Grotesque Anatomy
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
The Objectiveness of My Opinion
Just getting caught up on blog-reading and noticed the escalating dispute between Alan David Doane and Laura Gjovaag. ADD has spurred a lot of discussion by nominating this Seth cover as "the best superhero cover of the last decade." While others have joined in to wonder just what criteria ADD is using in order to reach this assessment (nostalgia? simplicity? staticness?), Laura seems to be the most flummoxed by ADD's pick, writing that ADD must be "pulling people's leg" (I like the thought of many people sharing one collective leg--a leg at peace until ADD started tugging on it).
What interests me most in this ongoing argument is that both sides seem to think their opinions are objective truth, yet neither offers any support for his or her position. Why does ADD think Seth's superhero covers are even worth looking at, given that he also pronounces "superheroes are dead"? No idea! Why does Laura think that portraits of Aquaman surrounded by small fish are "tons better at being superhero covers" than group shots of the X-Men or JSA? Beats me! Neither side has seen fit to explain the criteria behind his or her evaluation.
I know it's natural to lapse into objective speak when writing about art or entertainment. I'm sure I do it too (or at least I've been trying to, since I'm told my overly qualified subjective statements are too passive and boring), but it'd be nice to see some reasoning behind those opinions. Laura, if you simply assert that your picks are obviously better than ADD's, how are you being any less snobby or dismissive than ADD?
Plus, you're both wrong anyway. This is the best superhero cover of the past decade:
Dude! Look at the size of that gun!! AWESOME!!
EDIT: Damn. Just after I posted this, I noticed that ADD did explain why he thinks the Seth cover is worthy of praise in this entry from 12/6:
Just getting caught up on blog-reading and noticed the escalating dispute between Alan David Doane and Laura Gjovaag. ADD has spurred a lot of discussion by nominating this Seth cover as "the best superhero cover of the last decade." While others have joined in to wonder just what criteria ADD is using in order to reach this assessment (nostalgia? simplicity? staticness?), Laura seems to be the most flummoxed by ADD's pick, writing that ADD must be "pulling people's leg" (I like the thought of many people sharing one collective leg--a leg at peace until ADD started tugging on it).
What interests me most in this ongoing argument is that both sides seem to think their opinions are objective truth, yet neither offers any support for his or her position. Why does ADD think Seth's superhero covers are even worth looking at, given that he also pronounces "superheroes are dead"? No idea! Why does Laura think that portraits of Aquaman surrounded by small fish are "tons better at being superhero covers" than group shots of the X-Men or JSA? Beats me! Neither side has seen fit to explain the criteria behind his or her evaluation.
I know it's natural to lapse into objective speak when writing about art or entertainment. I'm sure I do it too (or at least I've been trying to, since I'm told my overly qualified subjective statements are too passive and boring), but it'd be nice to see some reasoning behind those opinions. Laura, if you simply assert that your picks are obviously better than ADD's, how are you being any less snobby or dismissive than ADD?
Plus, you're both wrong anyway. This is the best superhero cover of the past decade:
Dude! Look at the size of that gun!! AWESOME!!
EDIT: Damn. Just after I posted this, I noticed that ADD did explain why he thinks the Seth cover is worthy of praise in this entry from 12/6:
Seth's subtle, post-iconic treatment captures the lost innocence of the Silver Age with grace and an appealing sentimentality, being far kinder to the characters and their fans than anyone who has been officially charged with maintaining the franchise in the past 15 years or so.My apologies to ADD for missing this. I guess he is willing to back up opinions no one else agrees with. That's what I get for slacking off on my weekend blog reading. (I'm now off to re-read Laura's blog, where I fully expect to find a passage explaining how the Aquaman portrait covers grab readers' attention by causing them to wonder, "Wha--? How can that man be surrounded by fish?? And why does he look so...regal? It's almost as if he were King of the Seas or something...")
