i think the word "pretentious" is often used in instances in which "pedantic" would be the correct choice of words.

to me the difference between being pretentious and being pedantic essentially boils down to whether the person in question actually knows what they're talking about.

Some things need to be cleared up.


Pedantic and pretentious are not really that close to being synonyms.

Pedantic - characterized by a narrow, often extravagant concern for book learning and formal rules

Pretentious - 1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified. 2. Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious

Like right now, I'm being pedantic, but not pretentious.

And with the amount of ridiculous, histrionic, overwrought CRAP that passes for "alternative" pop culture these days, the word pretentious is needed more than ever. Someone posted that no one's qualified to call something pretentious when it comes to art, which is absurd. If that is the case, then no one is qualified to call it good either. It's all subjective, but some times (*coughFranzFerdinandcough*), it's pretty easy.

NOT CRAP

This is an invaluable word when you are an adolescent. It's a rhetorical blunderbuss at that age. I do not recall hearing it since then, however. I think it has been replaced in most adult circles with more incisive adjectives such as 'sucks,' 'gay,' 'weak,' 'lame,' and 'affected.'

Rotten Tanx wrote:Crap.

You're basically saying someone is pretending to be more important or better than they are, or doing something that is above them. No one has the right to make that judgement of someone else. Not when they're creating art anyway.

While I do think that the "pretentious" tag--and any other criticism--should be assigned judiciously, I think people have every right to make this (or any other) judgment of any work of art that they come into contact with. That is, after all, why people make art: so others can engage it and make of it what they will.

Right?

Right!

Ty Webb wrote:Some things need to be cleared up.


Pedantic and pretentious are not really that close to being synonyms...

all i meant is that often times one is used when the other is more appropriate.

for instance...

if you don't actually know what you're talking about while exhibiting "a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning" you are being pretentious. if you do know what you're talking about, then you're just being pedantic.

see?

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:

Rotten Tanx wrote:Crap.

You're basically saying someone is pretending to be more important or better than they are, or doing something that is above them. No one has the right to make that judgement of someone else. Not when they're creating art anyway.

While I do think that the "pretentious" tag--and any other criticism--should be assigned judiciously, I think people have every right to make this (or any other) judgment of any work of art that they come into contact with. That is, after all, why people make art: so others can engage it and make of it what they will.

Right?

Yes but it isn't really a description of the art itself, it's a judgement on wether the person making the art is good enough to attempt something above and beyond the status quo.

For example John Zorn could walk onstage at a festival and play a 15 minute atonal freakout and have people applaud. Those same people could watch me do it in a local club and label me pretentious, because I dont have the critical acclaim, and therefore the licence, to make avant garde music.

Or not. I guess I'm only talking about one use of the word. And not explaining myself very well.

I guess I mean if people say something along the lines of "He's only a welders son from Ohio and he thinks he's a serious artist? He's a pretentious little fuck!"

What's implied, often, is a class division of sorts. That some people can make high art and some are just average people trying too hard.

Rotten Tanx wrote:What's implied, often, is a class division of sorts. That some people can make high art and some are just average people trying too hard.

I don't think that that's quite it. Pretension is the deployment of hollow artifice to achieve an order of gravity that is unmerited. It's when someone or something pretends to be more than the sum of it's parts.

For example, if you were watching a french film that traded on stock art-house conventions, whilst the plot and characters were cipher-like and vapid, you could say the film was pretentious, because it tries to achieve depth of meaning through the stylistic mimicry of high art, rather than actual substance.

I think pententious is a perfectly valid criticism, as long as it's applied correctly.

Not Crap.

Bartok wrote:I dont mind being called it, I'd rather be pretentious than play in a ska punk band. (which are usually the people who accuse me of it), in every scene there will be the people who want to segregate the people who want to do things differently.

i've been called pretentious by people who play in ska punk bands more times than i'd care to recall. that's ironic you bring that up.

concerning the validity of art versus the artist's percieved validity, i maintain that this is actually more objective than people often think. there is such a thing as "good art" and "bad art." generally speaking, i'll be willing to appreciate something if the artist can argue its merit, even if it's something i don't personally dig all that much. but if the artist claims it to be good/important and, in the real world outside his head, it blows a goat's balls, and he can't defend its artistic merit, then it's crap. that's pretense.

all in all, i think it's a valid criticism. unless you're a "rudeboy" jackoff who plays in a Roundy's-brand ska band. this reminds me of something else, regarding which i will start a crap/not crap topic.

Cranius wrote:I don't think that that's quite it. Pretension is the deployment of hollow artifice to achieve an order of gravity that is unmerited. It's when someone or something pretends to be more than the sum of it's parts.

For example, if you were watching a french film that traded on stock art-house conventions, whilst the plot and characters were cipher-like and vapid, you could say the film was pretentious, because it tries to achieve depth of meaning through the stylistic mimicry of high art, rather than actual substance.

I think pententious is a perfectly valid criticism, as long as it's applied correctly.

Not Crap.

That is fucking brilliant. Well said! I especially like this: "Pretension is the deployment of hollow artifice to achieve an order of gravity that is unmerited."

Damn straight. Very aptly put.

And I'm definitely going to carve that into my skin during my next performance art piece, "Flesh Is The Crucible Of Oblivion, Part 12."