These are the kind of pseudo-Middle Ages pieces of pre-Raphaelite art that I find to be pompous and pretentious but many people seem to find aesthetically pleasing:
The most interesting thing about the group is that they were all in love or lust with the same two women and used them as models in all their paintings.
I think that all art is social commentary of one sort or another. Even people who say they are doing "art for art's sake" are engaging in a form of social commentary because it is generally a reaction against those who think art must be social commentary or useful in some way.
Now I think there is plenty wrong with the art world and social commentary and it can largely be illustrated by the career of Damien Hirst. Also Bansky to a more limited extent. I agree that in the world of high art prices there is a lot of insular "knowing" that can be alienating to people. Is Damien Hirst pulling a joke on his buyers or are the buyers pulling a joke on us/Damien Hirst?
I think you are being unfair by calling the social commentary of art to be simplistic. It sounds rather glib. It is glib to say that Picasso's Guerenica can be reduced to "War is bad" or Edward Hooper's Nighthawks is about the lonely and alienating nature of the modern city/life but this cheapens the viewer's reaction and interaction to the work. There are real and raw human emotions in those pieces of art that reflect truth to the human condition and empathy towards human suffering and misery.
I meant the ones grabbed from movies andTV that are used to show emotional dismay on the Internet. And I consider them to be a sign of the end of civilization and discourse.
As an official policy, yes. I think they became a lot more common in the 1980s once the drinking age was raised to 21 and there were a lot of scare stories about binge drinking in the media.
I generally think that pretentiousness is a very easy charge to level and make at something. And I often find that I have a hard time figuring out why things are considered pretentious?
Ozu produced domestic dramas about middle-class families being gently torn apart at the seams by equally compelling forces of modernity and tradition. Kurosawa made Samurai films and modern noirs for much of his career some of which were adapted from Shakespeare (Throne of Blood, The Bad Sleep Well, Ran). Star Wars is basically an homage to Kurosawa's the Hidden Fortress. Goddard got wonky and non-narrative so I will grant that he could be pretentious. Truffaut never struck me as pretentious. Neither does Rohemer or Bergman.
Likewise, I never quite understand why non-representative artists like the Abstract Expressionists always get labeled as pretentious. As I mentioned in another thread on the league, I find that it is Imperialistic propaganda of the Pre-Raphaelites to be pretentious. I strongly dislike their glorified and false paintings of courtly life from the Middle Ages. There is more reality and beauty in a Rothko painting than in the pomposity of seeing a lady crown a knight on his way to or home from Imperialist adventure.
I will rue the day when Cat Macros and Gifs are displayed in MOMA and the Guggenheim.
And I am not sure that is true. The modern artists (Cornell, Richard Serra, De Koening, Wayne Theobaud, and many more) will always considered part of high culture. Same with writers like Beckett and Joyce. Shostakovich was always high culture. They might have been rejected by a large part of the cultural establishment but no one would consider them to have ever been "low culture". Same with filmmakers like Truffaut, Goddard, Bergman, etc. Were they ever considered low culture?
I don't think there is anything wrong with liking the things you mentioned.
However, I do find it troubling that many people in their 20s and 30s seem to be absolutely rejecting "high" culture or at least culture that is somewhat more difficult to appreciate. There is value in humanity when it can produce Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, or deeply experimental artists like Philip Glass, Meredith Monk, Robert Wilson, Judy Chicago, etc. Not everything has to be silly and easy to digest.
I still find long-form criticism like the New Yorker, New Republic, N plus One, Bomb, The Believer, etc to be highly valuable. I still think one of the most valuable things a critic can do is encourage people to seek out more obscure and difficult art.
I can't help but think that when liberal and progressive sites like Think Progress are almost exclusively dedicated to fandom stuff on their culture pages, it is because they have been scared by the Palinistas for being out of touch urban elitists.
"Socialist in economics, liberal in politics, conservative in culture"-Daniel Bell
I think they are largely coextensive. Many to most or all libertarians are nerds but not all nerds are libertarians.
I would argue that nerd rage (TM) is stronger because it is largely dealing with entertainment and lifestyle stuff over serious policy issues. A variant on Kissinger's observation on university politics. The lower the stakes, the increase in brutality/rage/backstabbing, etc.
Every nerd has his or her sacred thing and any variance on said thing will produce nerd rage, nothing can calm nerd rage down. It is called fandumb for a reason sometimes.*
*Disclaimer/Admission: I used to be heavily into anime and was a strong member of my alma mater's SF/Fantasy/Gaming club. For reasons unknown to me, anime immediately lost its appeal during my first year out of university. I still like Star Trek (though I am weird and DS9) is my favorite series but the excesses of fandom are odd to me. I have no desire to spend every weekend and holiday going to cons. Or any weekend or holiday really. Plus I never liked filk. Plus some nerd explanations really bug me. When Osama was killed, the NY Times ran a picture of a guy in his 20s celebrating by wearing a Captain America mask and shield. I thought this was inappropriate and proof of the silliness of "America, Fuck Yeah" attitudes. Someone I kind of know defended said guy by saying "He is probably just a really big nerd/kid and wanted to do something to celebrate and join in." I'm still not convinced that being a big nerd is a good defense for that kind of immaturity.
I am also perplexed by the dominance of fandom in the zeitgeist now and the somewhat cultural conservative/snob in me wonders why everyone is sticking with their 12-year old comfort food. Where are the 20 and 30 somethings getting into art house cinema and experimental stuff? During my parents youth in the 1960s/70s, it seemed like there was a bit more of an expectation to try and like Art House. Where are the Bergmans, Truffauts, Goddards, Cassavettees, etc?
Though I was kind of sad when my alma mater switched from being a wet campus to a dry campus. That being said, I think there is a strong argument for universities to be wet over dry. There will be stupidity but once universities go dry, students tend to switch from beer to hard alcohol more and that causes more problems.
Considering the damage to the NYC-NJ metro area, I am not sure how things can be in good enough shape.
Con Edison seems to think it will be at least a week before power is back on line. There is still major flooding that needs to be pumped. Who knows how many absentee/mail-in ballots were destroyed by flooding. Or how many voting machines.
Though you are right that the campaigns will start being more get out the vote.
As I said above, the only people going against Silver are either old-school horse race journalists who don't like his use of math/quantative analysis or right-wing partisan pundits who lash out using the typical insults.
Show me a source criticisizing him with a less vested interest. I am not saying Obama has it in the bag but Silver seems to be using somewhat more advanced techniques than the typical journalist or pollster.
I don't think either campaign is acting like Obama has a 70 percent chance of winning because it would be foolish for either to do so. Arrogant for Obama and defeatist for Romney.
Philadelphia was (and maybe still is) notoriously race divided as a city.
The West and Pacific Northwest are rather homogeneous still in terms of demographics. Only 10 percent of Black-Americans live in the West/Northwest. Even San Francisco feels a lot more homogeneous to me compared to my native New York. When I visited Portland, I was a bit shocked about how homogeneous (and largely white) the city is.
But by your admission that they would vote for Romney anyway, I am guessing you do not live in a purple district. You might not even live in a purple mountain west state.
I am still seeing plenty of Obama/Biden pride in blue-land California. Same with my friends in blue-land New York. See my thought below on how geographic location can shade our predictions.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Embarassing Annals of Libertarianism and Policy Writing.”
These are the kind of pseudo-Middle Ages pieces of pre-Raphaelite art that I find to be pompous and pretentious but many people seem to find aesthetically pleasing:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3PI4TMCMtds/TzVRWFDiLiI/AAAAAAAABaY/FlYO4itZ130/s1600/god_speed.jpg
http://painting-canvas.co.uk/images/gallery/Painting%20Reproduction/pre-raphaelite/creppre015.jpg
The most interesting thing about the group is that they were all in love or lust with the same two women and used them as models in all their paintings.
I think that all art is social commentary of one sort or another. Even people who say they are doing "art for art's sake" are engaging in a form of social commentary because it is generally a reaction against those who think art must be social commentary or useful in some way.
Now I think there is plenty wrong with the art world and social commentary and it can largely be illustrated by the career of Damien Hirst. Also Bansky to a more limited extent. I agree that in the world of high art prices there is a lot of insular "knowing" that can be alienating to people. Is Damien Hirst pulling a joke on his buyers or are the buyers pulling a joke on us/Damien Hirst?
I think you are being unfair by calling the social commentary of art to be simplistic. It sounds rather glib. It is glib to say that Picasso's Guerenica can be reduced to "War is bad" or Edward Hooper's Nighthawks is about the lonely and alienating nature of the modern city/life but this cheapens the viewer's reaction and interaction to the work. There are real and raw human emotions in those pieces of art that reflect truth to the human condition and empathy towards human suffering and misery.
"
I'd read them
"
at Mike.
I think Gatsby is only a bit over 200 pages. It is a third the size of a fantasy door stop.
"
Those are cool.
I meant the ones grabbed from movies andTV that are used to show emotional dismay on the Internet. And I consider them to be a sign of the end of civilization and discourse.
"
@DRS:
Jackson Pollock? He died way before cellphones were invented.
"
As an official policy, yes. I think they became a lot more common in the 1980s once the drinking age was raised to 21 and there were a lot of scare stories about binge drinking in the media.
As actual practice, almost certainly not.
On “Voting on a Prayer”
:(
I still get the Weekend issues of the Saturday and Sunday times on paper.
Reading the Sunday Times at Brunch is a great way to spend a Sunday morning.
Granted I have been described as an old-soul.
On “Embarassing Annals of Libertarianism and Policy Writing.”
Yup. I prefer reading on actual paper and with binded books. Reading on a screen gives me a headache and hurts my eyes.
"
Or for the more representational, there is more beauty in the social realism of the Ashcan school.
Or the social realist Jewish painters from the Lower East side like Raphael Soyer:
http://www.artclon.com/OtherFile/raphael_soyer_xx_annunciation_1980.jpg
"
I generally think that pretentiousness is a very easy charge to level and make at something. And I often find that I have a hard time figuring out why things are considered pretentious?
Ozu produced domestic dramas about middle-class families being gently torn apart at the seams by equally compelling forces of modernity and tradition. Kurosawa made Samurai films and modern noirs for much of his career some of which were adapted from Shakespeare (Throne of Blood, The Bad Sleep Well, Ran). Star Wars is basically an homage to Kurosawa's the Hidden Fortress. Goddard got wonky and non-narrative so I will grant that he could be pretentious. Truffaut never struck me as pretentious. Neither does Rohemer or Bergman.
Likewise, I never quite understand why non-representative artists like the Abstract Expressionists always get labeled as pretentious. As I mentioned in another thread on the league, I find that it is Imperialistic propaganda of the Pre-Raphaelites to be pretentious. I strongly dislike their glorified and false paintings of courtly life from the Middle Ages. There is more reality and beauty in a Rothko painting than in the pomposity of seeing a lady crown a knight on his way to or home from Imperialist adventure.
"
I will rue the day when Cat Macros and Gifs are displayed in MOMA and the Guggenheim.
And I am not sure that is true. The modern artists (Cornell, Richard Serra, De Koening, Wayne Theobaud, and many more) will always considered part of high culture. Same with writers like Beckett and Joyce. Shostakovich was always high culture. They might have been rejected by a large part of the cultural establishment but no one would consider them to have ever been "low culture". Same with filmmakers like Truffaut, Goddard, Bergman, etc. Were they ever considered low culture?
"
I don't think there is anything wrong with liking the things you mentioned.
However, I do find it troubling that many people in their 20s and 30s seem to be absolutely rejecting "high" culture or at least culture that is somewhat more difficult to appreciate. There is value in humanity when it can produce Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, or deeply experimental artists like Philip Glass, Meredith Monk, Robert Wilson, Judy Chicago, etc. Not everything has to be silly and easy to digest.
I still find long-form criticism like the New Yorker, New Republic, N plus One, Bomb, The Believer, etc to be highly valuable. I still think one of the most valuable things a critic can do is encourage people to seek out more obscure and difficult art.
I can't help but think that when liberal and progressive sites like Think Progress are almost exclusively dedicated to fandom stuff on their culture pages, it is because they have been scared by the Palinistas for being out of touch urban elitists.
"Socialist in economics, liberal in politics, conservative in culture"-Daniel Bell
"
I think they are largely coextensive. Many to most or all libertarians are nerds but not all nerds are libertarians.
I would argue that nerd rage (TM) is stronger because it is largely dealing with entertainment and lifestyle stuff over serious policy issues. A variant on Kissinger's observation on university politics. The lower the stakes, the increase in brutality/rage/backstabbing, etc.
Every nerd has his or her sacred thing and any variance on said thing will produce nerd rage, nothing can calm nerd rage down. It is called fandumb for a reason sometimes.*
*Disclaimer/Admission: I used to be heavily into anime and was a strong member of my alma mater's SF/Fantasy/Gaming club. For reasons unknown to me, anime immediately lost its appeal during my first year out of university. I still like Star Trek (though I am weird and DS9) is my favorite series but the excesses of fandom are odd to me. I have no desire to spend every weekend and holiday going to cons. Or any weekend or holiday really. Plus I never liked filk. Plus some nerd explanations really bug me. When Osama was killed, the NY Times ran a picture of a guy in his 20s celebrating by wearing a Captain America mask and shield. I thought this was inappropriate and proof of the silliness of "America, Fuck Yeah" attitudes. Someone I kind of know defended said guy by saying "He is probably just a really big nerd/kid and wanted to do something to celebrate and join in." I'm still not convinced that being a big nerd is a good defense for that kind of immaturity.
I am also perplexed by the dominance of fandom in the zeitgeist now and the somewhat cultural conservative/snob in me wonders why everyone is sticking with their 12-year old comfort food. Where are the 20 and 30 somethings getting into art house cinema and experimental stuff? During my parents youth in the 1960s/70s, it seemed like there was a bit more of an expectation to try and like Art House. Where are the Bergmans, Truffauts, Goddards, Cassavettees, etc?
"
Well played.
"
True.
Though I was also sad of semi-nostalgic reasons. I liked the pub at alumni house and that we were a wet campus.
"
True.
Though I was kind of sad when my alma mater switched from being a wet campus to a dry campus. That being said, I think there is a strong argument for universities to be wet over dry. There will be stupidity but once universities go dry, students tend to switch from beer to hard alcohol more and that causes more problems.
On “The Joy Of Opening Time Capsules”
Considering the damage to the NYC-NJ metro area, I am not sure how things can be in good enough shape.
Con Edison seems to think it will be at least a week before power is back on line. There is still major flooding that needs to be pumped. Who knows how many absentee/mail-in ballots were destroyed by flooding. Or how many voting machines.
Though you are right that the campaigns will start being more get out the vote.
"
As I said above, the only people going against Silver are either old-school horse race journalists who don't like his use of math/quantative analysis or right-wing partisan pundits who lash out using the typical insults.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/nerds-rush-nate-silvers-defense/58516/#
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/10/ive-had-enough-of-you-water-drinking-air-breathing-urban-elitists#comments
Show me a source criticisizing him with a less vested interest. I am not saying Obama has it in the bag but Silver seems to be using somewhat more advanced techniques than the typical journalist or pollster.
I don't think either campaign is acting like Obama has a 70 percent chance of winning because it would be foolish for either to do so. Arrogant for Obama and defeatist for Romney.
"
The people going against Silver are right-wing pundits/partisans or old-horse race journalists who don't understand Math.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/nerds-rush-nate-silvers-defense/58516/#
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/10/ive-had-enough-of-you-water-drinking-air-breathing-urban-elitists#comments
On “Embarassing Annals of Libertarianism and Policy Writing.”
Is the University of Texas really private property?
On “The South Hasn’t Risen Again”
Morgan Freedman said the same thing.
Philadelphia was (and maybe still is) notoriously race divided as a city.
The West and Pacific Northwest are rather homogeneous still in terms of demographics. Only 10 percent of Black-Americans live in the West/Northwest. Even San Francisco feels a lot more homogeneous to me compared to my native New York. When I visited Portland, I was a bit shocked about how homogeneous (and largely white) the city is.
"
The Republican Party seems to have largely written off cities as a potential source for votes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/republicans-to-cities-drop-dead.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
On “Embarassing Annals of Libertarianism and Policy Writing.”
Is Libertarian rage stronger or weaker than Nerd Rage(tm)?
On “The Joy Of Opening Time Capsules”
I am still wondering what happens in the East Coast is still struggling to get power back on-line post Sandy. Will it cause a Constitutional Crisis?
"
But by your admission that they would vote for Romney anyway, I am guessing you do not live in a purple district. You might not even live in a purple mountain west state.
I am still seeing plenty of Obama/Biden pride in blue-land California. Same with my friends in blue-land New York. See my thought below on how geographic location can shade our predictions.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.