BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Decay of Culture?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Tezcatlipoca
11:58 / 31.10.02
Where to begin? This is something I've been thinking about for a long time now, and something I've begun to consider more and more seriously in the last few months. To give you some background as to what I'm going to rant about, I'd like to refer you to Mr Chesterton:


"The coming peril is the intellectual, educational, psychological and artistic overproduction, which, equally with economic overproduction, threatens the well-being of contemporary civilisation. People are inundated, blinded, deafened, and mentally paralysed by a flood of vulgar and tasteless externals, leaving them no time for leisure, thought, or creation from within themselves."


...and it is specifically the artistic aspect with concerns me. Greatly. There seems currently to be such a massive - and for that, depressing - wave of vulgar and pointless 'art' swamping our society.

Now I'm willing to acknowledge that a great deal of my concerns exist purely on a superficial - and selfish - level. As an author, a large part of me is concerned that my books face this vacuous tide of 'literature' which blinds agents and publishers as much as it does the book consuming public. The greater part of me however, is concerned that said tide even exists.
Sure, there has always been slush literature which is churned out at a frightening pace, but it just seems that the degree of such literature has boomed in the last ten years or so, and made all the more frightening by the apathetic absorption of such tripe into our rapidly declining culture.

On further reflection I honestly don't think that the problem is a lack of art or cultural accomplishment; rather, that there is - in my humble opinion - a distinct lack of identifying such works. I think the borders between kitsch and creative have become so blurred, so nebulous that almost anything is acceptable as art, or - in this case - literature. As Robert Southey said, "Kitsch is the corpse that's left when art has lost it's anger," and I think that's part of the problem. The massive output of lazy art and it's unwelcome bedfellow - equally apathetic consumption - have become so standardised as to ensure that (I suspect) very few creative accomplishments will be remembered for any length of time.

On the one hand that depresses me on the grounds that I have a healthy ego and like to believe that my books are several cuts above the latest ghost written nonsense about last year's [insert medium here] personality. On the other hand, and of larger concern, is that our cultural identity with respect to art is not in fact evolving, but slowly dying. And that fucking terrifies me.

So please people, and I really do mean this sincerely, tell me I'm wrong...
 
 
gridley
12:23 / 31.10.02
Much like prophets, every artist laments the era they were born into.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:24 / 31.10.02
If you are indeed an "author," then you'd do well to learn the fucking difference between its and it's, and learn it sharpish—else you risk being classified with the filthy illiterate junk-peddlers you so despise.

What you are seeing is a natural outgrowth of greater democratization— more people are discovering the joys of having an opinion and being allowed to express it. The Chesterton quote is self-evidently fallacious: the tide of "vulgar externals" has obviously not stopped the masses from thinking and being creative, since more and more of them are participating in the process—i.e., making vulgar art of their own.

There is no accounting for taste, and very little good to be done by adopting a patronizing, elitist stance like Chesterton: "Ah, woe is me! Who will protect the lumpen proletariat from a flood of—gasp!—stuff that they enjoy, and steer them instead towards the sort of Art that an educated man like me enjoys?"

"The problem is that anything is accepted as art"? That doesn't seem to me to be a problem: in fact, the opposite. Demystifying the process, allowing and encouraging people (all people, not just self-decalred "authors" and "artists") to make art and literature a part of their daily lives, seems to me to be an inherently good thing. Art for breakfast! Art for lunch! Art for dinner!

You can't take art away from the people, and put it back into the hands of a chosen few: you can't pretend that Punk never happened. Art belongs to everyone: anyone can do it.

That statement is, I imagine, a bit of an ego-burster—"If you're an 'author', well then, so am I"—but hey, welcome back to the human race: every man and woman is a star.
 
 
Tezcatlipoca
12:48 / 31.10.02
If you are indeed an "author," then you'd do well to learn the fucking difference between its and it's, and learn it sharpish—else you risk being classified with the filthy illiterate junk-peddlers you so despise

Firstly, nitpicking foolish typing mistakes (which I appreciate you never make) isn't a good way to endear people to you, Jack. It just makes you seem petty and lessens the effect of any real point you have to make. Secondly, with respect, I think you've misinterpreted - or maybe I've just communicated badly - what I've written. I don't despise, to use your rather unique comments 'filthy illiterate junk-peddlers'. What I am concerned by is the amount of superficial art that is being produced. But then, having read my post, you understood that. Obviously.

There is no accounting for taste, and very little good to be done by adopting a patronizing, elitist stance like Chesterton: "Ah, woe is me! Who will protect the lumpen proletariat from a flood of—gasp!—stuff that they enjoy, and steer them instead towards the sort of Art that an educated man like me enjoys?"

Again, it might just be your understanding of my post, but I don't think it came across as (and if it does, it certainly wasn't intended to be) patronising. I quoted Chesterton because that statement seemed to sum up my concerns far more eloquently than I ever could.

I'm not suggesting that artistic output should in any way be considered the privilege of an elite few. What I am suggesting is the possibility that there does seem to be a large amount of vulgar art out there, which might also be considered to have a detrimental effect on our artistic culture at large.
As you quite rightly say, there is no accounting for taste. I'm sure the art I - or you for that matter - would label kitsch or vulgar is thought of as excellent by other people. We could be here all day arguing the comparative qualities of various artistic media, but what I wanted - and I think did actually communicate in my initial post - was to promote a discussion, and not a wave of criticism which ignored the point of the thread but went straight for the originator's jugular...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:30 / 31.10.02
Actually, I think Jack hit the nail on the head.

Take popular music: week in, week out, year after year, somebody is always claiming that pop music/rock'n'roll/good music is dead. And every year it's a new, different - but always populist - phenomenon that's to blame. Punk music killed rock'n'roll. Rap music killed rock'n'roll. Rave music killed rock'n'roll. Take That killed rock'n'roll. The Spice Girls killed rock'n'roll. Britney killed rock'n'roll. Hear'Say killed rock'n'roll. Pop Idol killed... You get my point.

It's the same across all artistic mediums, and all periods. And as I say, the only thing that doesn't change is that the alleged root of the decay is always *popular* - which is why your choice of the adjective 'vulgar' is quite revealing.
 
 
Jack Fear
13:32 / 31.10.02
All right, then—let me reiterate my initial post, with all extraneous material removed:

There is no accounting for taste.

Endy fookin story.
 
 
Jack Fear
13:37 / 31.10.02
Spoken by or expressed in language spoken by the common people; vernacular: the technical and vulgar names for an animal species.

Of or associated with the great masses of people; common.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Latin vulgris, from vulgus, the common people.]



It all boils down to the Pop Art vs. Fine Art debate. I would argue that the distinction is largely nonexistent, and, in pragmatic terms, irrelevant.
 
 
Tezcatlipoca
14:29 / 31.10.02
There is no accounting for taste. Endy fookin story.

I think you'll find I've already agreed with that in my last post, Jack. What I was after was a slightly fuller discussion to get your opinion on whether we live in an era where the increase in artistic output has resulted in a decline in quality.

On reflection, I think I might possibly have not refined my post as much as I should have, and what I meant by 'vulgar' was, of course, 'vulgar to me'. I agree completely with Flyboy that the alleged root of the decay is always popular, and Jack does actually make a good point when he says "It all boils down to the Pop Art vs. Fine Art debate. I would argue that the distinction is largely nonexistent, and, in pragmatic terms, irrelevant.", although I don't think the distinction is nonexistent so much as personal.
 
 
Jack Fear
14:45 / 31.10.02
You're missing the point.

"Vulgar to me" is a meaningless phrase. "Vulgar" has a very specific technical meaning--of the common people.

For the record, I do not think that an increase in quantity has resulted in a decrease in quality: I think 80% of everything is shit, just as it always was. I think the increase that youy think you're noticing is a subjective effect--that as you get older and gain more experience, your tastes harden and crystallize: part of it is your crap-filter getting more and more tightly calibrated, part of it is that certain experiences have worn comfortable grooves in your brain, part of it is that you get more chances to experience the good stuff--and once you've drunk cream, it's hard to enjoy milk.

But that golden 80-20 ratio is, staying constant, I think. So yeah, there is more crap than ever, but that's just because there's more stuff than ever: so, the ratio remaining constant, there is also more good stuff than ever. Accentuate the positive.
 
 
Tezcatlipoca
15:11 / 31.10.02
"Vulgar to me" is a meaningless phrase. "Vulgar" has a very specific technical meaning--of the common people.

I don't agree that it is a meaningless phrase. 'Vulgar to me' equates to what 'I find vulgar' or, to put it another way, 'what I consider to be of the common people'. Once broken down however, that statement does have a nasty ring to it, which is why I say again that vulgar was probably the wrong word to have used.

With respect to the rest of your post, I agree totally. 80% of artistic output probably has always been meaningless shit, and I suspect that now that I'm having to compete with other artists that I'm - naturally - concerned about the quality (or lack thereof) of others.
 
 
The Natural Way
15:13 / 31.10.02
Jack:

'I think 80% of everything is shit, just as it always was.'

Abso-fuckin'-lutely. Subjective or objective: still true.
 
 
kaonashi
02:00 / 01.11.02
Whether it is with music, or books or film or whatever I can't understand artists who create with the sole purpose of excluding everyone who doesn't already like that type of "art". Indie music fans for gods sake!I can understand artists whose message is so personal that no one gets it, but for me art is communication through self expression, and the artist that doesn't communicate effectively has failed. If you communicate well and no one likes the message, well so be it. The thing that upsets me about "Pop" music and Hollywood films is the corporate sensibility that creates them. If music isn't commercial, if film isn't likely to drag a huge amount of asses into the seats over its opening weekend it will never receive the same exposure as the "Pop" art. Capitalism and stupidity become the most effective forms of censorship. Just be as good as you can be and don't argue over semantics. Krist Novoselic once said that there will always be good music, it just depends on how hard it is to find.
 
 
SMS
03:14 / 01.11.02
When I think back on what kinds of things influenced me when I was especially young, I can think of a lot of valuable things. My friends and family were a big part of it, of course, but the popular culture also had an effect. If I look, now, at the kinds of things my six-year-old nephew is exposed to, I don't see the same value. It doesn't quite feel right. What I need to remember, though, is that its a different kind of value. One isn't better than the other. One generation of art or of popular culture isn't better at communicating than any other. It just communicates in different ways. There are those things that communicate well across generations, and these become our classics.

The thing is, if I find something that really moves me, like one of those classic works, I want to share it with others. Maybe its a piece of Mozart. You have to really listen to Mozart to appreciate it (I do, anyway). I can get a real high from it, but not if I'm driving down the street to the drug store. I don't even get the whole song if I do that. So I listen to oldies. It's easier to enjoy even if the joy is less. That's what I think keeps let's us think that the best stuff isn't the most popular. Most of the time, we need some art between the common events of our lives. This is basic food for the human spirit.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:44 / 01.11.02
When I think back on what kinds of things influenced me when I was especially young, I can think of a lot of valuable things. .... If I look, now, at the kinds of things my six-year-old nephew is exposed to, I don't see the same value.

Or perhaps you are romanticizing the past... which seems to me the key, here: all these moans of "Oh, things were better back in the day..."

You know, though, that back in the day there were older folks moaning about how much better things were back in their day. And twenty years from now, you will be looking back on 2002 as some kind of Golden Age and bemoaning the culture that surrounds you in 2022.

That's because we only really remember the stuff we care to remember-- the good stuff, the top 20% of the equation. I repeat: the decline is an illusion, caused largely by an increase in your ability to appreciate the top 20% and a decrease in your ability to tolerate the bottom 80%.

In other words, you're acquiring taste. With which there is no arguing.
 
 
Cliff and Ferry Street
07:06 / 02.11.02
I would argue that the problem you bring up (fine art passes underneath the average radar because the masses are preoccupied with consuming pop art which has less meaning and merit) is neither unique to contemporary civilization, nor rooted in overproduction.

The theory is that there are different levels of cultural competence. The level one's at depends on how much culture one has already been lucky enough to come into contact with. And consume. And digest.

Depending on the consumer's cultural competence, elite culture can be meaningful or complete gibberish to her/him. It is labeled elite culture, because it is gibberish to many more people than mass culture or popular culture (same as mass culture, but has to do with the people of a specific country, as opposed to the international grip of general mass culture), which are much more accessible. This is not anything new.

I think the fact that contemporary media has made certain breeds of mass culture more physically accessible than they used to be (there are more texts and they are easier/cheaper to consume) can create the illusion that mass culture is somehow more relevant to the contemporary society than to the people of some magnificent "better times". I would say it is absolutely an illusion.

If anything, immersing oneself in the production, as well as consumption of mass culture will make a person more culturally competent and lead to a better understanding of life, the Universe and everything -- including elite culture.

I'm not even saying this because mass culture can serve as a vehicle of sorts, be bonding culture (P. Brooke), although that happens and I'm sure it helps.

The only real issue in this whole subject area that seems distinctly a contemporary problem to me is the diminishing length of the average attention span. For someone like you, someone who writes books, this can be worrying, because the contemporary mind is used to being stimulated with audio-visual signs and the watchamacallit-s that go with participating rather than passively submitting to texts, and people are skilled at concentrating and remembering with the corresponding bits of their nervous system and so on. And that, you know, isn't lazy and awful. All it is, is a bit of bad news for any egoistic and authoritative creative unit like you or me, although worse for you than me because I don't write books.

To go a bit further down that attention span path, I can see how there could be a correlation between the number of texts to choose from and the extent of any reader's devotion to one in particular. But I wouldn't think overproduction of mass culture texts affects the consumption of elite culture texts much, because the majority of people are really not making choices along the lines of Girolamo Frescobaldi versus N*Sync.

I have not noticed that the lines between quality and kitsch have become blurry like you propose. It comes down to that cultural competence I wrote about above. The reader is able to digest the text to the extent that he/she can relate it to the rest of the information accumulated in hir cultural memory. "Anything passes as art" is true for a particular reader until there has been enough contact with both art and anything to build up the ability to tell between the two.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
10:57 / 02.11.02
If I understand the above postees correctly then I agree with what they say. I'm not convinced that the past was a factory of creative genius that has since had the power turned off and it's engines silenced. I'm comfortable in my belief that what we have from previous eras is a collection of that which was capable fo withstanding the tests of time. The crap, which could well parralel todays crap, has been left behind.

However, should you be concerning yourself with the state of culture. As an creator, such attentions could very easily detract from your own work. On a personal note I understand your concerns but focus myself on creating the best that I can. If I fail to maintain this focus then I fail to create. I will be more likely to become cynical about my medium and therefore lead to only creating popularist work.
 
 
Pepsi Max
08:34 / 03.11.02
Tezcatlipoca> The narrative you present is a familiar, conservative one about the degeneration of artistic endeavour in the modern age through the effects of populism and commerce. As such, it commits the cardinal sins of being both wrong and dull.

I suspect that now that I'm having to compete with other artists that I'm - naturally - concerned about the quality (or lack thereof) of others.

May I suggest you stop being concerned? Unless you run deliberately sabotaged creative writing classes ("Hey, don't use plots or characters or recognisable words for that matter"). That way you'll scupper the competition before they get started.

Bottom line: People will read what they want to read. As your posts suggest you despise the tastes of the vulgar mob, I can't imagine you wanting to write books that they will want to read. Good luck.

N.B. I won't deal with the main arguments in your post as I believe Jack and other have done quite a good job of that already.

So in simple answer to your topic abstract. YES. Next question.
 
 
The Falcon
17:30 / 03.11.02
Hate to say it, but the Fear boy has hit a multitude of nails on the head. I hate this 'art' concept that you've outlined, Tez.

A few things: 1)Death to the Canon. 2)The vulgar always wins; culture is always progressing toward that vulgar mass that you seem to dislike so.

To which I say: good.
 
 
higuita
19:25 / 03.11.02
Bearing in mind that Shakespeare was considered something of a pulp playwright, I'd argue that the good stuff will win through. Admittedly there's a lot of crap about - to an extent, I agree with the Stuckists on the current state of the art world -

From Stuckism.com
"Stuckism is a rebuttal of the twentieth century development of Modernism, which has resulted in an increasingly fragmented, isolated, material-obsessed and stultifying academia, existing not by virtue of the work but institutional and financial power, flattered by critical acquiescence.

Stuckism regards the foundation of Modernism in art as an opportunity for vision, integrity and communication which has never been fulfilled.

The Stuckists are, therefore, opposed to the current pretensions of so-called Brit Art, Performance Art, Installation Art, Video Art, Conceptual Art, Minimal Art and anything claiming to be art which incorporates dead animals or beds - mainly because they are unremarkable and boring. "

I particularly like the statement - 'Artists who don’t paint aren’t artists.' Although it kicks out a fair amount of work that does have value, I think it has a good point.

Art that can reflect its contemporary culture, I think, is valid [which is where a certain contradiction could be posed to the Stuckists). Art that does this and/or reflects something universal, which can be understood and appreciated over centuries and cultures - all to the good.

I'd say 'don't worry about it'. You're either creating something or you're not. It doesn't matter what else is going on.
 
 
The Falcon
22:03 / 03.11.02
Yeah, look, there is a lot of shite around. I'd raise Fear 10%, and go for the 90:10, as my ratio of rubbish:good.

But it's just shit. I get awful worried when folk throw around the term 'art', at all. Because it means, or has come to mean: 'not for proles'.

Been to a gallery recently?
Theatre?
Modern Dance?

I haven't.
 
 
silpulsar
05:16 / 04.11.02
one little thing i'd like to throw into the mix here is that what we have been referring to as "popular art" or "what the masses are consuming" is a far cry from "people's art".

when the original poster referred to vulgar art, many people reacted to this allusion to vulgar as "of the people". i think it's interesting to point out that "pop art", the art, music, and film being consumed currently by the masses, has little to nothing to do with "people's art".

when the popular art consumed by the masses is fed to them through a series of corporate conglomerates and media monopolies for the sole purpose of moving units and collecting cash, i think it bears asking just what exactly that has to do with the people consuming it. through this process, "pop art" is controlled by the economic elite, so really, what's there to differentiate it from "high art", except the packaging?

people here have reacted to this perceived attack on the vulgar art connected to the masses, but i think that the "pop art" he was referring to has as little to do with the people as so-called "elitist art" does.

so now my question becomes, when "pop art" is as disconnected from the masses as the "elite arts" are, where do you go from there?

let me add that i fully support an artistic community composed of all people, and integrating art into our daily lives, but what we are looking at now is the dominant cultural force subsuming and redefining art for everyone.

sorry about the rambling, but it's late and the thought just popped into my head as i was reading. thoughts?
 
 
Pepsi Max
10:49 / 04.11.02
sil> Some interesting points. But you are still positing consumers of popular art as passive recipients of capitalist products. Not true. Or at least not wholly true. Counter examples: fanfic in the literary space. And most people are ignoring the world of high art.

let me add that i fully support an artistic community composed of all people, and integrating art into our daily lives, but what we are looking at now is the dominant cultural force subsuming and redefining art for everyone.

You situationist hippy. Basically you are saying we are all victims of the Spectacle, no?
 
 
The Natural Way
11:57 / 04.11.02
There are certainly degrees of passivity in consumption, as evidenced by MY ENTIRE OFFICE whose taste and ability to assimilate difference and novelty has been so imbecilised by overexposure to radio 1, Kiss FM and Blue that something as gently quirky as The Royal Tenenbaums was described to me today as "Soooo WEIRD!!!". The fact that I like House music jettison's my taste off into the nether-zones of "Out There!" Oh, and BTW, Donnie Darko was "Stuhrange! and RUBBISH."

What bothers me is the way some folks spend so long hiding away from making-any effort-whatsoever that, eventually, they become incapable of engaging with the most simple texts. And how, I ask you, does this reflect on their other viewpoints concerning difference and otherness? The effort to UNDERSTAND is an important one....a vital one.

I'm not sure if this is or isn't the *fault* of pop culture, but the fact that the most undemanding shit is often the most readily available, and completely transparent and naturalised, can't help matters.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:01 / 04.11.02
when the popular art consumed by the masses is fed to them through a series of corporate conglomerates and media monopolies for the sole purpose of moving units and collecting cash, i think it bears asking just what exactly that has to do with the people consuming it.

Fuck's sake... Let's put a bullet in the head of this myth.

Give the proles a little credit, huh? They choose what to watch/read/listen to/buy, after all, and if they docn't like it they'll stay away.

Demand creates supply. The media machines create what they know (or hope) will sell: obviously art is a process of recuperative feedback, but in the end the marketplace caters to the public taste far more than it creates it.

That said, although the entertainment industry is not directrly responsible for the quality of the product consumed by the masses, they are responsible for the massive quantity of product, which has its own interesting consequences—the most obvious being the exponentially accelerating pace of trend cycles.
 
 
The Falcon
12:59 / 04.11.02
More myths...

It's really easy to write a mainstream pop song, a bestselling novel, a blockbuster film...

No it isn't.
 
 
The Natural Way
13:01 / 04.11.02
But it IS very easy to consume them.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:30 / 04.11.02
and is easy neccessarily BAD?

To use your Donnie Darko eg, Runce - i'd suggest a lot of people I know/those round here who like DD do so precisely *because* it's easy for them in a way alot of the cultural material aruond them isn't. Which is not to denigrate it. If someone speaks your language, they're easier to understand. Doesn't mean that what they're saying is facile, does it? Or should we go round seeking people who only speak Urdu and try and converse soley with them?

Assuming that because alot of people respond to something - that it's mainstream - their response is neccessarily less moving or intense than that provided by 'Great Art For The Few' is fucking patronising. And a touch exoticising. Ah the proles, with their simple, unsatisfying pleasures.

And as regards the decaying culture thing, think Jack and Pepsi have covered the other points I'd make.

Pepsi is right about the high art=active recipient/pop art=passive dichotomy being established here... it's bullshit.

Correct me if I'm being naive, but wasn't/isn't that one of the amazing things about various forms of pop music; people recieve/participate in the process at a club/gig/festival, and are inspired to take it on for themselves... (My name is Jon Savage, and I claim my five pounds).

Rave/Hardcore/Jungle/Garage (both UK and Punk versions!), Queercore, Punk, Indie. What about Popstarz et al. giving a lot of space for people who want to sing pop music (poor fools) to give it a try?

Or if you want words (though I think alot of the value of some of the above styles has been in their making a space for words/languages that are rarely 'allowed' into Art)how about fanzine culture, fanfic/slash...

and I don't really understand what you mean by 'cultural identity with respect to art' in your initial post.

Do you mean 'our cultural identity with respect to Art'?

And as regards this:

"As Robert Southey said, "Kitsch is the corpse that's left when art has lost it's anger,"

Hmm. this shouts to me of a very one-dimensional view of art, anger and the aims of art. (so all angry art is good, that's what 'art', whatever that is, is for, yeah?)

I'd respond that the very artificiality of kitsch can be a very pointed and angry medium - the explicit 'de-naturalising' is something that I'm pretty glad exists in opposition to (or within, as kitsch's seduction and flattery is a valuable part of its strategic force) the kind of assumptions about what is good and worthwhile for Art. (and I'm not claiming it's always like this, but the potential for subversion is there.)
 
 
some guy
13:32 / 04.11.02
I repeat: the decline is an illusion

Where is the Jackass of 1947?
 
 
The Natural Way
13:46 / 04.11.02
Bengali: I accept that it's all "different languages" etc., and, no, I don't think easy = bad. But easy does = bad when that's all you subject yrself to. As I've tried to explain above, what really makes me grouch is when people have clearly spent so much time consuming reassuring, knowable, comfortable stuff, that, in the long run, they become incapable of assimilating anything even remotely quirky or different. Fr instance, They've been told so many times that the sexy, buff male gets the girl that, when he doesn't, everything starts to go wrong..... And my point about Donny Darko is that it ISN'T difficult - or, at least, it shouldn't be.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:48 / 04.11.02
Oh, and have to go, but am also suspicious of something that seems to be emerging whereby that which lasts in stone forever=good art, and the transitory experiences that flicker in and out=poor art.
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:13 / 04.11.02
Not much to say, but would people agree that it is not entirely pointless to have a notion of value attached to art? That is, that there can be "good" art and "bad" art, despite the problematic nature of such an assignment?

If so, isn't it possible that art is in decline not as part of some grand narrative, but as a accidental and possibly fleeting phenomenon? If we accept that, then it need not be knee-jerk conservativism to comment on it. However, establishing the case would require a good deal more familiarity with the history of art than I could muster.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
14:15 / 04.11.02
Lurid is w-i-i-i-i-i-s-e
 
 
bjacques
15:07 / 04.11.02
Where is the Jackass of 1947?

Two words: carnival geeks!

Duelling -- 1747
American flatboatmen's antics -- 1827
Queen For A Day -- 1950s US game show. Contestants told hard-luck stories on the air. Winner determined by "Applause meter," got a new washing machine or something. Losers, in the words of Anne Robinson, went home with nothing.
Bear-baiting
Ratting dens
Public executions
Every era has its spectacle of degradation. Jackass is pretty mild compared to the days of yore.

Civilization and the arts have been going downhill ever since the second generation of cave painters used different colors.
 
 
some guy
16:12 / 04.11.02
I think there's something to Lurid's theory. Everything else comes in cycles - why should the relative quality of art be any different? It's a mistake to sum up the argument as "We're all going to hell in a handbasket" versus "That's what people always say, so it must not be true." Surely sometimes there really is a higher ratio of crap than other times?
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:15 / 04.11.02
Surely sometimes there really is a higher ratio of crap than other times?

I really don't know, Laurence. At least not in the sense that I think you mean. My "wisdom", as bip puts it, was merely my way of saying how I would go about getting an informed opinion about this debate. But off the top of my head, I don't see any pattern in human artistic output as given.

Perhaps there is a fairly constant level of proportionality at work, whereby the more is produced the more crap is also produced. Perhaps inspiration derives from current events, so that historically turbulent times would be more rich. Perhaps there is an illusion of a golden era because of the swing in tastes that looks to the past for future inspiration. This also ties in with having a different perspective on contemporary rather than historical work.

All of which is pretty obvious, but the point is that one would have to work quite hard to make a convincing case that art is currently in decline. And bjacques, above, has made it all the more so.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply