3 ms·

History is written by the victors. The greatest achiever of which work reached us, by the criteria that we pick, of the things we know today, and the "we" chang

History is written by the victors. The greatest achiever of which work reached us, by the criteria that we pick, of the things we know today, and the "we" changes from culture to culture. Without dismissing Bach's work (or the others named in the discussion, I would had picked Leonardo with my shallow default knowledge on the topic) we should acknowledge how biased is what we know. Not just because how we select what we should focus on, but how partial is the information that managed to reach us today.

Jensson 3y ago
> History is written by the victors No it isn't, history is written by people looking at old documents. Losers write a lot of history as well since it isn't like the victors go and kill all the losers or burn down all their documents. > The greatest achiever of which work reached us, by the criteria that we pick, of the things we know today, and the "we" changes from culture to culture. Yes, the history taught to us depends on where we live, not who won back then. If you are in country A they will say their glorius wars conquered B, if you are in country B they will say the tyranny when ruled A was a horrible time. History wasn't written by A, both sides gets to write most of the time.
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  There's also self criticism. People are quick to dogpile on entities that do self criticism while proud egoists who never analyze themselves rarely get that.
- genman 3y ago
  >> History is written by the victors > No it isn't, history is written by people looking at old documents. Perhaps in very recent history but the old documents have been written by contemporary and there are many clear cases when the history has been rewritten by a tyrants e.g. politicians. I even know at least one large country based on multiple historical lies they tell to themselves and try to force upon others. Defacing old sculptures and paintings to erase people from the history is another clearest example of this practice.
tgv 3y ago
Rather trite cultural relativism. But Bach didn't even write the history, did he? Wasn't considered that great in his time. Rather, he was almost forgotten. And let's forget about the rest of the analogy by ignorance.
flenserboy 3y ago
History is very often written, & our understanding of it shaped, by the losers. Case in point: Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_W...).
noch 3y ago
> History is written by the victors. The greatest achiever of which work reached us, by the criteria that we pick, of the things we know today, and the "we" changes from culture to culture. I know you imagine that this is a profound observation but unfortunately it isn't. We all have it in our teens and twenties then we realise (decades later if we're unlucky) that it means much less than we thought. We imagine that the work that reaches us now is so incomplete as to render present judgements about the past invalid or so inaccurate as to be misleading or useless. But culture and civilisation, are in a real sense, defined as what _endures_. When it comes to the values that endure, it is more likely than not that humans pass along "the best things". Culture, after all, is downstream of genes and evolution. There is no "better culture" hiding somewhere but hidden by our biases or by a conspiracy of victors. There are no better artists lost to the past who were so good that had they not been lost our knowledge and appreciation of art today would be far different and superior to what it is now. "Acknowledging how biased is what we know" is similarly not as valuable an idea as it sounds because acknowledging bias doesn't actually reveal better information. The worst that bias can do is impede arriving at rational logical conclusions, and that is easily corrected by debate amongst enough people over a long enough period. Another way to say this is we are always collectively evaluating stuff in the past based on the best information we have available now. To acknowledge a putative bias doesn't take you _outside_ of the sphere of our knowledge of the past in which we are making judgements because even the fact that you can think and utter that statement is a result of the cultural values that were given to you and are thus already a part of the culture. There is nothing _outside_ of culture.
- wbl 3y ago
  The irony is you are posting this on an article about Bach. For about 200 years if people said Bach they meant C.P.E., not J.S. It wasn't until Mendelssohn performed the St. Matthew Passion that people began to reevaluate their attitudes and Bach assumed the place in the pantheon of composers. How we evaluate music is deeply subjective. The complex harmonic and counterpunctal vocabulary of the Baroque was passe by the time Bach died, replaced by the simplicity of the Classical period. And then romanticism kept the harmony, but created sweeping emotion rather than deep craft. Then look at jazz where the relationships of chords are entirely changed. So yes, there are works that people overlook and reevaluate.
ekianjo 3y ago
> Not just because how we select what we should focus on, but how partial is the information that managed to reach us today. Maybe for some really old stuff, but musical production at the time of Bach's is something entirely different. There's no other genius like him out there, and that's a fact.

Jensson 3y ago

> History is written by the victors No it isn't, history is written by people looking at old documents. Losers write a lot of history as well since it isn't like the victors go and kill all the losers or burn down all their documents. > The greatest achiever of which work reached us, by the criteria that we pick, of the things we know today, and the "we" changes from culture to culture. Yes, the history taught to us depends on where we live, not who won back then. If you are in country A they will say their glorius wars conquered B, if you are in country B they will say the tyranny when ruled A was a horrible time. History wasn't written by A, both sides gets to write most of the time.

hotdogscout 3y ago
There's also self criticism. People are quick to dogpile on entities that do self criticism while proud egoists who never analyze themselves rarely get that.
genman 3y ago
>> History is written by the victors > No it isn't, history is written by people looking at old documents. Perhaps in very recent history but the old documents have been written by contemporary and there are many clear cases when the history has been rewritten by a tyrants e.g. politicians. I even know at least one large country based on multiple historical lies they tell to themselves and try to force upon others. Defacing old sculptures and paintings to erase people from the history is another clearest example of this practice.

tgv 3y ago

Rather trite cultural relativism. But Bach didn't even write the history, did he? Wasn't considered that great in his time. Rather, he was almost forgotten. And let's forget about the rest of the analogy by ignorance.

flenserboy 3y ago

History is very often written, & our understanding of it shaped, by the losers. Case in point: Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_W...).

noch 3y ago

> History is written by the victors. The greatest achiever of which work reached us, by the criteria that we pick, of the things we know today, and the "we" changes from culture to culture. I know you imagine that this is a profound observation but unfortunately it isn't. We all have it in our teens and twenties then we realise (decades later if we're unlucky) that it means much less than we thought. We imagine that the work that reaches us now is so incomplete as to render present judgements about the past invalid or so inaccurate as to be misleading or useless. But culture and civilisation, are in a real sense, defined as what _endures_. When it comes to the values that endure, it is more likely than not that humans pass along "the best things". Culture, after all, is downstream of genes and evolution. There is no "better culture" hiding somewhere but hidden by our biases or by a conspiracy of victors. There are no better artists lost to the past who were so good that had they not been lost our knowledge and appreciation of art today would be far different and superior to what it is now. "Acknowledging how biased is what we know" is similarly not as valuable an idea as it sounds because acknowledging bias doesn't actually reveal better information. The worst that bias can do is impede arriving at rational logical conclusions, and that is easily corrected by debate amongst enough people over a long enough period. Another way to say this is we are always collectively evaluating stuff in the past based on the best information we have available now. To acknowledge a putative bias doesn't take you _outside_ of the sphere of our knowledge of the past in which we are making judgements because even the fact that you can think and utter that statement is a result of the cultural values that were given to you and are thus already a part of the culture. There is nothing _outside_ of culture.

wbl 3y ago
The irony is you are posting this on an article about Bach. For about 200 years if people said Bach they meant C.P.E., not J.S. It wasn't until Mendelssohn performed the St. Matthew Passion that people began to reevaluate their attitudes and Bach assumed the place in the pantheon of composers. How we evaluate music is deeply subjective. The complex harmonic and counterpunctal vocabulary of the Baroque was passe by the time Bach died, replaced by the simplicity of the Classical period. And then romanticism kept the harmony, but created sweeping emotion rather than deep craft. Then look at jazz where the relationships of chords are entirely changed. So yes, there are works that people overlook and reevaluate.

ekianjo 3y ago

> Not just because how we select what we should focus on, but how partial is the information that managed to reach us today. Maybe for some really old stuff, but musical production at the time of Bach's is something entirely different. There's no other genius like him out there, and that's a fact.