"Culture is ordinary"

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Clearly you lack the necessary grounding and discipline to appreciate the pleasurable uses of feces. From the popular appeal of the 'Cleveland steamer' to the rigorous philosophy of the Marquis de Sade, feces has something for everyone. However, given your zeal for learning and unquestioned commitment, I'm sure you could develop a taste for it -- unles ...[text shortened]... inferior, but is it possible to rank these three different art forms hierarchically?

Ah, how refreshing, a conossieur (sic) of the good old Cleveland Steamer! 😵

Originally posted by Palynka
Don't be ridiculous. Are you implying that children don't have individual tastes?

I am not implying anything. I am stating that infants have an a priori understanding of
what beauty is, long before they can form opinions. They have predisposed tastes. Are they
subjective relative to the rest of the universe. Sure, but again, who cares? They're even
subjective when it comes to other species on this planet. Who cares? They are not subjective
relative to the human condition.

Also, if you affirm such statistical aggregations are an a priori human disposition, then you are equating popularity of personal tastes with 'good' or 'bad'.

No, I am not. Popularity is necessarily going to focus around the median; some people are
going to like crap and some people are going to like the good stuff. Popularity will often have
little concordance with artistic excellence.

I maintain that, all other things being equal, education within a certain field gives a person a
better sense of determining what is good and bad in that field. The popular masses have only
a modicum of education in music -- they are responding solely sensationally to the music, with
no intellectual component. This is why their opinion is less informed, and less well formed.

Thus, according to you, Britney Spears is 'better' than Chopin. If any position is 'absurd' here, then it's yours because of its glaring inconsistencies.

She's certainly more attractive (have you ever seen his picture?). No, she's merely more
popular. Sensationalism is a big draw. Chopin doesn't have the controversy to drive his career.

That's not the issue here. The performances are comparable because they are interpreting the same composition, which has a defined standard. That's different from comparing two different types of compositions.

But, according to you, that defined standard is 'subjective.' Maybe on some planet, having
no sense of tempo, dynamics, or right notes is considered to be artistic. Or maybe his
tonedeaf parents think his performance is better. According to you, they're position is totally
valid. According to me, they're wrong.

Wrong again. You get better according to the standard that you've chosen. But that choice of standard is a personal one.

Whoops. Now the standard is subjective again, unlike above. You're equivocating. Either the
kid is worse than the professional performance (which I don't much like either), or it's just a
matter of subjective taste.

Which is it, Palynka?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Don't be ridiculous. Are you implying that children don't have individual tastes?

I am not implying anything. I am stating that infants have an a priori understanding of
what beauty is, long before they can form opinions. They have predisposed tastes. Are they
subjective relative to the rest of the just a
matter of subjective taste.

Which is it, Palynka?

Nemesio[/b]

I am not implying anything. I am stating that infants have an a priori understanding of what beauty is, long before they can form opinions.
And?

They are not subjective relative to the human condition.
Of course they are. You're talking about studies based on statistically average tastes. The measure of subjectiveness can never be found on a statistical average of sample counts (ergo popularity). This is true by definition, unless the variance is zero. Which it is not.

No, I am not. Popularity is necessarily going to focus around the median; some people are going to like crap and some people are going to like the good stuff. Popularity will often have little concordance with artistic excellence.
But you're citing studies of (self-claimed) a priori tastes which are purely based on statistical averages! It's insane that you cannot see the contradictions in these statements of yours.

Maybe on some planet, having no sense of tempo, dynamics, or right notes is considered to be artistic. Or maybe his tonedeaf parents think his performance is better.
But the thing is that you can find that on this planet, Nemesio. Music without tempo, dynamics or right notes that is considered to be artistic by many. Only a narrow view of what art is (and more importantly a view of what art should be) would prevent someone from realizing this.

Now the standard is subjective again, unlike above
Wrong. Above was also subjective, but its evidently clear that the interpretations of the composition are meant to be interpreted by a very similar, if not equal, standard especially because they approach the original piece in a classical way. Do you challenge that?

My point is that an electronic remix of that song would not be comparable, because the standards of evaluation are different. And why would one standard be better than the other one?

I never claimed that within a given standard comparisons were meaningless. Almost the opposite. I claimed that ONLY within a given standard they were meaningful. But such standards are not comparible within themselves in the absence of a meta-standard that does not exist.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Comparing feces and chocolate is a category mistake (I'll be sure to use 'feces & chocolate' instead of 'apples & oranges' from now on!). Nobody really considers feces to be food.

Maybe you've never had kids, but when kids discover how to remove their diaper, the first thing
they do is put poop on their face and in their mouths (and all over). Then they cry because
it tastes nasty.

I picked feces because some other animals eat poop. Birds will not eat chocolate, but they
will eat poop. So, taste is subjective. But who cares about birds? If birds want to argue over
whether their poop eating is objectively right and our chocolate eating is objectively wrong, then
fine. But with humans, sweet things are good, poop is bad (which of course is reinforced
socially, no doubt). I want to deal with the a priori positions which humans hold.

Which art is more worthy of being taught at schools -- kabuki theatre, Arabic calligraphy, or traditional Swedish felting? Within each genre, it is surely possible to distinguish superior performances from inferior, but is it possible to rank these three different art forms hierarchically?

If taste is truly subjective, then actually we cannot distinguish between superior and inferior
performances, according to Palynka.

I know nothing about Arabic calligraphy or Swedish felting, and my experience with Kabuki
theatre is negligible. I certainly couldn't rank them, and since the best of all three art forms
yield magnificent works, I would be loathe to ignore any of them in a comprehensive arts/crafts
survey. However, according to Palynka, Arabic calligraphy is no more ornate than grade 3
German penmanship, because such judgments are subjective. I think this is absurd and I'm at
a loss how anyone could take that seriously.

I suppose one of the criteria should be the level of expertise required. If it takes three months
to become a master Swedish felter (i.e., produce a work indistinguishable from someone who has
been in the field for twenty years), then I'd say it's lower on the hierarchy than Arabic calligraphy,
which I understand takes a long time of diligent study to master. (To be clear, I have no idea
about either of these art forms, so I was just making a wholly hypothetical statement.) Of
course expertise isn't the only criterion, but I'd venture it's an important one.

I think it would be better to compare similar media, like comparing Kabuki with English Tudor
playwrights. Of course, each art form is going to be received with ignorance outside its native
area -- the Chinese find Romeo and Juliet mystifying because the idea of disobeying parents
is so foreign as to be utterly incredible, for example. So, another criterion is education. I
think one must strive for an emic understanding of the genre. So, I would say that in
order to evaluate Takeda Izumo II against William Shakespeare, one must understand the
cultural milieu which inspired them, the sorts of works which were going on at the time which
served as their models, their use of their respective languages, and so forth.

I'm unqualified to make such distinctions, but I don't think such distinctions are non-existent.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Palynka
And?

This forms the basis of what is beautiful as far as humans are concerned, not what
people opine is beautiful.

Of course they are. You're talking about studies based on statistically average tastes. The measure of subjectiveness can never be found on a statistical average of sample counts (ergo popularity). This is true by definition, unless the variance is zero. Which it is not.

You are the one pushing for a zero-variance system: everyone's opinion is equally well informed,
equally valid, equally important, equally qualified and so forth. Infants have no vested interests.
They are unencumbered with social pressures to evaluate something in a certain way. They
have no interest in popularity.

Just like any other organism, there is going to be variance in all things. Some will run faster,
some will solve problems easier, some will have larger appetites. We've evolved to like
sweet things and dislike sour things. Some babies will like sour things to sweet things. It's
just the variance of genes and nature. Those babies are abnormal, plain and simple.

Similarly, sure one or two infants are going to look at some ugly person and stare longer than
at a pretty one. They're abnormal, too. This doesn't make them evil, or bad, or stupid or
anything.

I know the term abnormal makes people uncomfortable. Nobody likes the idea of being 'abnormal.'
Abnormal generally has a pejorative connotation. This is what relates this phenomenon of
'everything is art' to political correctness I mentioned earlier. People aren't handicapped anymore,
they're 'handicapable.' People aren't blind, they're 'visually impaired.' And now people aren't
incompetent in art, they're just 'differently opinioned.'

I think that's just BS. People aren't 'differently visioned;' some have good eyesight, some have
poor eyesight, some have superior eyesight and some can't see at all. Some are good runners,
some are bad runners, some can't run at all. Some have good artistic capacities, some don't;
some can keep tempo with no difficulty, some can learn to keep tempo, and some simply can't
keep tempo because they stink at music.

But you're citing studies of (self-claimed) a priori tastes which are purely based on statistical averages! It's insane that you cannot see the contradictions in these statements of yours.

What's the contradiction? Some people show a greater or weaker aptitude for math, or judging
the passing of time. Are they differently mathematical, or are their biological clock mechanisms
differently calibrated? No, some people are lousy at math. Some people simply have weak
sensitivity to their circadian rhythms. We use statistical models to evaluate those. Do we
believe that it's just opinion? Of course not.

I might be misunderstanding what you think is the contradiction, though...

But the thing is that you can find that on this planet, Nemesio. Music without tempo, dynamics or right notes that is considered to be artistic by many. Only a narrow view of what art is (and more importantly a view of what art should be) would prevent someone from realizing this.

Haydn without tempo, dynamics or right notes is bad Haydn, not 'different' Haydn. That
you can maintain that the first performance is just 'different' borders on insane, I think.

Wrong. Above was also subjective, but its evidently clear that the interpretations of the composition are meant to be interpreted by a very similar, if not equal, standard especially because they approach the original piece in a classical way. Do you challenge that?

Your artistic framework challenges it, not mine! The question is: Clear to whom? The
'subjective' tastes of the audience, that's who. In your model, there is no such thing as a lousy
performance, because taste is subjective. Any judgment we might cast on the first performer
is steeped in our subjectivity -- What is a 'right' tempo? What are the 'right' dynamics? Indeed,
what is a right 'note?' -- consequently, it remains our opinion, in your view, that is.

My point is that an electronic remix of that song would not be comparable, because the standards of evaluation are different. And why would one standard be better than the other one?

An electronic remix may or may not be better or worse; it's hard to talk in hypotheticals.
However, if I were to record myself playing that piece, edit it with my audio programs to
add jingle bell every time I played a 'C' and a doorbell every time I played a 'G,' can we say
who is more creative, me or Haydn? I hope we can say that Haydn was.

I never claimed that within a given standard comparisons were meaningless. Almost the opposite. I claimed that ONLY within a given standard they were meaningful. But such standards are not comparible within themselves in the absence of a meta-standard that does not exist.

Are we talking about a meta-standard that exists across the universe? I already agreed no
such standard exists, and explained why I agree with that. If we're talking about a meta-
standard for humans, then yes, I do think it exists, although it's elusive, no doubt. And I think
that individual humans are going to have a greater or lesser sensitivity to that standard than
others, which is why we have very few Mozarts, Shakespeares, Newtons, and Michaelangelos.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
However, according to Palynka, Arabic calligraphy is no more ornate than grade 3
German penmanship, because such judgments are subjective. I think this is absurd and I'm at
a loss how anyone could take that seriously.

I suppose one of the criteria should be the level of expertise required. If it takes three months
to become a master Swedish ...[text shortened]... .) Of
course expertise isn't the only criterion, but I'd venture it's an important one.

You misrepresent him, I think. 'Grade 3 German penmanship' would be judged by the standards of 'German penmanship'; 'German penmanship' and Arabic calligraphy could be compared, but absolute qualitative distinctions couldn't be made between them. In fact, it would only make sense to judge Arabic calligraphy by the standards of Arabic calligraphy, which has a venerable tradition for critics to fall back on.

By the criterion of 'expertise' a sitarist is unquestionably superior to an organist. But I think that's a silly thing to say. Haunting music can be produced on simple instruments. And you wouldn't use an orchestra to play talking blues.

Anyway -- you agree on the main point: to make a judgement, you need rules. To have rules, you need a game. The same rules don't apply for every game.

Jump genres, combine Arabic calligraphy with other visual forms (like certain French artists) and you have another game. And there are works that actually require the critic to acknowledge and use their cultural subjectivity in order to bring meaning, however contingent, to the work.

Tibetan sand mandalas.

Originally posted by Nemesio
And I think
that individual humans are going to have a greater or lesser sensitivity to that standard than
others, which is why we have very few Mozarts, Shakespeares, Newtons, and Michaelangelos.

Nemesio

An interesting statement. Needless to say, I disagree; can you guess why?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You misrepresent him, I think. 'Grade 3 German penmanship' would be judged by the standards of 'German penmanship'; 'German penmanship' and Arabic calligraphy could be compared, but absolute qualitative distinctions couldn't be made between them. In fact, it would only make sense to judge Arabic calligraphy by the standards of Arabic calligraphy, which ...[text shortened]... n order to bring meaning, however contingent, to the work.

Tibetan sand mandalas.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Good to see that the problem isn't in my writing.

Originally posted by Palynka
That's exactly what I'm saying. Good to see that the problem isn't in my writing.

Do you think the logic of the holy underpants applies to this discussion, or is it limited to theological disputes?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Do you think the logic of the holy underpants applies to this discussion, or is it limited to theological disputes?

The cultural value of hol(e)y underpants can never be overstated.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Originally posted by catfoodtim
Isn't it precisely those groups that point the finger at the Chavs, the ones that destroyed Communal values and promoted aspirations of material wealth?

Chavs don't have aspirations of material wealth? Besides how are you sure that the promotion of material wealth has contibuted to dissolution of communal values, or is indeed even a bad thing? Even apart from these two questions does this mean chav culture is something worth holding on to?

Isn't the latest campaign in the UK against Binge Drinking and Bling a continuation of the long-standing, middle class inability to avoid interfering in other people's lives?

The campaign? No. It's surely a response to the growing bill on the NHS, the police and those of us who don't like to feel threatened or uncomfortable by unruly and offensive drunks/criminals.

Sneering at Chavs, says Birchill, is an attack on the white indigenous English working class, the "one group you can insult without feeling the breath of the Commission for Racial Equality on your neck"

But it's not because they're white indigenous English working class that people insult them, it's because their propensity towards crime and the abandonment of education is so high. How exactly do you think chavs are a good thing?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Does she have authentic chav credentials or has she appropriated a chav identity while remaining a self-loathing ('angry'😉 crypto-liberal? Somehow I don't trust a self-proclaimed 'chav journo'.

What precisely is 'chav culture'? Is 'chav' the same as 'working class' or something else? Do chavs work? Is there something that all chavs have in common? Is it a parochial English thing or could there be a Chav International? And finally -- what is the origin of the word itself?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I don't miss her point at all, it's just bull.

Your and her entire argument rests upon the equivocation of 'chav'. You're attempting to use it to replace 'working class' and that's just balls. Chavs do have a propensity towards crime that isn't seen in what you're also equivocating as the middle classes (or to correctly frame your argument; daily mail readers) nor in the rest of the working class. Chavs are scum and it's not about anything to do with Thatcherism or the hypocrisy of the meddlers, it's about the lack of moral principle and desire to do just about anything which might just set them on the path to success. Don't pretend for a second that when I insult chavs I'm in some way being a classist, unless of course you really do think that such a base and under-achieving group are in fact the hard done by and really can contribute towards the culture of the UK, in which case label me classist and I'll be perfectly happy.

Burchill talks crap, the honest-to-goodness man on the street is a complete fallacy if she's painting that group to be synonymous with the dole scrounging, car torching, frickwits that make up the chav culture. And don't mistake me, I'll reserve the same ire for anyone who scrounges, be they suited or booted. Moaning about hypocrisy whilst engendering the hypocrisised with some sort of hero status, like Burchill does, is just sloppy.