used rhetorically....
Which is my point, exactly: "Genius" is being used purely for its rhetorical impact, and not because it actually has any clarifying power. The way most people use the term, it only obfuscates. ("She's a genius: She predicted the market for commuter aircraft would take off." [sic]) It's meaningless in 99% of uses.*
I should clarify, though, that it's us and not the MacArthur folks who are guilty on this score. AFAIK they don't use the term "genius."
--
*And while we're at it, and for different reasons, can we please kill off "phenomenal" as a substitute for "exceptional", "excellent" or "outstanding"?
posted by lodurr at 7:49 AM on September 23, 2008
Which is my point, exactly: "Genius" is being used purely for its rhetorical impact, and not because it actually has any clarifying power. The way most people use the term, it only obfuscates. ("She's a genius: She predicted the market for commuter aircraft would take off." [sic]) It's meaningless in 99% of uses.*
I should clarify, though, that it's us and not the MacArthur folks who are guilty on this score. AFAIK they don't use the term "genius."
--
*And while we're at it, and for different reasons, can we please kill off "phenomenal" as a substitute for "exceptional", "excellent" or "outstanding"?
posted by lodurr at 7:49 AM on September 23, 2008
If I were a rich person, I'd set up a foundation to keep more of my money to myself.
They have. It's called the Republican Party.
I think "genius" is being used rhetorically
It's not being used at all by the MacArthur Foundation. They just call them fellows, and I suspect they wish people would stop calling it a "genius" grant.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:50 AM on September 23, 2008
They have. It's called the Republican Party.
I think "genius" is being used rhetorically
It's not being used at all by the MacArthur Foundation. They just call them fellows, and I suspect they wish people would stop calling it a "genius" grant.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:50 AM on September 23, 2008
Not many economists or bankers in there, I see.
I'm glad there are no bankers there (they're in the process of getting their own grant from the Fed for their research into destroying the global financial system), but I also noticed the conspicuous absence of economists. Something tells me next year at least one or two economists will appear on this list.
**
The only ones I had heard of until now were Ross, Leila Josefowicz, and Miguel Zenón, but I suppose that's the whole point.
I especially liked learning about Tara Donovan (her sculpture looks fantastic, but OMG what a nightmare to install), Stephen Houston (anthropologist, archaeologist, and epigrapher whose insightful interpretations of Mayan iconography and hieroglyphic inscriptions shed new light on the intellectual culture of Mesoamerican society), Andrea Ghez (astrophysicist who I have some vague recollection of reading about before), David Montgomery (geomorphologist whose nonspecialist work sounds intriguing: i.e. his books King of Fish: The Thousand-Year Run of Salmon and Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations), Nancy Siraisi (scholar of early medicine, etc. whose books include Taddeo Alderotti and His Pupils, Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine, and History, Medicine, and the Traditions of Renaissance Learning), and the developmental neuroscientist Sally Temple...
posted by ornate insect at 7:54 AM on September 23, 2008
I'm glad there are no bankers there (they're in the process of getting their own grant from the Fed for their research into destroying the global financial system), but I also noticed the conspicuous absence of economists. Something tells me next year at least one or two economists will appear on this list.
**
The only ones I had heard of until now were Ross, Leila Josefowicz, and Miguel Zenón, but I suppose that's the whole point.
I especially liked learning about Tara Donovan (her sculpture looks fantastic, but OMG what a nightmare to install), Stephen Houston (anthropologist, archaeologist, and epigrapher whose insightful interpretations of Mayan iconography and hieroglyphic inscriptions shed new light on the intellectual culture of Mesoamerican society), Andrea Ghez (astrophysicist who I have some vague recollection of reading about before), David Montgomery (geomorphologist whose nonspecialist work sounds intriguing: i.e. his books King of Fish: The Thousand-Year Run of Salmon and Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations), Nancy Siraisi (scholar of early medicine, etc. whose books include Taddeo Alderotti and His Pupils, Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine, and History, Medicine, and the Traditions of Renaissance Learning), and the developmental neuroscientist Sally Temple...
posted by ornate insect at 7:54 AM on September 23, 2008
can we please kill off "phenomenal" as a substitute for "exceptional", "excellent" or "outstanding"?
Why? Why is one metaphor better than another? Exceptional means 'taken out'; excellent means 'rising above'; outstanding means, well, 'standing out.' Why is phenomenal, etymologically meaning 'shown forth,' any worse? (The word, by the way, has been in use in that sense for over 150 years: 1850 D. G. ROSSETTI Dante & Circle I. 23 "To afford a glimpse of the phenomenal fact that the bosom of the Church was indeed for a time the refuge of this shorn lamb." The first quote for the sense you presumably prefer is only from 1825; twenty-five years doesn't seem like significant priority.)
posted by languagehat at 7:59 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
Why? Why is one metaphor better than another? Exceptional means 'taken out'; excellent means 'rising above'; outstanding means, well, 'standing out.' Why is phenomenal, etymologically meaning 'shown forth,' any worse? (The word, by the way, has been in use in that sense for over 150 years: 1850 D. G. ROSSETTI Dante & Circle I. 23 "To afford a glimpse of the phenomenal fact that the bosom of the Church was indeed for a time the refuge of this shorn lamb." The first quote for the sense you presumably prefer is only from 1825; twenty-five years doesn't seem like significant priority.)
posted by languagehat at 7:59 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
Oh, dear. Now it's going to be another round of "the word's meaning is equivalent to its distant etymology." I'll pass, thanks, and forfeit the point.
posted by lodurr at 8:07 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by lodurr at 8:07 AM on September 23, 2008
He bemoans the false imposed boundaries of genres, particularly between classical and popular music. That is not new, right?
It used to be called 'growing up'.
posted by srboisvert at 8:19 AM on September 23, 2008
It used to be called 'growing up'.
posted by srboisvert at 8:19 AM on September 23, 2008
A New Yorker article on Peter Pronovost, one of this year's fellows, was featured earlier.
posted by Gyan at 8:22 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by Gyan at 8:22 AM on September 23, 2008
Also, dude. Fiber artists like me never win anything.
Mary Jackson is a fiber artist ...
And, you know, the "genius grant" moniker is something that the press came up with. It's not what the MacArthur Foundation calls them.
posted by rtha at 8:27 AM on September 23, 2008
Mary Jackson is a fiber artist ...
And, you know, the "genius grant" moniker is something that the press came up with. It's not what the MacArthur Foundation calls them.
posted by rtha at 8:27 AM on September 23, 2008
"And if I were a rich person, I'd buy dydecker a comma and DU a beer."
cheap motherf*****.
posted by Auden at 8:46 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
cheap motherf*****.
posted by Auden at 8:46 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
I stand corrected, rtha. Although I'd probably amend my original statement to "fiber artists like me USUALLY never win anything." Any fiber stuff that's yarn-related gets automagically relegated to "crafty craft craft" status and doesn't generally get the sort of art recognition that painting, sculpture, etc does. It's a personal bone to pick...don't mind me.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 9:02 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by bitter-girl.com at 9:02 AM on September 23, 2008
Oh, dear. Now it's going to be another round of "the word's meaning is equivalent to its distant etymology." I'll pass, thanks, and forfeit the point.
Huh? I have never in my life said "the word's meaning is equivalent to its distant etymology," and in fact have strenuously argued against it whenever it comes up. But the opposing view is that the word's meaning is how people use it, which you seemed to be arguing against. Since you're not defending your point, I guess you're admitting you're wrong, but that's a singularly ungracious way of doing it.
posted by languagehat at 9:09 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
Huh? I have never in my life said "the word's meaning is equivalent to its distant etymology," and in fact have strenuously argued against it whenever it comes up. But the opposing view is that the word's meaning is how people use it, which you seemed to be arguing against. Since you're not defending your point, I guess you're admitting you're wrong, but that's a singularly ungracious way of doing it.
posted by languagehat at 9:09 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
I guess "basket weaving" is due for a connotation change.
posted by Beardman at 9:14 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by Beardman at 9:14 AM on September 23, 2008
I just finished "Nightingales of Troy" by 1991 MacArthur fellow Alice Fulton a couple of weeks ago. I don't know enough about her poetry to say whether she should have won for that, but her prose is outstanding.
posted by BrotherCaine at 9:40 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by BrotherCaine at 9:40 AM on September 23, 2008
OK, well, since you were making an etymological argument against my small-text, parenthetic complaint about what I consider a really annoying usage ("that [lasagna / sweater / movie / candy bar] is PHENOMENAL"), and relying on my (apparently faulty) recollection that you'd made arguments about meaning deriving from other than usage in the past, I assumed that's what you were doing this time. I'm sure I'm conflating you with someone else. So I apologize for misunderstanding you, but now I don't understand what point you were trying to make.
Anyway, even if meaning derives from usage, it's still perfectly appropriate to protest usages that erode meaning -- for example, "genius" in one common usage. For example, if "Kevin Kelly is a genius" is a sensible thing to say, for example, then I don't know what the word means anymore.
It seems to me that "genius" and "brilliant" are words that are now used for rhetorical impact. It's more than erosion of emphasis -- more than "genius" now just meaning "very smart." You call someone a "genius" and people still treat that as meaning something profound and very special. In practice, I think "genius" and "brilliant" end up being used as extra pieces of (illegitimate) armor brazed onto the presentation: If I call someone a "genius", I've deterred a good proportion of the audience from registering their disagreement because they don't want to insult the Emperor in public. ([a] The world isn't Metafilter. This tactic works. I've seen it. [b] It also works here; it's just that the effect is not as great.)
posted by lodurr at 9:52 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
Anyway, even if meaning derives from usage, it's still perfectly appropriate to protest usages that erode meaning -- for example, "genius" in one common usage. For example, if "Kevin Kelly is a genius" is a sensible thing to say, for example, then I don't know what the word means anymore.
It seems to me that "genius" and "brilliant" are words that are now used for rhetorical impact. It's more than erosion of emphasis -- more than "genius" now just meaning "very smart." You call someone a "genius" and people still treat that as meaning something profound and very special. In practice, I think "genius" and "brilliant" end up being used as extra pieces of (illegitimate) armor brazed onto the presentation: If I call someone a "genius", I've deterred a good proportion of the audience from registering their disagreement because they don't want to insult the Emperor in public. ([a] The world isn't Metafilter. This tactic works. I've seen it. [b] It also works here; it's just that the effect is not as great.)
posted by lodurr at 9:52 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
A high school friend of mine who is now a reporter for the AP just wrote a feature on a MacArthur winner who was one of his professors.
posted by emelenjr at 10:05 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by emelenjr at 10:05 AM on September 23, 2008
Alex Ross? A music critic wins a MacArthur? I always resent somebody winning one of these who writes about people who make stuff instead of making stuff, unless the writing so originally frames the making that our understanding is radically refreshed. But Ross is not a critic of striking originality. He bemoans the false imposed boundaries of genres, particularly between classical and popular music. That is not new, right? The guy is good at framing Radiohead for the aspiring haute bourgeois liberal conformists who take the New Yorker as gospel. His reinforcement of Radiohead as the one "smart" band, because they listen to Messiaen, is annoying. Isn't there room for more than one "smart" rock band? One that hasn't been designated as such by every other critic and lagging underexposed hipster? One that isn't as self-consciously "smart," maybe has a sense of humor? Middlebrow avant garde.
Ha! Guilty as charged; it was Alex Ross' 2001 article about Radiohead that sparked my interest in them. However, I still win, because I found something to love, middlebrow avant-garde though it may be (and it's that a contradiction in terms?); whereas you do not win, because you're just snarking on the internet.
I may, however, take "aspiring haute bourgeois liberal conformist" as a sockpuppet.
posted by jokeefe at 10:08 AM on September 23, 2008
Ha! Guilty as charged; it was Alex Ross' 2001 article about Radiohead that sparked my interest in them. However, I still win, because I found something to love, middlebrow avant-garde though it may be (and it's that a contradiction in terms?); whereas you do not win, because you're just snarking on the internet.
I may, however, take "aspiring haute bourgeois liberal conformist" as a sockpuppet.
posted by jokeefe at 10:08 AM on September 23, 2008
Yay for Dr. Regina Benjamin. Access to health care in rural Alabama communities is an issue close to my heart, and I'm delighted to see her good work recognized and rewarded.
That said, I'm still waiting to hear back from the Foundation regarding my on-going study entitled "Afternoon Naps and Cocktail Hour: A Meta-Analysis". Funding opportunities are still available.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:41 AM on September 23, 2008
That said, I'm still waiting to hear back from the Foundation regarding my on-going study entitled "Afternoon Naps and Cocktail Hour: A Meta-Analysis". Funding opportunities are still available.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:41 AM on September 23, 2008
I assume Alex Ross was chosen more for his recent book than for letting the world know that radiohead was ok.
posted by domakesaypat at 10:46 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by domakesaypat at 10:46 AM on September 23, 2008
framedmistake: I always figured that most people -- even the intelligentsia-- just don't know what good criticism is. Hell, of the 28 Pulitzer prizes given for criticism, one of the three given for film criticism went to Stephan Hunter at the Washington Post...not exactly the cream of the crop.
posted by Weebot at 10:56 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by Weebot at 10:56 AM on September 23, 2008
So I apologize for misunderstanding you, but now I don't understand what point you were trying to make.
That's very gracious of you, much appreciated. My point (now rendered somewhat moot) was that it didn't make sense to object to phenomenal = 'great' because phenomenal doesnt' "mean" 'great' (i.e., it "really" means 'having to do with phenomena'), but I see now that isn't your objection, you simply feel (if I'm understanding you) that it's lazily overused. In which case I can't argue, because I feel the same way about awesome. Let us join ranks and fight the barbarians!
posted by languagehat at 11:03 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
That's very gracious of you, much appreciated. My point (now rendered somewhat moot) was that it didn't make sense to object to phenomenal = 'great' because phenomenal doesnt' "mean" 'great' (i.e., it "really" means 'having to do with phenomena'), but I see now that isn't your objection, you simply feel (if I'm understanding you) that it's lazily overused. In which case I can't argue, because I feel the same way about awesome. Let us join ranks and fight the barbarians!
posted by languagehat at 11:03 AM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
Consider the ranks joined. I really wish 'awful' could make a comeback in its older meaning, though.
posted by lodurr at 11:34 AM on September 23, 2008
posted by lodurr at 11:34 AM on September 23, 2008
A New Yorker article on Peter Pronovost, one of this year's fellows, was featured earlier.
Ah-ha, that's the post I was referring to in my earlier comment; thanks for finding it.
posted by TedW at 11:56 AM on September 23, 2008
Ah-ha, that's the post I was referring to in my earlier comment; thanks for finding it.
posted by TedW at 11:56 AM on September 23, 2008
I assume Alex Ross was chosen more for his recent book than for letting the world know that radiohead was ok.
For people interested Ross' recent book, they might wish to read David Toop's Ocean of Sound, released back in 2001.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:53 PM on September 23, 2008
For people interested Ross' recent book, they might wish to read David Toop's Ocean of Sound, released back in 2001.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:53 PM on September 23, 2008
Wow, thanks domakesaypat, that review of Alex Ross' book looks suprisingly awesome (yes awesome! LH). I mean, come on people: "Incredibly nourishing." — Björk. He spent seven years writing it and it is the extensive history of classical music in the 20th Century. Personally, I'll be putting it high on my list of books I don't have to to read but will anyways. It's been out for a year, has anyone here read it?
posted by kaspen at 1:01 PM on September 23, 2008
posted by kaspen at 1:01 PM on September 23, 2008
Have read Alex Ross's book. It's not a bad book. It's a thoughtful book. It's decently well researched. There is nothing wrong with the book. It does not light my fire.
Now, if you want to read a really really good book about classical music in US culture, I recommend Michael Long's Beautiful Monsters: Imagining the Classic in Musical Media which is just out from the University of California Press.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:20 PM on September 23, 2008
Now, if you want to read a really really good book about classical music in US culture, I recommend Michael Long's Beautiful Monsters: Imagining the Classic in Musical Media which is just out from the University of California Press.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:20 PM on September 23, 2008
Peter Pronovost's work was also discussed in one of Atul Gawande's books. Atul Gawande is also a MacArthur winner. The Nepotism! (I kid! Gawande is an amazing writer, and his writeup of Pronovost made me think he had some great ideas.)
posted by HighTechUnderpants at 2:12 PM on September 23, 2008
posted by HighTechUnderpants at 2:12 PM on September 23, 2008
Seems relevant today: When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management.
posted by raysmj at 2:21 PM on September 23, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by raysmj at 2:21 PM on September 23, 2008 [2 favorites]
Sorry, why is that relevant? The recipients do not, as far as I can tell, consider themselves geniuses. The MacArthur Foundation does not call them geniuses. Some yutz at a newspaper came up with it.
posted by rtha at 3:42 PM on September 23, 2008
posted by rtha at 3:42 PM on September 23, 2008
If I were a rich person, I'd also set up a foundation that helped the overachievers. duh! But I'd focus on scientists not entertainers. Entertainment may trickle down better than corporate cash hand outs, but science does it way better.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:51 PM on September 23, 2008
posted by jeffburdges at 4:51 PM on September 23, 2008
More artists, less critics please. And no, no amount of criticism can be raised to the level of an art form. Sorry alex.
Just like this comment here doesn't qualify either, no matter how many times i manage to cram reasons for or against anything into words.
Liking or disliking things does not make you a genius, making things very few could ever dare to try does.
Walter Kitundu deserves it, as do most of these -- i can't wait until i get recognized well enough to deserve a million dollars.
posted by phylum sinter at 5:12 PM on September 23, 2008
Just like this comment here doesn't qualify either, no matter how many times i manage to cram reasons for or against anything into words.
Liking or disliking things does not make you a genius, making things very few could ever dare to try does.
Walter Kitundu deserves it, as do most of these -- i can't wait until i get recognized well enough to deserve a million dollars.
posted by phylum sinter at 5:12 PM on September 23, 2008
And no, no amount of criticism can be raised to the level of an art form.
Right, because you say so. Thanks for your unimpeachable insight. I guess criticism can close up shop and slink away, now that you've told it what's what.
posted by languagehat at 5:16 PM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
Right, because you say so. Thanks for your unimpeachable insight. I guess criticism can close up shop and slink away, now that you've told it what's what.
posted by languagehat at 5:16 PM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
no amount of criticism can be raised to the level of an art form
THESE GRANTS AREN'T ONLY FOR ARTISTS.
t I'd focus on scientists not entertainers
MANY MACARTHUR GRANTS ARE FOR SCIENTISTS.
Does nobody RTFA?
To quote the MacArthur Foundation Fellowship website:
Recipients may be writers, scientists, artists, social scientists, humanists, teachers, entrepreneurs, or those in other fields, with or without institutional affiliations. They may use their fellowship to advance their expertise, engage in bold new work, or, if they wish, to change fields or alter the direction of their careers.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:49 PM on September 23, 2008 [2 favorites]
THESE GRANTS AREN'T ONLY FOR ARTISTS.
t I'd focus on scientists not entertainers
MANY MACARTHUR GRANTS ARE FOR SCIENTISTS.
Does nobody RTFA?
To quote the MacArthur Foundation Fellowship website:
Recipients may be writers, scientists, artists, social scientists, humanists, teachers, entrepreneurs, or those in other fields, with or without institutional affiliations. They may use their fellowship to advance their expertise, engage in bold new work, or, if they wish, to change fields or alter the direction of their careers.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:49 PM on September 23, 2008 [2 favorites]
"Focus" is a polite way to exclude everyone else.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:19 PM on September 23, 2008
posted by jeffburdges at 6:19 PM on September 23, 2008
rtha: Cause it's the way people talk about it. Look, someone led off with the "genius grant" here today. Someone last week told a poster (a troll, no doubt) that David Foster Wallace shouldn't have been talked about the way he was, or something to that effect, 'cause this foundation had thought well enough of him to award him a genius grant. I imagine DFW would have set the person who said that straight, but reading that sort of thing gets old. And I have a doctorate. I'm not anti-intellectual. But different people have different talents, they're not smart at everything, the can be smart and intelligent but still end up making moronic decisions in groups, let their egos get the best of them, etc.
posted by raysmj at 6:56 PM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by raysmj at 6:56 PM on September 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
unless the writing so originally frames the making that our understanding is radically refreshed.
I think Ross' The Rest Is Noise does that, it's a terrific and wonderfully accessible book about some normally very inaccessible music. I already know a great deal about his subject matter in that book yet enjoyed it tremendously.
Ross' advocacy throughout all of his writing is not as facile as 'Radiohead is cool because they listen to Messiaen', give me a break--he's framing, explaining, advocating, and sharing the joy of not only great music of all kinds, but of more substantive, attentive and deeper listening more generally. That's no mean feat in a culture where most major newspapers and magazines employ very few if any serious culture writers, and where the musical art is most often relegated to the status of diversion.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:30 PM on September 23, 2008
I think Ross' The Rest Is Noise does that, it's a terrific and wonderfully accessible book about some normally very inaccessible music. I already know a great deal about his subject matter in that book yet enjoyed it tremendously.
Ross' advocacy throughout all of his writing is not as facile as 'Radiohead is cool because they listen to Messiaen', give me a break--he's framing, explaining, advocating, and sharing the joy of not only great music of all kinds, but of more substantive, attentive and deeper listening more generally. That's no mean feat in a culture where most major newspapers and magazines employ very few if any serious culture writers, and where the musical art is most often relegated to the status of diversion.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:30 PM on September 23, 2008
the can be smart and intelligent but still end up making moronic decisions in groups, let their egos get the best of them, etc.
Yes, but the MacArthur fellows are not a "group." They make no joint decisions. They are artists and writers and researchers and teachers and doctors and musicians. They may or may not be influential in their fields - the MacArthur grants usually come to the recipients when they're fairly young, not as a reward for work done (or not just that), but as encouragement to explore and expand their future work.
Your analogy about how "genius" bankers are like "genius" grant recipients, and the bankers make horrendous mistakes that crash our economy despite being "geniuses", therefore MacArthur recipients...what? Might bring the world of basket weaving down? Amaze kids with sound effects at the Exploratorium? Implement better treatment regimens for people with HIV/AIDS?
Your analogy makes no sense to me.
posted by rtha at 7:59 PM on September 23, 2008
Yes, but the MacArthur fellows are not a "group." They make no joint decisions. They are artists and writers and researchers and teachers and doctors and musicians. They may or may not be influential in their fields - the MacArthur grants usually come to the recipients when they're fairly young, not as a reward for work done (or not just that), but as encouragement to explore and expand their future work.
Your analogy about how "genius" bankers are like "genius" grant recipients, and the bankers make horrendous mistakes that crash our economy despite being "geniuses", therefore MacArthur recipients...what? Might bring the world of basket weaving down? Amaze kids with sound effects at the Exploratorium? Implement better treatment regimens for people with HIV/AIDS?
Your analogy makes no sense to me.
posted by rtha at 7:59 PM on September 23, 2008
Before I clicked on that link I knew it was going to be for Elizabeth Barber's book. She was my first linguistics teacher and is largely responsible for there being a languagehat at all
Great to hear; I picked up a used copy at a thrift store a few weeks ago. The reviews looked fabulous so I moved it up a few spots in my to-read pile. Now it's at the top.
posted by mediareport at 8:25 PM on September 23, 2008
Great to hear; I picked up a used copy at a thrift store a few weeks ago. The reviews looked fabulous so I moved it up a few spots in my to-read pile. Now it's at the top.
posted by mediareport at 8:25 PM on September 23, 2008
rtha: Jesus, I was using group in a generic sense, not in re to the foundation. And of course it's easy to imagine controversy with AIDS treatments, the world of medicine generally and genetic research, etc. There's already plenty! These are some of the most controversial policy areas there are.
posted by raysmj at 8:52 PM on September 23, 2008
posted by raysmj at 8:52 PM on September 23, 2008
Any fiber stuff that's yarn-related gets automagically relegated to "crafty craft craft" status and doesn't generally get the sort of art recognition that painting, sculpture, etc does.
Well they did just appoint an expert on tapestries to head the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
posted by Jahaza at 11:17 PM on September 23, 2008
Well they did just appoint an expert on tapestries to head the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
posted by Jahaza at 11:17 PM on September 23, 2008
I think Ross' The Rest Is Noise does that, it's a terrific and wonderfully accessible book about some normally very inaccessible music
As a complete musical illiterate I found it harshly inaccessible. I read about 50% before deciding I had no idea what he was talking about ("major fourth this, minor ninth that, blah blah blah") and gave up. I'm not proud of that, but I don't think he's given "casual readers new ways of thinking about the music of the past and its place in our future."
posted by roofus at 4:05 AM on September 24, 2008
As a complete musical illiterate I found it harshly inaccessible. I read about 50% before deciding I had no idea what he was talking about ("major fourth this, minor ninth that, blah blah blah") and gave up. I'm not proud of that, but I don't think he's given "casual readers new ways of thinking about the music of the past and its place in our future."
posted by roofus at 4:05 AM on September 24, 2008
Sorry to be late to the party, and my comment is buried in the snark, but can I put in a hurray for Will Allen? I got to know him a little last year and if there is a foundation award for the biggest heart, that would be the guy I would give it to. Will is warm, outrageously funny, visionary and deadly serious about improving the world and the stuff we eat. He's about 6'9" and has hands the size of frying pans that he uses to shake yours in a warm embrace. The guy rocks and it's great that he got tapped for a fellowship.
I now return you to the ironically stupid nitpicking.
posted by salishsea at 3:36 AM on October 23, 2008
I now return you to the ironically stupid nitpicking.
posted by salishsea at 3:36 AM on October 23, 2008
« Older This one's for the history nerds | Buy My Sh*t Pile, Henry! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by From Bklyn at 4:49 AM on September 23, 2008