Those
who like it
and those
who do not like it

1. There is a very premature stage, educating new coming - say the newcomers to the world - where the 'Like', or 'I don't like' comes that followed - was a motion as required ineluctably spirit collectively - the fateful "nice"or "not nice". After that the die is cast - the roulette ball of life - and not just the "aesthetic" - has become final, fixed, deterministic, and breeding stronghold of certainty. True - and usefully true - would be just the opposite. The "I like to" have some reason - some reason that escapes the subject in question, or from which shuns. Hence, the analysis should start with no end. If you give up - if you forget it, if there is content - the shift to the dogmatic assignment of "beauty" or "not beauty" this and that becomes automatic: the taste of those who enjoys greater authority that is imposed on those who authorities affected, that, from active and involved as could be, turns - and finally, often - in the passive consumer. So it is with respect to a narrative, a poem, a painting, a musical composition. Who stops at "I like", in short, who then passes easily to the "beautiful, " asserts much more than you think - especially asserts much more than they believe relevant to the work of art.

2. Apparently, with Quelli cui non piace - those who do not like (Meltemi, Rome 2009), Francesco Muzzioli seemed to restrict his argument to the reasons of the crisis of literary criticism, but not carrying neither their own specific power or power that distinguishes the exercise of criticism in general, actually goes beyond - freely sinking the knife into the substance of the sick literary public and its dynamics, this freedom leads to political and literary - in the unawareness of the most stolid and grim complicity of less - has generated.

3.I summarize pro domo mea. The number of novels that are written and that, by hook or by crook, are published is suspect. The quantity of the novels we read is, after all, just as suspect. It's suspect the fiction, is suspected to be the docu-drama - the multitude of fictions, each a hybrid of history and fiction, news and social analysis. It is suspected the way in which people are transfigured into characters, or vice versa. It's suspect the way to talk about it - like when someone in the face of a movie or a novel, finds nothing better - can not find a better (would also like to say, "can no longer find better") - that to describe the plot. Forgetting, as Muzzioli says, the whole "process" through which this alleged "content" has been reached.
It is suspected all ambaradam literature. But suspicion of what?

4.It did not clear and not even think about it quite clear that "fetish character of commodity, let alone - his " secret "- to paraphrase a title of Marx's Capital (Book One, Section One, Chapter One, Paragraph 4) - in the case here, it is meant, of commodity culture" or, more restrictions of commodity aesthetics", that, precisely, the subject of social shame, "I like / I do not like" his punishment enhanced dissolution in the memory.
It is not to take lightly: the aesthetic result of the fetish involves non-trivial accountability policy. The transformation into a fetish means the assignment of a "quasi-magical aura" or "religious" in the art market subsequent to this assignment - which is already a mess - a "secret" - that is a state of occult, secret, mysterious and protection (from the greek "Arkè, protect, such as the Ark of Noah had to protect from the Flood) does not make things worse. For the critic and for whom, the critic, is the cost.

5. Not only that. I also suspect that, provided that the client express an aesthetic product - the Church, the art dealer or the publishing company, Fiat, three historical examples of explicit principals - in itself a work of art and shames its creator reducing bone of their consumerist nature -, no desire - and no ability at this point - may not even be there to reveal, in that proceeding, the commission implied, or presiding over all this ideological framework - Government - Training of an idea, the choice of language to express it and form of the package for his triumphal entry into the market.

6. Muzzioli is fully aware of the hardship that it involves the approach to the text - as is fully aware - bitterly aware - to meet, date, almost an orphan of the critics of the past - one that, even with the minimum provision of an apparatus pre, structuralist or post, not without flaws, at least, analyzed, was busy, trying to squeeze the text so that it would sort as much of the recondite. We say that the reflection of the language - the first step in addressing a text - marked a setback: the way that perhaps was not the right one, that the weight of philosophy still hung over, that the need for a model of mental activity behind the production of the signs - an idea of how to put together the language and the thought that they designate - was heard but did not find convincing solutions. But we also say that the mystical object protection analysis has made him immune from any analysis. The shop of ineffability - the beautiful, the good, the language itself - should be pursued by law.

7. Kant said that "the taste you can not play, but the taste can be contentious", but there Muzzioli doesn't buy it and, being well aware of what we can not "play without litigation", redefines the problem - that it deems common to all "democratic" conflicts - such as "find a basis for discussion." How to blame him? The minimum of intellectual honesty, in fact, demands that we let him - accepting the risk - to formulate criteria under which the merits of "like" and "I do not like", the avoidance of normative attitudes towards what should - worldwide, alas, even "universally" to come as the dogmatic claims of cultural (mostly racist fascists) - seen as "beautiful"or "not good ".

Felice Accame