Talk:Camp (style)

message: Here's my best attempt at defining what it SHOULD mean:
From what I gather, "camp" originally referred to "tasteless" in a garish way (gaudy). However, camp became associated with gay culture when gays (particularly gay men) deliberately adopted gaudiness. This was not only about their wardrobe, but about their manner of speaking/acting. However, it wasn't just garish - it was an elaborate garishness. A pink flamingo lawn ornament is garish and considered "ugly" to most people, but it's not really elaborate. And it's not "kitsch," either. Kitsch refers to the pretentious cliche - the work appears to be a serious attempt at art, but because it is using a cultural icon to elicit sentiment, it is considered "worthless" to art snobs, since it doesn't contribute anything new to art. For example, a painting of a sunset over a beach using predictable colors and techniques would be considered a "kitsch" painting. It might be technically well made, it might be considered "beautiful" to most people, but it is using a universal symbol of beauty to elicit the sentiment from the viewer. In order to paint that imagery to where it's not kitsch, it would need to be inventive in some way...in its color design and/or technique, etc. It would need something to make it read differently in terms of the message it conveys. 
Anyway, I think where people got confused with "camp" to where the meaning became split is they saw famous examples of things referred to as "campy" and didn't understand WHY it was being called campy. They saw the 60s Batman series and thought, "this is really bad," and thought its "badness" was why people were calling it "campy." In actuality, it was being referred to as "campy" because of the elements of camp in it: the theatrical overacting (hamminess) to where the delivery seemed tongue-in-cheek, in both speaking and physical movement, and the garish, elaborate, silly-looking costumes for the characters. It strongly resembles the kind of behavior found in gay culture. It comes across as playful...like the people involved aren't taking anything seriously, whether it's deliberate or not. But camp refers to a specific TYPE of bad acting and bad aesthetics, not just badness in general. It's the gaudiness to look and behavior that defines it. Stiff, wooden acting isn't camp. Cheap production values that aren't showy aren't camp. Datedness isn't camp, although some trends from the past can seem to resemble camp (for instance, acting in film and television used to be more theatrical).   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining It

message: I have come to the conclusion that nobody knows what this word means because different people use it to mean completely different things. Some people seem to think it just means something that is bad but people enjoy it by being amused by it being bad or by something entertaining contained in whatever it is, amidst the badness. Others think it refers to things resembling the stereotypical gay arts - theatrical/flamboyant - so movies/TV shows that contain overacting or garish wardrobes or anything else that seems like it relates to the "gay" arts would be referred to by these people as "campy." Sometimes the latter is considered "bad," when it's considered out of place in the medium (overacting on a TV show), but in that definition of the word, "campy" does not mean "bad" in and of itself. 
And still others use it simply to mean "really bad," and using it only in a negative sense of the word to talk about how they think it sucks. Whereas in the first use I mentioned, people say it as a way of redeeming something that is bad ("it's bad, but it's entertaining")...as a sort of backhanded compliment (it's either so bad that it's funny how bad it is and therefore entertaining and enjoyable for that, or it's bad but contains something the person finds INTERESTING), a good number of people call something campy as purely an insult. "I tried to watch the show and had to turn it off. It's so campy. Terrible acting, stupid plot, terrible directing." Or just as commonly, people think it's campy because it's "dated." 
Those two uses contradict each other. A word can't both mean "bad, but enjoyable" and be used by someone saying they don't enjoy it ("I hate it, it's so campy"). "I hate this movie because it's too campy" = "I hate this movie because it's too bad but entertaining at the same time." After all, "entertaining" refers to the subjective experience of enjoying something, and nobody hates entertainment they find entertaining. If you find something entertaining, that means you enjoy it. 
It's just an awful, awful word. When you can't tell what the fuck a person means by a word, the word shouldn't be in use at all. 
I'm also irritated by how poorly it's defined in terms of those who see it as "intentional mockery." Uh...what's the difference between that and "satire?" Or that and, you know, COMEDY? 
And then there's the whole issue with "artificial." Most things in fiction are artificial on some level. It's fiction, after all. Or by "artificial," do they mean "insincere," which goes back to the whole "mockery" thing? Or is it "insincere" because it's unconvincing because of a technical failure in some part? 
Again, it's clear nobody can come up with a way to clearly define this word and it should be removed from the language. I think "cheesy" and "corny" should also go, and probably "kitsch" as well, unless someone can make a clear definition of it stick.
:This word is a great illustration of semantic change, otherwise known as semantic drift: where a word's meaning starts to veer from its original signification, either through misuse, misunderstanding, or its use as a euphemism. It's such a great illustration, because it shows how a word's meaning can drift, not only to the point of being a pejorative where it was initially simply descriptive; but actually to being both a pejorative and a (generally positive) descriptive at the same time.
:If we compare it with the word gay, which seems in some contexts to be its virtual synonym: the positive or neutral descriptive use; contrasting with its pejorative, which we would nowadays classify as a form of hate speech. Nuttyskin (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Awful Word With No Actual Meaning

message: This article is almost entirely limited to US definitions and examples of camp, whereas camp culture is present throughout the Anglophone world, particularly that descended from the British musical hall comedy tradition.  The fact that anything non-American is restricted to a small "International Aspects" section demonstrates that the whole article needs a lot more work from an international perspective.  I've therefore added a Globalise tag to this page. Gymnophoria (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to represent an international view

message: Going off the 'original research' tag, I'm a little concerned about the focus on the opinion of Susan Sontag, the essayist.  While certainly her opinion probably counts as 'notable,' she is also a commentator and well-known social critic with a wide panoply of opinions on all manner of things.  I'm not sure that it's either neutral or instructive to continually reference what 'she' believes 'camp' is defined as throughout the article, especially since apparently she only wrote one essay on it to begin with?  Surely other sources are available?    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.71.19 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Susan Sontag Overemphasized Here? 

message: There should be a section on the distinction between high and low camp. Low camp is camp that does not know it is campy, like a Lawrence Welk dance number.  High camp is a parody of low camp. http://www.glbtq.com/literature/camp,3.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jive Dadson (talk • contribs) 12:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: High camp is actually best typified by the flamboyant, swashbuckling style of Errol Flynn. This is the true link between Adam West-style superheroes and camp. Nuttyskin (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  High and Low Camp 

message: This section cited ((Samuel R. Delany)) and someone named Altman. Samuel R. Delany is a science-fiction writer who has been quoted as saying that during summer camp he became aware of being more sexually attracted to boys. Altman is seems to be no one in particular besides apparently being the name of a few camps and some camp staff. If anyone knows if any of these claims are valid, that would be swell.
--Blacksheepboy (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins & Development section desperately needs correct citations 

message: Sorry but this has to be one of the poorest efforts on this site. Its pseudo academic tone belies the fact that most of the article is quite frankly poorly written, based on limited sources, contains original research and dubious examples.
The intro is an affront to one's intelligence "Camp is an aesthetic sensibility wherein something is appealing because of its bad taste and ironic value. The concept is closely related to kitsch, and campy things are described as being "campy" or "cheesy". When the usage appeared, in 1909, it denoted: ostentatious, exaggerated, affected, theatrical, and effeminate behaviour, and, by the middle of the 1970s, the definition comprised: banality, artifice, mediocrity, and ostentation so extreme as to have perversely sophisticated appeal."
Compare the above to what a peer-reviewed dictionary says....
:camp   /kæmp/ Show Spelled[kamp] Show IPA
–noun
# something that provides sophisticated, knowing amusement, as by virtue of its being artlessly mannered or stylized, self-consciously artificial and extravagant, or teasingly ingenuous and sentimental.
# a person who adopts a teasing, theatrical manner, esp. for the amusement of others.
–verb (used without object)
# Also, camp it up. to speak or behave in a coquettishly playful or extravagantly theatrical manner.
–adjective
#
campy: camp Hollywood musicals of the 1940s.
As noted above, delete this abomination and start again. Start again!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.63.164 (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted the entire section on "Roadside Culture", since it was all WP:OR, and merely opinion... at that.  I see no cites here... where's the scenery ?-) bonze blayk (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, why did not you try to write a better one?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.155.55 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS ARTICLE IS SH!T 

message: Camp's source is the deadly seriousness of an older woman bent on seduction (and unaware that her attempts look absurd to everyone else). The perfect example would be someone like Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard. Camp is pretending, ironically, to be Gloria Swanson. That is why it appeals so much to gay men: fear of female seduction and a way of turning the fear into the comic. All the typical props come from the same scenario.  Tsinfandel (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: then why do gay men camp it up in drag? Camp is a gay thing about women. What is going on? Tsinfandel (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gloria Swanson 

message: * "Camp is the consistently aesthetic experience of the world. It incarnates a victory of "style" over "content," "aesthetics" over "morality," of irony over tragedy.* (Sontag, 1964: 287).
* "In naïve, or pure, Camp, the essential  element is seriousness, a seriousness that fails. Of course, not all  seriousness that fails can be redeemed as Camp. Only that which has the proper  mixture of the exaggerated, the fantastic, the passionate, and the naïve."  (Sontag, 1964: 283)
* "The whole point of Camp is to dethrone  the serious. Camp is playful, anti-serious. More precisely, Camp involves a  new, more complex relation to "the serious." One can be serious about  the frivolous, frivolous about the serious." (Sontag, 1964: 288)--Nemissimo (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Susan Sontag;1964. '''Notes on Camp.''' In Against Interpretation and Other Essays. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.fix italics 

message: Nice attempt, but when writing in English, one should really take proper language usage seriously. Is English a second language? Then get an editor. Attempts to look so "academic" just end up just looking silly when riddled with so many basic grammatical and structural errors. Or... maybe the author was deliberately trying to write in a campy manner, to subtly drive the point home. If so, that aim has been achieved. But, what if this is an example of being campy without meaning to be? Hmmm.... :> Well, whatever the intent, I recommend a competent editor and/or some basic English writing courses. GrannyGM (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basics First 

message: in the glossary section of the Polari article (which really ought to be moved over to wiktionary, but that's another issue), it links the Polari usage of the word to Italian wikt:campare.  Given Polari's historical association with the gay community, it seems likely that the word is a borrowing from that dialect into mainstream English, but that's just conjecture on my part. and the italian etymology of the Polari word doesn't seem terribly well-attested either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.52.76 (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible italian etymology via Polari? 

message: Read the analysis section.  Wouldn't it be a coup to get a large chunk of camp into an article about camp?  Can anyone tell if this is meant to be legitimate academic analysis or if this is merely camp itself?  And please don't say that there isn't any difference.  It reads like something a bored English Lit professor would write and then smugly wait and see how long it stayed in there.      
 
We should replace this section with a section on Chia Pets. --AntigrandiosËTalk  22:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis section IS camp 

message: The definition of camp in common British English usage (flamboyantly gay) is almost unrelated to the American English usage. Could there be a separate section for this, or even a separate article?
164.11.203.58 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of camp varies 

message: I'm new, or newly returned, to Wikipedia and camp is a research interest of mine. I agree with virtually all of the comments on this page and the Archive--this entry needs a lot of work. But I do not see any concrete planning going on on this talk page. Is that a naive newbie thing to say? How do we decide how to approach this? Do people simply start editing sections piecemeal? As some have said, this entry could perhaps do with restarting from scratch.Mhbroder (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  So where does this stand? 

message: Analysis seems like a bad summation title for this article's last section I'm not sure what would be better but maybe someone else can think of a better phrase?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittenwhip (talk • contribs) 10:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What this section is would be pretty decent as crticism (in the sense of "critical essay", not "complaint"), but what it is not is an encyclopedic look at camp.  If published critics were being quoted as having said these things it would be different, but this is this particular edit/author's viewpoint, not substansiated fact or documented analysis having previously appeared elsewhere, and as such would seem to violate Wikipedia criteria for inclusion in an article.  (Not only that, but I don't find Judy Garland herself to be particularly camp; it's her many female impersenator portrayers who are generally such.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.252.79.50 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Analysis"? 

message: This article is a mockery. I don't believe that the word 'camp' in American English has anything like the level of usage as it does in British English. I have used the word online many times only to receive question marks from Americans. As it is explained in this article it seems to have a meaning that is vague to non-existent. Where are the proper references to Polari? It refers to British usage as "decades" old, which simply flies in the face of Polari's history over several hundred years (i.e. it was most likely being used when the USA didn't even exist).
What this article seems to be about is basically a fragment of the meaning of camp that already exists in the UK. It either needs proper development to show the origins or needs to be removed and replaced by another article.Marcvanderloo (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unworthy of a supposed encyclopaedia 

message: As many have already noted, this article is atrocious. Its authors are clearly confused about what exactly camp is. The "ABC Afterschool Specials" were certainly NOT camp in any sense. Dated and preachy perhaps, but not camp. However amusing or 'cheesy' they may seem today, they were intended to be taken seriously at the time; something which is unintentionally amusing because it hasn't aged well is not camp (if it were, just about every serious drama made in the 50s could be called 'camp'). Also, the 80s night time soaps "Dallas" and "Dynasty" weren't camp in any sense of the term, 80s excess notwithstanding.  In other places the article seems to conflate camp with drag and 'cheesiness'. This article is in need of serious revision.CannotFindAName (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC After School Specials were camp? 

message: "Mentos television commercials during the 1990s developed a cult following due to their camp "Eurotrash" humour."
Should be removed because
One, has no source.
Two, most of the Mentos commercials were actually made in America, by Americans and with American actors.
Three, in Europe the commercials were actually made fun of because of their "cheesy American humour".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.131.62.156 (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentos television commercials 

message: I think this article shows that it is (almost) impossible to define 'camp' - when you see/hear/read something that is camp, you either know or don't.
Dusty Springfield was never a camp icon because Dusty Springfield was never camp. She may have become a gay icon (actually she was probably always an icon to gay people).
You can have icons, you can have camp, but a 'camp icon' is meaningless. (pace Encyclopedia Brittanica)
I think I agree with the section 'This Article is SH!T' -you cannot define 'camp' in that way.
Camp is not just effeminate behaviour, it is a style. Julian and Sandy - Bona Bookshop is camp, Are You Being Served isn't.Cannonmc (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Camp is all of those things, and yes, Dusty is camp as you like. It's not necessary for it to be in the person producing it. It does also refer to behaviour, conduct, bearing--Americans use the word "campy" in this respect. The shifting and multiple definitions are part of the phenomenon, so it's unsurprising to find that reflected here. And there are, most definitely, many camp icons.  • DP •  {huh?} 16:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dusty Springfield is a camp icon" 

message: WTF is "high art", and who says that it "necessarily incorporates beauty and value"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of western aesthetics says so.  • DP •  {huh?} 15:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "High" art? 

message: Looking the article over now, it's in a pretty good state -- though you wouldn't know it from all the bitching on the talk page above. You don't like what it says? Go read the sources, research the subject, and improve the article.  • DP •  {huh?} 16:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bitching on the talk page 

message: I just removed the reference to Adorno and Frankfurt. While it's true that he does indeed regard the pop culture of industrial societies as a bad thing, I am pretty certain he doesn't discuss camp anywhere. There is of course an argument to be made there about that, but it requires a source (ie someone has already made it) in order not to be original research.  • DP •  {huh?} 16:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adorno 

message: I think that the lede is a bit too definite about what "Camp" is. The term is used in lots of different ways and the lede should probably reflect this. In Britain it tends to be used for exaggerated and deliberate adoption of effeminate gay stereotypes. I think Quentin Crisp defined it as something like "mimicking the symptoms of a disease from which one does not suffer". Tigerboy1966  12:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Camp (style). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625073452/http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/isam/NewsletF05/RandallF05.htm to http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/isam/NewsletF05/RandallF05.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Coming to this talk page, I realize that maybe my two cents is redundant -- I see the comments about the article being a 'mockery' and worse. I'm sympathetic. I was merely going to say that I think this quote from the article casts a rather large net:
'Female camp actresses such as Mae West, Judy Garland, Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo, Bette Davis, Marilyn Monroe, and Joan Crawford..'
All of those are so-called camp actresses? Such a list I really don't know how to insist that all these women had something in common. I mean, besides that they are women. Here is the complete sentence:
'Female camp actresses such as Mae West, Judy Garland, Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo, Bette Davis, Marilyn Monroe, and Joan Crawford also had an important influence on the development of feminist consciousness: by exaggerating certain stereotyped features of femininity, such as fragility, open emotionality or moodiness, they attempted to undermine the credibility of those preconceptions.'
Okay, maybe there is some sort of emphasis here on gender incoherence or such, maybe it's interesting, but I think it would be more interesting as a remark about female impersonators. I mean, maybe Bette Davis and Joan Crawford do strike me as having highly mannered performance styles, but how do  Greta Garbo and Marlene Dietrich come into this? I suppose that they strike me as having a sort of 'androgynous' stylization, if that's relevant. But I still don't really see the point about Marilyn Monroe. Again, the list is so far-reaching it just seems to me to encompass nearly every facet of Hollywood stardom. 
DanLanglois (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'camp actresses'? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Camp (style). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120715000630/http://www.glbtq.com/arts/springfield_d.html to http://www.glbtq.com/arts/springfield_d.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm rather surprised that there's no mention of Mystery Science Theater 3000, a show which specifically capitalises on the naive camp of older, campy films.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.228.147 (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  MST3K 

message: I think the article could give the impression that Camp as a gay sensibility is a worldwide phenomenon. I stand to be corrected, but in my opinion and experience Camp as a gay sensibility is more likely to be a learned behaviour dependent on cultural context, primarily present in urban areas of Anglo-Saxon countries, and extremely rare in most regions of the world (pretty rare in rural areas of the UK too actually). Very few wikipedias in other languages deal with Camp at length like the English one, and those that do tend to have a focus on its development in English-speaking countries (use Google Translate to check if you like).
Eurovision is given as an example of Camp in Europe, but Eurovision is also very strongly kitch.
To illustrate this further, I quote below an automatically translated portion of the article on Camp from the French Wikipedia. It basically says (without a source) that the French public and French cultural critics do not identify any concept of Camp when describing people, and that the concept is virtually unknown there. (I find this perfectly plausible, since I personally have run into the gay Camp sensibility much less in Germany for example than in the UK). It also says camp French artists are identified by Anglo-Saxon cultural critics, but maybe the Anglo-Saxon cultural critics are not qualified to interpret French culture and are just seeing what they want to see.
"The camp in France 
The camp concept is little known and rarely used in France, either inside or outside the gay community. Films or artists that meet the Anglo-Saxon definition of camp have not been identified as such, either by critics or by the public. However, a significant number of French works, artists and cultural practices express a camp sensibility as described by Anglo-Saxon cultural critics."
To further my point:
- The wikipedia pages on "Stonewall riots", "Pride parade", and "Gay village" are all in more languages than "Camp (style)", and they were/are all geographically restricted. (So maybe we can entertain that Camp is geographically/culturally restricted too.)
- The Japanese Wikipedia says that Camp is one of the terms used in *English-speaking* aesthetics and literary criticism.
- The Danish, Portuguese, Turkish, Welsh, Japanese, Hungarian, Finnish, and Polish wikipedias do not identify to any examples of camp originating from non-Anglophone countries. 
- I could not find any native concepts similar to Camp in non-Anglophone Wikipedias in the See Also section at the bottom of each page
- The examples of Camp I have found on all wikis originate overwhelmingly in Anglophone countries. (A small minority originate in German-speaking countries predominately before 1933, elsewhere in Western Europe, Spanish-speaking countries, and South Korea (Gangnam Style) – however, none from the rest of the world.)
I think it would be good if somebody could find the time to locate a source that says Camp as a gay sensibility is primarily an urban Anglo Saxon phenomenon (and secondarily perhaps in urban Western Europe and Latin America). Otherwise readers from rural/non-Western areas will wonder why they have never really come across camp folk themselves.
I did find a couple of non-Anglophone examples of gay camp (though vastly outnumbered by Anglophone ones), which may be useful to mention in the "around the world" section (although I hope the section name will be changed): 
Spanish Wikipedia automatic translation:
“Das lila Lied (1920) is usually classified as the first gay anthem, related to a historical context in the variety theater and bars frequented by LGBT clientele during the closet culture prior to the Stonewall riots and the period of the first homosexual movement .”
Dutch Wikipedia automatic translation:
“Camp is clearly present in the clips of the Swedish music formation Army of Lovers from the 1990s.”
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.199.114 (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and the  maint. template does not belong there. I've removed it. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Around the world" could be misleading, since the "camp" sensibility is highly localised and restricted geographically 

message: A lot of the above posts do not actually comment on the article at all, but constitute an occasionally constructive (but more often otherwise) criticism of people with a differently gendered lifestyle than is apparently considered to be "worthy of mention" in an encyclopedia (especially of what is perceived as "gay", or gay-leaning culture - as if THEY had ever contributed to culture!). It (the talk page) really needs a thorough weeding - with the many irrelevant posts moved to a suitably named archive. In the likely event of my NOT undertaking this probably thankless task myself I hope I may be permitted to suggest that whether a particular editor "likes" the subject matter of an article is not all that relevant - if "you" (dear fellow-Wikipedian) don't "like" the fact that Wikipedia includes articles on artistic or literary or religious or even technical topics then don't read (much less edit) things you don't like. And keep your own pet ideas (especially ones based largely on prejudice) to yourself - back anything likely to be in the least contentious with a named source! In this case, even on the talk page.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This talk page needs most of its posts archived! 

message: Article needs to be careful not to present camp (or any aesthetic) in a negative light section it’s biased phrasing. This is an encyclopedia not an essay. The analysis section needs possibly deleted because it’s basically one persons overly long argument.  2603:6010:11F0:3C0:4EE:E21F:8554:DF50 (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negativity 

message: This list of 'elements' of Sontag's essay is repeated twice, once in quotation marks (without and once without. It's misleading as a summary of Sontag. First, the way the quotation is used in the lede makes it look as if it is direct quotation from Sontag's essay, rather than from a book by someone called Harry Eiss making its own argument and briskly summarizing Sontag en passant. Second, Eiss actually talks of "embrace of artifice, frivolity, naïve middle-class pretentiousness, and shocking excess" [emphasis added]: this registers a distance between the sensibility which is doing the embracing here and the naïvity of what it is embracing. Removing these two words makes the summary less exact. Thirdly, 'middle-class pretentiousness' is at some distracting distance from Sontag's own language in the essay. Dsp13 (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: "artifice, frivolity, naïve middle-class pretentiousness, and shocking excess"