*** Gave this post a quick read through after I initially typed it... This is going to look more like a rant than anything. However, this is just an initial exploration into the oversimplification or snap judgments I am seeing at an alarmingly increasing rate that I felt compelled to start addressing. ***
Many a times, we talk to our peers regarding that brilliant TV show, movie, artist, etc. The usual exchange of such conversations tend to follow the lines of 'have you seen/heard of such and such?' after which, it is usually followed by 'no, what is it' or 'I heard about it, but tell me more.' It's often from such conversations with peers whose taste one trusts that allows for expansion of an experience, so as to say.
I know for myself, I would never have tried to listen to a certain type of music or artist/group had it not been for the trust that I have in some of my peer's music taste. Same goes for a different set of peers for whose taste in movies I trust. This goes on for many other things, such as editorials/op-eds, etc.
This taste or credibility will no doubt vary between person to person. For example, I look for solid character development and a complex, yet believable plot or a storyline in which values or a stance is conveyed in movies. I fully understand that not everyone shares that approach and instead is looking for something that purely provides entertainment and nothing more. It's not that I have anything against that (though in many cases, those who know me well have heard my rants about such approaches - this will be explored in a future post), as mentioned before, everyone has their preference.
Having said that, there's a particular group of people I'd like to point out. The type that for some reason values their own opinions above anyone else. Now, don't get me wrong, of course we'd like to think we're right in the decisions we make or the taste in something we've come to assume. However, I'm singling out the ones that has an opinion about something that they are not knowledgeable about.
A good example of such a person can be best described by the sample conversation.
Person A: "Have you watched 'The Thing'? It's quite possibly one of the most under-rated horror movies out there."
Person B: "No, and because I have never heard of it, it must not be good, because I like horror movies."
Many of us have encountered a conversation with Person B before. The very quick to judge types, how very convenient and easy for him or her to proclaim that just because they have never heard of it, it must not be good and thus not worth looking into it or bothering about it at all.
Most of the time, I honestly believe this is down to ignorance, be it pure or assumed. It is extremely interesting especially when this comes out of whose taste you don't trust. In many of my cases, it came from those who had a specific taste in movies and had no desire or interest in expanding or branching out.
Here's where my problem with this approach comes about. You're assuming that your taste is good, when in all honesty, that has to be verified. Is your view on movies valued by others? If so, are their views also valued by their peers? What I'm trying to get at is, do you have an authority or credibility in passing such judgment? If that is the case, then people will be coming to you to ask your views on which (in this case) movies to watch, what to look out for, etc. If one's skills are more refined, you'd be writing reviews, analysis, etc for your own blog, a contributing site, etc and getting comments about the quality of your insights and such.
What posses one to have the audacity to consider their own opinion on something so highly? There are so many bodies of work out there. It is almost impossible to dig through all movies or music unless your life is dedicated to a particular form. For one to simply blurt that just because one has never heard of it, it must be bad is a gross simplification of what could otherwise be an opportunity for one to judge a body of work for themselves. How many times have you been surprised or disappointed when giving a movie you've never heard of or watched with past knowledge a chance? Have you even considered a slight possibility that maybe the reason why you've never heard of it is because your sources may not be good? Where do you obtain your information from? What sort of authority do you have to back up the fact that your sources are good? Just because you get all of your sources from the same 5 sources for the past 3 years and you seem to be happy with what they provide are not necessarily compelling reasons why you came to such a judgment.
I find it extremely disrespectful especially when such comments come from those who have none or little background or knowledge on the work that goes behind a production of a TV show, movie, music, etc. I myself don't know a lot, but have seen bits and pieces to at least admit that I know very little and that it's a very complicated process putting a work of art, be it good or bad, together. I am at least willing to keep an open mind about something, which probably explains why I have been more liberal with regards to trying out a new genre or music, movie or something else, so that I can at least judge a body of work for myself and expand my knowledge or refine my taste.
And for folks to assume that their taste is what needs to be catered, that's what I have an issue with. If you're the author of a book that is being adapted to a movie, then you have reasonable assumption that your thoughts or view will be catered to. If you sold your rights for the adaptation, you may lose a little influence on the input, but nevertheless, you're a stakeholder in the decision. Majority of the time, folks making the derogatory comments are ones who have absolutely no influence at all and feel they are entitled to pass their opinion just because they paid for it. The decision to pay for a movie or performance was never forced, it was completely voluntary, and even then, that still doesn't allow one to make snap judgments about a body of work.
What am I really trying to say here? In short, one has to be able to recognize that there is a significant difference in saying that you don't like something and calling something bad. I can recognize a piece of music and say I don't like it, but can admit that it's a good piece of work, as opposed to calling it bad altogether. I personally feel that there's an increasing movement of thought towards 'if i don't like it, then it's bad.' It takes a lot to admit your dislike for something, but at the same time recognizing the merits of it. There's plenty of movies I disliked, sometimes even hated, but I was able to recognize that there's appeals that caters to others. You have to be able to to recognize that not all forms of work are catered specifically for your taste and as a result, you can dislike a movie you have been waiting to see. It may appeal to a broad set of interested folks, but you have to be mature enough to recognize that it wasn't catered specifically for your taste.
What really makes one think that it's their very interest that's being catered to? What makes one think so highly of their taste and preferences? I've gone on a bit of a rant here instead of this being a more structured post (which was my original intent), but I'll plan on exploring this topic in a future post.
