I was reading pitchfork's review of Childish Gambino's Camp on Pitchfork. They gave it a 1.6. When I read the article, I realized I got the end of it and had no idea what they were talking about. I couldn't recall a simple reason why they didn't like it. There was no point to the article. They mostly said he copied Kanye West. OK. They sound similar, I give you that. So he's going with a style of art that is proven to be good. He puts his own spin on it, and takes it to new places. Furthermore, what else is he going to do? Should he go with a failed model? Maybe he should come up with something new? But I do want to point out, that most of the things that we consider "high art", such as painting, classical music, plays, novels, poetry, opera, sculpting and cinema, are very infrequently the first of their respective "genre"s. They all copy pieces that come before them, and put a spin on it. That eventually leads to further inovation. "People don't write from the moon" as my professor would say. Meaning, you don't create something masterful without influences. So don't criticize Glover for not being crazy innovative.
Some people complain that shit talking on the internet is annoying. That it's unnecessary and pointless. But the literary community has been writing contrary pieces for ages. In fact some of the most influential essays on critical theory have been responses to essays that were published in journals, Henry James' The Art of Fiction to be specific. It was a response to and essay that no one reads anymore. We feel a need to criticize what others do. The difference now with the internet is that all of it is recorded and saved. We can go and look at it all now. Before it was just word of mouth between commoners. Not until recently did the average person know how to read and write.
Reading and writing is power, I guess.
