Gregg writes of the "larger conversation" added up from individual
contributions. It's a nice idea, which may have its moments of truth, but
I've never been overly sold on that sort of cumbaya diversity equals wealth,
one-giant-leap-for-mankind, celebrate-diversity where all voices are equal
(the logical extension of the "larger conversation" idea)?blather.
For, even though the very language an individual operates with has been
bestowed by a given society, even though trends in cultures may for the most
part be socially constructed, ideas are only expressed by?wholly unique
persons, whose experience, if nothing else, is like no other human's who
ever existed. It is the individual who expresses that unique experience (and
thus viewpoint) in various shades of social currency we call?language. It is
that individual who can stretch the lines of that language, and lend new
meaning, unique from all the others, and certainly head and shoulders above
the collective.

Here we are witness to the unique expressions of Samuel L. Clemens, who was
certainly influenced by various societies, groups and even nations, but
whose voice remained his own, highly recognizable, highly prized. This may
seem like?a chicken & egg, expressivist vs. social constructivist argument,
but it is this the individual who gives us true genius, some sufficiently
potent to change the course of history, and in many cases, the "larger
conversation" which gives the pabulum of mediocrity.?Let's face it--there's
a herd instinct in most views of art that critics offer. ?Critics exist
supposedly to tell the rabble what art means (or, even what it *is*), but
the rabble often sees behind the curtain, perceives what critics are up to:
sucking joy from the marrow of art; tiresome ideas based on elitism;
diversity with perversity, etc.

I do think Gregg makes a valid distinction between criticism which dissects
and that which stands back to find some overriding meaning--yet, many might
not call the latter criticism at all, but merely enjoyment or awe;?most
criticism we are familiar with does the former, is equated with the former,
and is a rather dour, baleful bucket of slop.

David