1. Writers talking about jazz improvisation without actually knowing anything about jazz except that it's improvised. Can we be serious here?
2. Writers thinking that Andy Warhol brought actual soup cans into the gallery / museum, not realizing he painted quite painterly pictures of soup cans. (Yes, I just read an article that claimed that he just brought some actual soup cans to display.)
3. Generally, these kind of second hand remarks made by people who have no idea what they are talking about and just citing these things as cultural tropes, along the lines of the "Eskimos have so many words for snow" thinking. Be serious, people! You can't just cite Heisenberg on uncertainty if you actually have no clue.
4. Soviet symbols used as kitsch. Like people who think it's cute to have a CCCP conference (Contemporary conference ... something poetry.) I have to admit a coffee shop I frequent uses the hammer and sickle ironically in their logo. I'm not crazy about it.
2 comments:
Jonathan, with respect to item 3: be very glad that you do not work in the organization/management theory world. The approved manner of written discourse is to over-fill the paragraphs with citations, but report hearsay about those referenced works (things I read somewhere or maybe I heard in graduate school). What is the opposite of erudition? Ask Thomas about my assessment.
And I will sheepishly admit to bad behavior with respect to item 4. I have a wristwatch festooned with a Soviet Typhoon class submarine image and a CCCP -- in orange. Does this negate my rights to the first half of my comment?
In any case, thank you for what you post in this blog. It makes my days more pleasant.
I am glad that I am not in that field. I guess one comment does not negate the other, since I don't expect everyone to share my exact set of quirky preferences.
Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
Post a Comment