Scott Parkin wrote: Chris, I was actually on your side up until you posted
this.
But not any more."
Someone on this site was "on my side?" I never sensed that from you, Scott,
philosophically or otherwise. And if others are, they have been deafeningly
silent, or posted one liners. I've even had the privilege of having other
popular LDS artists who follow AML email me and say, essentially, "Give it
up, Chris. I've tried to do what you're doing. And it won't work. They just
don't get it." *They, *I presume, being the majority of participants on this
forum.
"I can't speak for arguments you've had in the past with others, but the
condescension you exhibit in this post is far beyond anything I think I've
earned from you. My only request is that if you want to spout off at me,
please address what I've actually said rather than the ghosts of arguments
(and arguers) past."
My posts are generally made after reading numerous sorties and barrages
against me--usually philosophical and not personal, but sometimes QUITE
personal in their condemnation of me personally or my opinions. The
particular post that you pull from quotes from only began as a statement
addressing your post, and then expanded, and was never meant as
condescension or "spouting off" at you personally. But your offense seems
deep. I would have thought that anyone who expresses passionate opinions
would be more thickly skinned. I certainly am, and have been offended by
NOTHING said against me. I ENJOY this kind of vigorous exchange, maybe a
little too much. And must apologize if you interpreted such as personal
attacks. Never meant to be. My opinions are vigorious, and sometimes
inspired by frustration--"good-natured" frustration, if such a thing can be
said to exist--that basic tenets of my arguments are ignored and instead my
posts are parsed and nitpicked, culled through for statements that can be
isolated for potential weaknesses, while ignoring the overall sentiment and
message.
You offer a long laundry list of things that, I assume, are expressed to
earn you the status of a centrist (is this fair to assume?) though I cannot
find much in what you say that verifies that qualification. I ALSO defend
every Mormon's right to pursue whatever market or art that they wish. I just
point out the consequences, usually through pure economics, which in your
career I feel stymied did not pierce through for you. No calls for "book
burning" from me.
* I vigorously defend the right of every Mormon artist to pursue whatever
forms and conventions they believe will meet their audience's demand.
Cool.
* I vigorously defend the right of every Mormon audience to like whatever
they want to, and condemn elitist name-calling as both pointless and
unbecoming.
Are you on a compaign stump? Again, nothing wrong with the first part of
your podium pounding sentence, but the second half seems in direction
contradiction to the first half. You vigorously defend all EXCEPT those who
you perceive as anti-elitist or "name calling" or "unbecoming" by your
perception.
* I believe the Mormon audience represents a wider market than is
currently served by LDS publishers.
You are welcome to this belief. You can still take the sacrament. And most
of my arguments attempt to show how this can be done. Our disagree is one of
method, not basic philosophy.
* I wish the currently defined market all the good will in the world, and
continued service from the artists that serve them.
Sheesh! I hope you win this election.
* I think the currently defined LDS market is fairly narrow in scope.
Um...yeah? I don't think anyone disagrees.
* I think there are more good and righteous LDS buyers than are dreamed of
in the currently defined LDS marketplace, and that they deserve the same
kind of passionate art that has been produced for the current LDS
marketplace.
Too esoteric for me. Like I've said, most Latter-day Saints do not NEED
"passionate art" AT ALL and are not pulpit pounding about what they
"deserve." They're just regular folks who consume what they feel will best
benefit their families and do not require the kind of "mind expanding" art
that is so applauded on this forum.
* I believe that expanded market has been neither defined nor well served,
and those who first try to meet that audience's demands will work in
ignominy for some years yet to come.
Again, the abstraction serves no practical purpose. Despite all my rants, I
may actually be less inclined to label or define "artistic motivation" as
you are. Really, even those seeking to serve audience demands are still
limited by talent and imagination. Without these, "trying to meet" ANY
demand will be unsuccessful. Though esoteric--"elitist" art--is less often
criticized for being shallow or trite because of a pure lack of talent or
imagination.
Here are some things you probably don't know about me:
* This past Saturday I taught two workshops for the League of Utah Writers
annual convention where I vehemently argued for understanding 1) the
expectations of your target audience, and 2) the conventions of the
markets that serve them. It was called "Turning Research Into Writing: A
Pragmatist's Guide."
I barely understood your description of the argument that you are trying to
express, so I can't judge the content.
* I am currently employed as a marketing professional for a global
software company where I actively pursue customer feedback so we can build
product that actually meets market demand. My livelihood depends on
identifying and meeting market need.
Art (obviously from what we learn on this forum) is a far more personal and
emotional thing to market than software. Principles of marketing are always
the same. Not sure what your point is here.
* I evangelize both for my products, and for the future market
opportunities that I see.
Yes, you do.
* I believe that we create the world we want to live in; if it doesn't
meet our needs, then it is our responsibility to change it through your
own efforts."
Finally--no argument from me, philosophical or otherwise. No side comment.
Just a hearty embrace.
"I think Richard is a talented filmmaker who has made some significant
mistakes in his bid to expand LDS cinema. He has failed to understand
market dynamics, and pushed the wrong audience to accept a different
esthetic. This has hurt the marketability of products that I think have
value and interest to many good and righteous Mormons."
Yes, we agree here.
"I believe that Richard has a valid and worthwhile vision (just as Gerald
Lund, Chris Heimerdinger and others have), and that his films can and
should be able to exist side-by-side with other LDS films."
"Side by side" is the decision of consumers. Again, no one is calling for a
boycott. My interest was in educating folks to exactly what you expressed in
the previous paragraph. My contention is that many recent LDS films,
including Richard's, have hurt the marketplace and driven away investors.
Did you know that Halestorm fired most of its staff last week? If this is a
news flash for you, then let me be the first to emphasize AGAIN that bad and
badly targeted LDS films have seriously damaged LDS cinema as a viable
medium.
"I believe excellent work is being done my an increasing number of LDS
filmmakers, but I also think some dreadful work is being done by LDS
filmmakers. I won't praise bad work just because it's made by a Mormon,
nor would I expect anyone else to. I would expect a film critic to
actually see the film he's declaiming, though."
The point I was trying to make, and which is continually challenged by you
and others, is that ONE DOESN'T *HAVE* TO SEE RICHARD'S FILM to make a
judgment about it. I am playing the consumer in this particular case, and
only trying to explain WHY I have not seen it. Which, if you open up on this
subject, you might see as the most powerful argument that can be taken. I *
have* seen Brigham City. Would you feel happier if I declaimed the
"full-of-itself" posture and convoluted themes of THAT movie?
I also don't read much Gerald Lund. Surprised?
** That so-called "intellectual" or "art-driven" work is inherently better
than audience-driven work. **
Wow. FIRM disagreement. HUGE. EARTHSHAKING. But I still think we can
co-exist on the same planet, can't we?
"My rule for judging the quality of a work is whether it succeeds on its
own terms--whatever those terms may be. What I argue for is that both
artists and audiences understand what those terms are so they can make
effective judgments about the things they consume."
Too deep for me. I'm too pragmatic for this kind of argument, especially
when referencing something as fragile and threatened as LDS cinema.
"There are plenty of examples of good and bad in both. All I demand is that
the artist understand the game he's playing in rather than complaining
that his audience doesn't understand him."
Okay. I agree, I think. But again, we would have diametrically opposed
methods for how we would judging the "understanding of the game." But I like
the part about not whining when an audience doesn't get what an artist is
trying to say.
** That the poor, benighted masses have no sense or right to their
opinion. **
Like what you want, for the reasons you want. But please allow others of
us to like our own thing, too."
I usually include a similar statement in EVERY POST I MAKE. Please read more
closely.
"Here's where I think I disagree with you.
I see the market as being underdeveloped, and believe that it *can* expand
beyond what it is now. I don't believe that we are serving all members of
the LDS audience. Just because we understand one market segment doesn't
mean that everything should be built for that one market segment."
You continue to rage against the market segment served by the likes of DB
and Covenant and other successful LDS publishers. I rather like this
segment, and enjoy serving them. Most saints I know belong to this segment.
Maybe I just don't get out enough. :)
"I dispute that the "majority" of LDS people are defined by the
demographics of the market segment you serve. I believe the majority of
the *marketplace* is defined by the demographics described above, but I
think it's incorrect to assume that the known market and the overall
populace are the same thing."
A career professional in marketing disputes the definitions of the market as
pursued by those whose careers are serving the LDS community with art and
literature? I just don't follow this one, Scott. What you're saying
essentially, is that the full-time, passionate marketing staffs of the
various LDS publishing houses just don't get it, and have left you and those
of your same mindset behind. Who left who behind, Scott? ART IS NOT
NECESSARY FOR SALVATION! Is that just too weird to hear from a career
artist? The LDS people do not need my books, nor do they need Dutcher's
movies, or anything else. I view the arts in association with the gospel as
a privileged partnership. The LDS artist should feel honored to have any
audience at all. WE ARE EXPENDIBLE. Now please don't spout off all the
potential diatribes that speak of art as the essence of the human soul and
the "breathe of life" and whatever else some might believe that it is. It
is human nature to create, and I believe creation, in and of itself, defines
the existence of a celestial being, but art is only one form of creation. As
Shakespeare alluded in "Romeo and Juliet", a rose is perhaps a far more
inspired creation than even the Mona Lisa.
"I don't believe that success for one Mormon artist necessary means failure
for another. Yes, there are a limited number of dollars in the currently
defined marketplace. That leaves two choices--either produce for the
existing, well-defined audience (a good, solid choice) or attempt to
expand the market to bring in new dollars that are not currently being
targeted (also a good, solid choice--though one that is much more
speculative at this point).
Granted, that means current dollars will be stretched further and (short
term) opportunities will likely contract as the market figures out how to
expand itself. But that is a temporary growing pain that is indicative of
the existence of that larger projected market."
Let's hope so. Perhaps I'm a little more cynical, and feel that the "growing
pain" is VERY painful right now, and may shut down the marketplace for
years.
"I really don't care what you write or for who--that's between you, your
audience, your publisher and your god. As long as you're satisfied that
what you're doing is right, then you should charge full steam ahead and
produce according to the dictates of your own goals and conscience.
But I am equally convinced that others should be afforded the same right
that you claim as your own--and that the market can and will expand to
allow for a broader range of tastes than it currently supports."
We're not talking about "rights." Never were. You're on the campaign trail
again.
"Disagree if you want--that's your right and your choice."
I don't disagree.
"But I will not be bullied by you or anyone else to accept that there is
only one solution to
a problem, or that yours is the only possible good, right and true option."
Bullied? Do you really see this as a schoolyard? I'm open to better
solutions to the present problem, just haven't heard any on this forum yet.
Which is an interesting point. I've been vigorously attacked for proposing
some very real solutions, a fresh approach, and an alternate veiwpoint.
usually by those who have proposed no solutions of their own that have any
practical application. Just "live and let live" kind of stuff. Okay. Fine.
But those that present this perspective should confess they have no interest
in solving the problem. Just sit back and watch. Maybe it'll cure itself. At
least I'm in trenches with more than just opinions.
>>>"Who you callin' not 'mainstream," you punk!?<<<
"I never characterized you or anyone else that way and you know it. I said
that there is a larger mainstream than you apparently recognize, because I
feel just as mainstream Mormon as anyone else."
I added the "you punk" part for emphsis--maybe even a bit of sardonic
punch--but never aimed it specifically at you. Or maybe I did. I usually
don't attribute most posts to their name source, especially since I know
very few of you personally. I just respond to expressed themes and concepts.
Again, please adopt a thicker skin.
"If it's your contention that I don't belong, or that I don't have a right
to an opinion because I am not part of your market segment, then I simply
and respectfully disagree.
But I will not leave the Church because you think I don't belong, nor will
I hate members of the Church because they have opinions, ideas or
methodologies different from my own."
Okay, Scott, I guess I'll cancel my appointment with your bishop. And I was
so sure I could lead the charge for your excommunication! :)
I wrote:
>>>Yes, it's aimed at "mainstream" Church membership. But I swear on my
biggest toe, this does not mean that I had to ignore the most
sophisticated techniques of storytelling. Nor that some of its themes are
not "edgy" and highly personal. <<<
Scott wrote:
"No one said you did ignore these things."
As a matter of fact, they did. Was that you who or someone else who
suggested that the world would be a better place if "Tennis Shoes" books
were not a part of it?
"I have heard some people say that their experience tells them that
much--perhaps even most--art intended for general audience has been
unsatisfying to them. I even heard one person say that his experience
leads him to believe that art created as a testimony serves a different
purpose (and audience) than art created according to different goals, and
that he finds art that's "testimony-first" to be less satisfying. That's
his right to believe if he wants. By and large, I tend to agree."
So do I. Surprised again? I even said this in my last post. STORY first.
Message second.
"Every testimony is personal, and "edgy" means different things to
different people. But I would be interested to see how you define
sophisticated techniques of storytelling--especially after being so
vehement that such techniques are not appreciated by the audience you
serve. There's a dissonance there that I'd like to understand."
Dissonance. I sometimes wonder if my posts are read (or understood) at all.
Sophisticated techniques of storytelling generally involve rules of dramatic
structure. Tad Danielewski stuff, for those who may remember that BYU
professor. (The best professor I ever had in the "arts"--bar none.)
Sophisticated techniques ABSOLUTELY do not include the utilzation of
esoteric story or plot designs that are celebrated by elitists. Dramatic
structure, which has been around as a developed "science" since the times of
the great Greek writers, is generally ignored by "fringe" artists. Too
confining for them, I suppose. But the marriage between dramatic struture
and human psychology--as well as between the dramatic structure and the
Gospel itself (as is evidenced to me by stuff we view in the most sacred of
LDS settings) is, for me, undeniable.
I said:
>>>These are intelligent thoughts, Scott, but may be spiced with a bit of
wishful thinking.<<<
Scott said: They're spiced with a *lot* of wishful thinking. I choose to see
opportunity rather than roadblock. I choose to think of it as visionary,
though you can characterize it as naive or self-delusional if you want."
I see it as elitist. Never called it naive or self-delusional.
"But as a matter of market research and understanding your audience, I
would suggest you missed the boat on your entire post. The AML-List is one
of the more conservative forums you're likely to come across among the
"literary" crowd."
I guess compared to a forum of professors at Berkeley, you may be right. But
among Latter-day Saints, this forum is FAR from conservative.
"We tend to appreciate a fairly wide spectrum of art,
from the very conservative to the very aggressive and even experimental.
Nearly everyone here feels like their slant is underrepresented, which is
usually a good sign of balance in the discussion. We expect the be
stretched--to both extremes."
No you guys don't. Or let me rephrase that. MOST of what I have read does
not wish to be stretched to both extremes. Only the mid-extreme to the left
extreme. And any artist who expresses the mainstream or ultra-conservative
extreme, is ostracized or rejected.
"It makes no sense to me to go to a forum that values discussion of a
broader literature and attack them for that broadness. It seems like poor
market analysis to me, and begs a host of questions about other market
observations and assumptions."
What host of questions has been "begged" pray tell? It is generally my
experience--and this post serves to emphasize my point--that those who
pretend to value "broader literature" or art are of the most narrow artistic
mindset. Only pretending to "tolerate" populist art, and applauding the
obscure and the esoteric.
"It appears that you came in spoiling for a fight, and got what you wanted.
Perhaps you see yourself as Samuel the Lamanite, preaching simple truths
to the corrupt before sweeping off the battlements and into legend."
Oh brother. Not even sure how to respond. But it generally always creeps up
when philosophical differences are so dramatic that one party will accuse
the other of seeking self-aggrandizement. Their opinions couldn't POSSIBLY
be born of sincere and genuine sentiment. They MUST have an alterior motive.
"Or maybe you're just another arrogant, self-important artist who can't
tolerate that others may see the world differently than you do--sort of
the way you seem to characterize Richard Dutcher. Birds of a feather,
perhaps; different only in the color, but not the stripe."
The panel of judges who have been scoring the divisiveness, and sheer
combative rudeness of posts have just declared you as the frontrunner,
Scott.
And don't think that I didn't notice that the moment you "turned" on me
occurred just as I declared my opinion on R-rated films. Curious. Verrrry
curious. :)
Chris Heimerdinger
_______________________________________________
You can subscribe or unsubscribe at
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aml-list
AML-List a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature
<
http://www.aml-online.org/list/index.html>
AML-List@???
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aml-list
