Charlie Anders offers a brief report of Friday’s R. Crumb opening at the Yerba Buena and later opines that Crumb’s work is “more dated than the music videos from 1930-ish.” While I agree that Crumb’s tendency to reflect the 1960s’ counterculture has cast an undeniable imprint upon his work, I’m wondering if Charlie’s objections are more reflective of a general arts-related problem. A work may reflect a particular period decades later and thus appear “dated,” particularly when the past looms in recent memory. But is it not possible that, a decade or two down the line, it may end up reflecting something bold and innovative? Were Lovecraft’s tales, for examples, “dated” in the 1950s? Were Philip K. Dick’s novels “dated” in the 1980s? Given the ever-shifting nature of time, I’m wondering if “dated” is a valid criticism when discussing art. And I’m hoping to find some time to examine this interesting trajectory of critical reception at length in a future post.
Extrasis dead. Gervais and Merchant plan a one-off conclusion and that’s it. No third season.
The Orange Prize longlist has been announced. I’m not sure if Lionel Shriver’s The Post-Birthday World was released early enough to make the cut, but if it was, it is utterly criminal that Shriver’s spot was taken up by the ignoble Anne Tyler, who seems to have confused braying melodrama with “observation.” Oh well, at least we can be grateful that Chimamanda Adichie is on the list.
when i think of “dated” theses days i think of a.h.b.w.o.s.g and the adventures of augie march.
Are you and Ed Victor soul brothers?