no more "reality"...

[Letum]

If a university had tried to run a psycological experiment like big brother then they wouldn't have got permission on ethical grounds. Some serious regulation is needed for these TV programs!

Have they banned reality TV such as garden makeovers or house buying programs in Italy?

[Bertgang]

Originally Posted by Letum

Have they banned reality TV such as garden makeovers or house buying programs in Italy?

I've never seen or heard such programs here; but our full list is very long, so I could have simply missed them.

The one I know the best was about survivors in a wild isle.
I never saw this one too, but some minor facts happened during the show became matter of a trial under my duty.

Anyway, reality shows won't be banned by law in my country.
Simply, the boss of state TV said stop to this kind of programs.
No censorship, just an advised choice for better quality.

Berlusconi's TV is free to continue with them.
Good for freedom, maybe, not so good for youthness.

[Skybird]

Rykaird,

my background is the set of liberties and values that derived from the age of enlightenment, and the French revolution ideals. The idea of humanism as an attitude of mind, the equality of male and female, the ideas you can see expressed in the French, American and German constitutions, and the deriving order of a nation, the strict separation between state and religion, the message of Jesus (I could also say Buddha, for I am no Christian fundamentalism, or even Christian at all). I am aware of the importance that ancient Greek history and philosophy had on Rome and thus, on our contemporary way of thinking. The development of sciences, and arts. The liberties we enjoy, and that are no voluntary offers by someone, but can be sued for at courts on the basis of valid laws.

Never before, in no time and no part of the world, mankind enjoyed such a high level of freedoms, guarantees that the the dignity of the individual is untouchable, and blossoming philosophy. Basing on Greek philosophy for the most, we developed the principle of reason, and logic beyond anything that is to be seen anywhere else in the world. Our daily life is enriched by inventions and tools and possibilities that would not have been possible without these. If you think I am wrong tell your dentist never to give you an anaesthetic again, and don't forget that boarding an airliner is impossible because it does not really exist. Withiut our unique cultural history, there would be neither aneasthetics, nor airliners. where these are build by others today, they are basing on our development work.

Note that excesses of modern times, like the world wars, or unregulated predatory capitalism with all its misery it brings for so many people just to foster the wealth of the few, are no logical consequences fro these things I mentioned, but are happening because the values and cultural developments I outlined just were violated or perverted - this catastrophes did/do not happen because they follow our cultural heritage, but because they explicitly violate it. Capitalism claims it's right for unlimited freedom of acting by he individual, and the world Wars developed by explicit ignoring of these cultural values and developments.

Even the age of imperialism will not stop me saying that the Western culture brought human culture to a brighter blossoming than any other culture ever did (and this does not mean that I am ignorant to other cultures of the past). Despite the exploitation (resources) and mastering taking place, the presence of the colonial powers, especially the British in India and Africa, helped a lot to bring education and health care to these countries, schools, hospitals, from which they benefit until today. Most important, especially in Africa: the British prevented more violence to happen than they caused themselves. African people were better off with the British, than with themselves, when endless tribal wars and slaughtering, being committed with unbelievable cruelty an barbarism, were almost routine. When the British left, all these wars broke loose again, as was to be seen during the last century and after WWII. It is always said that colonialism has shattered Africa, but that is neither so simply, nor is it true. The continent was shattered before, and when European governing went away, the many rifts and tribal open bills became apparent again and also provoked an amount of corruption that today the hope of ever getting Africa sorted can be given up for sure.

Today, a Pax Americana - if only it would not base on the greed and profit interests of corporations, but the true ideals that were originally expressed by the American founding fathers, would be a blessing for the world.

Yes, you hear right. It will surprise people when it is Sky bird saying that, for I have my reputation of criticising the USA so unforgivingly. But I also always made it clear that I see the US of today not representative for the original idea that it once was, in the past. I always said that modern foreign politics for me are not representing the America as intended in the constitution and the Bill of Rights, but is actively, willingly ignoring these, and violating these. If the US would be like it claims to be, wants to be, and was meant to be, I would be it's convinced and willing ally. But as things are today, I must oppose it instead, at least for the most of occasions.

I also define the Western culture not only by what it is, but by what it is NOT. The heritage of our history leaves no room for excusing totalitarianism. we went beyond religious superstition and literal word-believing (at least most of us). We went beyond slavery. We do not beat our women anymore, and don't consider our children to be a possession of ours.

You are weaselling, Rykaird, not me. You must do so, for you are not able or willing to describe the cultural ground on which you stand and that would be needed as a basis in order to be able to separate between what is good and what is bad, for example concerning TV quality. Even more so, people like you I have talked to before and often concluded that for that way of arguing it even is not allowed to define any such base in values and cultural identity - that would mean to give up the illusion that all and everything must endlessly be put into relation to each other and considered to be of equal worth. It cannot be, what shall not be. What is better is being forced back into mediocrity, what is worse is being polished and blown up until it appears to be more than it is. The result is a flat terrain, wiothiut any heights, without any downs. I'm not impressed. It's what I call Flatland.

You will not find anything convincing that I say. Having no identity you defend yourself, no awareness of the cultural heritage on which your present life with all it's liberties and freedoms and possibilities is basing, and avoiding any hierarchical thinking at all cost, because "hierarchy" today is brandmarked as a bad word, you are not more than a leaf in the wind, and the one blowing the strongest will determine your fate. By that, you are of no value for the community, and do nothing to strengthen it's future chances - even when you a have a job and maybe do it well.

I never argued and will never argue that we have a right (or an obligation) to bring our culture to others, and enforce it upon them. Others need to learn their own way, and at their own speed, and if they want the tools and possibilities that we developed (our ancestors), they need to lay the needed cultural basis first, for it is not by random chance that it was the Western culture gaining these abilities. The unique European geography, and coexistence of both rivalry and geographic isolation led to the huge canon of different schools in thinking, economy, science, trade, etc. Tribes and people had to compete with the others in order to survive, but nevertheless the geographic isolation made it possible, that one was not only copying the other, but was forming one's own ways - because one did not know about a model which to copy. An incredibla diversity that in most recent times even nhas learned to peacefully coexist, was the result. More diversity than in any other place of thr world, and more peaceful coexstiance than in any other part of the world. Stammtisch-TV would not have made that possible, of this we can be sure...

We should resist all efforts and attempts from within to make us forget the roots of our present, the suffering as well as the triumph, and should also resist all people from the outside that wish to take our identity away from us, and force us to surrender to their inferior, but often more brutal ideas of "culture".

You are wrong, Rykaird. What is crap, and what not, can be defined very well, and I gave you a hint with all what I said above. If you try to make a list of paragraphs, you only will find out that your list will always, always be incomplete, and me - I am no bureaucrat, lists and counting paragraphs are not my thing. Better advise is to have standards and a background by which to judge the present issue individually, instead of just trying to find a matching category for it

And one thing is beyond doubt: in our own home, we have any right that can be imagined to say that in our home OUR standards are the rule of all, not those of others from somewhere else. We do not have the smallest obligation whatever to make us smaller in order to allow others appearing to be as great.


Hitman,

were you said that you have troubles to find the "culture" in the arts of Picasso, Miro, and others, you miss the important point. A piece of art alone does not make a culture. culture is the possibility, the freedom, that the huge treasury of many pieces of many kinds of arts can even appear. The general context in which the artist, the piece of art, and he audience is embedded - this is what culture is. not the individual painting. Of course this means that in such an environment, the audience has an obligation to make sure it is educated enough to make sense of what the artist is showing them. Damn, again this bad thing concerning qualitative hierarchies! It seems nature is filled with hierarchies. But when the general context that embraces and houses all this is unable to give the audience any standards to judge what is "good" in the meaning of fostering this culture, and what is "bad" in temrs of helping to forget or even to pervert it's identity, then this is not a sign of the amount of tolerance in "culture", but is culture that is denying itself and deconstruct itself. and last but not least, "arts" have something to do with craftsmanship of whatever a kind. A piece of arts is no random creation, it is not just throwing two dice and have this or that result that becasue of it's random, unrepeateble nature would be a piece of arts, too. It means that NOT EVERYBODY can do it in terms of compoetence, craftsmanship, knowledge, experience. Else the chaotic, noise-craving hammering of a 4-year old kid on the piano would be considered as cultural as is a Debussy-interpretation by Thiollier. This is what separates objects of arts that I like or at least tolerate, from objects that I consider to be crap (especially in "modern arts".). Throwing some paint bin at the wall - is no arts. It may result in a visual pattern that somebody likes, maybe even me, but it is no art. Everybody can put a huge piece of Butter onto a chair (the infamous "Fettstuhl"). Hammering a statue out of a stone that makes the audience standing in silence and admire the beauty in it - that is something that not everybody can do. Or in TV: everybody can make an ape out of himself in Big Brother, but not everybody is able to pick a role and play it in a way that the audience is convinced that it is no actor playing, but that the figure itself has come to life.

"the audience has an obligation to make sure it is educated enough to make sense of what the artist is showing them". If it does not do tht, cannot do that, does not want to do that, it should stay away and remain silent. So: feed the audience with crap, and it's education level will detoriate. By that, culture is destroyed. Tolerating crap is not tolerance, but is harmful and dmagaing and in the end: suicidal. This is where tolerance should end. - Classical music has become ridiculously cheap and affordable for every peter and Paul. Every supermarket offers partially high quality recordings, for just some cents. It led to this: masterpieces of classical music are being omnipresent now and are being used without any differentiations. You sell a new soap, and there is Prokofiev. You open a drupstaore, and you play Mozart. the audience does not separate between good and bad music, and even less so to differ between a good and a bad performance. every uneducated hillbilly now can be "en culture" by spending some pocket money that is left after having had his last beer. The overall quality of the classical market has suffered incredibly by this. even worse, hip hop rappers and wannabee-girlies whith screeching voices but no ability to hold a clear tone when singing pick up a classical peice and rape it to their liking. the result is crap, and the loss of quality means a detoriation of culture as well. People cannot appreciate what it is that they have. They can't estimate it's truevalue. It just like that bus driving by, that bike leaning at the wall, that dog doing it's business.

No more differing between good and bad, quality and crap, and even more: no more ability to understand why one maybe should wish that. Great.

German readers: anybody remembering Harpe Kerkelings unforgettable Verarschung of the audience when he and a pianist performed just nonsens on stage, and then managed to successfully lure the confused audience into a deep and profound discussion about how much culture there was in that performance of theirs...? One of the best and most clever comedy stunts I have seen in all my life. :rotfl: "Hurz...!"


These remarks necessarily are not complete, and cannot be without writing a whole book.

[Skybird]

I mentioned it above, and here it is. The star is not the singer, but the audience's remarkable and highly insightful comments.



It is called: "Hurz!"

Totale Publikums-Verarsche (I excuse for the rude word of mine). the audience was all to willingly to get 2veraerscht". Stupid people.

[Hitman]

my background is the set of liberties and values that derived from the age of enlightenment, and the French revolution ideals. The idea of humanism as an attitude of mind, the equality of male and female, the ideas you can see expressed in the French, American and German constitutions, and the deriving order of a nation, the strict separation between state and religion, the message of Jesus (I could also say Buddha, for I am no Christian fundamentalism, or even Christian at all). I am aware of the importance that ancient Greek history and philosophy had on Rome and thus, on our contemporary way of thinking. The development of sciences, and arts. The liberties we enjoy, and that are no voluntary offers by someone, but can be sued for at courts on the basis of valid laws.

Me too. But it is important to add the lessons learned from fascism, comunism and WW2

Capitalism claims it's right for unlimited freedom of acting by he individual

Capitalism is not a political ideology, but an economic system. As such, it is politically neutral and as unlimited/limited as mathematics. A different matter is that a Political ideology (Liberalism) embraces it as a way of organizing a society.

Today, a Pax Americana - if only it would not base on the greed and profit interests of corporations, but the true ideals that were originally expressed by the American founding fathers, would be a blessing for the world.

Yes, you hear right. It will surprise people when it is Sky bird saying that, for I have my reputation of criticising the USA so unforgivingly. But I also always made it clear that I see the US of today not representative for the original idea that it once was, in the past.

Me too. The US have lots of defects, like any other country, but they have never been fans of "violent" imperialism, but instead of "economic" imperialism, even if being involved in many wars in this and the past two centuries (Hard to avoid when you are a super-power). Anyone can critizise their imperialism, like the imperialism of any mighty nation in history can be critizised (Spain has a long and interesting history about that), but at least it has been much more peaceful than others in the past.

But when the general context that embraces and houses all this is unable to give the audience any standards to judge what is "good" in the meaning of fostering this culture, and what is "bad" in temrs of helping to forget or even to pervert it's identity, then this is not a sign of the amount of tolerance in "culture", but is culture that is denying itself and deconstruct itself.

The problem is that in the end, those "standards" must be given not by "the general context", but instead by certain guys, with a certain name. And who are those guys? The government? The courts? The teachers?

The general context nowadays is in fact the idiots, my friend. There are millions of them All those ideals about humanism, enlightning, etc. were the result of the "Despotic Enlightmeent", when a certain group of "enlighted" guys decided what the rest of the society should consider good or bad. They convinced the millions of idiots to make a revolution (And die by thousands) in order to seize the power from the King and create the democracy, only to ensure that not the King's heir but instead the spiritual heirs of those "Despotic enlighteds" would rule. Was their standard better than the old King's standard? For sure. Is it way better than the idiot's standards? For sure. But is it still a way of telling the idiots what is better from them, instead of letting them decide? For sure too.

Throwing some paint bin at the wall - is no arts. It may result in a visual pattern that somebody likes, maybe even me, but it is no art. Everybody can put a huge piece of Butter onto a chair (the infamous "Fettstuhl").

Sure. That's what Picasso or Van Gogh heard a lot at the start of their careers :hmm:

Hammering a statue out of a stone that makes the audience standing in silence and admire the beauty in it - that is something that not everybody can do. Or in TV: everybody can make an ape out of himself in Big Brother, but not everybody is able to pick a role and play it in a way that the audience is convinced that it is no actor playing, but that the figure itself has come to life.

Not everyone can eat 10 burgers in 5 minutes (Like in Guiness Records), but that doesn't make it an art. Not everyone can drive a Formula 1 under 1.55 seconds in Barcelona circuit, and that doesn't make it an art.

Is art dependant from how many can do something?

Classical music has become ridiculously cheap and affordable for every peter and Paul. Every supermarket offers partially high quality recordings, for just some cents. It led to this: masterpieces of classical music are being omnipresent now and are being used without any differentiations.

Well I thought it also helped widespreading classic music and allowing more people to access it. I personally would not like to have paid 3 times as much for my already large collection

even worse, hip hop rappers and wannabee-girlies whith screeching voices but no ability to hold a clear tone when singing pick up a classical peice and rape it to their liking. the result is crap, and the loss of quality means a detoriation of culture as well. People cannot appreciate what it is that they have. They can't estimate it's truevalue.

I guess when the first ancient man of the caverns started blowing air through an empty bone and tried to make some music out of it, his neighbours probably thought the same. As I said before, Van Gogh as many others was not much appreciated at the start of his career (I certainly still don't like his paintings and wouldn't hang one in my living room, even if it cost only 1€).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

But don't get me wrong. From all this discussion I recognize that I share completely your vision about what is crap and what isn't, what is better for everyone in our civilization, and what isn't. The only difference is that I still have a philosophical doubt about wether I have or not the right to say that my understanding of this all is the correct one, and that others are wrong. (A doubt which ironically is also a part of that cultural heritage of humanism)

You, instead, are very sure about your convictions -on a well founded basis, IMO- and therefore have the fighting spirit to demand it. To a certain extent, I envy you I only can be so sure about a minimal amount of things.

Cheers

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Me too. But it is important to add the lessons learned from fascism, comunism and WW2

I said: "I also define the Western culture not only by what it is, but by what it is NOT. The heritage of our history leaves no room for excusing totalitarianism."

Capitalism is not a political ideology, but an economic system. As such, it is politically neutral and as unlimited/limited as mathematics. A different matter is that a Political ideology (Liberalism) embraces it as a way of organising a society.

The embracing is mutual, capitalism very well tries to influence politics in its favour. By doing that, democracy is in danger (it is a conflict of interests, the interest of the one colliding with the interests of the many). Capitalism cannot stay politically neutral in an environment that is not totally liberal and trade is totally free. the difference between economy and politics are diminishing. Another mutual embracing.

Me too. The US have lots of defects, like any other country, but they have never been fans of "violent" imperialism, but instead of "economic" imperialism, even if being involved in many wars in this and the past two centuries (Hard to avoid when you are a super-power). Anyone can criticise their imperialism, like the imperialism of any mighty nation in history can be criticised (Spain has a long and interesting history about that), but at least it has been much more peaceful than others in the past.

Disagree. the British where not much more militaristic in their imperialism than the Us are today. Both were/are economical imperialists, projecting and securing their influence by controlling the central knots of global trade, and monopoles, as well as cultural influence, and streamlining the administrational structures. The British controlled the coastlines and harbours, and the traffic between them, the Americans focus more and more oversea military bases, and supply lines of resources as well as resource reservoirs. The British established trade monopoles, the US tailors institutions like the WTO and ICF to their needs and make sure that rules and personnel get dominant influence that are powerful enough to push through American agenda, if they are officially sold under different labels. By that they can also control the rules by which weaker rivals can be kept at arms length and inferior position, which is especially true of the ICF. The British had their elitary self-understanding by which they thought they would convince others to voluntarily submit to their authority. he Americans export the American consumer way of life: blue jeans, rock'n roll Coca Cola which proved to be so very irresistible even to people that are openly hostile towards them. Coca cola is not sold much in the Arab world because it is an American drink, but because the ME is is delivered Coca Cola that was filled in Israel. Pepsi is highly popular.

The problem is that in the end, those "standards" must be given not by "the general context", but instead by certain guys, with a certain name. And who are those guys? The government? The courts? The teachers?

No, I am talking about what in science is called self-emerging systems. The ability to form and developer itself and doing so not in an unstructured but a structured way is inherent. You completely miss the point that I try to make. Culture, as I understand it, is not defined by one individual, a judge, a superior being. It defines it's own identity all by itself, by the dynamic interaction of all of it's components. Like your body does not replace tissues and cells unstructured, but in a structured way (else it would be called cancer!)

The general context nowadays is in fact the idiots, my friend. There are millions of them All those ideals about humanism, enlightening, etc. were the result of the "Despotic Enlightmeent", when a certain group of "enlighted" guys decided what the rest of the society should consider good or bad. They convinced the millions of idiots to make a revolution (And die by thousands) in order to seize the power from the King and create the democracy, only to ensure that not the King's heir but instead the spiritual heirs of those "Despotic enlighteds" would rule. Was their standard better than the old King's standard? For sure. Is it way better than the idiot's standards? For sure. But is it still a way of telling the idiots what is better from them, instead of letting them decide? For sure too.

I completely disagree with your view of history here. the declining quality of our standards for me is caused by trying to expand tolerance for other, even hostile standards, beyond all limits, by that providing a cultural environment that no longer gives sufficient educational feedback to the audience/individual which then would serve as orientation and a growing pool of experience by which to judge the quality of elements of culture in the future. If you read dumb books, you will not only stay dumb, but will even degenerate from a state of intellectual activity to being dumb. If you read intelligent books, it is the other way around. So it is of primary importance to check what kind of stuff a cultural environment encourages to be consumed by people.

Sure. That's what Picasso or Van Gogh heard a lot at the start of their careers :hmm:

I am unable to paint like they did. I do lack the needed skill and experience. However, picking up a glass of paint and throw it against the wall is no problem for me. So: pay me a million dollars, or are you culturally ignorant?

Not everyone can eat 10 burgers in 5 minutes (Like in Guiness Records), but that doesn't make it an art. Not everyone can drive a Formula 1 under 1.55 seconds in Barcelona circuit, and that doesn't make it an art.

Is art dependant from how many can do something?

And a man who has only five fingers on both hands cannot play piano. you comparison is not matching, I think. I talked about skill. experience. craftsmanship. A burger-eater does not qualify in these categories. Sports, usually also are not art, although being done by specialists with physical skills not many others do share. But winning a spring on ski would nobody call an art, or "culturally valuable". However, there are some rare expect ions from the rules, were I sometimes perceive some sport event to make the border between sports and art go away.

Well I thought it also helped wide spreading classic music and allowing more people to access it. I personally would not like to have paid 3 times as much for my already large collection

that widespreading is especially the evil here. Because the more widespread it became, the more inflationary it was used, killing the value in it, and the more people who do not have leaned the skill to differ between good and bad quality recordings are consuming it, the less worth is to be seen in that cultural good, because it becomes trivilazed, and fiuture productions reflect the call for mediocre quality to which the masses are used. and exactly this is what happens. My father has been classical musuican in the DSO in Berlin until recently, he can sing you a song about this. He, like many musicians of his generation, hates the audience especially in Berlin. Because they are too stupid to differ a good concert from a bad one. But when Peter and Paul are going to a concert, they consider themselves to be pleasing to all mankind and being the navel of the earth, when Peter goes to a concert, it MUST be a very special evening and of course a superior performance, and so he starts clapping hands and applauders and yells and "Hurrah" and "Bravo!" - even when both orchestra and conductor know that the evening was bad and the performance went totally into the toilet.You can play good, and the crowds will cheer you. you can perform bad, and the crowds will cheer you. It does not matter anymore how you perform, so, why spending any effort into training your skills at all? It's all the same flatland lacking any niveau.

I guess when the first ancient man of the caverns started blowing air through an empty bone and tried to make some music out of it, his neighbours probably thought the same. As I said before, Van Gogh as many others was not much appreciated at the start of his career (I certainly still don't like his paintings and wouldn't hang one in my living room, even if it cost only 1€).

C'mon you don't try to tell me that Eminem or Briteny Spears or Mariah Carey (will she ever sing a single tone without any trallafitti?) can be compared to a Mozart concerto, or Bach, eh?

Music includes mathematics. The criterion to decide on musical harmonies, is made by sets of mathematical relations, for example. The complexity of a given music, can be described in mathematical expressions. Violate the mathematical relations of the first, and you get disharmonic music, or better: noise. Vary the complexity, and you get more or less demanding music, for example. Britney Spears for example scores somewhere around zero, while guy like Back scores extremely high. that's why People still talk about Bach, but Britney Spears already is almost forgotten.

It is not just a question of arbitrary taste what kind of music is more or less "worthy". And it surely isn't true that all types of music are of equal worth. i intentionally combine a factual criterion with a statement on judging quality when using the term "worth" in this context.

In the seventies, if I remember correctly, there was an interesting experiment with plants. Fast-growing flowers were put into the centre of a glass-box with one wall including a loudspeaker. In the one box, the plants were exposed to heavy metal and hard rock. In the other, they played let's say Bach and Mozart. The plants in the first box then were seen to try to grow away from the loudspeaker. The plants in the second grew towards the loudspeaker. This story just for fun.




----------------------------------------------------------------------

But don't get me wrong. From all this discussion I recognise that I share completely your vision about what is crap and what isn't, what is better for everyone in our civilisation, and what isn't. The only difference is that I still have a philosophical doubt about wether I have or not the right to say that my understanding of this all is the correct one, and that others are wrong.

You better stop being tolerant where you deal with stuff that does not answer your tolerance on equal terms. And you better stop having doubts for all duration of your life, else you will never know who you are, where you come from, and what you can be, and want to be. You will always fell being pushed around, like a rubber ball. People need structure, and a reality they perceive to be stable, and being defined by rules. Even if, according to radical constructivism, people create their reality themselves. If you want to tolerate all and everything, you cannot say what not to tolerate. You deny your own identity. You are defenceless against everything alien that does not share your view of tolerance. You will deconstruct your culture, morals, values. you help to destroy the civilisation that brought you up.

(A doubt which ironically is also a part of that cultural heritage of humanism)

You, instead, are very sure about your convictions -on a well founded basis, IMO- and therefore have the fighting spirit to demand it. To a certain extent, I envy you I only can be so sure about a minimal amount of things.

Note that in the context of this debate I do not so much argue IN FAVOUR of something (a given set of rules, a certain definition of culture), but that I argue AGAINST something. I do not necessarily wish others to pick up my ideas. But I certainly wish some people to stop with their ideas.

[Rykaird]

@ Skybird - massive walls of text and a lot of spirited hat and cane work, but the core question remains unanswered.

Who gets to decide what is crap?

The majority? It obviously can't be the majority, because they are already deciding, and they clearly like their crap, thank you very much. It is the majority that brings you Britney Spears and Mariah Carey and reality shows and McDonald's and all the other cultural sins you despise. In your world view, the majority can't be trusted to choose wisely, so their choices should be limited (oh, for their own good, of course).

So if it isn't the majority that decides, it must by definition be some minority. No doubt better educated, wiser, more culturally attuned than the great unwashed majority.

The idea of a minority elite making decisions for the majority against their will is not a form of government that I want. I would rather live in a world of Britney Spears - which I don't have to listen to - than in a world where some Minister of High Culture tells me I can't watch The Three Stooges, which I like, because it doesn't meet his snooty definition of adding cultural value.

This reminds me very much of the situation unfolding in Thailand. The majority - largely the underclass of uneducated farmers - overwhelmingly elected a prime minister and his party in a fully free election. The minority - mostly the upper middle class, urbanites, and the cultural elite - hated him. Some of their hatred is clearly legitimate, but the guy was elected and his popularity was very high. After getting repeatedly trounced in free elections, the elites, now partnered with the army, rolled the tanks through Bangkok and kicked the democratically elected prime minister out in a coup.

Unsurprisingly, the media - composed of course not of farmers but of the cultural elite - applauded the move. It seems they preferred having their political and cultural point of view being the dominant one - even if it meant the destruction of democracy. They constantly defend the coup - and the destruction of the constitution - by claiming that the majority is simply not educated enough to vote "correctly."

Not me. Freedom first. I'd rather have Britney Spears than someone telling me I can't have Britney Spears - even if I agree that Britney is crap.

[Hitman]

the difference between economy and politics are diminishing

IMO in the theory, no. A different matter is that politicians want to make politic embracing one or the other theory. It is obvious that capitalism can't be practiced in a system where private property is not recognized, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a economic proposal. Wether it later meets or not the bases it needs to be applied in a political context, is something different.

Disagree. the British where not much more militaristic in their imperialism than the Us are today. Both were/are economical imperialists, projecting and securing their influence by controlling the central knots of global trade, and monopoles, as well as cultural influence, and streamlining the administrational structures. The British controlled the coastlines and harbours, and the traffic between them, the Americans focus more and more oversea military bases, and supply lines of resources as well as resource reservoirs. The British established trade monopoles, the US tailors institutions like the WTO and ICF to their needs and make sure that rules and personnel get dominant influence that are powerful enough to push through American agenda, if they are officially sold under different labels. By that they can also control the rules by which weaker rivals can be kept at arms length and inferior position, which is especially true of the ICF. The British had their elitary self-understanding by which they thought they would convince others to voluntarily submit to their authority. he Americans export the American consumer way of life: blue jeans, rock'n roll Coca Cola which proved to be so very irresistible even to people that are openly hostile towards them. Coca cola is not sold much in the Arab world because it is an American drink, but because the ME is is delivered Coca Cola that was filled in Israel. Pepsi is highly popular.

I don't remember a country the USA invaded military and beligerantly directly for exploiting its resources (Except Irak, but this is still a bit confusing and unclear) like the UK invaded the India, or Spain invaded South/Central America, or Rome invaded most of the known world. True, they took control of Philippines and Cuba from Spain, but that was a very different matter than agressive colonialism. USA could have invaded Arabia for the same reasons the UK invaded India, but they limited their action to secure economical ties and influence. May be it's only we are living in a different era, but still....

No, I am talking about what in science is called self-emerging systems. The ability to form and developer itself and doing so not in an unstructured but a structured way is inherent. You completely miss the point that I try to make. Culture, as I understand it, is not defined by one individual, a judge, a superior being. It defines it's own identity all by itself, by the dynamic interaction of all of it's components. Like your body does not replace tissues and cells unstructured, but in a structured way (else it would be called cancer!)

No matter how it is defined, in any system where the power is directly placed in some individuals, it's them who in the end will decide what is worth of protection and what isn't. And about the self-emerging systems....well, as soon as they are a system, certain points are designated to hold the power. So we end up in the same thing.

I completely disagree with your view of history here. the declining quality of our standards for me is caused by trying to expand tolerance for other, even hostile standards, beyond all limits, by that providing a cultural environment that no longer gives sufficient educational feedback to the audience/individual which then would serve as orientation and a growing pool of experience by which to judge the quality of elements of culture in the future.

Nope. The roman imperators organized games and shows for the population to stay idiotic and distracted from the important things, and that tradition has continued until today. It is in the interest of the powers that the individual stays near-lobotomized and under control, be it through games (circensis), soccer, or consumism. The era of the enlightment was something organized by an intelectual elite that gathered to organize a new system based in apparently humanistic and noble principles, but whose purpose was to swap the former domination by a royal dinasty for another system they could control. Can you name a time in german history where a critic education was the official policy in schools, and when people were not distracted/controlled by circensis or in focusing in apparent enemies? Hmmm...the Kaiser's era certainly wasn't. The Weimar Republic...ahem. 3rd Reich . Post War? Under american control, taught officially to be brave and refuse as well as be ashamed of your past of violence. Good boys, you have understood it now. Now you can have Coca Cola, and go to see Hollywood movies. No further comments.

I am unable to paint like they did. I do lack the needed skill and experience.

Come on! Copying most of Picasso's paints is a child's game. We did it here at school when I was 12 years old

you comparison is not matching, I think. I talked about skill. experience. craftsmanship.

Sports have all of that. Even some plastics in their movements. And still
they are sports. Why is ballet an art, and olympic gymanstics a sport? Can you really tell the difference in terms of skill, experience, craftsmanship and aesthetics?

that widespreading is especially the evil here. Because the more widespread it became, the more inflationary it was used, killing the value in it, and the more people who do not have leaned the skill to differ between good and bad quality recordings are consuming it, the less worth is to be seen in that cultural good, because it becomes trivilazed, and fiuture productions reflect the call for mediocre quality to which the masses are used. and exactly this is what happens. My father has been classical musuican in the DSO in Berlin until recently, he can sing you a song about this. He, like many musicians of his generation, hates the audience especially in Berlin. Because they are too stupid to differ a good concert from a bad one. But when Peter and Paul are going to a concert, they consider themselves to be pleasing to all mankind and being the navel of the earth, when Peter goes to a concert, it MUST be a very special evening and of course a superior performance, and so he starts clapping hands and applauders and yells and "Hurrah" and "Bravo!" - even when both orchestra and conductor know that the evening was bad and the performance went totally into the toilet.You can play good, and the crowds will cheer you. you can perform bad, and the crowds will cheer you. It does not matter anymore how you perform, so, why spending any effort into training your skills at all? It's all the same flatland lacking any niveau.

That concept is a bit elitist. Not everyone has the musical aptitude to recognize that, but even so he can find a pleasure in musics. My grand-grandfather was a famous painter here, and I have herited a shy part of that skill. I have always been very good at painting, I even won some contests while at school. Yet I have no aptitudes for music. I like classical music, and I can tell when I like a concert or not, depending on who plays it. But that doesn't mean I will match what an "expert" would say. Am I not worthy of buying a CD of classical music then?

C'mon you don't try to tell me that Eminem or Briteny Spears or Mariah Carey (will she ever sing a single tone without any trallafitti?) can be compared to a Mozart concerto, or Bach, eh?

I know I like Mozart and Bach way more than Eminem or Britney Spears. But would Mozart or Bach have been able to sing like Britney does, even if she is not very good at it? Each one has its qualities, and in the end Mozart is a genius and Britney...well....but anyway I doubt much that Mozart had a voice fitted for singing.

You better stop being tolerant where you deal with stuff that does not answer your tolerance on equal terms. And you better stop having doubts for all duration of your life, else you will never know who you are, where you come from, and what you can be, and want to be. You will always fell being pushed around, like a rubber ball. People need structure, and a reality they perceive to be stable, and being defined by rules. Even if, according to radical constructivism, people create their reality themselves. If you want to tolerate all and everything, you cannot say what not to tolerate. You deny your own identity. You are defenceless against everything alien that does not share your view of tolerance. You will deconstruct your culture, morals, values. you help to destroy the civilisation that brought you up.

Errrr... the discussion was about culture, but anyway I know no "Big Brother" fans that want to seize my house to force me to follow it. As I said, as long as my TV has an on/off knob, my freedom is preserved.

As for general cultural degradation, well I choose the school I will bring my childs to, and I will of course guide their education both in sports and philosopy and arts, so I will do my 2 cents for their formation. My tolerance means just that if others are not interested in doing that with their sons, that's not my business. As long as I can educate mines freely, that's OK with me.

Note that in the context of this debate I do not so much argue IN FAVOUR of something (a given set of rules, a certain definition of culture), but that I argue AGAINST something.

That's not very constructive and helpful for something new and organized to self-emerge, isn't it?. Though it might well be helpful to prevent something already existing to sink :hmm: