29 Apr 08
I think the point here, Starrman, is that culture is subjective and therefor defined by its people.
Those who look on the Angel of the North as a thing of beauty and can admire the architectural and engineering (if any) that went into its construction does not mean that the David is any less an artistic and highly skilled work in view of those who appreciate it for the same reasons.
Social class, what appeals to some might not appeal to others but cannot in all fairness be disregarded purely because those one the opposite side of the spectrum consider it to be trite.
Point in case: Rodeos. (Why?)
29 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NatsiaIf that's the case then there's no point in aesthetic considerations, and yet they're fundamentally important to what we do everyday. Trends become so because a larger percentage of the population find pleasure in them. Why? If it was subjective alone wouldn't we'd be surprised at the notion of trends? Wouldn't we find the notion of some things, which majorities find displeasing, to be more popular in society? If all we can say about aesthetic judgements is that they're subjective then, in my opinion, we're being sloppy.
I think the point here, Starrman, is that culture is subjective and therefor defined by its people.
Those who look on the Angel of the North as a thing of beauty and can admire the architectural and engineering (if any) that went into its construction does not mean that the David is any less an artistic and highly skilled work in view of those who appreciate ...[text shortened]... e one the opposite side of the spectrum consider it to be trite.
Point in case: Rodeos. (Why?)
29 Apr 08
Originally posted by StarrmanWhat is left for anyone to rebel or rally against?
If that's the case then there's no point in aesthetic considerations, and yet they're fundamentally important to what we do everyday. Trends become so because a larger percentage of the population find pleasure in them. Why? If it was subjective alone wouldn't we'd be surprised at the notion of trends? Wouldn't we find the notion of some things, which m ...[text shortened]... aesthetic judgements is that they're subjective then, in my opinion, we're being sloppy.
What is left that has any true shock value?
How many truly original ideals are out there which have not been silenced or perverted by the influential and rich?
In a global society where we have information at our disposal 24/7 the masses are still being trained to be stupid and complacent. Culture as we know it has been born of boredom, cheap thrills and entertainment with immediate "benefits" or payoffs.
Pathetic as it is, it is.
The post that was quoted here has been removedAll this post-modernist crap -- where nothing is better than anything else, where any crap stain
is a piece of art, where refusing to render judgement is considered a virtue -- is just an effort to
make the mediocre feel like they're not. In this world, everyone is a genius, everyone is an
artist, everyone has something meaningful to say.
Well, I hate to tell you this, but 50% of all people are below average. That's just how it is. And,
sure, it's hard for a person to come to terms with the notion that they're sub-par, but that's just
life. And people don't like it. 'It's not worse, it's just different,' they say.
When your toddler draws a picture of a face, and the eyes are off center, one ear is bigger
than the other, the mouth is crooked, and the body is smaller than the head, you say, 'What
a beautiful picture!' You want to encourage the child, even though the picture is a poor representation
of what it aims to represent. You want the child to feel loved, to feel nurtured, to feel supported.
These are good things, for a child. For an adult, it's not good. When an adult stinks at
something, when they do a bad job, or when they are just plain mediocre, they still want to
hear how great they are. And, you do your child a disservice if you continue to stroke its ego
when its production doesn't keep up with its capacity to produce. If an older child does a mediocre
job with something, if you tell it that it was 'wonderful,' of course it will have no standard for
good and bad. And the cycle continues. Why strive for 'better' when 'mediocre' is 'wonderful?'
By profession I am an organist, which means I attend (i.e., play for) to a lot of funerals. I've
yet to hear a eulogy where the decedent wasn't a perfect parent, a perfect uncle, a perfect
grandma -- infinitely patient, generous with money, time or advice, gentle, the best listener,
loved Jesus more than anyone else, and so on and so on and so on. I'm sure I've played
five hundred funerals, in which half had eulogies just like that.
It's about self-delusion. If people acknowledge that 50% of culture is below average, then they
are forced to examine themselves a little bit to see if they might be embracing crap. Don't
mistake me: I'm not suggesting that one should only surround themselves with the cream of
the crop of whatever cultural media. Sometimes, 'bad movie night' is fun. Sometimes, you
just want to listen to Cyndi Lauper, Boy George, or UTFO. Thomas Kincaid is nice to look at.
There's nothing wrong with vegging out to Miami Vice. But be honest about it: that stuff
is mediocre at best.
Is there good or even great contemporary stuff? Of course. This isn't a defense of the 'Dead
White Men' mindset. But the idea that just because it's art makes it 'good' is baloney. Today,
just like every other day in the history of humankind, there's a lot of crap being produced by
a lot of mediocre artists. Today, unlike many times in the past, we just seem afraid to say:
what a pile of crap! And even worse is when some of us actually have aesthetic convictions,
the mediocrity-embracing group cries about elitism, judgmentalism, ivory towerism, and every
other thing in an effort to call attention away from their 'average' production and upon the
'bad guy' who actually has an opinion.
Nemesio
29 Apr 08
Roses are red,
violets are purple;
my love’s as sweet
as maple syruple.
_________________________________
The force that through the green fuse drives the flower
drives my green age,
that blasts the roots of trees is my destroyer.
And I am dumb to tell the crooked rose
my youth is bent by the same wintry fever.
—Dylan Thomas
_________________________________
If the first example is as good as poetry as the second, then put me with Nemesio and Starrman as an elitist snob.
29 Apr 08
Originally posted by NatsiaCountless millions of ideas, people have just become blind to the fire of intention, dumbed down by a lowest common denominator society. If you're willing to accept what you suggest; fine. I'm not. Just because there's masses of stuff out there doesn't mean there must be an equal proportion of good culture within it and this notion that culture just is and each to his own is lazy and it undermines good culture. These days it's seen as poncey or elitist to like anything which isn't popular. Trips to the ballet or reading Proust meet with derision from my friends because they'd rather be watching a bunch of overpaid simpletons they worship as demi-gods kick a ball around.
What is left for anyone to rebel or rally against?
What is left that has any true shock value?
How many truly original ideals are out there which have not been silenced or perverted by the influential and rich?
In a global society where we have information at our disposal 24/7 the masses are still being trained to be stupid and complacent. Culture as ...[text shortened]... ap thrills and entertainment with immediate "benefits" or payoffs.
Pathetic as it is, it is.
/rant.
People don't want to expend effort in finding content when a partial version is available without effort. I don't blame anyone (or at least I try not to), life's hard and the media is powerful, but accepting that culture is when we should be finding what culture could be is a sorry state of affairs.
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by vistesdPeople would probably find it easy to pick an excellent soccer player from a bunch of no-hopers. Then again, soccer's a venerable cultural institution. Or, it constitutes a scene that has remained fundamentally unchanged. So, it's easy for everyone to agree on facts. But things aren't always so clear-cut, are they? I mean, I really like Bob Rauschenberg's 'Goat' piece, but divorced from the context in which it was generated, it would probably just look like junk. In the same way, many American football fans ridicule soccer (and vice-versa)because they lack proper contextual understanding. Then there are those who would cock a snook at tiddleywinks ...
If the first example is as good as poetry as the second, then put me with Nemesio and Starrman as an elitist snob.
Anyway -- I like your example ('Violets' is so icky I wouldn't repeat it to a three-year-old -- there are much better children's rhymes!). What do you make of this:
30 Apr 08
1 edit
(Click Reply to see the original typography, or if that doesn't work, go here:
http://jacketmagazine.com/06/pryn-kins.html )
J.H. Prynne
Rich in Vitamin C
Under her brow the snowy wing-case
delivers truly the surprise
of days which slide under sunlight
past loose glass in the door
into the reflection of honour spread
through the incomplete, the trusted. So
darkly the stain skips as a livery
of your pause like an apple pip,
the baltic loved one who sleeps.
Or as syrup in a cloud, down below in
the cup, you excuse each folded
cry of the finch's wit, this flush
scattered over our slant of the
day rocked in water, you say
this much. A waver of attention at
the surface, shews the arch there and
the purpose we really cut;
an ounce down by the water, which
in cross-fire from injustice too large
to hold he lets slither
from starry fingers
noting the herbal jolt of cordite
and its echo: is this our screen, on some
street we hardly guessed could mark
an idea bred to idiocy by the clear
sight-lines ahead. You come in
by the same door, you carry
what cannot be left for its own
sweet shimmer of reason, its false blood;
the same tint I hear with the pulse it touches
and will not melt. Such shading
of the rose to its stock tips the bolt
from the sky, rising in its effect of what
motto we call peace talks. And yes the
quiet turn of your page is the day
tilting so, faded in the light.
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by NemesioThat all sounds very good, but then there's always the issue of how to decide (and who will decide) what is 'good' art and what is not. Is there an objective way to label art? To call a spade, a spade, you need to know what a spade is!
All this post-modernist crap -- where nothing is better than anything else, where any crap stain
is a piece of art, where refusing to render judgement is considered a virtue -- is just an effort to
make the mediocre feel like they're not. In this world, everyone is a genius, everyone is an
artist, everyone has something meaningful to say.
Well, I hate ...[text shortened]... he
'bad guy' who actually has an opinion.
Nemesio
Because if there is no objective way to 'label' art, it must be so that it its appreciation is subjective. Of course, you can call it like you see it, but why should your opinion have any particular value?
And I think we can all agree that popularity (or the aggregate sum of individual subjective views) cannot be the way to judge art. Note also, that the 'test of time' is also simply an intertemporal measure of popularity.
This is the paradox. One that I believe none of you as yet addressed properly.
30 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaSure -- but why rush into art when it's yet to be established whether bingo is a better game than soccer?
This is the paradox. One that I believe none of you as yet addressed properly.
If 'complexity' is the answer, then I believe that Tracy Emin's bed constitutes a trenchant refutation of post-modernism's detractors.
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'd say because if the hypothesis that there is an objective difference is true, one would expect that to be more apparent in art than in games or sports.
Sure -- but why rush into art when it's yet to be established whether bingo is a better game than soccer?
If 'complexity' is the answer, then I believe that Tracy Emin's bed constitutes a trenchant refutation of post-modernism's detractors.
You have to begin somewhere.
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by PalynkaWhy? I'd have thought it was the other way around. Sport has the clear advantage of having an empiric basis; points, goals, winners etc. That puts it miles above art in the objectivity stakes.
I'd say because if the hypothesis that there is an objective difference is true, one would expect that to be more apparent in art than in games or sports.
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by PalynkaOK! Watch this and rate it out of 10! On your marks, get set, go!
I'd say because if the hypothesis that there is an objective difference is true, one would expect that to be more apparent in art than in games or sports.
You have to begin somewhere.
http://www.ubu.com/film/paik_beatles.html
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by StarrmanNot really. Such objective characteristics are not comparable on a non-subjective basis. For example, that handball has more goals than football is meaningless. Same is true for basketball and cricket points.
Why? I'd have thought it was the other way around. Sport has the clear advantage of having an empiric basis; points, goals, winners etc. That puts it miles above art in the objectivity stakes.
Just because they're called the same, doesn't mean they are the same or even objectively comparable.
But why do you not address the issue of how to objectively differentiate art?