It seems a given in educated circles that Shakespeare and DaVinci created "better" art than, lets say, Michael Bay (makes movies that many would consider "low brow" like Transformers or Armageddon). Is there even a little justification for this? — ZhouBoTong

Shakespeare can be pretty tiresome to study at school, probably because at that age you can’t see beyond yourself. But the plays do offer an opportunity to think about human behaviour, including your own, which as a youth you don’t bother to consider: everyone else being wrong.
Many writers of novels also like to write plays, presumably they see opportunities for looking st characters that they can’t find in novels. So the play does seem to have a special significance.

Shakespeare is valued on a number of levels; the language and the subject. But it’s true that today most people wouldn’t go to see Shakespeare, so if the elite didn’t keep Shakespeare alive it might disappear. Some might say, so what? And I don’t know how to answer that, except to say that I regard it as worth preserving.

Michael Bay is not Shakespeare for many reasons. He can’t produce anything without huge sums of money, and because of that he’s compromised. Maybe he doesn’t feel that himself. But I don’t see his films as revealing much about human nature except on a very superficial level and really what there is of it is a narrative tool. His objective is to make entertainment, which is fine and he has a huge audience who love what he does.

Do you actually read these posts.

They did!

Edit: either you knew this in the beginning and pretended not to, or you just got it.

This is how I interpret your post. Correct me if I have it wrong.

As I understand it what you’re saying is that supply of art is undermined by interference in the demand. This suggests the world of artists and production of art is being perverted by someone or something, and that the work produced is not the work people want. You also seem to suggest that the consumption of art should be at a higher level, that people would buy more art if they could relate to it.
This then means the art produced should be consumer driven, then it will be ‘real’ artwork.

If that happens then it becomes a commodity. But I think we already have that with the books, films and music available today.

First of all, I don’t think the world needs more art. But it always needs good art. The thousands of best seller books (airport lounge) compared to what we regard as literature, is not art, and neither are all the works turned out in the same way in music or the visual arts. That’s just commerce. There’s nothing wrong with that, it serves a market, and its popularity and production costs make it affordable for the people who want that.

The number of great works of every era are very slim. The nature of the work itself means that the artist can only produce so much if it, and even then its quality varies from work to work.

I don’t think great work needs money to come into being. Writers produce their work before they know if it will be picked up by a publisher, (Though for some time writers have received big advances to create that work.), visual artists prepare their work before a gallery accepts it (again, except for those who have a following. So this is virtually commerce). Artists, being what they are, are compelled to produce work regardless of the future.

So I can’t see how creating a demand for art necessarily leads to good art being produced. If you purposely work this out by demand then it’s a commercial transaction and we already have that. Nor can you create a demand for good work, because one of the qualities of good work is its originality, which can’t be anticipated.

So now we’ve come to a completely ridiculous point: Seeing artistic interest as psychopathology. You might as well say that it’s pathological to want to make money or to worship God. Treating such things as a psychopathology takes more resources than it would take to allow such people to be artists, and it does not produce any kind of benefit. — Ilya B Shambat

Can you explain this for me?

In your opinion, because I can’t tell from your post, is good art being produced today?

I think their art in terms of realism blossomed in literature more than anything else and became popular world wide. Is that what you’re referring to in terms of art?

I’m not sure where the benefit lies in this for people today, unless you’re saying it will lead to an economic boom. I can’t find your connection between art and the economy, if that’s your point?

But using the twenties as an example doesn’t help me either. The art movements that dominated the world were not from America but from Europe, and I had always though America’s greatness peaked after WWII.

Not only is it completely realistic to produce – and consume – art, but doing so is fully consistent with America’s values and America’s greatness — Ilya B Shambat

That I agree with.

Edit: though the twenties were obviously a hedonistic age for Americans, so I take your point there.

Eurocentrism, and Eurocentric standards of beauty has conditioned many indigenous groups that "white is right," and that darker skin complexions and primordial religions, and indigenous beliefs are all superstition and that the culture of the white man has been indoctrinated in all these occupied cultures convincing them that their culture is primitive. — Anaxagoras

Obama doesn’t seem to have been affected by your theory, that’s my point.

Eurocentrism, and Eurocentric standards of beauty has conditioned many indigenous groups that "white is right," and that darker skin complexions and primordial religions, and indigenous beliefs are all superstition and that the culture of the white man has been indoctrinated in all these occupied cultures convincing them that their culture is primitive. — Anaxagoras

Tell that to Obama.

The point Judaka makes is so simple I hesitate to explain it further for fear of sounding patronising. But the issue is hypocrisy. If it’s wrong for the alt right to address issues of race as they do then it’s wrong of others too. If it’s not wrong of others then it’s not wrong of the alt right.

But let’s assume other cultures aren’t actually like that. We still have is an element in our own society saying that if they were like that they would be entitled to. So it doesn’t matter if they are like that or not. What does matter is the hypocrisy of those people condemning the alt right for doing what they theoretically accept in others. Either way this is hypocrisy.
So who are these people and why are they saying these things?
What they do, and it’s obvious from all the virtual signalling going on here, is make it almost impossible to discuss rationally and turn it into an issue of racism.
The real issue is political hypocrisy.

When I tell you I'm white, you've got a whole story for me don't you? You've got so much to say, you could write a small paper on it. — Judaka

I might be wrong but that's what Judaka is arguing against and he's arguing against it being done by other races/cultures which seems to be acceptable by so many people but is wrong of the alt right.

Yes, I wish it was more like that, too.

Yes, memory is good. I’ll think about that.

Yes, that’s a good point. Sorry to this, but what is ideal, why is it individually ideal?

I think aesthetics are all preferences really. Many people agree on certain beautiful things, but this doesn’t imply objective beauty. We just have certain things in common. Many people would agree with me that Van Gogh’s Cafe de Nuit is beautiful, but those same people might disagree with me that Anne Hathaway is beautiful. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, however, I ve got a bit side tracked, because I was trying to establish why “I” thought the beach was beautiful that day, when it was the same place I no longer thought beautiful on the overcast day. And is “goodness” attached to beauty?

Edit: the beach was no longer beautiful on the bad day.

You might still prefer that certain combination of sun, sand, and sea; but if it became ordinary it would somehow lose value to you. No? — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, there have been moments at certain locations, which I remember experiencing as beautiful, that no longer had that impact on me.

I was going to say that I’ve seen some powerful storms I thought beautiful, but then I thought, maybe beauty isn’t what I was experiencing, just something similar.

I think horrible things can be rare or ordinary. — Noah Te Stroete

But not beautiful because of that.

I’m not sure if being rare or less common works towards beauty. I think there must be things we only occasionally see that are truly horrible.

Of course, thank you.

Yes, I see what you mean, because even at the beach I have, as I said, non days, which makes the good days special. So is beauty a rarity, or less common anyway?

r. I think I expressed this clearly enough elsewhere on this forum and don’t think I can improve upon that point any better here - no one, if I remember correctly, repsonded to what I wrote so not quite sure if there was any particular disagreement with it, — I like sushi

I find posters, generally, only respond when they disagree. Agreement doesn’t seem to be so much fun.

I swim almost every day and that experience of beauty, on those days, has never changed. By ordinary I meant the sun, sea and sand was about as elemental as you could get. Of course it could be a perfect combination. But still, why beautiful?

You’ve opened a can of worms there. What’s ordinary? Is sun, sand and water ordinary?

Yes, if it’s that good then isn’t it always good and so in a way the song’s lost us.

Part of what I’m thinking is that the extreme alt-right is concerned with colour as their reference, not really knowing anything of culture in the sense I mean, so of course it’s going to lead to disaster. But those who refer to Western Civilsation in terms of culture, are not necessarily doing it in a racist way.

No, it’s okay, I’m not trying to trip you up. I’m just following a train of thought and letting others contribute.

I find it kind of silly to refer to a very large and dispersed proportion of the human race as having a homogeneous culture. — I like sushi

Maybe this is the problem we all have, with the meaning of culture.

I imagine you’re referring to ONE specific cultural identity of people in a particular geographical location? If you visit Africa you’d find a whole array of different cultural attitudes, ans most of the people there would be referred to as “black,” and I find it kind of silly to refer to a very large and dispersed proportion of the human race as having a homogeneous culture. — I like sushi

Then I’m not sure how to refer to “Western Civilisation”. If I’m allowed to refer to it at all?

I think you could say there is such a thing as black culture, and blacks would claim that as well. But I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same thing when we say culture.

“Prior to his pilgrimage to Mecca, Malcolm X believed that African Americans must develop their own society and ethical values,” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism

“African cultures, slavery, slave rebellions, and the civil rights movement have shaped African-American religious, familial, political, and economic behaviors.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_culture

It’s interesting that a culture may not necessarily develop from positive experiences, but also negative.

So let’s assume black culture has evolved from the above experiences into some Phoenix like experience, the same could be said about the evolution of “Western ” society, including all its negatives, into something positive.

I have never heard anybody say they are ashamed of white culture, and can't see why anybody would.
What's to be ashamed of in classical music, the canon of Western literature, yuletide festivities and Yorkshire pudding? — andrewk

No, of course no one would be ashamed of those things, especially Yorkshire pudding. The shame was directed at the history and the things they focused on like slavery, war, Hiroshima, male patriarchy, things they feel are endemic to Western culture alone. I’m not sure what other term for ‘white culture’ should be used. It’s not helpful and as usual the whole conversation gets bogged down in meanings. I lean towards this definition:

“Most historians agree that the concept of Western culture emerged with the Ancient Greeks. The Greeks were the first to build what has come to be called Western civilization. They developed democracy, and made critical advances in science, philosophy, and architecture.” https://study.com/academy/lesson/modern-western-culture-social-life.html

Very simplistic, I know, but this is where I become reluctant to get into terms like ‘white’. And I have used it which I regret.

the only ethnicity by and large that tries to ignore their ethnicity are Anglo-Saxon whites. — Judaka

The more I think about this the more I realise that people are, or have been, quietly asserting their belief in being white, being part of white culture. These seem to be people just getting on with their lives, with all the hardships that go with it.
I hear the people condemning the ‘alt right’, usually on a particulate tv channel, or newspaper or magazine. Who exactly are they? They claim to feel ashamed of their white culture but they don’t behave like people who are ashamed of anything. There must be many reasons for this charade, but I can’t think of one genuine one.

I’m not sure if diet coke was a response to people’s concerns about weight. But the public education about sugar could end up changing what exactly Coke will be in the future.

Surely it would be in a business's best interest to want to exist beyond the people alive today...? — wax

Yes, I’m being a bit flippant there. Their profit is the difference between what they make and how much they can gouge out of you. After all how much us a bottle of sugar and water worth? They know you need reasonable wages to buy their product and they know that they need you to think well of them.

It’s true that some companies go too far and they pay for it.

They’re very alert to the public’s feelings, though, and you’ll notice an advertising campaign suddenly appear when they realise they’ve crossed a line.

Well I think you’ve already answered that question yourself. Though it’s not in their interests to destroy the market. They’ll keep you alive just enough to hand over your last dollar.

These people are pragmatists. They’re not interested in your philosophy. If there was huge money in it they might be. If there was huge money in your happiness then believe me your happiness would be their priority.

No, none of those strategies deal with the environment, unless it’s in their interests.

This is no myth, they do know what’s in their best interest; to survive in a competitive market.

There are many ways they might achieve this:

They might plan to buy out the competition.

They might plan to break the competition.

They might plan to build the company up and sell it at a profit

They might sell their assets to build up cash for a recession

They might plan to create a new market

They might plan to increase shareholders

They might diversify

They might plan on a five year tax deal with the government

They might plan to restructure

They might plan to hold down wages

You might not like it,but they know exactly what they’re doing and why.

Is this life still worth living if you know you will not become the person you want to be? — Broyphus

How do you know this?

I don’t think “many liberals” are. — I like sushi

I have to say I'm not sure how common it is. But there is an element out there, that should they get more power and influence, would be a real threat to the traditions of the right, and so they are regarded as a threat right now. And it's interesting to think that this white culture is owned by the right, and the left, the liberals I refer to, also believe that, as if they had no part in it.
But still Judaka has a point about the skewed view of white ethnic culture.

I think it would be fair to say that the whole of 'Western' society is an amalgam of left and right ideology. So I'm not sure what aspects those on the left who criticise 'white ethnicity' want removed? It does look like their target is white patriarchal history, and because history is white patriarchy ( their definition) then it's all tainted.
Why are so many liberals quick to jump on this view?