Fine Arts and the Modern World
William Blake Jr.
luxuries of the elites.
This slander is frankly ridiculous, and it exerts a
degrading effect upon the civilization.
At this time in the world history, the world has by
far the greatest amount of material prosperity that it
has ever had. It also has by far the greatest population,
the greatest amount of information, the greatest amount
of knowledge, and the greatest amount of media and
political freedom in the history of humankind. It has
enough resources for - politically correct propaganda,
right-wing radio talk shows, supermarket tabloids, TV
evangelists, Jerry Springer, and all manner of
hideousness and inanity that we see on TV and the
radio and the news. So why not then have likewise an
abundance of world-class intellectual thought and
artistic accomplishment?
This question bears asking, for the sake primarily of the
greatness of the Civilization and the history of the World.
That a Renaissance Italy, with three million people and an
average household income of $1000 a year, would produce
Michelangelo, DaVinci, Botticelli, Rafael and a number of
other timeless masters, while the modern world has produced
no known artist of similar caliber since Salvador Dali, does
not say much for the modern world. Why, at a time when the
world's GDP, population, information, knowledge and media
reach far exceeds any ever created, are there not a thousand
Michelangelos, Emersons, Tsvetayeva's, Platos, Franklins,
Jeffersons, Li Pos, Rumis, Shakespeares and Elizabeth Barrett
Browning's? Why, at the time of the greatest accumulation of
knowledge and freedom of information and material resources
and politicalliberty in the history of the world, is there
not commensurate legacy and body of work - legacy and body
of work of literary, artistic, philosophical and intellectual
greatness?
The things that were once unthinkable luxuries even to the
kings and the queens, are now the daily aspect of the
existence of the people in the most run-of-the-mill Western
household. There are full-screen TVs and two-car garages in
most working households in America. These, by any historical
standard, are luxuries - luxuries that never previously
belonged even to Queen Elizabeth the First. So why, then,
are fine arts and philosophy - the flowering, the
consummation, the blossoming, the culmination, the legacy of
man's intellectual and artistic striving - the flowering and
the blossoming that, compared to these things, take far less
material resources to create and leave per unit of resources
expended a far greater legacy and embodied value - not at a
nearly commensurate quality?
Are the moderns not smart enough? Are the moderns not talented
enough? Are the moderns not free or educated or materially and
politically empowered enough? Either of these explanations,
given historical state of humanity, is absurd. There is
something wrong with one thing and one thing only:
THE PRIORITIES OF THE MODERN WORLD.
Who indeed would see it as idle luxury to create fine art and
fine literature - all things that require minimum resource
expenditure but produce embodied greatness that contain
inspiration and excellence, enhance knowledge and emotional
wisdom, enrich experience of life, and give the country
something to look back upon proudly over centuries of future
existence - while not seeing as idle luxury the McDonalds's
and poison-spewing SUVs, taxpayer-paid subsidies to farm
corporations and giveaway of government money to pharmaceutical
companies,
the supermarket tabloids and TV evangelists and
right-wing uglies congesting the media channels and politically
correct fascists using the taxpayer money to play power games
against the helpless in social work, attack all beautiful
sensibilities in the academia, and rob life of its Richness and
Splendor (and humanity of its Genius) while using for that evil
purpose far greater amount of resources than would be required
to produce a thousand Sistine Chapels?
The problem is not with the West's political or economic system,
which after all in both cases provide viable means for
expression of people's values in the marketplace and in the
government. The problem is with the values that are expressed
through both systems. The problem is with the priorities and
the ideas guiding these priorities. The problem is with the
short-sightedness of the mindset that fails to look forward to
history and to compute into the quantification of economic
utility and political benefit the long-term greatness of the
civilization, which lives through its literary and artistic
accomplishments and bequeathes through them to future generation
the brilliance and inspiration that once lived in it. The problem
is with the failure to economically and politically quantify
this: Historical interest; long-term benefit of humanity; the
legitimate need for legacy; and the very true and significant
need for Splendor.
Splendor that:
Enriches experience of life;
Shows what is possible;
Inspires people toward Excellence with sight of Accomplishment;
Vitalizes the Passionate and the Inspired in Human Being, setting
it free to impart of its Riches and enrich the Lives of Others and
the entirety of the Human Experience;
And imparts through the intuitive channels the Sublime and the
Magnificent to the Living, Directing and Guiding them to
Passionate, Beautiful, Inspired Life.
Splendor that is the accomplishment of Humankind's Excellence -
source of its Passion and Inspiration - and inspiration for a
finely refined sense of Justice, and undying interest in the Good
Of The Existing And The Yet-To-Exist.
And that the World requires again to be made a Value, in order
that Greatness, Man and Civilization can Live Again -
Produce magnificent and inspired legacy of its existence -
And enrich the lives of the Existing, justify and give legacy to
the Existed, tap into man's Talents for Good of Humanity, and
inspire and give light to the Yet-To-Exist.
Ilya Shambat
http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
Kite & Bitsy
William Blake Jr. wrote:
We hear you, William!
Nice to see this group. We were lurking on alt.support.marriage and
someone said the word "soulmate" upset them. I can understand but it's
nice to see a group where maybe there can be some acceptance of the
concept.
Once you know it, you don't forget it.
Kite and Bitsy
allendesigngallery
William Blake Jr. wrote:
> Fine arts and philosophy have been slandered as being
> luxuries of the elites.
>
> This slander is frankly ridiculous, and it exerts a
> degrading effect upon the civilization.
>
demands the rich and the poor, the young and old take pause (if only
for a moment). It creates the opportunity for all to have an subjective
opinion that is niether right nor wrong. Art speaks many languages and
has a private, sometimes moving, conversation with each person it meets.
*Anarcissie*
William Blake Jr. wrote:
> Fine arts and philosophy have been slandered as being
> luxuries of the elites.
Art hasn't. There is lots of great art for the masses.
You just don't happen to like it. But they do. And
they don't care what you think, fortunately for them.
Whether they need philosophy or not is another
matter. Philosophy has aptly been called the
disease for which it is the cure. Some of the masses
like it -- look at all the middle-brow adolescents who
love Ayn Rand. But most seem to do quite well
without it.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
...
>
> Whether they need philosophy or not is another
> matter. Philosophy has aptly been called the
> disease for which it is the cure. Some of the masses
> like it -- look at all the middle-brow adolescents who
> love Ayn Rand. But most seem to do quite well
> without it.
Do you really think the majority is doing "quite well"? Seems to me the
US is in sharp decline on pretty much any measure you care to use, with
thought deprivation being one and perhaps not the least important one.
*Anarcissie*
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every
purpose under heaven. If the time has come for the United
States to decline, do you think philosophy of the sort which
is likely to be distributed to the masses will save it? What
philosophy would that be?
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
How about the kind that keeps countries from invading places like Iraq?
Political theory is philosophy, too, after all.
michael
yeah... you could begin by putting copies of ObBook: The Concept of the
Political in top drawers in motels all over the US...
michael
*Anarcissie*
No, really, I would like to know what philosophy, made
available to the masses and accessible by them, would
have stopped the war in Iraq. The founder of their
religion, in whom so many of them ardently claim to
believe, told them to put away their swords, because
those who take up the sword will perish by the sword.
But it was to no avail, as usual. If plain speech
attributed to God won't do it, what on earth will?
Kite & Bitsy
Knowledge and reason?
Problem is - how does it get distributed. I think you'd need a
Philosophy XBox game (and a slow year for other games).
Kite
Don Tuite
wrote:
>
>No, really, I would like to know what philosophy, made
>available to the masses and accessible by them, would
>have stopped the war in Iraq. The founder of their
>religion, in whom so many of them ardently claim to
>believe, told them to put away their swords, because
>those who take up the sword will perish by the sword.
>But it was to no avail, as usual. If plain speech
>attributed to God won't do it, what on earth will?
the Jains or the Bahais may have an answer. But the UUs are more
common around these parts.
If Bahá’u’lláh, Aadinatha, and David Usher met in a steel cage match,
whom do you think would win?
Don
michael
> If Bahá’u’lláh, Aadinatha, and David Usher met in a steel cage match,
> whom do you think would win?
ol' baha'd have 'em both blinded with his effulgency in no time...
ubiquitous effulgency is all i remember from a few weeks reading getting
ready to meet dizzy gillespie, which i never did, effulge it all...
michael
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
I'm not really thinking of any specific philosophy, even though I assume
that Kant would do. And it's not a question of "distributing to the
masses," but a question of distribution to the ruling elite. A keen
interest in political philosophy is one of the many characteristics that
distinguishes Clinton from Bush. Remember the Bush/Gore vote? People
claiming to vote for the guy they'd like to have a bear with rather than
for the guy who thinks too much and knows how to pronounce the names of
foreign presidents?
There's no such thing as no theory, after all, a basic fact that our
Michael here is consistently missing (the basic tenets of _The Concept
of the Political_ being in action all over the place, something he'd
know if he knew the book). There's only
implicit/internalized/naturalized theory vs. active, self-conscious
reflection. The latter is not only unimportant in US politics, evidence
thereof is in fact harmful to candidates in most places and races.
Clinton won because he's _also_ the guy you'd have a beer with.
michael
> There's no such thing as no theory, after all, a basic fact that our
> Michael here is consistently missing (the basic tenets of _The Concept
> of the Political_ being in action all over the place, something he'd
> know if he knew the book).
...it was also my point, something you'd have noticed if you went in for
that sort of thing...
michael
smw
michael wrote:
I'm sure that you, too, could have been a contender.
*Anarcissie*
If you look up at the top, you'll notice that "William Blake, Jr.",
possibly the last person on earth who should give himself that
name, said, "Fine arts and philosophy have been slandered as
being luxuries of the elites." So we're talking about the folk
here, not the elites, or at least I was.
The elites know all about Kant -- they're given Kant at Yale
as part of an immunization procedure. The usually successful
aim is to prevent any contrary thought from interfering with
their careers of greed and domination. You seem to think
that some idea or other is going to divert their attention from
the great aim and real business of life, which for them is to
screw other people (for a variety of meanings of "screw").
There is no such idea. Reason is the slave of the passions,
and we know what their passions are.
But that wasn't what our precious Billy was talking about,
insofar as he was talking about anything discernible.
> A keen
> interest in political philosophy is one of the many characteristics that
> distinguishes Clinton from Bush. Remember the Bush/Gore vote? People
> claiming to vote for the guy they'd like to have a bear with rather than
> for the guy who thinks too much and knows how to pronounce the names of
> foreign presidents?
I love the typo.
> There's no such thing as no theory, after all, a basic fact that our
> Michael here is consistently missing (the basic tenets of _The Concept
> of the Political_ being in action all over the place, something he'd
> know if he knew the book). There's only
> implicit/internalized/naturalized theory vs. active, self-conscious
> reflection. The latter is not only unimportant in US politics, evidence
> thereof is in fact harmful to candidates in most places and races.
> Clinton won because he's _also_ the guy you'd have a beer with.
Bear. Wouldn't you like to have a bear with Slick? It's
about the most degenerate enterprise I can think of. Where
was this idea in 1999, when the fin de siecle so obviously
needed something special?
Anyway, Americans properly distrust elites. The problem is,
they don't go far enough.
Mackie
"smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:Tdxih.26903$Ga1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> Clinton won because he's _also_ the guy you'd have a beer with.
And a cigar. You would also want the cigar.
--
Mackie
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
"'All this country needs is a good 5 cent cigar.'"
--Monica Lewinski, M.A., recent graduate in Social Psychology from
London School of Economics, quoting Wilson Vice President, Thomas R.
Marshall
Mani Deli
wrote:
>
>"smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>news:Tdxih.26903$Ga1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>
>> Clinton won because he's _also_ the guy you'd have a beer with.
>
>And a cigar. You would also want the cigar.
I wouldn't have anything with twice unelected Bush and "fuck you"
Cheney.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
Well, I'm reacting to the slander part of it all. Of course, it all
depends on how you define the masses -- are college-going kids the
masses or the elite, in your view?
>
> The elites know all about Kant -- they're given Kant at Yale
> as part of an immunization procedure.
You gotta be kidding me.
> The usually successful
> aim is to prevent any contrary thought from interfering with
> their careers of greed and domination. You seem to think
> that some idea or other is going to divert their attention from
> the great aim and real business of life, which for them is to
> screw other people (for a variety of meanings of "screw").
> There is no such idea. Reason is the slave of the passions,
> and we know what their passions are.
Yeah yeah and all that. That's why there are absolutely no differences
between countries and their actions, I assume. Why some presidents get
elected for going to war and others elected for not going to war.
Incidentally, I think you got the "greed and domination" thing all wrong
-- no doubt it's a powerful motivator for enough of them, but it's the
true believers that are the scary ones. And there's nothing like
philosophy to trample belief of that sort.
...>
>
>> A keen
>>interest in political philosophy is one of the many characteristics that
>>distinguishes Clinton from Bush. Remember the Bush/Gore vote? People
>>claiming to vote for the guy they'd like to have a bear with rather than
>>for the guy who thinks too much and knows how to pronounce the names of
>>foreign presidents?
>
>
> I love the typo.
>
>
>> There's no such thing as no theory, after all, a basic fact that our
>>Michael here is consistently missing (the basic tenets of _The Concept
>>of the Political_ being in action all over the place, something he'd
>>know if he knew the book). There's only
>>implicit/internalized/naturalized theory vs. active, self-conscious
>>reflection. The latter is not only unimportant in US politics, evidence
>>thereof is in fact harmful to candidates in most places and races.
>>Clinton won because he's _also_ the guy you'd have a beer with.
>
>
> Bear. Wouldn't you like to have a bear with Slick? It's
> about the most degenerate enterprise I can think of. Where
> was this idea in 1999, when the fin de siecle so obviously
> needed something special?
>
> Anyway, Americans properly distrust elites. The problem is,
> they don't go far enough.
On the contrary, they have the wrong idea of what an elite would be. As
evidenced by your elected rulers, the guys who'd run used car lots
anywhere else in the civilized world.
smw
Mackie wrote:
> "smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:Tdxih.26903$Ga1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>>Clinton won because he's _also_ the guy you'd have a beer with.
>
>
> And a cigar. You would also want the cigar.
Speaking for yourself, I'm sure.
Mackie
Oh! Well, that just goes to show how much you, sitting up there in
your postmodernly pink, mink-upholstered Ivory Tower, know for "sure"
about theory, dearie. Yes, and when it comes to cigars *and* theory,
there has forever been but one theorist worth a bother on the the true
significance of cigars (aside from Oxford scholar, Bill Clinton), and
correct me if I'm having something of a "senior moment" here, but I
believe it was . . . she, the by now legendary psychologist, Monica
Lewinski who famously remarked, "Sometimes a cigar is only a . . . a .
. . ah . . . whoopie!"
I think I got that right. But Google away if you must, just to be, as
you say, 'sure'.
--
Mackie
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
"Do You Like Stinky Girls?"
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com/
Poetry?
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
Politics?
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
Music?
http://jpdavid.blogspot.com/
A Punk Rock Nancy Drew?
"It's like butter." Linda Richman
JC
I don't know that I would complicate the waters with "twice"
unelected. The evidence now is that he was not elected in 2000.
That's the fault of corruption in Tallahassee and at the
Supreme Court. His second term is the fault of the
American people who in late 2004 were still babbling about
"fighting them in Iraq rather than over here."
--
I'm out of here for two weeks. Have a happy.
William Blake Jr.
we'll talk.
Arindam Banerjee
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> michael wrote:
> > smw wrote:
> > > *Anarcissie* wrote:
> > >> smw wrote:
> > >>> *Anarcissie* wrote:
> > >>> ...
> > >>>> Whether they need philosophy or not is another
> > >>>> matter. Philosophy has aptly been called the
> > >>>> disease for which it is the cure. Some of the masses
> > >>>> like it -- look at all the middle-brow adolescents who
> > >>>> love Ayn Rand. But most seem to do quite well
> > >>>> without it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you really think the majority is doing "quite well"? Seems to me the
> > >>> US is in sharp decline on pretty much any measure you care to use, with
> > >>> thought deprivation being one and perhaps not the least important one.
> > >>
> > >> To every thing there is a season, and a time to every
> > >> purpose under heaven. If the time has come for the United
> > >> States to decline, do you think philosophy of the sort which
> > >> is likely to be distributed to the masses will save it? What
> > >> philosophy would that be?
Pre-Socratic Western thought, imperfect though that was. Like, the
philosophy underlying Shelley's great poem, "The Cloud" that I
successfully translated into Bengali.
> > > How about the kind that keeps countries from invading places like Iraq?
> > > Political theory is philosophy, too, after all.
> >
> > yeah... you could begin by putting copies of ObBook: The Concept of the
> > Political in top drawers in motels all over the US...
>
> No, really, I would like to know what philosophy, made
> available to the masses and accessible by them, would
> have stopped the war in Iraq.
The law of karma could be a good philosophy. It is, strictly speaking,
an accountant's view of the universe, and I think the US masses could
understand that as money is so very important, nay all-important, to
them. Besides, there are such expressions as "whatever goes comes
around", etc. even in Western countries.
Essentially, where morality is merely an option, not an uncompromisable
rule; where the national goal is to make money at any cost; where all
unpleasantnesses are shrugged off on the basis of a convenient
self-forgiving theology; where any discernable national "spirtuality"
to produce an everlasting Heaven on Earth by getting Lord Jesus to
descend from Heaven; where the ruling philosphy (that of
predestination, which was beautifully explained to me by one rabista)
is that only the rich or well-off are worthy of Heaven: then situations
like Iraq are not just inevitable, they are boringly predictable.
> The founder of their
> religion, in whom so many of them ardently claim to
> believe, told them to put away their swords, because
> those who take up the sword will perish by the sword.
But Christianity was really founded by Paul and other Jews, as a
rebellion against the pagan Roman rule. Jesus was an Indianised Jew,
who got killed or driven out by his fellow Jews.
> But it was to no avail, as usual. If plain speech
> attributed to God won't do it, what on earth will?
Let us see.
michael
> michael wrote:
>> ...it was also my point, something you'd have noticed if you went in
>> for that sort of thing...
> I'm sure that you, too, could have been a contender.
how kind of you to say... but...
just to walk you through what you missed the first time because it
didn't come all accessorized up with references to the greatest hits of
german philosophy:
putting copies of what is apparently to you a great bit of political
theory in the place of gideon bibles all over america would be like
exporting snow (albeit self-consciously) to eskimos...
the bush regime hardly needs the theoretical support of an
arch-conservative Catholic believer in authoritarian government,
black-white dichotomizing, and the centrality of the "enemy" to the
political to guide it into a wiser and more sanguine foreign policy vis
a vis iraq or any other country it may choose to invade...
on the other hand, if americans at large were as familiar with bits and
bites of schmitt as they are with the bible, the bushies could have just
made reference now and again to his works instead of all that hoo-haa
about wmds etc...
so what sort of thing do you think might happen if the american elite
were more conversant with political theory like schmitt's? they would
invade "self-reflexively"? deliberately erode liberal-democratic
principles more actively in "self-conscious" concert with anti-liberal
hacks gnawing away under the banner of poststructuralism?
or, since "kant would do", what, exactly do you think kant would do?
just do try to keep in mind that this elite with "kant-in-mind" would be
at the levers of power in the contemporary US with all the
non-theoretical dreck of "reality" washing around their calves and not
at the word-processor putting the final touches to a bibliography shaped
ever-so-carefully to impress the bureaucrat/ideologue who assigned the
paper...
michael
smw
JC wrote:
> Mani Deli wrote:
...>>
>>
>> I wouldn't have anything with twice unelected Bush and "fuck you"
>> Cheney.
>
>
> I don't know that I would complicate the waters with "twice"
> unelected. The evidence now is that he was not elected in 2000.
> That's the fault of corruption in Tallahassee and at the
> Supreme Court. His second term is the fault of the
> American people who in late 2004 were still babbling about
> "fighting them in Iraq rather than over here."
ObState: Ohio.
smw
michael wrote:
> smw wrote:
>
>> michael wrote:
>
>
>
>>> ...it was also my point, something you'd have noticed if you went in
>>> for that sort of thing...
>
>
>> I'm sure that you, too, could have been a contender.
>
>
> how kind of you to say... but...
>
> just to walk you through what you missed the first time because it
> didn't come all accessorized up with references to the greatest hits of
> german philosophy:
>
> putting copies of what is apparently to you a great bit of political
> theory in the place of gideon bibles all over america would be like
> exporting snow (albeit self-consciously) to eskimos...
Yes and no. There is value in making the implicit explicit and robbing
it of its presumed naturalness. That's the task of poetry and philosophy
alike. And, yes, I consider Carl Schmitt a pretty fine thinker; it was
Adorno, I think, who said that the best critiques of modernity came from
the right.
>
> the bush regime hardly needs the theoretical support of an
> arch-conservative Catholic believer in authoritarian government,
> black-white dichotomizing, and the centrality of the "enemy" to the
> political to guide it into a wiser and more sanguine foreign policy vis
> a vis iraq or any other country it may choose to invade...
True enough, but if you had a population that knew that they are being
sold the politics of an arch-conservative Catholic believer to whom
Hobbes is the beginning of the end of sovereignty as he likes it, they
might be just a tad less willing to swallow it.
...
> so what sort of thing do you think might happen if the american elite
> were more conversant with political theory like schmitt's? they would
> invade "self-reflexively"? deliberately erode liberal-democratic
> principles more actively in "self-conscious" concert with anti-liberal
> hacks gnawing away under the banner of poststructuralism?
You seem to assume that they'd flock to Schmitt and disfavor the
competition. I don't.
>
> Or, since "kant would do", what, exactly do you think kant would do?
I was thinking of the categorical imperative, not the one everybody
confuses with the golden rule, but the one about seeing people as an
ends in themselves. Politics always interferes with ethical purity, of
course -- we are talking of degrees of possibility of manipulation. And
I thought I'd made it clear that I'm not making claims on behalf of any
single specific philosophy but on behalf of complex thought itself. I do
believe that reading changes minds -- an occupational hazard, you might
say.
> just do try to keep in mind that this elite with "kant-in-mind" would be
> at the levers of power in the contemporary US with all the
> non-theoretical dreck of "reality" washing around their calves and not
> at the word-processor putting the final touches to a bibliography shaped
> ever-so-carefully to impress the bureaucrat/ideologue who assigned the
> paper...
Don't you find anti-intellectualism of this sort unbearably cheap? Well,
apparently not.
smw
Mackie wrote:
> "smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:%Xzih.39412$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>
>>Mackie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Tdxih.26903$Ga1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clinton won because he's _also_ the guy you'd have a beer with.
>>>
>>>
>>>And a cigar. You would also want the cigar.
>>
>>Speaking for yourself, I'm sure.
>
>
> Oh! Well, that just goes to show how much you, sitting up there in
> your postmodernly pink, mink-upholstered Ivory Tower, know for "sure"
> about theory, dearie.
Well, I was operating on a theory concerning your personal preference
regarding the orifice in which to stick your cigars.
*Anarcissie*
College, in the U.S., stopped being the province of the elites
at the latest after World War II.
I thought WB's remark was funny because it's obvious that
the folk have all kinds of fine art, and don't seem to have
much use for philosophy. They are not being deprived of
either, obviously, and there is no slander involved because
the premise is contrary to fact.
> > The elites know all about Kant -- they're given Kant at Yale
> > as part of an immunization procedure.
>
> You gotta be kidding me.
Well, they used to. I don't know what they do now -- give
them shots, maybe.
> > The usually successful
> > aim is to prevent any contrary thought from interfering with
> > their careers of greed and domination. You seem to think
> > that some idea or other is going to divert their attention from
> > the great aim and real business of life, which for them is to
> > screw other people (for a variety of meanings of "screw").
> > There is no such idea. Reason is the slave of the passions,
> > and we know what their passions are.
>
> Yeah yeah and all that. That's why there are absolutely no differences
> between countries and their actions, I assume. Why some presidents get
> elected for going to war and others elected for not going to war.
> Incidentally, I think you got the "greed and domination" thing all wrong
> -- no doubt it's a powerful motivator for enough of them, but it's the
> true believers that are the scary ones. And there's nothing like
> philosophy to trample belief of that sort.
The British upper classes in the 19th century were well
soaked in classical philosophy and art, and nevertheless
managed to get in quite a bit of greed and domination,
thus eventually pissing away the great empire which
their soldiers and tradesmen had won for them, just as
the ignoramuses of American government are pissing
away the wealth and power of the United States. It
turns out, it seems, that the difference between these
large states is one of style rather than substance or
deep structure, although one elite had lots of philosophy
and the other none.
> >> A keen
> >>interest in political philosophy is one of the many characteristics that
> >>distinguishes Clinton from Bush. Remember the Bush/Gore vote? People
> >>claiming to vote for the guy they'd like to have a bear with rather than
> >>for the guy who thinks too much and knows how to pronounce the names of
> >>foreign presidents?
> >
> >
> > I love the typo.
> >
> >
> >> There's no such thing as no theory, after all, a basic fact that our
> >>Michael here is consistently missing (the basic tenets of _The Concept
> >>of the Political_ being in action all over the place, something he'd
> >>know if he knew the book). There's only
> >>implicit/internalized/naturalized theory vs. active, self-conscious
> >>reflection. The latter is not only unimportant in US politics, evidence
> >>thereof is in fact harmful to candidates in most places and races.
> >>Clinton won because he's _also_ the guy you'd have a beer with.
> >
> >
> > Bear. Wouldn't you like to have a bear with Slick? It's
> > about the most degenerate enterprise I can think of. Where
> > was this idea in 1999, when the fin de siecle so obviously
> > needed something special?
> >
> > Anyway, Americans properly distrust elites. The problem is,
> > they don't go far enough.
>
> On the contrary, they have the wrong idea of what an elite would be. As
> evidenced by your elected rulers, the guys who'd run used car lots
> anywhere else in the civilized world.
It doesn't matter. The idea of an elite is based on greed and
domination, so if there is one, the same kind of people float
to the top: those who are good at acquisition and oppression,
at death and domination. To make a difference, obviously,
one would have to get rid of elites. That's theory, I suppose,
but it's a mighty simple theory. I don't really see why Kant
(or Plato or Wittgenstein) is needed for it.
Among the folk, that is.
*Anarcissie*
William Blake Jr. wrote:
> Do a google search for "Integrationism and Cultural Renaissance," then
> we'll talk.
Too late! The war has already started.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
...
>>>
>>>If you look up at the top, you'll notice that "William Blake, Jr.",
>>>possibly the last person on earth who should give himself that
>>>name, said, "Fine arts and philosophy have been slandered as
>>>being luxuries of the elites." So we're talking about the folk
>>>here, not the elites, or at least I was.
>>
>>Well, I'm reacting to the slander part of it all. Of course, it all
>>depends on how you define the masses -- are college-going kids the
>>masses or the elite, in your view?
>
>
> College, in the U.S., stopped being the province of the elites
> at the latest after World War II.
There you go. How many college students take comprehensive philosophy
courses?
> I thought WB's remark was funny because it's obvious that
> the folk have all kinds of fine art, and don't seem to have
> much use for philosophy. They are not being deprived of
> either, obviously, and there is no slander involved because
> the premise is contrary to fact.
I don't see a contradiction between "have no use for x" and "x has been
slandered," esp if the slander concerns x's uselessness. I think you're
right about art. Some stuff on TV is amongst the finest narrative ever
produced.
>>>The elites know all about Kant -- they're given Kant at Yale
>>>as part of an immunization procedure.
>>
>>You gotta be kidding me.
>
>
> Well, they used to. I don't know what they do now -- give
> them shots, maybe.
You're saying 43 took Kant? Any evidence?
>>>The usually successful
>>>aim is to prevent any contrary thought from interfering with
>>>their careers of greed and domination. You seem to think
>>>that some idea or other is going to divert their attention from
>>>the great aim and real business of life, which for them is to
>>>screw other people (for a variety of meanings of "screw").
>>>There is no such idea. Reason is the slave of the passions,
>>>and we know what their passions are.
>>
>>Yeah yeah and all that. That's why there are absolutely no differences
>>between countries and their actions, I assume. Why some presidents get
>>elected for going to war and others elected for not going to war.
>>Incidentally, I think you got the "greed and domination" thing all wrong
>>-- no doubt it's a powerful motivator for enough of them, but it's the
>>true believers that are the scary ones. And there's nothing like
>>philosophy to trample belief of that sort.
>
> The British upper classes in the 19th century were well
> soaked in classical philosophy and art, and nevertheless
> managed to get in quite a bit of greed and domination,
See above. Yes, there's greed and domination. There's also British
behavior during WWII as opposed to, say, US behavior.
> thus eventually pissing away the great empire which
> their soldiers and tradesmen had won for them, just as
> the ignoramuses of American government are pissing
> away the wealth and power of the United States.
The age of that kind of empire was over for everybody.
> It
> turns out, it seems, that the difference between these
> large states is one of style rather than substance or
> deep structure, although one elite had lots of philosophy
> and the other none.
Hey, if it's all the same to you, why bother talking about anything at
all? To me, most European countries look and feel and act very
differently from the US (and, to a lesser degree, from each other). The
hundreds of thousands dead from the last US folly make a difference to
some of us, though.
[snipped unread -- what's the point, right?]
michael
>> putting copies of what is apparently to you a great bit of political
>> theory in the place of gideon bibles all over america would be like
>> exporting snow (albeit self-consciously) to eskimos...
> Yes and no. There is value in making the implicit explicit and robbing
> it of its presumed naturalness.
so when schmitt claims that the enemy-friend dichotomy is constitutive
of politics as such, he is "robbing" the bush faction's insistence on
"with us or against us/good vs evil" of its presumed naturalness? good
trick, that... i got the impression that schmitt's disdain for liberal
politics (for him a contradiction in terms) was rooted in his firm faith
that it fails to take into account the "true nature" of politics as
such... once an arch-conservative catholic authoritarian, always...which
is why i can't agree that he is
> a pretty fine thinker
a fine thinker might be expected to move a little beyond assumptions
absorbed at the breast, rather than merely building thereon...
> it was Adorno, I think, who said that the best critiques of modernity came from
> the right.
and no doubt he was correct, since they at least have the virtue of not
deluding themselves into thinking they come from the left...
>> the bush regime hardly needs the theoretical support of an
>> arch-conservative Catholic believer in authoritarian government,
>> black-white dichotomizing, and the centrality of the "enemy" to the
>> political to guide it into a wiser and more sanguine foreign policy
>> vis a vis iraq or any other country it may choose to invade...
> True enough, but if you had a population that knew that they are being
> sold the politics of an arch-conservative Catholic believer to whom
> Hobbes is the beginning of the end of sovereignty as he likes it, they
> might be just a tad less willing to swallow it.
unless of course that politics suits and indeed expresses them because,
like schmitt, they are arch-conservative and deeply christian in their
very bones... on the other hand, in spite of your contempt for the great
american unwashed, they have yet to elect a hitler, worship a stalin or
a mao, or dressed like the french...
>> so what sort of thing do you think might happen if the american elite
>> were more conversant with political theory like schmitt's? they would
>> invade "self-reflexively"? deliberately erode liberal-democratic
>> principles more actively in "self-conscious" concert with anti-liberal
>> hacks gnawing away under the banner of poststructuralism?
>
> You seem to assume that they'd flock to Schmitt and disfavor the
> competition. I don't.
not at all... i was asking what you thought might happen if the american
elite were more conversant with political theory like schmitt's... i'm
still asking...
>> Or, since "kant would do", what, exactly do you think kant would do?
> I was thinking of the categorical imperative, not the one everybody
> confuses with the golden rule, but the one about seeing people as an
> ends in themselves.
so what do you think an elite with kant-in-mind would do?
> Politics always interferes with ethical purity, of
> course -- we are talking of degrees of possibility of manipulation.
ahhh... how sweet the fruits of complex thought!
> And I thought I'd made it clear that I'm not making claims on behalf of any
> single specific philosophy but on behalf of complex thought itself. I do
> believe that reading changes minds -- an occupational hazard, you might
> say.
you do seem to have a particular brand of complex thought in mind
though... the kind that concentrates on observable reality and refuses
to cop out into "all is ideology" appears not to make it onto your radar...
>> just do try to keep in mind that this elite with "kant-in-mind" would
>> be at the levers of power in the contemporary US with all the
>> non-theoretical dreck of "reality" washing around their calves and not
>> at the word-processor putting the final touches to a bibliography
>> shaped ever-so-carefully to impress the bureaucrat/ideologue who
>> assigned the paper...
>
> Don't you find anti-intellectualism of this sort unbearably cheap? Well,
> apparently not.
this gave me a fine morning chuckle... the defense of academic
scholasticism and "putting the final touches to a bibliography
shaped ever-so-carefully to impress the bureaucrat/ideologue who
assigned the paper" as "intellectualism"... well, we all deserve to feel
good about our jobs, i guess...
michael
Anarcissie
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> ...
> >>>
> >>>If you look up at the top, you'll notice that "William Blake, Jr.",
> >>>possibly the last person on earth who should give himself that
> >>>name, said, "Fine arts and philosophy have been slandered as
> >>>being luxuries of the elites." So we're talking about the folk
> >>>here, not the elites, or at least I was.
> >>
> >>Well, I'm reacting to the slander part of it all. Of course, it all
> >>depends on how you define the masses -- are college-going kids the
> >>masses or the elite, in your view?
> >
> > College, in the U.S., stopped being the province of the elites
> > at the latest after World War II.
>
> There you go. How many college students take comprehensive philosophy
> courses?
I don't know. When I was a child, freshman college
students were required to take Philosophy 101. Perhaps
this is not really _philosophy_. However, philosophy is
certainly _offered_ to the masses. I once saw Leibniz
on PBS. So I don't know who is doing the slandering
here.
> > I thought WB's remark was funny because it's obvious that
> > the folk have all kinds of fine art, and don't seem to have
> > much use for philosophy. They are not being deprived of
> > either, obviously, and there is no slander involved because
> > the premise is contrary to fact.
>
> I don't see a contradiction between "have no use for x" and "x has been
> slandered," esp if the slander concerns x's uselessness. I think you're
> right about art. Some stuff on TV is amongst the finest narrative ever
> produced.
The common folk have a cornucopia of art the like of
which the world has never seen, right down at the
mall. Should they tire of the tube.
> >>>The elites know all about Kant -- they're given Kant at Yale
> >>>as part of an immunization procedure.
> >>
> >>You gotta be kidding me.
> >
> > Well, they used to. I don't know what they do now -- give
> > them shots, maybe.
>
> You're saying 43 took Kant? Any evidence?
By 1964 they probably had the shots.
> >>>The usually successful
> >>>aim is to prevent any contrary thought from interfering with
> >>>their careers of greed and domination. You seem to think
> >>>that some idea or other is going to divert their attention from
> >>>the great aim and real business of life, which for them is to
> >>>screw other people (for a variety of meanings of "screw").
> >>>There is no such idea. Reason is the slave of the passions,
> >>>and we know what their passions are.
> >>
> >>Yeah yeah and all that. That's why there are absolutely no differences
> >>between countries and their actions, I assume. Why some presidents get
> >>elected for going to war and others elected for not going to war.
> >>Incidentally, I think you got the "greed and domination" thing all wrong
> >>-- no doubt it's a powerful motivator for enough of them, but it's the
> >>true believers that are the scary ones. And there's nothing like
> >>philosophy to trample belief of that sort.
> >
> > The British upper classes in the 19th century were well
> > soaked in classical philosophy and art, and nevertheless
> > managed to get in quite a bit of greed and domination,
>
> See above. Yes, there's greed and domination. There's also British
> behavior during WWII as opposed to, say, US behavior.
This seems rather far afield from anything we have
been discussing, actually.
> > thus eventually pissing away the great empire which
> > their soldiers and tradesmen had won for them, just as
> > the ignoramuses of American government are pissing
> > away the wealth and power of the United States.
>
> The age of that kind of empire was over for everybody.
>
> > It
> > turns out, it seems, that the difference between these
> > large states is one of style rather than substance or
> > deep structure, although one elite had lots of philosophy
> > and the other none.
>
> Hey, if it's all the same to you, why bother talking about anything at
> all? To me, most European countries look and feel and act very
> differently from the US (and, to a lesser degree, from each other). The
> hundreds of thousands dead from the last US folly make a difference to
> some of us, though.
Which you think a dose of Kant will address.
Sammybaby
smw skrev:
Why some presidents get
> elected for going to war and others elected for not going to war.
Probably ignorant of me, but I can't think of a President who got
elected for not going to war. Would this be in his second term or was
it someone who voted against going to war while they were in Congress
somewhere?
smw
Sammybaby wrote:
> smw skrev:
> Why some presidents get
>
>>elected for going to war and others elected for not going to war.
>
>
> Probably ignorant of me, but I can't think of a President who got
> elected for not going to war.
Well, I was counting chancellors as well, specifically Gerhard Schroeder.
Would this be in his second term or was
> it someone who voted against going to war while they were in Congress
> somewhere?
There _are_ countries not ruled by American presidents.
Blue Hornet
William Blake Jr. wrote:
> Fine arts and philosophy have been slandered as being
> luxuries of the elites.
>
> degrading effect upon the civilization.
>
> At this time in the world history, the world has by
> far the greatest amount of material prosperity that it
> has ever had. It also has by far the greatest population,
> the greatest amount of information, the greatest amount
> of knowledge, and the greatest amount of media and
> political freedom in the history of humankind. It has
> enough resources for - politically correct propaganda,
> right-wing radio talk shows, supermarket tabloids, TV
> evangelists, Jerry Springer, and all manner of
> hideousness and inanity that we see on TV and the
> radio and the news. So why not then have likewise an
> abundance of world-class intellectual thought and
> artistic accomplishment?
>
>
> This question bears asking, for the sake primarily of the
> greatness of the Civilization and the history of the World.
> That a Renaissance Italy, with three million people and an
> average household income of $1000 a year, would produce
> Michelangelo, DaVinci, Botticelli, Rafael and a number of
> other timeless masters, while the modern world has produced
> no known artist of similar caliber since Salvador Dali, does
> not say much for the modern world. Why, at a time when the
> world's GDP, population, information, knowledge and media
> reach far exceeds any ever created, are there not a thousand
> Michelangelos, Emersons, Tsvetayeva's, Platos, Franklins,
> Jeffersons, Li Pos, Rumis, Shakespeares and Elizabeth Barrett
> Browning's? Why, at the time of the greatest accumulation of
> knowledge and freedom of information and material resources
> and politicalliberty in the history of the world, is there
> not commensurate legacy and body of work - legacy and body
> of work of literary, artistic, philosophical and intellectual
> greatness?
>
> The things that were once unthinkable luxuries even to the
> kings and the queens, are now the daily aspect of the
> existence of the people in the most run-of-the-mill Western
> household. There are full-screen TVs and two-car garages in
> most working households in America. These, by any historical
> standard, are luxuries - luxuries that never previously
> belonged even to Queen Elizabeth the First. So why, then,
> are fine arts and philosophy - the flowering, the
> consummation, the blossoming, the culmination, the legacy of
> man's intellectual and artistic striving - the flowering and
> the blossoming that, compared to these things, take far less
> material resources to create and leave per unit of resources
> expended a far greater legacy and embodied value - not at a
> nearly commensurate quality?
>
> Are the moderns not smart enough? Are the moderns not talented
> enough? Are the moderns not free or educated or materially and
> politically empowered enough? Either of these explanations,
> given historical state of humanity, is absurd. There is
> something wrong with one thing and one thing only:
>
> THE PRIORITIES OF THE MODERN WORLD.
>
> Who indeed would see it as idle luxury to create fine art and
> fine literature - all things that require minimum resource
> expenditure but produce embodied greatness that contain
> inspiration and excellence, enhance knowledge and emotional
> wisdom, enrich experience of life, and give the country
> something to look back upon proudly over centuries of future
> existence - while not seeing as idle luxury the McDonalds's
> and poison-spewing SUVs, taxpayer-paid subsidies to farm
> corporations and giveaway of government money to pharmaceutical
> companies,
> the supermarket tabloids and TV evangelists and
> right-wing uglies congesting the media channels and politically
> correct fascists using the taxpayer money to play power games
> against the helpless in social work, attack all beautiful
> sensibilities in the academia, and rob life of its Richness and
> Splendor (and humanity of its Genius) while using for that evil
> purpose far greater amount of resources than would be required
> to produce a thousand Sistine Chapels?
>
>
> The problem is not with the West's political or economic system,
> which after all in both cases provide viable means for
> expression of people's values in the marketplace and in the
> government. The problem is with the values that are expressed
> through both systems. The problem is with the priorities and
> the ideas guiding these priorities. The problem is with the
> short-sightedness of the mindset that fails to look forward to
> history and to compute into the quantification of economic
> utility and political benefit the long-term greatness of the
> civilization, which lives through its literary and artistic
> accomplishments and bequeathes through them to future generation
> the brilliance and inspiration that once lived in it. The problem
> is with the failure to economically and politically quantify
> this: Historical interest; long-term benefit of humanity; the
> legitimate need for legacy; and the very true and significant
> need for Splendor.
>
> Splendor that:
>
> Enriches experience of life;
> Shows what is possible;
> Inspires people toward Excellence with sight of Accomplishment;
> Vitalizes the Passionate and the Inspired in Human Being, setting
> it free to impart of its Riches and enrich the Lives of Others and
> the entirety of the Human Experience;
>
> And imparts through the intuitive channels the Sublime and the
> Magnificent to the Living, Directing and Guiding them to
> Passionate, Beautiful, Inspired Life.
>
> Splendor that is the accomplishment of Humankind's Excellence -
> source of its Passion and Inspiration - and inspiration for a
> finely refined sense of Justice, and undying interest in the Good
> Of The Existing And The Yet-To-Exist.
>
> And that the World requires again to be made a Value, in order
> that Greatness, Man and Civilization can Live Again -
>
> Produce magnificent and inspired legacy of its existence -
>
> And enrich the lives of the Existing, justify and give legacy to
> the Existed, tap into man's Talents for Good of Humanity, and
> inspire and give light to the Yet-To-Exist.
>
> Ilya Shambat
> http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
Bill,
It's an interesting, thoughtful and thought-provoking post, and a topic
that I've also thought about at some length, but without putting pen to
paper, so to speak. I hope it's not to late to reply to the original
post, without getting lost at the bottom of the thread, but I guess
I'll take the chance.
I think that in terms of Art, we're pretty much covered. The
difference is that there are so many more media available these days
that were not even possible--not even dreamed of!--even fifty to a
hundred years ago. Look at the range of expression available just in
music, for example. Think of the styles, the venues, the formats and
methods of distribution that didn't even exist earlier in our own short
lifetimes. How old is MTV, for example? A quarter-century, or less?
Now, I won't give examples of every other medium, including television,
motion pictures, sculpture and painting, architecture and publishing
and other modes of "expression" that are available, but you know what I
mean here. There is just "so much". You and I may agree that much of
that, maybe 99% or more, as always, is trash, and tastes change ... but
there are gems. You have to find your own. And just as many of the
finest artists and composers from centuries ago that we recognize as
genius were totally unappreciated or even reviled in their own time,
can you doubt that that still happens today? Whenever an Establishment
is challenged, the nonentities who have the most power and prestige to
lose fight the hardest to rebuff the challenge, and the masterpiece is
lost to the contemporary crowd, to surface and be recognized later,
often many years after the artist's death. We may not see it now, but
I have no doubt, given human history, that such is the case right now.
The world of "the arts" has fundamentally changed, though, from years
gone by, to become more responsive to the marketplace. So most art has
to appeal to a mass audience, be commercially replicable, and fit into
formats that are useful (or at least usable) by the intended audience.
I don't have room, even in my entertainment room, for even a decently
arrayed string quartet, much less a symphony orchestra. And most
people these days, perhaps especially the ones who can most afford the
dollar costs, have the time to devote to learning to appreciate
orchestral music, much less the time to visit the symphony. So who's
going to write symphonic music any more?
This brings us to, "What has happened to the great patrons of Art?"
Why don't Bill and Melinda Gates commission great art and music for
today? I suppose that in some sense they do, most often through
architecture, but even if Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have more money
than the Medici family and various European kings and emperors, they
don't have the desire (perhaps through not having acquired the taste)
to do so.
I would also say that there is another form of expression that was
almost non-existant "back in the day", and that is "Sport". Maybe,
also, this isn't a form of expression that you approve of (and much of
current Sport, like much of current Art, is just trash for the masses),
but I think there is beauty to be found there, if you can open yourself
to enjoy it when it does.
It also seems to me that the very fact that the world is all of the
things you mentioned in your post: richer than ever, freer than ever,
with more information available to more people through more channels
than ever before ... and with freer markets than ever before (though I
don't think you said that directly) ... speaks to the fact that Western
philosophy is ascendant. After all, that philosophy is all about Man's
freedom and ability to make choices ... and guidance to make "correct
choices". Could most of us make better choices, most of the time?
Undoubtedly! But the fact that the world is becoming more of what we
like (richer, freer, more accessible) says that, on balance, we seem to
be making enough of the right choices to proceed in that direction.
Unfortunately, I have a dim view of Religion. I think that blind
adherence to dogma and the politics of organized religion (and conflict
between religions, especially conflicts between every one that calls
itself "the one true religion", and every other) prevent intelligent
and useful debate on the fundamental question of philosophy: "Why are
we here?" Surely it's not just to become richer, freer and all have
our own blogs, is it? Or to "gamble our souls" on picking "the right
religion"?
Arindam Banerjee
> greatness of the Civilization and the history of the World.
> That a Renaissance Italy, with three million people and an
> average household income of $1000 a year, would produce
> Michelangelo, DaVinci, Botticelli, Rafael and a number of
> other timeless masters, while the modern world has produced
> no known artist of similar caliber since Salvador Dali, does
> not say much for the modern world. Why, at a time when the
> world's GDP, population, information, knowledge and media
> reach far exceeds any ever created, are there not a thousand
> Michelangelos, Emersons, Tsvetayeva's, Platos, Franklins,
> Jeffersons, Li Pos, Rumis, Shakespeares and Elizabeth Barrett
> Browning's? Why, at the time of the greatest accumulation of
> knowledge and freedom of information and material resources
> and politicalliberty in the history of the world, is there
> not commensurate legacy and body of work - legacy and body
> of work of literary, artistic, philosophical and intellectual
> greatness?
Good question, and the answer as I see is is a global conspiracy
against excellence, as the rulers of the world are mediocrities and
worse, invariably threatened by excellence of any form. It is not in
their interest to promote merit. However, in the Italy of the time you
mention, there was need for excellence due to genuine competition, not
the fake or contrived or mediocrity-satisfying competition of our time.
*Anarcissie*
The rulers of the world don't make art, they're too busy
ruling. And at least in the West, there is endless
competition which is judged not by the rulers but by
every class. However, in _every_ period there is a
standard complaint, a standard cliché, a standard
absolute fatuous banality: the art of the moment isn't
as good as the art of some wonderful past moment
when everything was much better. Had this tedious
refrain not been yet once again recited, no doubt the
universe would come to an end. You and "William
Blake" (!) are to be commended on keeping it going.
Blue Hornet
Yep. That's what I was trying to say, in my long-winded way.
Ronald Cooper
"worldly" and good about themselves.
"William Blake Jr." <ibsh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166151319.4...@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Fine arts and philosophy have been slandered as being
> luxuries of the elites.
>
> This slander is frankly ridiculous, and it exerts a
> degrading effect upon the civilization.
>
> At this time in the world history, the world has by
> far the greatest amount of material prosperity that it
> has ever had. It also has by far the greatest population,
> the greatest amount of information, the greatest amount
> of knowledge, and the greatest amount of media and
> political freedom in the history of humankind. It has
> enough resources for - politically correct propaganda,
> right-wing radio talk shows, supermarket tabloids, TV
> evangelists, Jerry Springer, and all manner of
> hideousness and inanity that we see on TV and the
> radio and the news. So why not then have likewise an
> abundance of world-class intellectual thought and
> artistic accomplishment?
>
>
> This question bears asking, for the sake primarily of the
> greatness of the Civilization and the history of the World.
> That a Renaissance Italy, with three million people and an
> average household income of $1000 a year, would produce
> Michelangelo, DaVinci, Botticelli, Rafael and a number of
> other timeless masters, while the modern world has produced
> no known artist of similar caliber since Salvador Dali, does
> not say much for the modern world. Why, at a time when the
> world's GDP, population, information, knowledge and media
> reach far exceeds any ever created, are there not a thousand
> Michelangelos, Emersons, Tsvetayeva's, Platos, Franklins,
> Jeffersons, Li Pos, Rumis, Shakespeares and Elizabeth Barrett
> Browning's? Why, at the time of the greatest accumulation of
> knowledge and freedom of information and material resources
> and politicalliberty in the history of the world, is there
> not commensurate legacy and body of work - legacy and body
> of work of literary, artistic, philosophical and intellectual
> greatness?
>
*Anarcissie*
Ronald Cooper wrote:
> Most so-called "art" is just garbage that rich people buy so they can feel
> "worldly" and good about themselves.
>
I'm impressed. Many, many millions of instances of art are
produced every year, and many millions of these are kept around
indefinitely. There must be about as many works of art as there
are human beings. And yet you have reviewed and judged more
than half of them according to some absolute standard that
allows you to know that most of them are garbage. However did
you manage it? I can barely keep up with _Art_News_.
Ronald Cooper
spend money on more practical things than art.
"Hey, look what I bought (jumping up and down, waving arms wildly), I have
culture! I'm proof than man has evolved into something more than a monkey
that can talk! If you can't see what a fine piece of "artwork" this is,
than maybe you're further down on the evolutionary chain than I am."
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167094289.6...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Ronald Cooper
I don't let some loser that declares himself to be an art critic influence
my perception. "Oh, Robert Hughes says this is a masterpiece, so it must
be! Let me get my checkbook!"
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167094289.6...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
Blue Hornet
Ronald Cooper wrote:
> <I can barely keep up with _Art_News_.
>
> I don't let some loser that declares himself to be an art critic influence
> my perception. "Oh, Robert Hughes says this is a masterpiece, so it must
> be! Let me get my checkbook!"
You, on the other hand, have also declared yourself as an art critic,
and apparenlty an amateur and psychic one at that, since you can
declare ahead of time that the majority is junk. (I'm just assuming
the amateur part; please correct me if you get paid for opinions such
as the one expressed earlier.)
And still you're not published except on Usenet? Well, ain' that
somethin'? There is *no* justice in this world.
smw
Ronald Cooper wrote:
> Most so-called "art" is just garbage that rich people buy so they can feel
> "worldly" and good about themselves.
Well, there's your "slander," A.
*Anarcissie*
Troll calleth unto troll, I guess. I confess that I was
really bemused by the notion that the common folk had
no access to fine art. Or philosophy, for that matter.
But on Usenet, each time one thinks one has achieved
true witlessness, a yet greater witlessness is likely
to appear, rising above all former witlessness like
a mighty and serene peak.
I should have known better than to get into this
thread, although there is a certain humor in seeing
the ancient clichés brought out from the cliché
chest and displayed for our amusement and
wonder -- yet again.
Mani Deli
wrote:
> However, in _every_ period there is a
>standard complaint, a standard cliché, a standard
>absolute fatuous banality: the art of the moment isn't
>as good as the art of some wonderful past moment
>when everything was much better.
There is as much fine artwork produced as in the past.
It just isn't allowed to hang among the crap now allowed into the
modern sections of museums.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> smw wrote:
>
>>Ronald Cooper wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Most so-called "art" is just garbage that rich people buy so they can feel
>>>"worldly" and good about themselves.
>>
>>Well, there's your "slander," A.
>
>
> Troll calleth unto troll, I guess. I confess that I was
> really bemused by the notion that the common folk had
> no access to fine art.
I don't think it's a question of access at all; it's a question of
ideology and warped identity politics.
*Anarcissie*
What is? Do the common people have and enjoy fine art?
They do, although "William Blake, Jr." doesn't seem to
enjoy the kind of fine art they enjoy and therefore fails to
recognize their happy estate. Could they also have and
enjoy philosophy? That too, if they wanted it. Do cretins
pontificate upon these subjects on Usenet? That also,
and in great measure, heaped up, pressed down, and
running over. It seems that nothing is lacking.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> smw wrote:
>
>>*Anarcissie* wrote:
>>
>>>smw wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ronald Cooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Most so-called "art" is just garbage that rich people buy so they can feel
>>>>>"worldly" and good about themselves.
>
>
>>>>Well, there's your "slander," A.
>
>
>>>Troll calleth unto troll, I guess. I confess that I was
>>>really bemused by the notion that the common folk had
>>>no access to fine art.
>>
>>I don't think it's a question of access at all; it's a question of
>>ideology and warped identity politics.
>
>
> What is?
Utilization of access.
*Anarcissie*
Would this be in regard to art, philosophy, or both? I don't
see any problem with fine art, except that many of the lower
classes have to work, hustle or scrounge for a living and don't
have as much time for art appreciation as their betters. Also
many of them have rather poor morale, and art often demands
something of its audience. Still, there is no doubt that much
fine art is produced and much appreciated. However, it is true
the masses don't consume much philosophy. So is this what
we're talking about? I don't want to talk about the elites.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
We're talking of something you deny exists -- the fact that a great
portion of art, literature, and philosophy has been ideologized _as_
elusive, hermetic, elitist, etc., and not just by/to the "lower classes"."
Atalanta, original G.
Ronald Cooper wrote:
> Most so-called "art" is just garbage that rich people buy so they can feel
> "worldly" and good about themselves.
Sort of like having/owning a computer and typing on it, eh?
Atalanta, original G.
Anarcissie, I don't think Ronald is capable of using numbers to analyze
his own statement.
Most of the art owned within my family (we are neither rich nor
worldly) has been produced by our family, itself. That's true of many
families, in fact, Ronald might want to qualify his statement to say
"rich people without artistic talent."
The monetary transactions that sometimes befall a work of art have
nothing to do with the urge or desire to create art, keep it - or how
it's valued.
A.
*Anarcissie*
I didn't say no such art existed. I was still responding to
"Fine arts and philosophy have been slandered as being
luxuries of the elites." That seems to be _all_ of fine art,
does it not? I pointed out that the lower orders have a
lot of fine art some of which they make themselves, and
they seem to have as much philosophy as they want.
Moreover, there are a great many of those who imagine
themselves to be enlightened about such matters who
are ready at a moment's notice to provide more for
whoever wants it, including myself.
Has some art been ideologized as elusive, hermetic,
elitist, and so on? Certainly -- it's a good way to pad
the price. And some art _is_ really and truly elusive,
hermetic, and elitist because it was deliberately made
that way. I don't see the problem, though. It's as with
Rolex watches. You can pay thousands of dollars for
a Rolex watch, or you can pay ten dollars and get one
that keeps time just as well but says "CASIO" on its
face and is made of plain black plastic and is far
more elegant in design. Does this mean watches
have been slandered as a luxury of the elites? Maybe
in the 17th century.
I don't think we've homed in on a subject here,
which is not surprising, given the intro.
Arindam Banerjee
Hardly. How many hours does your Bushling actually work? All the
modern rulers have to do is to take such decisions, that suit their
biases and power structures. They do not run any risks, unlike the
rulers of the past whose lives were in real danger. So, the modern
rulers have no need for art or creativity, they need blind fools and
followers, like you.
Arindam Banerjee
And there are so many of them, like you - now that's the downside of
democracy, or whatever is presently meant by it. Cretins opine, and
their cretinous opinions are elevated to divine truth. So, 80% cretins
want war in Iraq, so they invade and destroy an entire country. Then
that fails, their interests get hurt, and then 30% support what 80%
supported earlier. Thus what was right and holy a few years ago,
becomes wrong and silly.
The absence of good art, philosophy, religion, poetry, physics,
theology etc. can only make the cretins even more so, and lead to
further blunders.
Arindam Banerjee
And this is just the job for the ruling classes, that manufacture the
opinions the cretins must recite, and think it is actually their own.
Such is the purpose of the media, academia, etc. - to serve the
interests that pay them. There is no such thing as freedom of speech in
this cunningly contrived system, merely the appearance of same. To
make money from the media, the writer/journalist has to present stuff
that will be printed or aired, and so, one's freedom is naturally
curtailed according to the allowed tastes and interests.
Usenet is the only medium left for such public expression, but it is
grossly misused. Also, in countries like India, which I visited
recently, this medium does not exist, as the Internet services are very
poor and only email services barely works.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> smw wrote:
>
>>*Anarcissie* wrote:
...
>>>>>>I don't think it's a question of access at all; it's a question of
>>>>>>ideology and warped identity politics.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What is?
>>>>
>>>>Utilization of access.
>>>
>>>
>>>Would this be in regard to art, philosophy, or both? I don't
>>>see any problem with fine art, except that many of the lower
>>>classes have to work, hustle or scrounge for a living and don't
>>>have as much time for art appreciation as their betters. Also
>>>many of them have rather poor morale, and art often demands
>>>something of its audience. Still, there is no doubt that much
>>>fine art is produced and much appreciated. However, it is true
>>>the masses don't consume much philosophy. So is this what
>>>we're talking about? I don't want to talk about the elites.
>>
>>We're talking of something you deny exists -- the fact that a great
>>portion of art, literature, and philosophy has been ideologized _as_
>>elusive, hermetic, elitist, etc., and not just by/to the "lower classes"."
>
>
> I didn't say no such art existed.
I wasn't talking about art, but about attitude. You want to think Ronald
is some kind of outlier; in my experience, he's a crude spokesperson for
a majority opinion that is by no means restricted to the "lower classes."
I was still responding to
> "Fine arts and philosophy have been slandered as being
> luxuries of the elites." That seems to be _all_ of fine art,
> does it not? I pointed out that the lower orders have a
> lot of fine art some of which they make themselves, and
> they seem to have as much philosophy as they want.
"Fine art" is a bit of a technical term, so I have no idea what you are
referring to by those lots and lots of lower-class produced fine art.
...
> Has some art been ideologized as elusive, hermetic,
> elitist, and so on? Certainly -- it's a good way to pad
> the price.
The price of a paperback is ridiculously low, and most of the canonical
writings in question are available online. Price is irrelevant unless
you refer to original painting and sculpture.
> I don't think we've homed in on a subject here,
> which is not surprising, given the intro.
At stake was "slander." Ilya is correct about this, even if he expressed
himself in his typically sweeping gestures.
*Anarcissie*
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
> > smw wrote:
> >>*Anarcissie* wrote:
> >>>>>>I don't think it's a question of access at all; it's a question of
> >>>>>>ideology and warped identity politics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What is?
> >>>>
> >>>>Utilization of access.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Would this be in regard to art, philosophy, or both? I don't
> >>>see any problem with fine art, except that many of the lower
> >>>classes have to work, hustle or scrounge for a living and don't
> >>>have as much time for art appreciation as their betters. Also
> >>>many of them have rather poor morale, and art often demands
> >>>something of its audience. Still, there is no doubt that much
> >>>fine art is produced and much appreciated. However, it is true
> >>>the masses don't consume much philosophy. So is this what
> >>>we're talking about? I don't want to talk about the elites.
> >>
> >>We're talking of something you deny exists -- the fact that a great
> >>portion of art, literature, and philosophy has been ideologized _as_
> >>elusive, hermetic, elitist, etc., and not just by/to the "lower classes"."
> >
> >
> > I didn't say no such art existed.
>
> I wasn't talking about art, but about attitude. You want to think Ronald
> is some kind of outlier; in my experience, he's a crude spokesperson for
> a majority opinion that is by no means restricted to the "lower classes."
How do you know it's a majority opinion? It seems
monumentally ignorant to me, something I'd expect from
a retarded person. Your informant seems to be unaware
that most examples of the plastic arts, most literature,
most music, is created for and often by working people
to be sold cheaply? He seems to be fixated on the upper-
class gallery culture of a generation or two ago. He can
go down to the mall (if he's allowed to cross the street)
and get a nice Van Gogh repro for thirty or forty dollars.
The museums are stuffed with folk including welfaristas
and frat boys. Concerts, pop, classical and avant-
garde, sell out; but if you can't get to the performance,
CDs, iPods, and the Internet wait to serve you with
everything from Palestrina to Snoop Dogg.
> > I was still responding to
> > "Fine arts and philosophy have been slandered as being
> > luxuries of the elites." That seems to be _all_ of fine art,
> > does it not? I pointed out that the lower orders have a
> > lot of fine art some of which they make themselves, and
> > they seem to have as much philosophy as they want.
> "Fine art" is a bit of a technical term, so I have no idea what you are
> referring to by those lots and lots of lower-class produced fine art.
The fine arts are the plastic arts (painting, drawing, sculpture,
weaving, etc., and mechanical reproduction of the originals
thereof) literature, music and performance (video, movies,
plays, dance, etc.) which are produced for their own sake,
that is, for direct enjoyment (as opposed to commercial art
which is usually designed to convey information or sell
something.) A somewhat more restricted meaning of
"fine arts" are the aforesaid plastic arts.
> ...
> > Has some art been ideologized as elusive, hermetic,
> > elitist, and so on? Certainly -- it's a good way to pad
> > the price.
>
> The price of a paperback is ridiculously low, and most of the canonical
> writings in question are available online. Price is irrelevant unless
> you refer to original painting and sculpture.
>
> > I don't think we've homed in on a subject here,
> > which is not surprising, given the intro.
>
> At stake was "slander." Ilya is correct about this, even if he expressed
> himself in his typically sweeping gestures.
Well, we have one retarded person asserting some sort
of slander, and you paying attention to it. I don't see
anything else at the moment for Ilya's pontifications to
be correct about. Of course, you're situated out in the
hinterlands, are you not? God knows what may be
going on out there.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> smw wrote:
...>>
>>I wasn't talking about art, but about attitude. You want to think Ronald
>>is some kind of outlier; in my experience, he's a crude spokesperson for
>>a majority opinion that is by no means restricted to the "lower classes."
>
>
> How do you know it's a majority opinion? It seems
> monumentally ignorant to me, something I'd expect from
> a retarded person. Your informant seems to be unaware
> that most examples of the plastic arts, most literature,
> most music, is created for and often by working people
> to be sold cheaply? He seems to be fixated on the upper-
> class gallery culture of a generation or two ago. He can
> go down to the mall (if he's allowed to cross the street)
> and get a nice Van Gogh repro for thirty or forty dollars.
> The museums are stuffed with folk including welfaristas
> and frat boys. Concerts, pop, classical and avant-
> garde, sell out; but if you can't get to the performance,
> CDs, iPods, and the Internet wait to serve you with
> everything from Palestrina to Snoop Dogg.
You keep talking about availability; perhaps you need to find someone
who disagrees with you on that topic?
>
>
>>> I was still responding to
>>>"Fine arts and philosophy have been slandered as being
>>>luxuries of the elites." That seems to be _all_ of fine art,
>>>does it not? I pointed out that the lower orders have a
>>>lot of fine art some of which they make themselves, and
>>>they seem to have as much philosophy as they want.
>
>
>>"Fine art" is a bit of a technical term, so I have no idea what you are
>>referring to by those lots and lots of lower-class produced fine art.
>
>
> The fine arts are the plastic arts (painting, drawing, sculpture,
> weaving, etc., and mechanical reproduction of the originals
> thereof) literature, music and performance (video, movies,
> plays, dance, etc.) which are produced for their own sake,
> that is, for direct enjoyment (as opposed to commercial art
> which is usually designed to convey information or sell
> something.) A somewhat more restricted meaning of
> "fine arts" are the aforesaid plastic arts.
And your lower classes are producing which percentage of the above, in
your view?
>
>
>>...
>
>
>>>Has some art been ideologized as elusive, hermetic,
>>>elitist, and so on? Certainly -- it's a good way to pad
>>>the price.
>>
>>The price of a paperback is ridiculously low, and most of the canonical
>>writings in question are available online. Price is irrelevant unless
>>you refer to original painting and sculpture.
>>
>>
>>>I don't think we've homed in on a subject here,
>>>which is not surprising, given the intro.
>>
>>At stake was "slander." Ilya is correct about this, even if he expressed
>>himself in his typically sweeping gestures.
>
>
> Well, we have one retarded person asserting some sort
> of slander, and you paying attention to it.
I'm teaching to the results of the slander eight months a year, unless
I'm on sabbatical. A typical conversation on the first day of "19th
century German drama" goes like this:
"So, what's your favorite German drama?"
Silence.
"Hm, okay, so which German dramas suck?"
Silence.
"Well, what's for favorite drama in any language?"
Silence.
"Name a drama?"
[great relief to the sound of 20 students yelling "Hamlet"]
And you don't fare any better with anything but the most middlebrow
movies, either.
*Anarcissie*
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> > smw wrote:
> ...>>
> >>I wasn't talking about art, but about attitude. You want to think Ronald
> >>is some kind of outlier; in my experience, he's a crude spokesperson for
> >>a majority opinion that is by no means restricted to the "lower classes."
> >
> >
> > How do you know it's a majority opinion? It seems
> > monumentally ignorant to me, something I'd expect from
> > a retarded person. Your informant seems to be unaware
> > that most examples of the plastic arts, most literature,
> > most music, is created for and often by working people
> > to be sold cheaply? He seems to be fixated on the upper-
> > class gallery culture of a generation or two ago. He can
> > go down to the mall (if he's allowed to cross the street)
> > and get a nice Van Gogh repro for thirty or forty dollars.
> > The museums are stuffed with folk including welfaristas
> > and frat boys. Concerts, pop, classical and avant-
> > garde, sell out; but if you can't get to the performance,
> > CDs, iPods, and the Internet wait to serve you with
> > everything from Palestrina to Snoop Dogg.
>
> You keep talking about availability; perhaps you need to find someone
> who disagrees with you on that topic?
Nobody, I guess, except Ilya Pontifex.
> >>> I was still responding to
> >>>"Fine arts and philosophy have been slandered as being
> >>>luxuries of the elites." That seems to be _all_ of fine art,
> >>>does it not? I pointed out that the lower orders have a
> >>>lot of fine art some of which they make themselves, and
> >>>they seem to have as much philosophy as they want.
> >
> >
> >>"Fine art" is a bit of a technical term, so I have no idea what you are
> >>referring to by those lots and lots of lower-class produced fine art.
> >
> > The fine arts are the plastic arts (painting, drawing, sculpture,
> > weaving, etc., and mechanical reproduction of the originals
> > thereof) literature, music and performance (video, movies,
> > plays, dance, etc.) which are produced for their own sake,
> > that is, for direct enjoyment (as opposed to commercial art
> > which is usually designed to convey information or sell
> > something.) A somewhat more restricted meaning of
> > "fine arts" are the aforesaid plastic arts.
>
> And your lower classes are producing which percentage of the above, in
> your view?
There are millions of people drawing and painting pictures,
photographing, making videos, composing and performing
songs and other forms of music, most of them working- or
middle-class. Many thousands more are engaged in the
industrial reproduction of works of art, most of them also
working- or middle-class. Even those attempting to break
into elite categories of art tend to be working- or middle-
class. Andy Warhol is a classic example. No one told
Andy Warhol he wasn't elite enough to make and sell
paintings.
Now you've switched the subject again, this time to
education. Education is one thing and art is another.
At least in America, education is something people
undergo in order to get a good job, whereas art is
something they obtain in order to enjoy it directly.
Maybe it's different in Germany, although "Der blaue
Engel" teaches me otherwise.
So that's it? One moron on Usenet, and twenty
students who don't know the correct classroom answer
to "What are the good German dramas?" So where's
the slander?
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> smw wrote:
....
[fine arts]
>>And your lower classes are producing which percentage of the above, in
>>your view?
>
>
> There are millions of people drawing and painting pictures,
> photographing, making videos, composing and performing
> songs and other forms of music, most of them working- or
> middle-class. Many thousands more are engaged in the
> industrial reproduction of works of art, most of them also
> working- or middle-class. Even those attempting to break
> into elite categories of art tend to be working- or middle-
> class. Andy Warhol is a classic example. No one told
> Andy Warhol he wasn't elite enough to make and sell
> paintings.
Since there is no upper class in the US, you're saying that art is
produced by people who exist. Can't argue with you there.
Not at all. I'm giving you an example of unappreciated art, this time
from the highly privileged kids attending what purportedly is one of the
world's top 50 universities.
> Education is one thing and art is another.
Oh wise one, how is drama not an art? Does drama cease to be an art when
it is mentioned in the classroom?
> At least in America, education is something people
> undergo in order to get a good job, whereas art is
> something they obtain in order to enjoy it directly.
> Maybe it's different in Germany, although "Der blaue
> Engel" teaches me otherwise.
>
> So that's it? One moron on Usenet, and twenty
> students who don't know the correct classroom answer
> to "What are the good German dramas?" So where's
> the slander?
Your eyes are very blue.
*Anarcissie*
smw wrote:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> > smw wrote:
> ....
> [fine arts]
> >>And your lower classes are producing which percentage of the above, in
> >>your view?
> >
> >
> > There are millions of people drawing and painting pictures,
> > photographing, making videos, composing and performing
> > songs and other forms of music, most of them working- or
> > middle-class. Many thousands more are engaged in the
> > industrial reproduction of works of art, most of them also
> > working- or middle-class. Even those attempting to break
> > into elite categories of art tend to be working- or middle-
> > class. Andy Warhol is a classic example. No one told
> > Andy Warhol he wasn't elite enough to make and sell
> > paintings.
>
> Since there is no upper class in the US, you're saying that art is
> produced by people who exist. Can't argue with you there.
Certainly there are upper classes, but if you're unaware
of them, we had best proceed....
But not of any slander. And, as I said, we are not
talking about art any more.
> > Education is one thing and art is another.
>
> Oh wise one, how is drama not an art? Does drama cease to be an art when
> it is mentioned in the classroom?
No, but usually _while_ it is mentioned in the classroom.
In the theater, people go to see a play because they want
to see a play. Some go to plays of high literary repute in
order to be the kind of persons who go to plays of high
literary repute, but in general the play's the thing.
In the classroom, people generally _read_ a play in order
to learn it well enough to get a grade, which will contribute
to their grade point average and their diploma. These will
then be employed to get a job and to achieve respectable
status in the social structure of their communities. The
_feeling_, the _form_, the _truth_ of the play is of no
account because you can't put those things on a test or
give them a grade. Instead, the student is generally
called upon to regurgitate facts and factoids about the
play showing that it was actually read and "learned".
When in the classroom, the student is working on her
or his _job_. Popping up with a possibly unapproved
opinion about an instance of German drama, something
which was not given to be written in one's notebook, is
not part of the job.
Now, you could say that if academics told people they
could not understand plays unless the plays were
explained to them academically, we might call that
the sort of "slander" Ilya Pontifex was complaining about.
But in fact I have never encountered this form of slander.
Most people who know anything about them think the
plays of, say, Shakespeare are reasonably accessible
to the unwashed, although certain details or aspects
of the plays might be obscure. So the slander's
missing.
> > At least in America, education is something people
> > undergo in order to get a good job, whereas art is
> > something they obtain in order to enjoy it directly.
> > Maybe it's different in Germany, although "Der blaue
> > Engel" teaches me otherwise.
> >
> > So that's it? One moron on Usenet, and twenty
> > students who don't know the correct classroom answer
> > to "What are the good German dramas?" So where's
> > the slander?
>
> Your eyes are very blue.
That's very poetic.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> smw wrote:
>
>>*Anarcissie* wrote:
>>
>>
>>>smw wrote:
>>
>>....
>>[fine arts]
>>
>>>>And your lower classes are producing which percentage of the above, in
>>>>your view?
>>>
>>>
>>>There are millions of people drawing and painting pictures,
>>>photographing, making videos, composing and performing
>>>songs and other forms of music, most of them working- or
>>>middle-class. Many thousands more are engaged in the
>>>industrial reproduction of works of art, most of them also
>>>working- or middle-class. Even those attempting to break
>>>into elite categories of art tend to be working- or middle-
>>>class. Andy Warhol is a classic example. No one told
>>>Andy Warhol he wasn't elite enough to make and sell
>>>paintings.
>>
>>Since there is no upper class in the US, you're saying that art is
>>produced by people who exist. Can't argue with you there.
>
>
> Certainly there are upper classes, but if you're unaware
> of them, we had best proceed....
Absolute nonsense. There are the classy and the very rich (such as the
owners of Comcast who used to me my in-laws), but their values and
pleasures are solidly middle class.
=That's probably why I called my students the _result_ of slander. But
look, if you want to pretend you don't know what Ilya and I are talking
about, there's nothing to be done. Seems like wilful blindness to me, or
perhaps conceptual perversity. But if you count Auntie Rose's macramee
hangings "fine art," I don't see why you'd think that "the masses" don't
enjoy philosophy, or, as I think you phrased it, "do fine without it" --
after all, everybody has opinions, hence practices philosophy.
[some odd misunderstandings about theatres and classrooms]
*Anarcissie*
smw wrote:
> =That's probably why I called my students the _result_ of slander. But
> look, if you want to pretend you don't know what Ilya and I are talking
> about, there's nothing to be done. Seems like wilful blindness to me, or
> perhaps conceptual perversity. But if you count Auntie Rose's macramee
> hangings "fine art," I don't see why you'd think that "the masses" don't
> enjoy philosophy, or, as I think you phrased it, "do fine without it" --
> after all, everybody has opinions, hence practices philosophy.
In short, one can define fine art as only that fine art which
is for and by some elite, and then lament that some slanderer
has said that this art is not for the folk but the elite. So
who is the slanderer? I think we've gotten right down to
the nub on this one.
Mackie
smw wrote:
> Mackie wrote:
> > "smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> > news:%Xzih.39412$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
<snip>
> >>>>Clinton won because he's _also_ the guy you'd have a beer with.
<sniff>
> Well, I was operating on a theory concerning your personal preference
> regarding the orifice in which to stick your cigars.
A typical leftist trick. You see how she has turned the never again to
be mentioned Bill Clinton cigar into . . ."my" cigar? Thus by my
mention, it becomes my cigar. It's a subtle kind of postmodern
witchcraft, I think.
And now, just for fun, what I'm going to do is, a little wizardly
conjuration of my own. I will choose at random a poem by Arthur
Rimbaud, simply opening the book to whatever shall fall out, and let us
see if it might afford something of a commentary upon all this . . .
Oy! This hardly seems to bode well toward my favor--nor upon a second
look--to yours, dear thing, but try applying your theorie to this . . .
"I listen to him glorifying infamy, turning cruelty into a magic
charm." Rimbaud, from A Season in Hell, First Delirium: The Foolish
Virgin/The Infernal Bridegroom
--
Mackie
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
"Do You Like Stinky Girls?"
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com/
Poetry?
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
Politics?
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
Music?
http://jpdavid.blogspot.com/
A Punk Rock Nancy Drew?
"It's like butter." Linda Richman
Blue Hornet
Mackie wrote:
> smw wrote:
> > Mackie wrote:
> > > "smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> > > news:%Xzih.39412$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >>>>Clinton won because he's _also_ the guy you'd have a beer with.
>
> <sniff>
>
> > Well, I was operating on a theory concerning your personal preference
> > regarding the orifice in which to stick your cigars.
>
> A typical leftist trick. You see how she has turned the never again to
> be mentioned Bill Clinton cigar into . . ."my" cigar? Thus by my
> mention, it becomes my cigar. It's a subtle kind of postmodern
> witchcraft, I think.
>
> And now, just for fun, what I'm going to do is, a little wizardly
> conjuration of my own. I will choose at random a poem by Arthur
> Rimbaud, simply opening the book to whatever shall fall out, and let us
> see if it might afford something of a commentary upon all this . . .
>
> Oy! This hardly seems to bode well toward my favor--nor upon a second
> look--to yours, dear thing, but try applying your theorie to this . . .
>
> "I listen to him glorifying infamy, turning cruelty into a magic
> charm." Rimbaud, from A Season in Hell, First Delirium: The Foolish
> Virgin/The Infernal Bridegroom
Well, that's interesting. I've never read Rimbaud, but--and a nice
coincidence, since her name appeared up-thread, and here I guess I'm
demonstrating my middle-browedness--was he a friend of Ayn Rand? That
sounds like something she'd have written.
Steve B.
Fine art can't even be defined in a tangible sense. It's a vaguery, always
open to interpretation, varying opinion and is objective. One person's fine
art is another person's "diarrhea splatter on canvas".
Steve B.
<something of its audience
True.....it demands a wild imagination, bordering on hallucination (mainly
with regard to abstract art which really isn't art at all).
Steve B.
is some kind of outlier; in my experience, he's a crude spokesperson for
a majority opinion that is by no means restricted to the <"lower classes."
Abstract art is a perfectly good waste of imagination. A good example would
be the work (garbage) of Helen Frankenthaler. Just a bunch of nonsense
bringing high prices from wealthy fools who want to feel good about
themselves. The young man who mischieviously defaced that joke of a
painting called "The Bay", may have made an improvement when he tattooed his
bubble gum to the canvas.
Steve B.
>
Computers have practical uses. What practical use does a Helen
Frankenthaler painting have? To purchase as an investment until you can
unload it for a profit to another rich fool who wants to feel good about
themselves? To cover up a nail hole or wall damage? Anyone who admires
bizarre color splotches on canvas is definitely brain damaged. I've heard
that the severely mentally disabled like to stand and stare at abstract art
hung on the walls in psychiatric hospitals.
Mackie
"Blue Hornet" <horne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167368174.5...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mackie wrote:
>> "I listen to him glorifying infamy, turning cruelty into a magic
>> charm." Rimbaud, from A Season in Hell, First Delirium: The Foolish
>> Virgin/The Infernal Bridegroom
>
> Well, that's interesting. I've never read Rimbaud, but--and a nice
> coincidence, since her name appeared up-thread . . .
Yes! Most strange--what?
> and here I guess I'm
> demonstrating my middle-browedness--was he a friend of Ayn Rand? That
> sounds like something she'd have written.
Was Rimbaud a friend of Ayn Rand? See what you think . . .
"As if Mahoganies
Were only (even in our Guianas)
Good for airborne monkeys,
The heavy delirium of lianas!
--Is a flower, Rosemary,
Lily, live or dead, worth
A single piece of seabird shit?
A single tear dripping from a candle?"
--Poems 1869-1871
Hmmmm. Then let it be so,
as times and destinies
are given fair show,
that the question restated be,
"Was Ayn Rand a friend to Arthur Rimbaud?"
Ayn Rand was a friend to freedom,
and thus was friend to a friend
of Arthur Rimbaud.
Ayn Rand was a friend above all,
to herself,
And so most exquisitely was he,
such a friend, the enfant terrible,
M. Arthur Rimbaud.
For Rand the individual counted for everything,
And the society of man, little or nothing.
For Rimbaud, it was given once to say . . .
"That accidents of scientific magic and movements of social brotherhood
might be cherished as the progressive restitution of first freedom? . .
.
But the Vampire who makes us behave correctly commands us to amuse
ourselves with what she leaves us, or else be more amusing."
Illuminations/Anguish
Was Ayn Rand a friend to Arthur Rimbaud?
--
Mackie
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
smw
Rather to a false dilemma. Good art is by definition produced _by_ an
elite, i.e. an artistic one. Which has absolutely nothing to do with who
can enjoy it.
*Anarcissie*
Well, yes, if you define _good_ as "that which is produced
by an elite" then, lo and behold, the good will turn out to have
been produced by an elite. Or you can decide that if you
think a work of art is good, the person who produced it
can be said to belong to an elite -- the "elite" of persons
whose work you think is good. This sort of thing renders
the term _elite_ fairly meaningless, wouldn't you say? Do
you think this sort of grade-schoolish therefore-your-
mother-is-a-dog word play is what Ilya was maundering
about? I had the idea he was positing some sort of
cultural or intellectual upper class that kept the good art
things away from the common folk by "slandering" them.
Mani Deli
>Rather to a false dilemma. Good art is by definition produced _by_ an
>elite, i.e. an artistic one. Which has absolutely nothing to do with who
>can enjoy it.
There is no definition, its all opinions.
So if the "artistic one" (whatever that means) produces work which
most people reagard as crap is it still good art?
If the unartistic one produces artwork which most people like is it
art?
Mani Deli
the Artspeak crutch that supports it and a phony price tag. The actual
artwork is really of little or no interest, with good reason.
There more skill in good towel and bed sheet design and floor
covering than in the overvalued abstract crap in the modern sections
of museums which at present claims to be great art.
Mani Deli
museums does not even possess a modicum of skill.
I see no merit whatever in work claiming to be great art which anyone
with even a modicum of skill can imitate and even forge. I see no
merit in a work's claim of being first when it exhibits nothing more
than flat drips, stripes or schmiers.
If an artist hasn't the skill to do something most others can't do,
his only real alternative is to spout Bullshit.
The problem with the Modern Academic Art fundamentalist is that he is
solely exposed to the certified holy stuff occupying the modern
sections of museums. He believes that this alone represents the great
modern art. He is rarely familiar with the rest of the modern art
which is carefully kept out of museums lest the viewer be allowed to
compare.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
I'd say this sort of thing is a definition of the term elite -- the
folks who produce the best work in any given field. You can't belong to
the group of elite violinits, for instance, unless you play the violin
really well.
Do
> you think this sort of grade-schoolish therefore-your-
> mother-is-a-dog word play is what Ilya was maundering
> about? I had the idea he was positing some sort of
> cultural or intellectual upper class that kept the good art
> things away from the common folk by "slandering" them.
You seem upset about something. Can't be anything I said, as far as I
can see. As to what Ilya had in mind, I think it's a well-documented
social phenomenon which doesn't strike me as controversial. As to dogs,
they're all yours, even though I'd say it's not much of a fight.
smw
Mani Deli wrote:
The elite in any given field are the people who produce the best work.
Any disagreement as to what work is the best is thus also a disagreement
as to who's the elite. Really, people, this isn't all that difficult.
Mani Deli
So it still boils down to an opinion of who produces the best work.
no skill no art
Mackie
> The elite in any given field are the people who produce the best work.
As if C. Wright Mills had never produced his work; the seminal work for
which he shall always be known? The people who produce the best work
are anything except the elite, because the term has social and
political reference not aesthetic.
And why not aesthetic? Because people of taste, true artists and
lovers of art, unlike social climbers and politicians refuse to
recognize any positive, truly aesthetic application of the word. Those
who use the arts as a means toward attainment of social status have not
the pureness of soul, the integrity to create or recognize great art.
Rather, all they can do is come around places like this singing the
praises of another of their own ilk, some phony such as Pynchon or
Pinter or Proust, forming themselves into that ever-present clique
whose only penchant is to demonstrate their completely clueless lack of
discrimination, or i.e. 'taste', by praising the Emperor's New Clothes.
Because the Empire of the Elite has power, both of the purse and
politics, i.e. in the publishing and art markets, that is enough and
they can put on such a pretty charade of really being the esoteric lot
of connoisseurs and dabblers they would fancy themselves to be.
But no! The only thing the elite ever had going for it in this world
is power. So, Mills, despite his politics, had that right, straight
from the gate, and you up there, poor darling Rapunzel, languishing as
ever within the ever so socially correct confines of your ivory tower,
are demonstrating now more often than ever (the few amusing exceptions
aside), how your taste is dictated by the elite Tower Guard and not by
any unbesmirchable sense of the aesthetic whose only requirement is
that she should let down her hair.
*Anarcissie*
Well, excited enough to write on Usenet. I am
interested in views of the world which differ widely
from my own, especially if they have some evidence
attached to them. So far, we have 20 students who
while on the job won't venture a rundown of German
drama and one run-of-the-mill Usenet moron as
evidence that the fine arts are slandered by
somebody as not being good for the common
people. I see millions of people making and
enjoying all kinds of fine art. The supposed
slanderer remains invisible, unless it's the academic
system you serve. "You can't really understand
Matisse until you take Fine Art Appreciation 201."
But there are millions on the outside who don't
trouble themselves with that kind of claptrap, if
it still exists -- I had the idea it had gone out
of fashion.
Ilya apparently has no evidence; he was just in a
world of his own, making up stuff he liked the
sound of.
*Anarcissie*
Mackie wrote:
> "smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:LMmlh.54751$wP1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> > The elite in any given field are the people who produce the best work.
>
> As if C. Wright Mills had never produced his work; the seminal work for
> which he shall always be known? The people who produce the best work
> are anything except the elite, because the term has social and
> political reference not aesthetic.
You and smw are using the word _elite_ in two different
ways.
smw
Mani Deli wrote:
As opposed to what? A divine seal?
smw
Mackie wrote:
> "smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:LMmlh.54751$wP1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>The elite in any given field are the people who produce the best work.
>
>
> As if C. Wright Mills had never produced his work; the seminal work for
> which he shall always be known? The people who produce the best work
> are anything except the elite, because the term has social and
> political reference not aesthetic.
I agree that the term has degenerated in the US to something like that,
to such an extent that anybody running for president actually has to
claim that he's _not_ the elite, hates elitists, etc. etc. blabla. Which
is funny seeing that the word is closely related to election.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
...>>
>>You seem upset about something. Can't be anything I said, as far as I
>>can see. As to what Ilya had in mind, I think it's a well-documented
>>social phenomenon which doesn't strike me as controversial. As to dogs,
>>they're all yours, even though I'd say it's not much of a fight.
>
>
> Well, excited enough to write on Usenet. I am
> interested in views of the world which differ widely
> from my own, especially if they have some evidence
> attached to them. So far, we have 20 students who
> while on the job won't venture a rundown of German
> drama
You usually don't stoop to mendacious paraphrase. I offered up my
students as an example of rather privileged crowd that doesn't go to the
theater and doesn't read drama, doesn't count reading or watching plays
as pleasure, but as a school task. And yes, they are representative, and
we have about 30K of them running around. You do get a slightly
different cut if you teach urbanites. I can understand that you're
unhappy about the "Usenet moron" who appeared as if ordered by Ilya. But
you wouldn't want to suggest that he's not representative of a good
slice of the population either, or would you?
Pete Turk
<sm...@ameritech.net> writes
From where I am (Educated, Middle-class, English) I look
over to your country. And I at least half-expect the
'American' ethos, the LogCabin-to-WhiteHouse, the who-
cares-where-you're-from-there's-nothing-to-stop-you
sentiment to be _law_ over there, to see that very spirit
enshrined in your Constitution.
Then I see this argument and I wonder just how many so-
called _Americans_ join us in Europe in saying (in effect)
"the lower orders smell" ...
My point-of-view? Well, concert-halls, museums, art-galleries
are open to everyone at reasonable entry-fees (at least
here in Europe) Classics of Literature are available in
paperback for one pound ( = $2) CD and DVDs are around for
10-20 pounds sterling. Theatres like cinemas are open to
all.
Is the barrier education? Are some, but not all, _taught_
to like, say, Shakespeare? Well, I was taught the Bard and
as a result was put off him for around 2 decades. I was
never taught poetry, as it happened, and so I was never put
off that.
So this is what I'm saying:
Either:
there IS no elite and no barrier to the Arts in America
any more than there any longer is in Europe.
Or:
there _is_ such an elite in America and as a consequence
it no longer is (and never was?) the country that your
"Founding Fathers" had originally envisioned.
Am I wrong? Or is your country no longer true to itself?
'He who knows only his own side of
the case knows little of that.'
-- John Stuart Mill 'On Liberty' 1859
Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> ICQ# 11981084
RFA President and Moonshadow
--
May your doorstep ever be dirty.
-- Romany blessing
Mackie
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> Mackie wrote:
> > "smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> > news:LMmlh.54751$wP1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> > > The elite in any given field are the people who produce the best work.
> >
> > As if C. Wright Mills had never produced his work; the seminal work for
> > which he shall always be known? The people who produce the best work
> > are anything except the elite, because the term has social and
> > political reference not aesthetic.
>
> You and smw are using the word _elite_ in two different
> ways.
If that was intended to be a summary of merely so much as you reply to,
then you get an "A" for reading comprehension. Unfortunately, what you
don't get from such a 'sound byte' is the least notion of what i went
on to say that really comes down to.
As the Coen Bros. imagined it for the scoundrel, Jerry Lundergard, if
I may just ace Frances McDormand out of her role as Officer Marge
Gunderson for a second, I must only conclude that both you and Miss
Weineck, are "fleeing the interview".
--
Mackie
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
*Anarcissie*
smw wrote:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> ...>>
> >>You seem upset about something. Can't be anything I said, as far as I
> >>can see. As to what Ilya had in mind, I think it's a well-documented
> >>social phenomenon which doesn't strike me as controversial. As to dogs,
> >>they're all yours, even though I'd say it's not much of a fight.
> >
> >
> > Well, excited enough to write on Usenet. I am
> > interested in views of the world which differ widely
> > from my own, especially if they have some evidence
> > attached to them. So far, we have 20 students who
> > while on the job won't venture a rundown of German
> > drama
>
> You usually don't stoop to mendacious paraphrase. I offered up my
> students as an example of rather privileged crowd that doesn't go to the
> theater and doesn't read drama, doesn't count reading or watching plays
> as pleasure, but as a school task. And yes, they are representative, and
> we have about 30K of them running around. You do get a slightly
> different cut if you teach urbanites.
If we are still following Ilya's idea, then we are interested in
the thousands who don't go to the theater and don't read
drama only if the theater and drama have been _slandered_
to them -- if someone told them they weren't good enough
to enjoy them, or otherwise closed off their access to them.
But in fact no such slander has been presented. Fifty or
a hundred years ago, yes -- some of the upper classes
used to say such things. Others built libraries and theaters
and sent Chautauquas on their rounds. But that was all
a long time ago, a different world. If your students wanted
to go to a theater or read plays, they would. It wouldn't
occur to them to believe they were incapable of doing
these things.
Or maybe it would -- again, I'm going by the kind of
people I encounter in my zippy coastal-urban paradise
of the intellect.
> I can understand that you're
> unhappy about the "Usenet moron" who appeared as if ordered by Ilya. But
> you wouldn't want to suggest that he's not representative of a good
> slice of the population either, or would you?
Actually, the moron in question did not say that the
masses weren't good enough for the art, but that the
art wasn't good enough for the masses. However I
allowed the point for the moron because a moron
might say anything. You and Ilya are welcome to
invite him to join your club.
smw
Pete Turk wrote:
> In article <jxvlh.26459$Gr2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, smw
> <sm...@ameritech.net> writes
>
>>
>>Mackie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>>>news:LMmlh.54751$wP1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The elite in any given field are the people who produce the best work.
>>>
>>>
>>>As if C. Wright Mills had never produced his work; the seminal work for
>>>which he shall always be known? The people who produce the best work
>>>are anything except the elite, because the term has social and
>>>political reference not aesthetic.
>>
>>I agree that the term has degenerated in the US to something like that,
>>to such an extent that anybody running for president actually has to
>>claim that he's _not_ the elite, hates elitists, etc. etc. blabla. Which
>>is funny seeing that the word is closely related to election.
>>
>
>
> From where I am (Educated, Middle-class, English) I look
> over to your country. And I at least half-expect the
> 'American' ethos, the LogCabin-to-WhiteHouse, the who-
> cares-where-you're-from-there's-nothing-to-stop-you
> sentiment to be _law_ over there, to see that very spirit
> enshrined in your Constitution.
>
> Then I see this argument and I wonder just how many so-
> called _Americans_ join us in Europe in saying (in effect)
> "the lower orders smell" ...
Well, I'm not an American, so-called or otherwise. But be that as it
may, I'd suggest to look at who occupies the White House to check up on
the myth.
> My point-of-view? Well, concert-halls, museums, art-galleries
> are open to everyone at reasonable entry-fees (at least
> here in Europe) Classics of Literature are available in
> paperback for one pound ( = $2) CD and DVDs are around for
> 10-20 pounds sterling. Theatres like cinemas are open to
> all.
No argument from anybody in this thread -- access is _not_ the problem,
possibly less so than at any time in history. Even though I gotta say
that I don't find even public transportation fees "reasonable" in
London, much less the price of concert or theater tickets.
>
> Is the barrier education? Are some, but not all, _taught_
> to like, say, Shakespeare? Well, I was taught the Bard and
> as a result was put off him for around 2 decades. I was
> never taught poetry, as it happened, and so I was never put
> off that.
>
> So this is what I'm saying:
>
> Either:
>
> there IS no elite and no barrier to the Arts in America
> any more than there any longer is in Europe.
Again -- it depends on your definition of elite.
>
> Or:
>
> there _is_ such an elite in America and as a consequence
> it no longer is (and never was?) the country that your
> "Founding Fathers" had originally envisioned.
> Am I wrong? Or is your country no longer true to itself?
Well, to repeat, it's not my country, but in the US, it's not a problem
of middle-class vs. elite, or even working class vs. elite, it's a
question of abject poverty vs. the lower to upper middle classes. _And_
a problem of the ideology Ilya mentioned.
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> Well, to repeat, it's not my country, but in the US, it's not a problem
> of middle-class vs. elite, or even working class vs. elite, it's a
> question of abject poverty vs. the lower to upper middle classes. _And_
> a problem of the ideology Ilya mentioned.
I think it would be nice if you gave some evidence for the
existence of this ideology, other than random comments by
Usenet morons. Who are the people who are being told
that art is too good for them, too difficult to understand?
Blake Carswell
Understand?? It doesn't take much intellect to recognize when a lack of
skill is touted as a masterpiece by the deluded. You are obviously one of
those who interprets smudges, smears and drips as being artwork. Relying on
the artspeak crutch for your "enlightened" opinions.
Arindam Banerjee
Hear, hear. And not just art, practically everything which makes real
sense in a lucid way is carefully kept out of public access. This is
the real Einstein effect: bullshit is superior to truth, perception is
infinitely superior to reality, novels (lies, that is) surpass poetry
by far, biased journalism is what sells, etc. When the Einstein effect
is mastered, great benefits follow to the shadowy practitioners lurking
behind the establishment fronts.
Atalanta, original G.
Steve B. wrote:
> > Sort of like having/owning a computer and typing on it, eh?
> >
>
> Computers have practical uses.
Not necessarily and entirely a matter of opinion. You obviously think
yours has practical value - right?
What practical use does a Helen
> Frankenthaler painting have? To purchase as an investment until you can
> unload it for a profit to another rich fool who wants to feel good about
> themselves?
That would be one reason yes - sort of like downloading vast amounts of
information into an insensitive brain.
>To cover up a nail hole or wall damage?
Of course, just as people on usenet use posting as a cover up for lots
of things. Only more attractive.
Anyone who admires
> bizarre color splotches on canvas is definitely brain damaged.
I'm brain damaged, then. Have always admired bizarre color splotches -
although I'd have to see the ones of which you speak. I like clouds,
oceans, lakes and meadows, too. Through squinty eyes, very close up
and from very far away. I like looking at individual bits of stone or
sand, too. You got a problem with that? Hey - I read your post, too,
for absolutely no good reason.
It's not aesthetically appealing, btw, and has no practical value.
Have you tried to sell it?
I've heard
> that the severely mentally disabled like to stand and stare at abstract art
> hung on the walls in psychiatric hospitals.
Yes, that's true. They also stare at virtually everything else. If
you don't understand form, shape, color, texture, relationships of
these to substance, line or movement, that's okay. You can watch
cartoons or something. I really don't care.
It really bugs you that you don't get it. That much is clear.
A.
Blake Carswell
Problem is that he does get it, and you only "think" that you get it.
michael
> I think it would be nice if you gave some evidence for the
> existence of this ideology, other than random comments by
> Usenet morons. Who are the people who are being told
> that art is too good for them, too difficult to understand?
i don't get that from the OP, that art is too good or too difficult for
the people... i understood him to be saying that this period of history
is simply not producing art and philosophy on the level of former times
and that this would appear paradoxical given the abundance we live
with... and, as you have correctly discerned, he is simply saying that
what *is* produced is not to his taste, which can be further parsed in
his case to mean that *he* is not recognized as a great artist... so the
fact that his swill goes unrecognized is in fact an argument against his
position, i.e., so much good and great art is being produced these days
that there is no room for *his* (and there really is an abundance of
"room", so...) in the world outside of usenet...from my days writing and
editing (and publishing in "real" small mags) poetry, i recognize the
type as all too familiar... "you aren't publishing me because you have
been brainwashed into believing _____________..."
as to the suggestion that michigan teens would be clambering all over
each other to read german drama if it weren't for an ideology which
manufactures in them a desire to drink beer and play football and go
shopping... it might be wise to ask silke which contemporary
english-language poets she enjoys reading in her off-hours, or who her
favourite american painters/artists are, and how many hours she devotes
to enjoying their work... i suspect we may begin to see where this
"ideology" arises and where it does its most effective work when the
answers start coming in...
there is no american "upper class" because no americans are europeans
and "upper class" means european upper class... this is of course where
ilya and silke come together most poignantly... there is no great art
being produced because my art is not recognized as great...
if ilya wants to learn something about writing poetry he could do no
better than turn to something like this, from robert haas, and try to
think real hard why it's sufficient to disprove his bloat re: ideology:
> MEDITATIONS AT LAGUNITAS
>
> All the new thinking is about loss.
> In this it resembles all the old thinking.
> The idea, for example, that each particular erases
> the luminous clarity of a general idea. That the clown-
> faced woodpecker probing the dead sculpted trunk
> of that black birch is, by his presence,
> some tragic falling off from a first world
> of undivided light. Or the other notion that,
> because there is in this world no one thing
> to which the bramble of blackberry corresponds,
> a word is elegy to what it signifies.
> We talked about it late last night and in the voice
> of my friend, there was a thin wire of grief, a tone
> almost querulous. After a while I understood that,
> talking this way, everything dissolves: justice,
> pine, hair, woman, you and I. There was a woman
> I made love to and I remembered how, holding
> her small shoulders in my hands sometimes,
> I felt a violent wonder at her presence
> like a thirst for salt, for my childhood river
> with its island willows, silly music from the pleasure boat,
> muddy places where we caught the little orange-silver fish
> called pumpkinseed. It hardly had to do with her.
> Longing, we say, because desire is full
> of endless distances. I must have been the same to her.
> But I remember so much, the way her hands dismantled bread,
> the thing her father said that hurt her, what
> she dreamed. There are moments when the body is as numinous
> as words, days that are the good flesh continuing.
> Such tenderness, those afternoons and evenings,
> saying "blackberry, blackberry, blackberry".
michael
michael
*Anarcissie*
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> > I think it would be nice if you gave some evidence for the
> > existence of this ideology, other than random comments by
> > Usenet morons. Who are the people who are being told
> > that art is too good for them, too difficult to understand?
michael wrote:
> i don't get that from the OP, that art is too good or too difficult for
> the people...
It depends which OP you're talking about. Ilya started
this thread by writing "Fine arts and philosophy have been
slandered as being luxuries of the elites." This is a rather
antique cliché compared to the one you mention: "All
contemporary art is bad, due to the control of the galleries
and museums by [bad people of your choice]," a dreary
perennial favorite which I would not have bothered
commenting on. Silke seemed to be agreeing with him
although I am not sure she actually read his posting
(understandable) and I have been trying to get the facts
from her, since my demand for them appears to have
frightened off Ilya. Not much luck so far.
> i understood him to be saying that this period of history
> is simply not producing art and philosophy on the level of former times
> and that this would appear paradoxical given the abundance we live
> with... and, as you have correctly discerned, he is simply saying that
> what *is* produced is not to his taste, which can be further parsed in
> his case to mean that *he* is not recognized as a great artist... so the
> fact that his swill goes unrecognized is in fact an argument against his
> position, i.e., so much good and great art is being produced these days
> that there is no room for *his* (and there really is an abundance of
> "room", so...) in the world outside of usenet...from my days writing and
> editing (and publishing in "real" small mags) poetry, i recognize the
> type as all too familiar... "you aren't publishing me because you have
> been brainwashed into believing _____________..."
>
> as to the suggestion that michigan teens would be clambering all over
> each other to read german drama if it weren't for an ideology which
> manufactures in them a desire to drink beer and play football and go
> shopping... it might be wise to ask silke which contemporary
> english-language poets she enjoys reading in her off-hours, or who her
> favourite american painters/artists are, and how many hours she devotes
> to enjoying their work... i suspect we may begin to see where this
> "ideology" arises and where it does its most effective work when the
> answers start coming in...
I had the idea that maybe academic institutions went around
telling people that they can't understand art or philosophy
unless they take the right courses -- that would be very much
in accord with the philosophy implicit in their charters and
professions. But in the present age, that sort of thing seems
to be confined to the loci of big money, like computers,
engineering and business management. When by chance
I get a glossy in my mailbox from NYU, it doesn't tell me I
_can't_ understand Derrida without taking Pomo 101, only
that I'll understand him _better_. Things may be different
in the backwoods of Michigan, however.
Thank you for this moment of illumination.