That article is drivel. I recall a time when I thought the more verbose I wrote, the more succinct my point would be. I thought it was a manner in distinguishing the educated reader from the knuckle-draggers. I was also 24. The years have brought me to the conclusion that, in the written form, what you say is as important as how you say it. Because, the point is to make a statement and argue that statement – particularly in critique. If a writer is writing a criticism of a person’s artistic venture, it’s of great importance to be clear and to address the merits of the work directly. One might say the article is a form of prose but it reads clunky. It’s cumbersome writing.
I gather that the point of the article, its snooty, grandiose point is that Nola Rising shouldn’t be out encouraging common folk to paint and draw because “art” has no business in the hands of those whose ability is lacking.
Yes, I know about opinions and what they have in common with assholes. But “it’s just my opinion” is a weak argument. Everyone has a right to an opinion so who cares? It’s a Twitter era and an opinion has never meant so little. But does the opinion have merit? Is it presented in an understandable manner?
John Paul Marat, in reference to your article on Michael Dingler, the answer is no. Your article is trash.
Perhaps you may have made a point that was worth arguing. Debates over the merits of art make wonderful discourse. Unfortunately, the article was so filled with your own clumsy gymnastics and your obvious need to show off your vocabulary that you created a piece that is drowned in its own weight. Too much of everything, a maximalist piece of ego, a puddle of cat piss in the carpet.
You chose to fill your work with poorly written sentences like…
Your typical downtown New Orleans street is marred by a noxious mischief monotonous in its ubiquity: A sloppy scribble in a 10-year-old’s handwriting, an oeuvre nonetheless certainly scrawled by a miscreant old enough to be the child’s father.
Alliteration is great in certain types of poetry and lyrics. In commentary and prose it draws the reader away from your point and toward your writing which shouldn’t be the focus but often becomes so in the hands of young or inexperienced writers.
Graffiti reflects our most absurd democratic predilections and inexorable capitalist pressures, where faux urban wranglers driving costly and soon to be obsolete pick-up trucks listen to codified, unimaginative pop music with a Tennessee accent and barroom-brawl lyrics and don designer cowboy hats, all in an affected effort to stake a claim on the inheritance of an idyllic and abandoned rural America.
It is never stated how the diversion into what is wrong with America is the cause or effect of Nola Rising. Or if it is it is so shrouded in triple-weaved literature that it is lost. Ambiguous statements are uttered throughout but no references are made as to the how or why. Much of the article is devoted to the Fall of America (a subject that one doesn’t have to walk very far down the street to find another purveyor of), but it devotes very little to making the connection to Dingler. The article just arrogantly and ignorantly trudges on. We all know the Universe is falling apart, why is this the fault of Nola Rising? You fail to make this point, the only point that was your charge when you began punching keys. The degradation of America is played, we all know about it. You aren’t covering new ground. This is great bad writing.
Ben Johnson correctly perceived
Edmund Burke stated that
composer Robert Schumann’s aesthetic
Thus spoke George Bernard Shaw
If, as in Picasso’s words
That’s five direct quotes. Fella, don’t rely on others to do your talking. It’s stronger writing when you say it yourself. People will buy what you are saying if you stand behind it with your own words and not twisting the words of others. Just use your own statements so no one can come along and say, “That’s not what Shaw meant…”
If, as in Picasso’s words “art is the elimination of the unnecessary”, then the Dinglerization of America applies – but not to the art part. Like Wordsworth’s, let’s hope his words are prophetic as well.
This sentence is all tossed up. Not sure who the “his” refers too. Wordsworth, Dingler or Picasso? And really, adding “ization” to someone’s name is not original, I did it two years ago. Above all, be original. Don’t be derivative.
Though it is funny that the Picasso quote about eliminating the unnecessary was utilized because there could be some serious fat trimmed from the overall commentary. Thanks for providing that quote. I have never heard of it before but it applies perfectly to the article. Though I do wonder if you made the connection.
And also, I hope your parents named you John Paul Marat rather than it being a pen name. Because it’s cowardly to anonymously critique the arts and it’s also an awful pseudonym. Perhaps next time you could go all out and call yourself Maximilien Robespierre.
Dingler’s response here.