40 ms·

So to keep a diverse culture ( we all agreee diversity is great isn't it?) No, we don't all agree. Not when the "diversity" is someone looking at the market an

So to keep a diverse culture ( we all agreee diversity is great isn't it?) No, we don't all agree. Not when the "diversity" is someone looking at the market and saying "there are too many good movies. we need some shit ones". Nobody needs to diversify away from quality, which is essentially what the French laws do. Don't mistake the bizarre fetishes of a small number of French elite with some kind of natural law or elegant philosophy. The French government have to protect their cultural industry because it produces bad stuff that even the French don't want to watch. There is no justification for this: every attempted justification boils down to sophistry.

hodwik 10y ago
There are examples of more difficult media which don't get mass-media popular, not because of their quality, but because of their difficulty. These types of works make up part of the 'secret handshake' of the upper class -- it is how they identify each other. France has the noble, but mistaken, idea that they can force lower and middle class people to take in high culture, and in so doing, will be able to make their country more egalitarian. Sorry guys, cultural class isn't something you can just legislate away. The upper classes (culturally, not economically) have spent generations training themselves to be very critical connoisseurs -- you're not going to undo that with some government-funded arthouse flicks and a Netflix tax.
verroq 10y ago
>Not when the "diversity" is someone looking at the market and saying "there are too many good movies I take it you are against affirmative action?
wfo 10y ago
And so we are to take your definition of "good" and "shit" as gospel -- obviously, we want more movies that you think are good and less movies that you think are shit. Would you like to take the position of cultural czar and pre-review every piece of art to decide if it's worth publishing? Or perhaps you'd like us to just assume the market is the best judge of what is good art? That was a joke -- the notion is laughable, the market is a clumsy and incompetent tool in almost all human affairs, especially where art is involved. Every justification boils down to referring to something that is difficult to understand (culture, art, subjectivity, the point of view of another person) which you have chosen to label as sophistry.
- sievebrain 10y ago
  Yes, your second interpretation is the right one. Oh, I'm sorry, you think what people choose to spend their money on is a poor way to judge what's good entertainment? I suppose you're right - we should let French bureaucrats decide instead. Their tastes are far more exquisite than anyone elses, after all. It goes with the job.

hodwik 10y ago

There are examples of more difficult media which don't get mass-media popular, not because of their quality, but because of their difficulty. These types of works make up part of the 'secret handshake' of the upper class -- it is how they identify each other. France has the noble, but mistaken, idea that they can force lower and middle class people to take in high culture, and in so doing, will be able to make their country more egalitarian. Sorry guys, cultural class isn't something you can just legislate away. The upper classes (culturally, not economically) have spent generations training themselves to be very critical connoisseurs -- you're not going to undo that with some government-funded arthouse flicks and a Netflix tax.

verroq 10y ago

>Not when the "diversity" is someone looking at the market and saying "there are too many good movies I take it you are against affirmative action?

wfo 10y ago

And so we are to take your definition of "good" and "shit" as gospel -- obviously, we want more movies that you think are good and less movies that you think are shit. Would you like to take the position of cultural czar and pre-review every piece of art to decide if it's worth publishing? Or perhaps you'd like us to just assume the market is the best judge of what is good art? That was a joke -- the notion is laughable, the market is a clumsy and incompetent tool in almost all human affairs, especially where art is involved. Every justification boils down to referring to something that is difficult to understand (culture, art, subjectivity, the point of view of another person) which you have chosen to label as sophistry.

sievebrain 10y ago
Yes, your second interpretation is the right one. Oh, I'm sorry, you think what people choose to spend their money on is a poor way to judge what's good entertainment? I suppose you're right - we should let French bureaucrats decide instead. Their tastes are far more exquisite than anyone elses, after all. It goes with the job.