Talk:Pastiche
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Restructure
I have restructured the article to be more appropriate from an etymological-, logical-, and Wikipedia article- standpoint. The History section goes first to give the background of the word (or topic of the article in general). The hodge-podge definition goes second, because chronologically, it is the earliest (as is done in Wikipedia articles), and helps show etymological progression. Finally, the imitation definition comes last, as it is the latest etymological take on the word (it also concludes with the ostensible see-also section, which often concludes most general articles anyway.) Clearly this is a better format, rather than having the newest take on the word first (which could be argued as pushing a newer definition for priority.) 66.229.182.113 22:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I thoroughly disagree: "pastiche" is used today most often as a synonymn for assemblage. I.e. it is a combination of multiple elements, usually for humorous effect. It is also quite often derisive of the originals. Furthermore, although literary pastiche continues, the term is probably much more used in fine arts, where it can include collage and parodic mixtures of found elements. As post-modernism has risen, pastiche has become a favored technique again. It is also odd to omit reference to Dada and its use of pastiche.
Furthermore, the most common use of the word "pastiche" outside of the arts is for derogation. "Oh, that report? It was a pastiche of every press release the company has issued in the last year."
I agree as well. Pastiche is not exactly the same as pasticcio, and in my opinion, combining them would be a bad idea.
anonymous user
- Ya, never mind. I don't know what I was thinking. (I was 66.229.182.113). 66.229.160.94 09:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy neutrality
I dispute the neutrality because of the comments about Tarantino; find a more neutral way of expressing the fact that his films are 'pastiche' but without saying "They're not original works of art- they're just copied." I don't mean to sound like one of the teen jerks on IMDB- I'm just pointing out the obvious bias the writer had against Tarantino's work. Andrewdt85 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hate to sound like a teen fanboy but how can a sentence like "The Star Wars series of films by George Lucas stands out for the relentlessly derivative nature of its plot and characters" be considered objective or neutral. I'd bet the author would never describe the films of Kurosawa as "relentlessly derivative" even though Hidden Fortress has much the same plot and characters as Star Wars and some of his best are simple Shakespeare riffs. Take the joy-sucking elitism somewhere else. Much thanks! Philhhc 05:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have edited both sections in question to be of a NPOV and have removed the dispute tag. Pacian 07:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- to philhhhc...in the writers defense, its been well documented by lucas himself that most of the ideas for stars wars come from kursawa's hidden fortress, he's been very open about that fact.So technically you could call stars wars a pastiche as kurosawa was heavily influenced by the early american westerns of ford, so in turn stars wars pays homage to westerns and japan cinema
laura
[edit] Parody
I'm going to remove the opposition in the literary section between pastiche and parody. Literary parody, as seminally defined by Linda Hutcheon, is in fact respectful. It is indeed, innately respectful, for in the act of parody one assumes that the text parodied is worth the attention. So, when Rushdie parodies Dickens on the first page of Midnight's Children, for example, it is not necessarily a mocking or disrespectful gesture. Mcgma709 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Un-dicdef the article
The article is currently about a word, not a concept, and it's rather obvious that it's supposed to concentrate on the latter. Please try to amend this.
