|
|
Post by tory on Aug 18, 2023 12:12:29 GMT
There will always be cultural markers based solely on popularity. What might be more important are works that transcend our time and remain valuable.
Flanagan and Allen were hugely popular in the 30s and you heard their echoes up until the 80s. But does anyone buy or play their songs now? A few I suspect, but the trend is most likely in significant decline.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 18, 2023 12:23:49 GMT
Precisely. No-one has suggested anyone that even two of us could agree or at least discuss. Banksy. I mean, really. I mean, really. Banksy is the absolute definition of a cultural icon. A cultural icon is a person or an artifact that is identified by members of a culture as representative of that culture. The process of identification is subjective, and "icons" are judged by the extent to which they can be seen as an authentic symbol of that culture. Do Vermeer or Beethoven tick any of the above boxes ? Yes of course they do. They are symbols of western culture and its artistic greatness. Of course not everybody in the street will be familiar with the third symphony but you might be surprised by how many recognise the intro. It is part of our collective consciousness. Something like Ode To Joy absolutely IS representative of our culture, of Europe and its glory. It's representative because it represent the best of us, a summit of human achievement, the soul of man reaching to the heavens. Banksy in comparison is a glorified graffiti "artist" who appeals to metropolitan divs who think they are edgy and a bit counterculture (yeah?) but who are actually as establishment as it gets these days who overpraise his work for the very same reasons you pretend he is some kind of "cultural icon" (please). Outside of a small, over represented group in our culture his "art" is as meaningless and representative as a fucking fart in the wind. It's "art" for 50 something Nathan Barley's. Why....just the other day I walked up Arthur's Seat and staring out at Auld Reekie and feeling suitably stirred I put on Beethoven's 5th for the descent and as I walked back and saw Carlton hill in the distance Ode To Joy synchronised with the magnificent view and in that moment I felt the presence of God and a tear almost formed in my eye. I felt happy and grateful to be alive and touched by the presence of something called transcendence. Stick that "high culture" up your fucking arse! |
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Aug 18, 2023 12:28:06 GMT
Glad it's not just breaking this down to opinions then, and we're dealing with cold hard fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Aug 18, 2023 12:33:11 GMT
I mean, what's even the point of this. Culture is in decline because there are no more Beethovens? How many Beethovens have there been? Is all that classical music which doesn't have the standing of Beethoven evidence that early 19th century classical was in the doldrums?
|
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Aug 18, 2023 12:42:41 GMT
It's a complete waste of time, this whole discussion. Not that it stops us having it every few months!
Everyone not only has their own version of what 'culture' is, but they also have their own old favourites which they'll determinedly present as 'evidence' of the decline. The 'debate' (such as it is) is framed differently by everyone who chimes in.
What questions are we really asking?
|
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Aug 18, 2023 12:46:57 GMT
I mean, really. Banksy is the absolute definition of a cultural icon. A cultural icon is a person or an artifact that is identified by members of a culture as representative of that culture. The process of identification is subjective, and "icons" are judged by the extent to which they can be seen as an authentic symbol of that culture. Do Vermeer or Beethoven tick any of the above boxes ? Yes of course they do. They are symbols of western culture and its artistic greatness. Of course not everybody in the street will be familiar with the third symphony but you might be surprised by how many recognise the intro. It is part of our collective consciousness. Something like Ode To Joy absolutely IS representative of our culture, of Europe and its glory. It's representative because it represent the best of us, a summit of human achievement, the soul of man reaching to the heavens. Banksy in comparison is a glorified graffiti "artist" who appeals to metropolitan divs who think they are edgy and a bit counterculture (yeah?) but who are actually as establishment as it gets these days who overpraise his work for the very same reasons you pretend he is some kind of "cultural icon" (please). Outside of a small, over represented group in our culture his "art" is as meaningless and representative as a fucking fart in the wind. It's "art" for 50 something Nathan Barley's. Why....just the other day I walked up Arthur's Seat and staring out at Auld Reekie and feeling suitably stirred I put on Beethoven's 5th for the descent and as I walked back and saw Carlton hill in the distance Ode To Joy synchronised with the magnificent view and in that moment I felt the presence of God and a tear almost formed in my eye. I felt happy and grateful to be alive and touched by the presence of something called transcendence. Stick that "high culture" up your fucking arse! And yet, you made the almost exact opposite argument when discussing Pulps common people. Which is patently not true. I suppose if the next centuries Brian Sewell venerates him ,then his cultural significance stock will rise. Hell, they might even give him and Blek le Rat the description as the founding father of stencilism. The importance of it cannot be over-egged in the 22nd century. |
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Aug 18, 2023 12:50:01 GMT
It's a complete waste of time, this whole discussion. Not that it stops us having it every few months! Everyone not only has their own version of what 'culture' is, but they also have their own old favourites which they'll determinedly present as 'evidence' of the decline. The 'debate' (such as it is) is framed differently by everyone who chimes in. What questions are we really asking? What is culture. |
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 18, 2023 12:50:40 GMT
High art is a thing. It exists. The decline in culture is represented most keenly by the decline in high art and a move towards more egalitarian, "popular" art over the course of the 20th century. This has produced some great art itself but in the process of this cultural change we lost the former "high art" in the process.
The counter intuitive observation is that when society was less egalitarian and less like many desire society to be it produced art of a higher standard that we venerate but cannot replicate today.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Aug 18, 2023 12:52:45 GMT
It produced whatever daddy big bucks wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 18, 2023 12:54:43 GMT
It produced this....  |
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Aug 18, 2023 12:59:43 GMT
Why hasn't most high art passed the test of time then? Most of it means fuck all to most people. A Michelangelo here and a Beethoven there, but scant few. Which is probably what we have now.
And if you're aware of the works of Michelangelo, but prefer Henry Moore, are you being thick, being wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 18, 2023 13:01:27 GMT
And yet, you made the almost exact opposite argument when discussing Pulps common people. Which is patently not true. I suppose if the next centuries Brian Sewell venerates him ,then his cultural significance stock will rise. Hell, they might even give him and Blek le Rat the description as the founding father of stencilism. The importance of it cannot be over-egged in the 22nd century. I said Pulp captured the zeitgeist better and was making a case that sometimes the best pop/rock music is the stuff that actually makes the charts and connects with people in reaction to the "alternative" pov that was being pushed. That's all. In that case it was Pulp versus various trip hop acts. That does not mean I use popularity as a measure of artistic achievement Copehead style. It's a comment, as I've stated before, that there is a happy nexus where "art" and "commerce" combine that exists in popular music. Banksy will not be remembered by anybody in a 100 years time. He is praised because he ticks fashionable boxes in the art world, a world that has long since become completely detached from reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Aug 18, 2023 13:02:39 GMT
It's a complete waste of time, this whole discussion. Not that it stops us having it every few months! It's not a waste of time. Just because we'll never find a consensus doesn't mean it's not interesting in itself. |
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Aug 18, 2023 13:07:23 GMT
I think Dougie's reading of Banksy is entirely wrong, too. He made his name via mass media picking up on his work, he wasn't initially part of the modern art scene except when he himself put his own paintings on display in galleries. He's well removed from the vast majority of the Saatchi-set of modern art.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Aug 18, 2023 13:07:38 GMT
It produced this.... It is beautiful Dougie. I wonder what the artist would have created if left to his own devices. |
|
