I DON'T write Theory; I write FUN and CONVINCING

So, it has come to my attention this hilarious distinction of certain modes of production regarding critical writing or, dare I say, theory. Here's my problem with the word 'theory':

1. Theres no way of removing the loaded definitions of this word while implying or invoking it in your own work i.e. saying you write THEORY and expect to be critical.

2. Theory implies prescriptions for actualization or practical delineation i.e. you tell people what to do, by critiquing something in a specific way.

3. NO one 'says' they write THEORY; people say you WROTE theoretical texts, post-production, i.e. don't be a dick and say you write theory.

I just realized this was written on a hunch and after some discussions with some very well-read colleagues that suspected the same thing about the distinction between 'theory' and criticism. So, here's my provocation for the day, which I just wrote in five minutes. In theory, I think I should spent a bit more time to criticize it, but I don't care enough about a well developed text as much as like one-liner jokes, which WRITING 'THEORY' does not.

Being a Critic causes you to be critical...DUH!

In the midst of a research binge on architecture critics, from the journalistic to the academic, there has been a common thread I have been realizing within all: I am critical about being critical.

You see, sentences like that are what I am dismantling and over-analyzing, time and time again. What the fuck do they mean? Have I internalized my theoretical influences to the point I can no longer enjoy text and only read into subtexts? There we go again, what the fuck am I talking about?

Three questions in 2 minutes makes me think that I might as well not bother writing this, but in the ever changing landscape of my style, theoretical ideals, and concepts, I have found solace in self awareness. I am guessing here that I want a text that speaks to me in two ways: the conversational and off the cuff, as well ass the theoretical and hard to swallow. Is that too much to ask? (In that last question I even thought the cadence of the sentence was nice.)

You know there was a time when someone wanted me to think of myself as a Miami bro and not a critic. Although that was eons ago, I think of the weight of that polar opposition (seeminlgy polar and not very, to be honest). I like that I can bro-it-up with my friends who have no idea what the term 'context' means, but know very well what a situation and influence are. I like that there is a level of understanding inherent in all aspects of society and I like writing right around that area, but I have realized that I am not REALLY doing that.

Reading critics makes you realize that who they are writing for is as important as what they're writing about, which is of course overstated, but I forget that constantly. So that leads me to my point: since I am writing as a critic I have to be even more critical of myself as much as anything I read, digest, or see. I think that this is of course possible with a level of self awareness and a modesty about your writing, as well as a humbleness, i.e. things I struggle with all the fucking time.
(P.S. on the i.e., I just realized that I have been using i.e. instead of e.g. (i.e. I have been using for example instead of 'in other words'. BAM! There is your literary lesson for the day.)

So I again find myself at the end of my post and I am purposefully not doing some witty ending. So there you go. MUNCH on that motherfuckers.

A mirror is a two-way mirror is a one-way mirror (Mad Men content)

I think that the cultural sentiments expressed in television are obviously mirrors and NOT anachronistic in portraying the past, if done critically. In Mad Men, there are several instances where one can read a definite reference historically, but at the same time understand that reference dialectically or transitively, in a contemporary context. Of course, this is an element of the show that is successful because who would want to see another “bewitched” again. Don Draper is not Darren Stevens.

The views expressed in Mad Men border on portraying the more negative, closeted, and sultry aspects of the 1960’s cultural phenomena. This is done, I think, for two reasons: 1.) to accurately and honestly portray the reality of a time where people believe America was a “better place”, and 2.) to be able to have a contemporary tv show feel both nostalgic yet current, almost investigative.

They tie in all the narratives in the show through a dialogue between all the subcultures and status quo’s, yet it is readily apparent that they somehow bridge the language gap (by language I mean cultural and social idiosyncrasies that were quite standard then), by engaging in a much more real, free, and sometimes reluctant, speech or dialect. The dialect, in this case, can be said to be the ‘real’, or at least what is meant 'by the real'. This seeping in of reality is the criticism provided to us by the art, the writing, the actors, the portrayals, the conditions, the settings, the spaces, etc.

What can be said for a contemporary time, because of this show? Well for one, the notion of social constructs and detriment caused by them (i.e. marriage ending in divorce, closeted homosexuality ending in overcompensation and inadvertent outing, etc.) is made abundantly clear. These are touched upon almost every show and there is always a glimpse of some sense of reality or reluctance to abandon the said construct due to tradition, convenience, what have you. This aspect of the show portrays an era much more truthfully and actually, than any show in the 1960s or 70s did (minus of course All in the Family and Maude with their comedic and satirical criticality). The relationship this show has with the American viewer and public can possibly provide understanding into difficult and complex familial and social structures carried on in their lives.

The one thing I take away from this show is embracing the complexities of everyday life. That does sound a little too positive, but what I mean by it is that the constructs stifled the people in the show and simply changing constructs with different individuals would not change the actuality of the construct (i.e remarrying). Truth is hard to come by, even in an era where we have been involved in a decades long challenging of these social constructs. Yet, there is still merit to the criticality of Mad Men, for challenging the accepted notions and the closets, and the misogyny. The real question is, what catharsis can come of this show in a contemporary and current sense?