Do you think it's important for (or even a responsibility of) critics to be able to reintroduce art (music/film/etc) from the past into and allow it to have an impact? Is reintroduction into the culture important for a critic?

Steven Hyden said "I think celebrity is the new authenticity. I think that if you are famous and you have a certain following and you can prove how big of a cultural footprint you have then that is what makes your art authentic."

What are your thoughts on that idea?

Not much to my question, really. It's a basic one but I probably should have clarified that I'm asking about archetypical characters. Do you have a favorite or favorites?

dear loafed,

I did my hair like yours yesterday.

loves,

knee

Ruddo, Fichtner is one of my favorite actors in the fucking world. That guy is pure electricity.

I've been thinking about this question a lot, and the best answer I can come up with is that it's hard for me answer because I don't really think in, or react to, archetypes. It's too broad. You could take the archetype of a flawed antihero seeking redemption and turn that into countless different characters of wildly varying interest. For me, idiosyncrasy and specificity are what move me. It's all in the details. I mean, Batman is an archetypal character, but I couldn't care less about him in Nolan's hands. However, put him Snyder's hands, and I'm riveted. It's all about the individual sensibility of the artist.