4 ms·

I'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 resourc

I'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 16y ago
Jesus, 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?
- pw0ncakes 16y ago
  I think the Internet is making a great deal of progress with regard to decentralization. On the subordination of culture to commerce, it hasn't always been this way. In dynastic China, the social pecking order was this: scholars, farmers, artisans, then merchants. Although the merchant class had the most money, they were lowest on the totem pole. I'm not arguing that we should move to a caste system based on occupation, but I think it's important to note that societies haven't always allowed the rich to buy their way into elite spots. What fails about American elitism is that it's post hoc elitism. Those who have wealth and power are presumed superior and allowed to get away with almost anything (white collar criminals get busted sometimes, but usually those turn out to have humble beginnings, and they're getting nailed in part because of all the rich people they caused to lose money). For example, in our society, we take it on assumption that the nicest apartments will go to those with the most money, rather than the most cultured. Education is heading that way, as well-- sold to the highest bidder. This isn't right. Trashy celebrities and powermongers shouldn't be able to displace the natural leaders-- the ones chosen by God, genetics, and culture to make the major decisions-- or affect the lives of such people at all. I agree that a large, powerful government can be as bad as rule by large corporations, but I think that, in general, corporate rule is worse. Corporations have a unique ability to give us the worst of both worlds between socialism and capitalism, and their ad hoc "because I say so" elitism (as opposed to elitism based on talent and culture) leads to mediocrity and worse-than-useless leadership. I do think that government needs to take a stand on the issue of re-elevating the cultured and talented, but I don't think that a government needs to necessarily be massive or overbearing in order to do so.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    A scholastic or religious or political elite isn't "chosen by God, genetics, and culture" either--it's chosen solely by culture, more precisely by whatever power system happens to exist in that culture. Most of the time, it's hereditary (so I guess genetics play a role). But there's no "talent and culture" involved in choosing that elite--they're a self-perpetuating parasitic class at best, which is why many countries had the whole lot of them killed. In fact most elitists in effect define "high culture" as the culture consumed by the elite class. On a purely artistic and creative level, this is absolute horseshit--some of the best culture was historically created for and consumed by a mass audience. A vulgar, tasteless merchant elite will gladly subsidize that, but a snobby "high-culture" elite won't. Some of the greatest music produced in the West since the 20th century originated from American blacks. The "natural elite" gifted by "God, genetics, and culture" wasn't about to let "Negro music" be popularized or even adapted by white musicians, but even the racist corporate merchant elite realized people would pay money for jazz and rock-and-roll records. And, in fact, when you talk about an elite that's "chosen by...genetics", you're talking about the functional equivalent to racism. It's possible to get into a vulgar merchant elite if you're clever and persistent no matter what, but a blue-blooded elite you have to be born into, just like a white-skinned elite.
jdminhbg 16y ago
"The problem is that nearly everything that is produced has to be filtered through large corporations" No, it doesn't. "major decisions are often made by filthy, uncultured pig-like creatures who hate creativity" Completely meaningless invective. "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." Isn't this a good thing? Easy, struggle-less art is boring and complacent. "Our artistic successes exist because we have a large population and (for other reasons) draw ambitious people from all over the world" Which "(for other reasons)" draw creative people here? I'm sure it's got nothing to do with the incentives for successful creativity in the US. "parasites who don't actually do anything have almost all of the power, and the truly creative are almost always treated as pawns" No-evidence polemic, and not even entertaining polemic at that.
jimbokun 16y ago
"to be creative requires that you fight against the larger society" This is almost tautological.
- pw0ncakes 16y ago
  Not necessarily. Even though average people are generally not creative themselves, you can have a social arrangement where such people respect and admire creativity.

lionhearted 16y ago

Jesus, 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?

pw0ncakes 16y ago
I think the Internet is making a great deal of progress with regard to decentralization. On the subordination of culture to commerce, it hasn't always been this way. In dynastic China, the social pecking order was this: scholars, farmers, artisans, then merchants. Although the merchant class had the most money, they were lowest on the totem pole. I'm not arguing that we should move to a caste system based on occupation, but I think it's important to note that societies haven't always allowed the rich to buy their way into elite spots. What fails about American elitism is that it's post hoc elitism. Those who have wealth and power are presumed superior and allowed to get away with almost anything (white collar criminals get busted sometimes, but usually those turn out to have humble beginnings, and they're getting nailed in part because of all the rich people they caused to lose money). For example, in our society, we take it on assumption that the nicest apartments will go to those with the most money, rather than the most cultured. Education is heading that way, as well-- sold to the highest bidder. This isn't right. Trashy celebrities and powermongers shouldn't be able to displace the natural leaders-- the ones chosen by God, genetics, and culture to make the major decisions-- or affect the lives of such people at all. I agree that a large, powerful government can be as bad as rule by large corporations, but I think that, in general, corporate rule is worse. Corporations have a unique ability to give us the worst of both worlds between socialism and capitalism, and their ad hoc "because I say so" elitism (as opposed to elitism based on talent and culture) leads to mediocrity and worse-than-useless leadership. I do think that government needs to take a stand on the issue of re-elevating the cultured and talented, but I don't think that a government needs to necessarily be massive or overbearing in order to do so.
- philwelch 16y ago
  A scholastic or religious or political elite isn't "chosen by God, genetics, and culture" either--it's chosen solely by culture, more precisely by whatever power system happens to exist in that culture. Most of the time, it's hereditary (so I guess genetics play a role). But there's no "talent and culture" involved in choosing that elite--they're a self-perpetuating parasitic class at best, which is why many countries had the whole lot of them killed. In fact most elitists in effect define "high culture" as the culture consumed by the elite class. On a purely artistic and creative level, this is absolute horseshit--some of the best culture was historically created for and consumed by a mass audience. A vulgar, tasteless merchant elite will gladly subsidize that, but a snobby "high-culture" elite won't. Some of the greatest music produced in the West since the 20th century originated from American blacks. The "natural elite" gifted by "God, genetics, and culture" wasn't about to let "Negro music" be popularized or even adapted by white musicians, but even the racist corporate merchant elite realized people would pay money for jazz and rock-and-roll records. And, in fact, when you talk about an elite that's "chosen by...genetics", you're talking about the functional equivalent to racism. It's possible to get into a vulgar merchant elite if you're clever and persistent no matter what, but a blue-blooded elite you have to be born into, just like a white-skinned elite.

jdminhbg 16y ago

"The problem is that nearly everything that is produced has to be filtered through large corporations" No, it doesn't. "major decisions are often made by filthy, uncultured pig-like creatures who hate creativity" Completely meaningless invective. "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." Isn't this a good thing? Easy, struggle-less art is boring and complacent. "Our artistic successes exist because we have a large population and (for other reasons) draw ambitious people from all over the world" Which "(for other reasons)" draw creative people here? I'm sure it's got nothing to do with the incentives for successful creativity in the US. "parasites who don't actually do anything have almost all of the power, and the truly creative are almost always treated as pawns" No-evidence polemic, and not even entertaining polemic at that.

jimbokun 16y ago

"to be creative requires that you fight against the larger society" This is almost tautological.

pw0ncakes 16y ago
Not necessarily. Even though average people are generally not creative themselves, you can have a social arrangement where such people respect and admire creativity.