This is really interesting, lots of thoughts, but probably won't get chance to respond until some time late tomorrow. Just one:


Is the following camp or satire?

London 1895... The residence of Mr Oscar Wilde



(In WILDE's drawing room. A crowd of suitably dressed folk are engaged in typically brilliant conversation, laughing affectedly and drinking champagne)

PRINCE OF WALES: My congratulations, Wilde. You latest play is a great success. The whole of London's talking about you.
OSCAR: There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that it not being talked about.
(There follows fifteen seconds of restrained and sycophantic laughter)
PRINCE: Very very witty... very very witty.
WHISTLER: There's only one thing in the world worse than being witty and that is not being witty.
(Fifteen seconds more of the same)
OSCAR: I wish I had said that.
Whistler: You will, Oscar, you will.
(More laughter)
OSCAR: Your majesty, have you met James McNeill Whistler?
PRINCE: Yes, we've played squash together.
OSCAR: There is only one thing worse than playing squash together, and that is playing it by yourself.
(Silence)
I wish I hadn't said that.
WHISTLER: You did, Oscar, you did.
(A little laughter)

(remainder at http://www.geocities.com/televisioncity/8889/poetry/mp-wilde.htm )

(thoughts about camp (that of Wilde rather than Python) being blind to its own self-importance spring to mind )

Sydney Grew,

By the way: I like your profile picture! Simeon Solomon's Socrates and Agathodeamos is a lovely image.

I know this picture for years because I found it in a beautiful book called L'Amour Blue written by Cecile Beurdeley, one of the first books that I bought on the subject of "the love that dare not speak it's name" in relation to art and literature:



 

Wrote this yesterday but didn't have time to post it - I have several more thoughts to add/expand on, but some of it comes quite close to roslynmuse on two issues:
and, not unrelatedly:

I agree, and furthermore, I'd say that the sort of politicised camp Ian is talking (and worrying) about is such a big step beyond a lot of the original intentions of this material that it's no wonder hackles are getting raised ... As for Oscar, Ian, I do take your point that a less inflated claim would have been more acceptable
but surely the whole point was that he enjoyed making inflated claims - or rather, using extravagant language to sound provocative while gently poking fun at received wisdom. Call it 'camp' if you will, even criticise its privileging of style over content (though I think that's not an entirely fair summary of what's going on), but don't fall into the trap of judging it purely at the level of what it says.


Here's what I wrote yesterday:

I think the question of to what extent camp is in the mind of the receiver is certainly worth pursuing. I suppose I'd also extend this into instances (primarily of camp 'behaviour', rather than camp art, whatever that might mean) where the actor seems to be the main intended receiver. Sorry, that's a little circuitous ... I suppose what I'm getting at is that I can imagine one possible defence for the Elton John Pinochet stunt (I should say at this point that I haven't seen the you-tube video someone linked to) is that it wasn't intended for public consumption, and that in that case it only needs to be perceived as amusing - or, indeed, as subversive - by those present. Which presumably he would know, and ours is not to gainsay.
 
An additional point would be that, even if the intended humour completely misfired and the joke was thus judged to be in bad taste, the attempt to make the joke would be more likely a mark of damage than of misguided affiliations on the part of the performer (or more subtly, since I can imagine there may be a bit of fetishisation going on on Elton John's part, misguided affiliations themselves might also be a mark of damage). "The girl's not to blame, even if she does set a bad example"? Actually, all this would fit. I've always seen campness as a mark of damage, even in the days when I found it attractive (on which more anon).

Indeed it is.

I wonder if Mr Grew has seen the American television series Angels in America (based, in fact, on a play, though I haven't seen that). I dare say he might enjoy it.

I'm not surprised to read that Peyrefitte's Roy hasn't been translated into English. His work is very French, perhaps a bit too French. He wrote novels about Jews, Americans, Freemasons, the Vatican: all sort of things the French are obsessed with. A funny writer, just like Jean Lorrain. But I don't think I will re-read them.

I'm afraid I can't help you with your translation. I only translate German texts into Dutch.

That's a good point, though I continue to think that the content (whether explicit, or implied, including through the use of style and hyperbole) can be legimitately criticised.



Also fair - just to ask, though, could a similar set of arguments be used as a defence of Prince Harry?

Just in terms of 'politicised camp' which you mentioned elsewhere in your message: Sontag says that camp is essentially apolitical (which could of course be challenged in terms of her own definitions, and has been, including by herself!), but she's most unusual in that respect. Most of the writers who I've read in support of camp do see it as a fundamentally political act and attitude. Of course, one might argue that 'camp' in a more informal use of the term is a different phenomenon from that presented by its theorists.

Only in your highly-specific interpretation.  One could also read it to mean that any involvement in the arts, on any level, is the ennobling factor which separate man from beasts.  I am not a zoologist, but I have heard zoologists state with some certainty that there is no animal which pointlessly indulges in inessential activities because of the aesthetically pleasing results that accrue. I believe the jury might be out on some aspects of birdsong. 

One does not have to be a professional to undertake artistic pursuits.  Nowhere does Wilde suggest that they should be mankind's sole pursuit, or the means by which a person earns his living. But it's the spark of original thought and approach to which he refers. To "rub words together until they catch light".  To make your own clothes rather than accepting the designs of others. To falter through a Mozart sonata at the keyboard for yourself, instead of putting on a cd. To paint a fresco of your own design on your wall in your bedroom.  To make up your own tunes, or write songs. To make videos on youtube instead of sitting glued to the box all evening.  To move from a passive to an active state.  To create..

To write this all off as "bollocks" - now that's what I'd call "supercilious".

I can't agree with that.  On the contrary, the availability of technology currently means that for the outlay of one month's average salary, one can buy a movie-camera on which you could - with some care and planning, and no small amount of ingenuity - shoot a major motion-picture success like The Blair Witch Project.  You can do all the edit-suite functions on a laptop.  You won't put Hollywood out of business, but you can break into the business, at least. 

For as little as $26, you can buy a webcam and begin making your own youtube clips. With some software and a $50-buck scanner you can start to produce animated films.

It was, in fact the windmills of C19th mass-production against Wilde was tilting, setting down his credo of individuality and the importance of art, against a sea of mediocrity and dross.

Fair point about volunteering at shelters, even if you were scraping the barrel to find it