On Klosterman

This all started with the idea of making a short monthly digest called "Fort Grunt Recommends" and then I dared to make negative comments about Chuck Klosterman. Maybe something in here worth keeping so I posted it. This got a little messy, so I've cleaned it up by making me red and ben blue, and having the text get darker as it goes through the thread. The dotted lines signal when the thread was finished, which, oddly enough was when I would win. Weird.

(lou)

I think there is something disingenuous about his populism; in one article he says things being under or over-rated by saying that only has to do with critics and what they say shouldn't mean anything, but he is certainly aware that by talking about billy joel at all, he's saying he's thinks joel is underrated in some way.

(ben)

I'm having trouble understanding what you've written here. but either way, it seems to me like you can write about someone without thinking they should be valued higher. I think a more accurate way to look at it is, Klosterman thinks Billy Joel is under-analyzed, or under-examined or whatever. I think he makes it pretty clear in some earlier pieces that he doesn't like billy joel, but that he is using Joel to illustrate ideas about perceived coolness.

(lou)

Maybe there's another way of approaching this, but it's kind of annoying how he switches sides to appear more contrarian than he is, sometimes a little too much effort trying to appear to be an anti-hipster. To go with your point below, it is as easy as Patton going on about hippies; nobody takes
hipsters seriously either so why belabor the point?

(ben)

I don't know what Klosterman did to hurt your hipster feelings, but on his behalf, I'm sorry.

(lou)

(in Petre voice) Nooooooo. Maybe this has more to do with considering the audience- do the Spin articles articles do more hipster bashing than the Esquire? I don't remember the ESPN ones ever doing that, though he doesn't seem to need to bash the sports obsessives that would also be easy targets. I guess I'm just wondering if he's building that in to make sure he's not confused with hipsters. This probably isn't important overall to his work but comes off a little pre-emptively defensive.

(ben)

I pretty much only read him in the books, so I'm not sure about how he reads in the various sources. But I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with writing towards your audience, or away from them, depending.

(lou)

That's what I'm saying. So maybe there's also something there- what makes Klosterman so readable in book form, given that we pretty much both blew right through it, versus say Lawrence Weschler? I'm beginning to think I overrated LW, it was a real struggle to get through the last essay collection (Vermeer in Bosnia), like he's gotten lazy working for McSweeney's and the fawning that I imagine that happens to him over there. Maybe Klosterman is more cued into the audience, but also has somehow been helped out by different editorial staffs, etc.

Could be CK is just a better writter, but is there a vein running through the work that's missing from someone like Weschler? Seems like Weschler's recent obsession with coincidences (or "convergences") was destroyed for me in Mobius Dick...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(lou)

Also, and I don't think he mentions it in this book, but his discounting of punk and post punk music ("punk rock is patently ridiculous" "no good music was made in 1979") also seems to be posturing or baiting to the people who would read him consistantly.

(ben)

Two things here, one, if he is baiting people, it doesn't seem very different than Patton Oswalt going on about hating hippies. Two, the vast majority of people who like punk rock (like the vast majority of people period) are annoying, and the more devoted they are to it, the more annoying they can be. To me his stance is similar to his stance on politics. anyone who self identifies as a democrat or republican (or punk rock fan) doesn't have anything to tell Klosterman about music. - You can see a related response from Peter Bagge, who did Hate out of Seattle during the grunge era and now only only listens to 14 year old Britney Spears clones.

(lou)

I think your response has more to do with you than klosterman or anything else, in particular your problems with anyone who is into anything. I mean, in your repulsion from comics people, or tai chi people, or artists. Is that the appeal of a Klosterman, who seems to be a generalist even when he tells of all his KISS knowledge... maybe acknowledging your fear? Is this another thing Klosterman does to appear to be an anti-hipster?

(ben)

I think he's coming at it from the same angle that I am. As someone's dedication to a thing increases, they tend to put blinders on regarding that things faults, and tend to unfairly amplify that thing's good qualities. Note I say tend, because where this gets dicey is with someone like you, or... (not very many other people I know) where you can be both enthusiastic about something while still being honest about that thing's negatives.

It's something I struggle with, I tend to be overly hard on the things I'm interested in, because I don't want to fool myself into thinking about something inaccurately. So in some ways I'm probably the worst person to talk to about, say, the health benefits of taiji. because I tend to downplay the positives and equate the benefits with those derived from other, similar exercises.

I'm trying to come up with a counterexample for the discussion. Can you think of anyone who writes about music (for instance) from the perspective that you would prefer? The only example I can think of (maybe) is Pauline Kael in film, but it's not the same thing really.

(lou)

Well, in regards to you- I can understand playing it down to other people... do you think that comes from working somewhere for six years where being good at your job isn't really that prized? Seems to me you have no problem with being good about art, work, tai chi withI think one of the benefits of grad school was getting that out of my system, at least in terms of just being into my work and other people's work, and not losing too much criticality in the process. It seems like this mostly happens for people when they are into a particular technique, or whatever their obsession is- I think I've been learning to smoke that out faster from people, it's particularly hard to take when it doesn't even seem like they're into that particular thing, just using it to bullshit people (like the health benefits of tai chi.)

Thinking it over though, I have gotten by on enthusiasm or work ethic/production in spite of glaring errors in conceptual or formal elements in my work. I don't think people didn't see them, just that they didn't say anything, given the number of people in the program with no enthusiasm or work ethic. This flares up occasionally at the Fort, in part b/c of the publicness of the space, when some says something about the space always changing, etc. That said, it's easy to lose sight of bigger goals and get enraptured of technique, careerism, how you're perceived, etc.

(ben)

I think it comes from not liking people who preach to the choir more than working here. I don't think being good at your job is prized most places. I have no problem trying to do good work (art, library, tai chi), nor do I have a problem being critical of people who don't, or the work they produce. With your second point, I think people get taken in by enthusiasm and confidence, and frequently lack the ability to take a step back and evaluate what they're actually seeing (or hearing, or whatever). The same way the hot girl in your high school really wasn't one of the more attractive girls, she had just built up this gestalt of being the hot girl and nothing would change that. I'd rather be "right" about liking something, rather than wrong about disliking something. right here referring to not getting fooled by enthusiasm, confidence, everyone else liking it...whatever.

(lou)

As far as work- maybe the appeal of teaching is, no matter what your colleagues think, if you're good at it at least some of your students appreciate it. I imagine at least some of your tai chi students appreciate your efforts, dedication, etc even if they don't say it. That of course is a whole other thread... the curse of the co-worker.

Nice analogy for coasting. I know exactly who you're talking about.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(lou)

That said, the fact that he's published in Esquire, ESPN, Spin, and the NYTimes Magazine is great, though he would also argue against that (re: the notion that something you like getting popular isn't something you should be happy about). So is Klosterman the Christopher Hitchens of our generation?

no.

You might be wrong about that. Reread earlier Hitchens, with the name-dropping and strawman arguments. Klosterman is in danger of drifting that way.

nuh uh

yuh huh.

derp

Touche
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(lou)

Also- I think he discounts the effect listening to shit like Billy Joel does to someone who's working creatively. No one who loves Billy Joel will ever make anything good. Ever.

(ben)

You're switching your argument midstream here. Klosterman (apparently) listens to, or listened to, Billy Joel. He writes good essays. So what's the effect been so far on him?

(lou)

That's why i put that separate from the rest, i don't know if there's a bigger argument. though, i did say "loves", as in honest enjoys billy joel. i don't believe klosterman (i'm talking about a previous essay, not the one in IV). he does write good essays, but they're not airtight... maybe for the fgr's you can try and talk about the separation of the subject (which, particularly with the espn articles) from his main themes. i mean, he writes about "stuff" pretty well but I think what i was getting at was trying to figure out what his overarching themes are and how that holds up with essay writers like mencken, etc.

(ben)

your second sentence I agree with, mostly. Although in the same way that any book can technically be a primary source (depending on the context), so too can I see a situation where person could love billy joel and make something good.

(lou)

maybe, but i think that just opens anything up, that "good" becomes watered down. why bother thinking about what you read, just pick up whatever, watch whatever and make some shit. maybe that statement can be changed to "no one who loves billy joel will ever make anything great."

(ben)

Can outsider art be great? How similar to your taste does someone else's have to be for them to make great art? 80%? 50%? Are there specific qualities that they must be drawn to in art to make great things? Specific qualities that they must be repulsed by? If someone hated all art other than the works of Joseph Cornell and the music of Stephen Foster could they make great art? What about Jim Dine and Motorhead?

Not facetious questions. and I'm not being contrary to be contrary, so if you can answer any of these questions seriously I'll totally take it seriously. These are issues that I think about because I am drawn to a lot of work who's brilliance is not overt so much as hidden in the nooks and crannies of their bombasticity. for instance, I still think the best Jonathan Lethem is Gun with Occasional Music, which is easily his most genre specific. not because (I think) I'm simple, but because his voice seeks out the holes in genre's straitjacket. As he's gotten bolder and more creative/ambitious he's also gotten less interesting, less unique.

If I were trying to answer the questions, here's how I would. No, someone doesn't have to have the same taste I do, but their art has to have built in evidence that they've thought about what they consume. as a canny viewer I think I can tease that out of what they've done, although not in every case. Further if they've thought about what they consume, and they continue to consume what I think of as substandard work (dicey, we can talk about this tomorrow if you want. lunch?) then I might wonder how they see value in that work, to continue consuming it.

I don't know what they would have to be drawn to, but they would need to be repulsed by easy use of cliche, artifice, lack of truthfulness (in the john gardner definition of truthfulness) and overt pandering to the audience. If someone hated all art other than the works of JC and SF, they could make great art, because the constraint put on them by their taste would force them to explore more fully, plus JC and SF have enough meat to maintain a consumer's interest for extended viewing/thinking. If someone hated all but the work of JD and MH, probably not, because Dine is basically a one trick pony and Motorhead is an extended joke.

(But I'm not automatically ruling out someone's ability to like JD and MH and make great art, because stranger things have happened)

(lou)

First, you're wildly off base about Motorhead- joke or not, they fucking rock. Don't be afraid of that.

I think using the word "taste" seems to be code for belittling someone's attempts at honestly assessing what they consume and that work (art, lit, music, etc) can have a depth to it and the cumulative effect of this, combined with the same rigor in production, can create something bigger than yourself (for lack of a better term.) Well, in most cases taste may be the accurate word for it, if you're talking about something you like. Maybe there's a way to differentiate between things you would defend and things that didn't really bother you.

(ben)

I re-read one of the articles from the book, the one where he states most baldly the idea that anyone who thinks their taste is sacrosant automatically thinks good art has an inherent goodness, and is an idiot. How do you feel about that sentiment?

Maybe a profitable way to evaluate your contention about the impact people's honest attempts at understanding what they like has on their production would be to start picking artists who evince that quality, and then artists who don't, and see if there are trends taking shape. For instance, I know that Jeff Levine and Kevin Huizenga definitely fall under this category, just read their respective blogs. If they weren't creators, they'd make excellent book/film/comics critics. On the other side look at Clowes or Ware. They understand what they're looking at (in the same way I think Klosterman understands Joel) but they acknowledge that their daily arts intake is more on the crappy, or genre laden, or whatever side.

(Incidentally, in thinking about artists who fit into the one category or the other, Dan Zettwoch came up. He's a good example of someone who has good taste (whatever that means), analyzes what he consumes, seems very critical of his and his group of friend's work, and still makes crappy art. Another person I might put in this camp would be John Gardner. At his best he was only very good, a far cry from John Fowles (who is the most similar writer, but less systematic writer I can think of).

(lou)

So maybe that's Klosterman's project: that everything is interdependent and things that may seem inherently bad, taken in the larger picture, can be re-examined. I think that is another instance of dishonesty, that people who believe in inherent goodness in art are idiots or the stuff about culture winning or losing being stupid ("culture just is") is the extreme point he's staking out to make that bigger point. In a way it's related to Jon Stewart's relationship to politics and journalism, styling themselves as a kind of ombudsman, with a way out of having to be responsible for any bigger statement, or trying to make people think they have nothing at stake (or declaring that even when you know that's not true.)

I could list people I know who fit in the catregories you're talking about but it's pretty tough for artists, as their writings (contemporary artists in particular) aren't easy to find, you have to pick it up from the work. Or not. Something to think of in relation to our work- maybe laying these things a little more bare is something we can push for, I think most people (myself included) have had plenty of the enigma artist.

I guess I tend to try and see parallels to the velvet underground-stooges-ny dolls-ramones-80's indie rock-nirvana vein, where there are specific lineages, but things like daniel johnston can exist outside of it, but still be good. It still depends on how you interpret these things too- i'm thinking of banks violette, an artist who used goth imagery and sweedish death metal as a basis for his work, but it actually works, specifically the salt-cast timber church I had seen images of in the whitney last year. maybe in way, working within those tropes but then poking out of them. agreed on lethem, ...as she crawled across the table was good in that way too.

(ben)

I don't think it's accurate to conflate those bands. I think there is a massive qualitative difference between the Velvet Underground and the Ramones as compared to the Stooges and *definitely* compared to the NY dolls. I like all of them, but if I really take my blinders off for a second, I think V.U. and the Ramones stand on their own as excellent bands, the dolls and the stooges need the presence of what they inspired to make them good, because the music isn't as solid.

(lou)

But that's the lineage, you can alter it slightly (say, toss in Bowie and the Talking Heads and lead it to glam/new wave), but in no way are they necessarily equal. You can have some elements of a lineage weaker and some stronger but they "fit" in that way and in a way, it helps to understand that music to know where it came from, what came from it. At least for me- the same thing happened with learning the evolution of impressionism-post impressionism-cubism-abex-pop-conceptualism lineage. There are weaker and stronger elements in there to, and people that exist way outside of that like Klee, and in no way is the only way to look at it. But a useful start, no?

So maybe back to Klosterman- his constraint is specifically talking about pop culture and his relation to it, and how it relates to bigger themes in our Culture- so working out of Spin, Esquire, ESPN, he subverts the expected givens (like that Billy Joel sucks) and turns them on their head to rethink these givens. So what makes him g good, possibly great, at this, other than humor?

(ben)

Well, for me, I think that what makes him good is his ability to make connections between pop culture that actually resonate with thoughtful consumers of pop culture. Lots of people have his breadth and depth of knowledge, and try to make these sorts of connections (Michael Azzerad has done a bad job of it in the past, so has Greil Marcus. so does Nick Hornsby) but few can make them in a way that connects in an honest yet artful way. I suspect because most people let their personal preferences get too much in the way of the point they're trying to make.

(lou)

Does this go back to the idea of the librarian from The Man Without Qualities? That was an extreme example, but also a foil for the main character, that you can only truly know something by being totally objective, and not letting personal preferences or emotions into it. I don't get to read it too much, but the blog that John Darnielle was doing (Last Plane to Jakarta) is great because of his enthusiasm without losing sight of his criticallity- and maybe it's Klosterman's attempts at objectivity might, in the end, not make his work lasting. That the chances he's taking are relatively small.

I guess the other point is that, say with John, the enthusiasm isn't a buffer, but it somehow makes it seem more honest (and perhaps a reason to keep the fg recommendations positive and not be ripping stuff)- it seems like when Klosterman is saying something like "art has no intrinsic value" he's just doing that to be provocative, in the bad sense of the word. That's what's started this whole thing, my feeling that Klosterman is being slightly less than honest, and wondering if that is being used in the service of something bigger than what the individual articles are about, or just ot be clever.

But to go with an anti-Klosterman sentiment, he may just be better. Or have good timing- I always assumed there would be people who loved splattering paint, but in 17th century Venice that wouldn't get you anything, and now it would just be copying, but in 1950 it made total sense.

And to address the 50-80% thing- I don't even know if I need to have anything in common (about what I like) with someone, but it seems likely that we would if they're producing something that adds to what I like, whatever that is (something I respond to b/c of it's physicality or makes me rethink how i think about the world/culture/whatever, or even just what clicks with me formally (proportions, colors, melodies, phrasing of a sentence.) ) So the value of a klosterman is in re-seeing the totallity of what I take in and figuring out what has value and what doesn't, in the importance of that process. If I'm teaching or producing something, it should add to this in some way.


do you think we can boil all that shit on klosterman down to a thing for the fort grunt recommends? something along the lines of "a truly funny collection of essays from various magazines- these essays seem topical because of the variety of audiences he writes for (spin, espn, esquire, etc), but klosterman's main thesis seems to be the interdependence of cultural/creative items on each other, making you rethink the relationships thoughtful consumers of culture make when figuring out what is good. Much more relevant than Weschler, Hornby, Marcus or Azerad, it goes beyond chronicling mere coincidences in what seems to be an honest investigation of what is important in our current culture, while knowing how to write humorously and concisely, two things that cannot be overlooked when making an arguement."