The thing I remember most about Sontag's essay is her statement that pure, unintentional camp is found when something takes itself deadly seriously and fails. I've always seen that as kind of a catchall definition.
I said I hadn't read it. But I agree, Namo, particularly about the LaBruce essay (which I have to read again now that I've waded through 19 pages of Koestenbaum).
Reading Koestenbaum I would say that HIS camp is the means by which one picks obscure works of art to praise, while sneering at those who don't get the joke. And, yes, as long as there are snobs, there will be that sort of camp.
But I think LaBruce is after something more important. I need to read it again.
Though I still don't see the camp in Kubrick, except for that one, "Here's Johnny!" moment.
Now I'm confused... (What's new?) But, for me, in a way, that's part of the appeal of camp--is that everyone seems to have a slightly different definition.
I do think, as Glinda said, that Sontag's idea that something that is enjoyed because it takes itself deadly seriously and fails is the "purest" definition of camp. But then, it leaves off so much of what makes camp--and I *think* this is why many object to Sontag's essay--and by many I mean a lot of gay men. I'd mitigate that definition by saying something that is so sincere that it becomes ridiculous can be camp too--and, often camp is something that can be viewed on different levels (which is obviously--and Sontag does imply this--why it appealed so much to gays and lesbians who couldn't find concrete representation of themselves in the media unless they subversed it somehow.) But again, a lot of that was probably, on some level, intentional.
Which is where I guess it has been co-opted by "hipster" irony. But even before--when Doug Sirk's films were suddenly re-appraised by film critics, they could only do so by saying he was making them as subversive, or even camp, statements. And... That's an arguable point too. Maybe it doesn't matter.
I agree Gaveston, that LaBruce's piece--even if his choices of category are obviously personal ones, something I'm sure he'd agree with--does reach into something different. Obviously with the media being even more self-referential than it was when Sontag wrote her piece (whether even people at the time agreed with it or not--I know from his writing, Vito Russo thought Sontag's piece missed the point entirely), that the definition has evolved and broadened.
I'm always a little surprised when I hear how often the word is used now--even compared to when I was a young teen and just sorta started to get its meaning 20 years ago.
"Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”
~ Muhammad Ali
