Lists. They’re everywhere. It seems everyone has an opinion they feel compelled to share with the rest of the world. Top 10s, 20s, 50s, even hundreds… lists of bests, worsts, mosts, leasts — you name it, there’s lists for it. & they’re all different because they’re all. Painfully. Arbitrary.
My most recent indulgence in a top list was the 100 Best Movies of the Decade according to Indie Wire. While written by a reputable journalist, I’m still compelled to ask: how does one not only assemble a list of essential artworks –deciding between what makes the cut & what doesn’t –but how the hell do you discern how to rank them??
I do not own this image, no copyright infringement is intended
Our culture of needing to assign relevance to things with such lists has become exorbitant. It’s glaring in the fact alone that journalism isn’t what it used to be. That pretty much anyone with an internet connection, reasonable ability to write & an opinion can find themselves ‘published’. Don’t get me wrong, having access to other insights is the key to challenging norms & finding new insights. But the pendulum, I suspect, has swung too far the other way recently. That’s a different conversation.
This is about quantifying. Art specifically. How we can fairly claim Monet bests Picasso. That Michael Jackson is The King. That Malek’s work supplants Fincher’s or Gerima’s. The answer is obvious –we can’t! I like what I like & you like what you like. Sure, there are aspects in production, design, performance, creativity, even style to be considered. But those gold standards are not absolutes either. As most creatives would agree, learn by mimicry, learn the rules of the game, create by those rules, then figure out where to break them effectively!
So without further adieu, I give to you my top ten list. Uhh, wait… No I don’t. Because you probably don’t care & we can make it a discussion about our preferences & our influences over a coffee instead.
We’ll pick a place from a “top 10 coffee shops” list.
…If we can agree.