When artist and friend No(that's his name) asked me to comment on whether his lover and muse --rock star Innita-- would be better received by critics if she had smaller breasts and clothed herself more, I was reminded of Paris' story and the perils of taking sides in arguments about women's looks; however, in matters of aesthetics is better to have a Trojan war than a cop out, so I've accepted to weigh in.
I guess the question could be answered statistically, a-la rotten tomatoes. However, the enduring success of Dolly Parton alone would be enough to skew any numerical results, so a philosophical answer is in order.
"Would critics receive better a clothed, A-cup Innita?" Let's break down the problem. Which critics are we talking about? Low, mid, or highbrow?
First of all, there's no such thing as a lowbrow critic, only lowbrow consumers. like camels they eat what they're fed.The predilection for larger breasts in this camp is guaranteed.
The midbrow is characterized by dissent and a contrarian attitude. Critics of this ilk are guaranteed to oppose Innita, they are in love with Audrey Hepburn anyway.
And the highbrow? Well Nietszche readers probably have guessed where I'm going talking about three levels, camels and so forth [1], and all i can say is this: i have yet to see the first child who doesn't love a big pair of tits.
Fabio Arciniegas A., San Diego, CA January 2010
[1]. "Of three metamorphoses of the spirit I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel; and the camel, a lion; and the lion, finally, a child. Thus spoke Zarathustra."
http://www.flickr.com/photos/noparainnita/sets/72157619469279744
Thnx Fabio, frank and to-the-point,
RépondreSupprimerdo you have a flickr account to put yourself this comment in my flickr's collective debate ?
STEP BY STEP
RépondreSupprimercamel will take everything upon it's shoulder, just like the man who read and study. the modern type.
lion will cast and rip the weight off. he'll lose the baggage of tradition in benefit of his own personal path.
child is to awake in fearless-after-innocence.
but i may add:
the child would love ONE big sweaty tit. two tits? why bother?
in regarding the critics, i have this typology of my own.
1. the landlord;
2. the Icontec type; and
3. the Oedipus.
perhaps i'll manage to devolpe these later.
abrazo primo
A
HA HA HA!!! brilliant. As usual.
RépondreSupprimerI would love to hear the development, but I understand the triad already!
en español hay un vocablo que designa bien el primer tipo:
RépondreSupprimerdómine. 2. despect. persona que, sin mérito para ello, adopta el tono de maestro.
porque es distinto el caso de Deleuze o de Foucault. ellos toman ejemplos de la literatura y el arte, para desarrollar conceptos que ya sospechan o han esbozado en sus libretas. eso no es crítica, sino filosofía.
Deleuze, por ejemplo, plantea la noción de "el cuerpo sin órganos", a partir de un brevísimo verso de Antonin Artaud, que dice: hay que fabricarse un cuerpo sin órganos para librarse de todos sus automatismos.
o la idea del bogavante, tomada del final de Trópico de Capricornio, cuando Miller dice que a partir de entonces tendrá dos sexos y articulaciones dobles.
the landlord, en cambio, es un tipo que quisiera hacer pasar al artista por el humilladero de su reputación, antes de regalarlo con su aval, como si fuera mucha cosa.
los romanos disponían unos aparatos en los campos de batalla, denominados “horcas caudinas”; un conjunto de varas, lanzas entrecruzadas que formaban un pórtico, para obligar a pasar por debajo a los vencidos.
naturalmente, un verdadero artista es alguien demasiado soberano como para caer en esa trampa.
para este género de críticos sólo tiene su espesa baba blanca:
“quiero escribir pero me sales espuma, / quiero escribir pero me vuelvo puma”;
decía César Vallejo.
éste es sólo el primer tipo.
es brillante todo lo que hace, primo,
A