cris wrote:
> Irritated by this ongoing assertions of
> an absolute hierarchy of value.
Hmm, I've been wondering about that one. I agree with cris as to the
inherent problem of a canon and absolute hierarchy of values, but I would
suggest that what really pisses us all off is that it's SOMEONE ELSE'S
goddam canon. I´ve got mine (in which btw Haydn figures higher up the list
than WAM) and I'm quite happy with it, and I assume the rest of you are too
with yours.
To suggest that none of us has a *personal* hierarchy of values is
erroneous, otherwise we would not be able to say that "x is good and y is
bad", and I'd print thousands of pages of crap in Shearsman (some of you
might well think that anyway - personal hierarchy of values etc).
The real problem arises when we inadvertently raise our personal
hierarchies to universal status - which we do every time we opine that x is
great, and that Haydn or Ligeti is better than the Spice Girls (which in
either case I would defend to the bitter end, actually). It's a reflex: how
many times have you all said of a work of whatever nature - "this is
brilliant (or crap), way superior to the Spice Girls' first album", etc.
The moment that occurs you are imposing an absolute (gasp, non-democratic)
canon upon others.
So, what do we do? Well, we continue to bitch about, say, Andrew Motion's
declarations as to the existence of a canon, and we all continue to
construct our own. Fine by me, and quite stimulatng actually. Though I
would like to hear, some time, a reasoned argument as to why the Spice
Girls first album is better than Messiaen's "Des canyons aux etoiles", for
instance.
Tony
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|