4 ms·
> Generally, we don't, and the result is an America that is hypercommercialized and ugly, with very few cultural achievements I've seen this viewpoint before,
by lionhearted 17y ago
> Generally, we don't, and the result is an America that is hypercommercialized and ugly, with very few cultural achievements
I've seen this viewpoint before, but it doesn't seem right at all - people drastically underestimate how amazing some of the America's cultural achievements are in a very short time.
The United States has got a pretty impressive literature tradition in less than 250 years. It doesn't stack up with, say, England's, but they've had a lot longer to build theirs... Our industrial design is out of the-world-good, one of the best of all time. Movies, of course. I'm not sure, but the best video games might wind up being studied and looked at as high art later - not sure which, I get the feeling the Planescape: Torment is incredibly high art, very philosophically deep and makes you think on some really interesting questions but who knows if that'll stick around, and who knows what else will.
Comic books and graphic novels have been criminally underrated as art until very recently, and I didn't even like comics that much as a kid. I only got into it when a friend of mine gave me some Frank Miller stuff, and I don't like all of it, but the good stuff is pretty amazing.
We've had some pretty amazing cartoons, animation, and amazing drawing and rendering in those mediums, ranging from Walt Disney's time to Pixar and so on. I'm in China right now and I was watching some Mickey Mouse dubbed into Chinese, and it's amazing how accessible it was. There was one cartoon with Daffy Duck going hunting and they analogized it to the trench warfare in WWI - amazing how it mixes deep themes about violence, animals, the barbaric nature of man trying to conquer and get trophies with some comic humor and pretty scenery that keeps kids interested. I don't even agree with that particular cartoon's political stance, but it's impressive that the visuals alone could tell a rather complete story without me understanding the language.
By the way, on a personal note, do you mind if I ask if you're an American? I see lots of comments on American culture from you, and I can't tell if you're from the States or Europe or elsewhere. I'm an American myself, grew up on the East Coast and in the middle of the country, have since lived, worked, and/or traveled through 30-40 countries or so.
I know some Europeans pooh-pooh American culture because we don't have as much classical high art in painting, etc, as Europeans do. But damn man, it's been 250 years, we've done some bloody marvelous things in that time. And I'm not even talking about talking about the technology necessarily - American movies, literature, animation in both cartoons and feature films, American architecture, American design and industrial design, American innovations in music... America's done some cool stuff in not very long. It's currently considered "pop culture", but all high art starts out that way. Some of the most celebrated European artists were lambasted or ignored for deviating from the classical Academy style of painting. From England, The Beatles were considered pop culture, and are now evolving to be considered high art.
Likewise, if you like at the IMDB Top 250[1], I'd bet many of those films are studied and debated and talked about for quite a long time, and the bulk of them are American.
[1]http://www.imdb.com/chart/top http://www.imdb.com/chart/top
- pw0ncakes 17y agoI'm American, and I agree that I'm being a bit unfair. We have had some cultural successes, but (in my opinion) fewer than I would have hoped, given our resources and ability. The problem is that nearly everything that is produced has to be filtered through large corporations; in most of these, major decisions are often made by filthy, uncultured pig-like creatures who hate creativity (even though they'll say they're all about "innovation") and defile everything they touch. There are glowing exceptions to this rule, but they're rare. The next-quarter mentality is killing refinement. In the US, to be creative requires that you fight against the larger society, and succeed in spite of it rather than with its assistance. Our artistic successes exist because we have a large population and (for other reasons) draw ambitious people from all over the world, but for us to truly fledge (and I believe we can; we have an incredible number of talented people within our borders) we'd have to move to a different socioeconomic model than the corporate-dominated mess we have now, in which parasites who don't actually do anything have almost all of the power, and the truly creative are almost always treated as pawns.
- lionhearted 17y agoJesus, people, please stop downvoting. I disagree a bit with pw0n's basic philosophy, but he put some time into his comment. Discuss, debate, and look to clarify instead of just flicking the arrow. I mean, hell, I asked him to respond and he did and clarified what he thought. That said... > The problem is that nearly everything that is produced has to be filtered through large corporations; in most of these, major decisions are often made by filthy, uncultured pig-like creatures who hate creativity Hasn't this always been the way, everywhere? The high art of the Renaissance was mostly financed by the Medici, who were... well I wouldn't call them uncultured pig-like creatures, but they were definitely businessmen/statesmen/power-first, love-and-good-feelings second type people. Lots of such people finance art throughout history - the Catholic Church, for instance, has been pretty barbaric at various times, but also commissioned a lot of history's greatest art. The Tokugawa Shogunate financed much of the art from 1600 to 1850 in Japan, the various dynasties in China, and so on. > we'd have to move to a different socioeconomic model than the corporate-dominated mess we have now, in which parasites who don't actually do anything have almost all of the power, and the truly creative are almost always treated as pawns. Isn't the internet doing just that? I think more decentralization is the answer, with services like Amazon, Youtube, cheap hosting, etc. letting artists connect directly with people. I tend to think rule by large government is no better than rule by large corporation, and potentially much worse - the Soviet Union isn't exactly known for its beauty and high culture... but you know what, I'm often guilty of doing too much talking and not enough listening in discussions like this. How do you think we could stimulate the arts in the States?