NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay Americans,

How many of you have heard of Aaron Copland?



Europeans can vote too I suppose...but this guy is more important on a American level than he is on a global level.

Aaron Copland is as obscure as you can go to feel like you're cultured by lording knowledge over people? Jeez man, you think you could have at least tapped Charles Ives....

I mean, come on-Spike Lee used Copland for the soundtrack to He Got Game.

So yeah-Fanfare for the Common Man (parodied in the title of the new Onion compainion, Fanfare for the Area Man) Red Pony, etc.

Why would you think no one knew who he was?

Beef. It's what's for dinner!

Aaron Copland is as obscure as you can go to feel like you're cultured by lording knowledge over people? Jeez man, you think you could have at least tapped Charles Ives....

I mean, come on-Spike Lee used Copland for the soundtrack to He Got Game.

So yeah-Fanfare for the Common Man (parodied in the title of the new Onion compainion, Fanfare for the Area Man) Red Pony, etc.

Why would you think no one knew who he was?
Some people have zero culture.

Some people have zero culture.
Alright, I'm going to unfairly pick on you to make a point that bugs me.

People into the arts, even tangetially-and face it, if you're tapping Aaron Copland as your example, that's pretty surface, like thinking no one knows who Bethoveen is-are always so f'n pleased with themselves that they are that they run around in this smug self-satisification, wearing the culture like a t-shirt that we should all join in congradulating them on being the protectorate of the arts. My life has been involved in the three biggest abusers, Classical music (often riddled with people so snoby and self-satisfied that they'll argue the appropriateness of that term just to verify thier involvement "Classical only applies to the period from-" SHUT UP, you knew what they ment....), Jazz (ever read a Jazz review? The first three paragraphs are inevitably the reviewer patting themselves on the back for being a Jazz reviewer....) and theater (sweet crap, if there ever was a group that was this far up thier own ass. And actors, dear lord. Insecure extroverts-how'd that happen?). The arts are the biggest example of peoples tendancy towards "Come here, go away!," the desire to sit on the fence and imply that people want in so you can deny them access. It bugs me, it bugs me even more when I find myself dropping names in the same way.

So, you listen to classical music. Congradulations. But c'mon-Copland is not even close to obscure. When I sold classical music and someone would come in trying to be cultured but would drop such a surface name like that I would send them home with the craziest crap in a way that they wouldn't return it because they'd feel uncultured, stuck with a CD I know they didn't like because they tried to talk down to me like a punk.

I wish I could say I feel better....

Maybe we should open this out and ask if people have ever heard of Stewart Copeland* or Miles Copeland*, and see how firm a grip the kids have on american culture?





* Yes, I know its a variant spelling, but hey...

"Cannot think of a name"

I must admit that I'm a little bit confused as to the point you're trying to make...

I never said Aaron Copland is any bit obscure and I'm not trying to use my knowledge of him to make myself better. He's the "father of American classical music." Why would he be obscure? I actually intended this thread to be sort of a discussion of Copland with a poll that just happened to go along with it...

...and if I started listing artists from the genre that I listen to often (which isn't classical), you'd likely not recognize any of the names.

I recognize the name... can't remember his significance though.

Father of American Classical Music.

Alright, I'm going to unfairly pick on you to make a point that bugs me.

People into the arts, even tangetially-and face it, if you're tapping Aaron Copland as your example, that's pretty surface, like thinking no one knows who Bethoveen is-are always so f'n pleased with themselves that they are that they run around in this smug self-satisification, wearing the culture like a t-shirt that we should all join in congradulating them on being the protectorate of the arts. My life has been involved in the three biggest abusers, Classical music (often riddled with people so snoby and self-satisfied that they'll argue the appropriateness of that term just to verify thier involvement "Classical only applies to the period from-" SHUT UP, you knew what they ment....), Jazz (ever read a Jazz review? The first three paragraphs are inevitably the reviewer patting themselves on the back for being a Jazz reviewer....) and theater (sweet crap, if there ever was a group that was this far up thier own ass. And actors, dear lord. Insecure extroverts-how'd that happen?). The arts are the biggest example of peoples tendancy towards "Come here, go away!," the desire to sit on the fence and imply that people want in so you can deny them access. It bugs me, it bugs me even more when I find myself dropping names in the same way.

So, you listen to classical music. Congradulations. But c'mon-Copland is not even close to obscure. When I sold classical music and someone would come in trying to be cultured but would drop such a surface name like that I would send them home with the craziest crap in a way that they wouldn't return it because they'd feel uncultured, stuck with a CD I know they didn't like because they tried to talk down to me like a punk.

I wish I could say I feel better....

cannot, im not in the least confused about the point you are trying to make.

but really, people do this kind of thing all the time.

look at the "what kind of car do you drive" thread. its full of "im cool because i know about this car model" crap.

AUDIOPHILES make me crazy. they get so obsessed bout minute differences in sound reproduction.

we even have logic snobs on this forum. how geeky to you have to be before you argue if a fallacy is ad hoc or ad hominem (like i know if that even made sense)

we all like to boost our own egos with our tiny specialty. too bad, as you well know, it doesnt impress anyone, not even the other people in our group.

"Cannot think of a name"

I must admit that I'm a little bit confused as to the point you're trying to make...

I never said Aaron Copland is any bit obscure and I'm not trying to use my knowledge of him to make myself better. He's the "father of American classical music." Why would he be obscure? I actually intended this thread to be sort of a discussion of Copland with a poll that just happened to go along with it...

...and if I started listing artists from the genre that I listen to often (which isn't classical), you'd likely not recognize any of the names.
I spent 7 years working at a record store, so while it is still possible to list bands I haven't heard of, it's not as likely.

I granted that I was unfairly picking on you, but the way you presented it, "Have you ever heard of this dude, yes no etc." and then responding to my initial post with 'some people have no culture,' it smacks of smuggery. I don't doubt that you where trying to discuss him, but the tone you set for the discussion was that no one or few people knew who he was. If the tone of your discussion was, perhaps, his frustration over populist composing that fueled pieces like Fanfare for the Common Man versus his more experimental works, that'd be one thing. But that's not what you where talking about, and so you hit a sore spot. If you want to have a discussion on Copland, have one. But-

I have a term for this, when people use something that is part of the larger public consciousness as if it was privilaged information. It's a Rueben. (named for Pee Wee Herman's real name-which everyone knows and no one cares, but people still say it like they've uncovered some secret) It's a pet peeve, that's all.

cannot, im not in the least confused about the point you are trying to make.

but really, people do this kind of thing all the time.

look at the "what kind of car do you drive" thread. its full of "im cool because i know about this car model" crap.

AUDIOPHILES make me crazy. they get so obsessed bout minute differences in sound reproduction.

we even have logic snobs on this forum. how geeky to you have to be before you argue if a fallacy is ad hoc or ad hominem (like i know if that even made sense)

we all like to boost our own egos with our tiny specialty. too bad, as you well know, it doesnt impress anyone, not even the other people in our group.
AAARRGGGHHHH! Audiophiles!!! I hate them most of all-especially when they go through all that crap just to buy something that clearly doesn't need that kind of technology. I always wanted to ask them why they where so obsessed with making their music sound better to their dog....

Yeah, it's a natural tendancy. Like I said, even I find myself doing it before I realise it. It bugs me even when it's me.

Well, CTOAN, depending on how long you're on tonight, I'll give you a link to my favorite Internet radio show, and you tell me if you're familiar with that music...

Anyways...like it has been pointed out...not knowing having heard "Aaron Copland" would be kind of like having not heard of "John Philip Sousa" or "Woodrow Wilson." It doesn't take a huge interest in the area to at least recognize those names. It's not like I'm listing off some that are slightly less mainstream (yet not completely obscure) like Alfred Reed or Robert W. Smith

I don't expect most people to have recognize those names.

Well, CTOAN, depending on how long you're on tonight, I'll give you a link to my favorite Internet radio show, and you tell me if you're familiar with that music...

Anyways...like it has been pointed out...not knowing having heard "Aaron Copland" would be kind of like having not heard of "John Philip Sousa" or "Woodrow Wilson." It doesn't take a huge interest in the area to at least recognize those names. It's not like I'm listing off some that are slightly less mainstream (yet not completely obscure) like Alfred Reed or Robert W. Smith

I don't expect most people to have recognize those names.
It would be hypocritical of me at this point to get into a "I know more obscure shit that you do" contest. You should like the bands you like with little or no regard to the size of their audience.

It's all in presentation, they way it was presented looked like those 'tards that post threads like "Cookie to anyone who knows what Schrodinger's Cat is," so it set me off.

As a side note, I would argue that Bernstien did a lot more for American classical music, being the ambassador of music (though the official title was given to Armstrong). Or Gershwin, who is more often immitated by use of hybrid styles common in american composition of the 20th century.

But unfortunetaly I have to go watch someone else crawl up their ass, as I have to go to a play right now. (stuck in my own suck)

Appalachian Springs is on the short list of the best music.

elitism is a big part of our culture.

i dont know who he is, nor do i care. i dont listen to classical music so... go ahead and go on a elitist rampage about how im not cultured (and im sure you will feel cool).

Maybe we should open this out and ask if people have ever heard of Stewart Copeland* or Miles Copeland*, and see how firm a grip the kids have on american culture?





* Yes, I know its a variant spelling, but hey...
....Kenneth Copeland? ;)

elitism is a big part of our culture.

i dont know who he is, nor do i care. i dont listen to classical music so... go ahead and go on a elitist rampage about how im not cultured (and im sure you will feel cool).


Classical music is one of the centerpieces of being 'cultured.'
It is an art to be appreciated, much like the art of cooking or painting or sculpture.

I would argue as well that to be a cultured american means to regularly read two out of the three:
New York Times
New Yorker
New York Review of Books

Regardless of where you live. Culture is not a geographical thing.

I am an American but I have no idea who this Aaron Copland guy is. I mean, obviously, he's the father of American classical music, you say so. But I've never heard of him. I listen to classical music like Tchakovsky and Bach, but that's only because I recognize it from childhood. For someone who's sick and tired of hearing people talk about how they're smarter than everyone else, you sure have set the stage to humiliate everyone who's never heard of the man before.

I'm not someone who's sick and tired of hearing people talk about how they're better...nor is that the intent of this thread...what does trivia have to do with intelligence?

I'm not someone who's sick and tired of hearing people talk about how they're better...nor is that the intent of this thread...what does trivia have to do with intelligence?


If you dont read the New York Times then I am better than you.

Ditto the New Yorker.

If you dont read the New York Times then I am better than you.

Ditto the New Yorker.
^

This is the type of elitism that this thread is NOT about.

^

This is the type of elitism that this thread is NOT about.


You know its true.

I'm not someone who's sick and tired of hearing people talk about how they're better...nor is that the intent of this thread...what does trivia have to do with intelligence?

I suppose I am talking about that other guy who jumped down your throat. Cannot think of a name. You, however. You are okay. If Cannot think of a name hadn't shown up, you probably would have had a nice discussion about the man and I might have learned something.

To reiterate the important point, appalachian springs is part of the short list of the best music in the world.

Copland was an american yes, but no one is perfect.

To reiterate the important point, appalachian springs is part of the short list of the best music in the world.

Copland was an american yes, but no one is perfect.
I think the NYT and the New Yorker qualify as American journalism...

I think the NYT and the New Yorker qualify as American journalism...



Certainly does, and they arent perfect either~!



This isnt to say that they arent the best though.

Some people have zero culture.
Some people have no mechanical skill. And others have no business sense. And still others have no grasp of scientific concepts.

My point is that people have their own interests, and they will pursue learning them. Despite how you feel, not everyone has to know who the Father of American Classical Music is any more than they have to know how to replace a head gasket, or how to create a business, or how to calculate the resistance in a circuit based on its power and voltage.

Just because you can't see past your own interests enough to realize that others might not care doesn't mean that there's something wrong with other people. Do yourself a favor... read Flowers for Algernon. Maybe you'll figure out that there is something beyond your own narrow interests.
:sniper:

Some people have no mechanical skill. And others have no business sense. And still others have no grasp of scientific concepts.

My point is that people have their own interests, and they will pursue learning them. Despite how you feel, not everyone has to know who the Father of American Classical Music is any more than they have to know how to replace a head gasket, or how to create a business, or how to calculate the resistance in a circuit based on its power and voltage.

Just because you can't see past your own interests enough to realize that others might not care doesn't mean that there's something wrong with other people. Do yourself a favor... read Flowers for Algernon. Maybe you'll figure out that there is something beyond your own narrow interests.
:sniper:
Maybe you should be more careful with your first post. Thems is fightin' words right now (especially with the sniper "smiley").

(some people also have zero sense of sarcasm)

Regardless of where you live. Culture is not a geographical thing.
apparently its a NEW YORK thing

apparently its a NEW YORK thing


Not at all, its just that the best publications come out of new york.

Thankfully the kind newyorkers are good enough to send them anywhere in the world, and make them available free on the internet.

Hmmmm... yeah, I didn't mean anything with the little sniper guy. I just think he's awesome and I have to laugh every time I see him in a post.

As far as the fightin' words go, I suppose I can just say something that everyone can agree with.

Such as "AOL sucks!!!"
:cool:

Hmmmm... yeah, I didn't mean anything with the little sniper guy. I just think he's awesome and I have to laugh every time I see him in a post.

As far as the fightin' words go, I suppose I can just say something that everyone can agree with.

Such as "AOL sucks!!!"
:cool:


Microsoft sucks 1000x as much.

die.

I would argue as well that to be a cultured american means to regularly read two out of the three:
New York Times
New Yorker
New York Review of Books

Regardless of where you live. Culture is not a geographical thing.

So, if you were to head out like Thoreau and live in isolationa way from the hurly-burly and cancel your subscriptiosn to the above, you would cease to be a 'cultured american'? Uh-huh.

Secondly, it seems to me that you have failed to recognise that the particular artistic/cultural/political agendas that the above publications push (or indeed any publication which comments on culture) are based just on historical accident: they may have impressive pedigrees, but that does not make them right. Certainly an argument can be made that by partaking in the ongoing dialectic that they are part of you subscribe to a particular school of national discourse about culture and the arts, but that does not mean that other, more marginalised or underground or mainstream discourses and dialectics are any less valid as culture.


Thirdly: I have to ask do the journals above accurately reflect what the rest of the world sees as the important elements of america culture qua american culture, or do they continue to buy into the european tradition of the division between the high and low arts. One can easily make a list of the elements of quintessentially american culture which the rest of the world recognises as american culture which I assume your big three devote little or no attention to. Ask from a non-american perspective and I think you might be surprised at what the rest of the world considers as the contribution of the US to global culture: it won't be the balletic orchestrated fusions of Bernstein, but instead the thump of disco, it won't be the meandering ruminations of Paul Auster, but instead the doorstops produced by John Grisham or Stephen King, it won't be the radical chic of Manhattan socialites, but instead the drag-racing white trash of the American south.

Fourthly: have you stopped to consider that many of those whoa re producing the work which will serve as fodder for your big three publications may not themselves read said publications, and instead treat them with the distain that any artist holds for the critics? Does this mean the actual producers of art are not cultured unless they stoop to the hackwork of journalism? Lets pluck some names from my ass here in a random fashion: John Zorn, Lightnin' Hopkins, Bruce Sterling... do such characters fit the bill of non-cultured americans because they are all unlikely to regularly read any of your big three?


*********

Ah, the power of a couple of rum and gingers to get those fingers typing...

So, if you were to head out like Thoreau and live in isolationa way from the hurly-burly and cancel your subscriptiosn to the above, you would cease to be a 'cultured american'? Uh-huh.

Secondly, it seems to me that you have failed to recognise that the particular artistic/cultural/political agendas that the above publications push (or indeed any publication which comments on culture) are based just on historical accident: they may have impressive pedigrees, but that does not make them right. Certainly an argument can be made that by partaking in the ongoing dialectic that they are part of you subscribe to a particular school of national discourse about culture and the arts, but that does not mean that other, more marginalised or underground or mainstream discourses and dialectics are any less valid as culture.


Thirdly: I have to ask do the journals above accurately reflect what the rest of the world sees as the important elements of america culture qua american culture, or do they continue to buy into the european tradition of the division between the high and low arts. One can easily make a list of the elements of quintessentially american culture which the rest of the world recognises as american culture which I assume your big three devote little or no attention to. Ask from a non-american perspective and I think you might be surprised at what the rest of the world considers as the contribution of the US to global culture: it won't be the balletic orchestrated fusions of Bernstein, but instead the thump of disco, it won't be the meandering ruminations of Paul Auster, but instead the doorstops produced by John Grisham or Stephen King, it won't be the radical chic of Manhattan socialites, but instead the drag-racing white trash of the American south.

Fourthly: have you stopped to consider that many of those whoa re producing the work which will serve as fodder for your big three publications may not themselves read said publications, and instead treat them with the distain that any artist holds for the critics? Does this mean the actual producers of art are not cultured unless they stoop to the hackwork of journalism? Lets pluck some names from my ass here in a random fashion: John Zorn, Lightnin' Hopkins, Bruce Sterling... do such characters fit the bill of non-cultured americans because they are all unlikely to regularly read any of your big three?


*********

Ah, the power of a couple of rum and gingers to get those fingers typing...



An artist is not of necessity cultured, it is the appreciation of art that constitutes culture in the sense we are using the word, not the creation of art.

Also, I firmly hold the seperation between 'high' and 'low' arts.

Culture (in the sense I am using it) implies cultivation, and what is to be cultivated is a broad and deep understanding of the dominant culture.

Put differently, 'cultured' means sophisticated with regards to the dominant intellectual culture.

NYTimes, New Yorker magazine and the NY review are the chief organs of the dominant intellectual culture (in ascending order of obscurity and depth).

The times is news for educated people, the new yorker is entertainment for the same, and the review is, well, further education!

If what i've said is at all rambling or incoherantly phrased or squenced, it is because I have drank three glasses of whisky and I appologize.

An artist is not of necessity cultured, it is the appreciation of art that constitutes culture in the sense we are using the word, not the creation of art.

So the artist cannot then understand their own work until they have it explained to them by an academic?

Culture (in the sense I am using it) implies cultivation, and what is to be cultivated is a broad and deep understanding of the dominant culture.

So it is important to understand the culture which is of white European extraction, but no that which owes its heritage to the Americas themselves or to Africa? They are, after all, not the dominant culture.


Put differently, 'cultured' means sophisticated with regards to the dominant intellectual culture.

Ah, so not only does one have to have a passing acquaintance with it, or
an understanding of it, but to be sophisticated with regard to it? What exactly does this entail?

I suppose I am talking about that other guy who jumped down your throat. Cannot think of a name. You, however. You are okay. If Cannot think of a name hadn't shown up, you probably would have had a nice discussion about the man and I might have learned something.
I'll agree that I did jump down his throat, and knew that when I did. I even gave a caveat that he fully did not deserve the brunt of what I was saying, but will argue that it was not me but him who set the exclusionary tone of the thread. I even set him up for an actual discussion when I left, comparing Copland's contribution to Bernstien and Gershwin and offering the disparity of Copland's more experimental works with populist works. Fanfare for the Common Man is a dual title, as much a tribute to the working man (implied) as a fanfare that a common man can understand in response to criticism of his less accessable work, a fact that makes a discussion about his recognizability a bit more ironic. I posted these arguments, but exclusivity is what was picked up on-I believe because it was more prominent than the stated intent.

It was a trigger response, but not one I believe came from left field.

I believe that this is a huge argument, interesting with no clear lines or one way or another. In other words, a good discussion.
So the artist cannot then understand their own work until they have it explained to them by an academic?
There are those that argue that that is indeed the case. Often, an artist is the least capable of understanding, or at least conveying their works.

This can be grounded in the idea that if the artist could express what they where trying to express with words they wouldn't need the art.

The secondary idea behind this is that the artist only considers thier work but a critic considers it within the cannon. (Which is not to say that an artist is unaware of the cannon, but that thier particular work is their focus. Certainly it is true that an artists work can be commentary on the cannon.)

In essense, criticism exists seperate of art.



So it is important to understand the culture which is of white European extraction, but no that which owes its heritage to the Americas themselves or to Africa? They are, after all, not the dominant culture.
I believe this is reactionary. It is down right trendy in criticism circles to consider and elevate the art of non-western sources, often to the elevation over western-sources. I think this is more or less a fascination with the new, as western culutre had ignored non-western culture and so Japanese theater, for example, has not been discussed to death like Aristophenes has. It actually borrows from my initial complaint. However, to be 'cultured' in the critical sense these days, you have to be as aware of non-western forms as you are of western ones. If you want to score points you can point out shortcomings of western forms in light on non-western ones.




Ah, so not only does one have to have a passing acquaintance with it, or
an understanding of it, but to be sophisticated with regard to it? What exactly does this entail?
Often it would entail an ability to comparitavely analys the work within the cannon. Not to repeat common criticism, but weigh contrasting criticism. Or be able to out-quote the other pretentious asshole, if you're doing this at a cafe.

So the artist cannot then understand their own work until they have it explained to them by an academic?

My words were "an artist is not of necessity cultured."



So it is important to understand the culture which is of white European extraction, but no that which owes its heritage to the Americas themselves or to Africa? They are, after all, not the dominant culture.

The understanding of foreign cultures as an intellectual pursuit is definitely part of the dominant culture.




Ah, so not only does one have to have a passing acquaintance with it, or
an understanding of it, but to be sophisticated with regard to it? What exactly does this entail?
Its easy to have a passing acquaintance with something, sophistication refers in this case to a broad, deep understanding.






Answers all nice and bold up there in the quote.

I would argue that the greatest American artform is the full length motion picture....the list of greatest films is dominated by American movies, not to ignore great films from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and India, but far and away the majority of the best movies on the top 100 films of all time are American.

the technology was invented by Edison (and his gang of techies), the three reeler (full length movie) was an American film Birth of a Nation (racist as hell, but still impressive for its day), sound systems, editing, cinematography, the list goes on and on...

then of course there is Jazz, Blues, Rock and some of the best music for creativity is the motion picture Sound Track

Oddly enough, these tend to get short shrift in the New Yorker

by the way, I like Aaron Copeland too... although he isn't my favorite

I would argue that the greatest American artform is the full length motion picture....the list of greatest films is dominated by American movies, not to ignore great films from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and India, but far and away the majority of the best movies on the top 100 films of all time are American.

the technology was invented by Edison (and his gang of techies), the three reeler (full length movie) was an American film Birth of a Nation (racist as hell, but still impressive for its day), sound systems, editing, cinematography, the list goes on and on...

then of course there is Jazz, Blues, Rock and some of the best music for creativity is the motion picture Sound Track

Oddly enough, these tend to get short shrift in the New Yorker


The New Yorker reviews films now and again and there is no indication whatsoever that they consider movies to be less 'valid' or important art than any other form.

I would argue that the greatest American artform is the full length motion picture....the list of greatest films is dominated by American movies, not to ignore great films from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and India, but far and away the majority of the best movies on the top 100 films of all time are American.

the technology was invented by Edison (and his gang of techies), the three reeler (full length movie) was an American film Birth of a Nation (racist as hell, but still impressive for its day), sound systems, editing, cinematography, the list goes on and on...

then of course there is Jazz, Blues, Rock and some of the best music for creativity is the motion picture Sound Track

Oddly enough, these tend to get short shrift in the New Yorker
Film borrows too heavily from things like German expressionism (where would Film Noir be without Cabinet of Dr. Caligari?) and the Eisenstien's montage opened the door to things like Griffith's continuity editing. While Edison is largely given credit with the "Black Maria," it was a french pair, the Lumiere Brothers, that really began to explore it's use. Melies' Voyage to the Moon and other films really form the creation of the magic of theater. Edison considered the motion camera as more of a utilitarian tool, and even stole Melies film for American release leaving Melies broke at his death.

It was french film critics that elevated the use of film to even the consideration as art in the post-world war II flood of films into europe. American film really borrows too heavily from foriegn inovation and interpritation to really be considered a soley american art form.

Popularly, America is credited with the Musical Stage Comedy and Jazz. (though jazz itself is a hybrid, it's hybridization happen almost entirely here and was not a repitition of what was done but a sum that was different than it's parts.)

Of course I have!
Did you miss my post?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7259050&postcount=69

So much for that thread lasting forever.
So much for me being able to stay on topic and choose just one, for that matter.

Yeah! Appalachain Spring!
"Variations on a Shaker Melody" rules!
I would like to know who calls Copland "The Father of American Classical Music." What about Barber? The afore-mantioned Ives? Leonard freaking Bernstein?
And as I always like to ask my mother,
"How can music composed in the 'modern' 20th century be called 'classical'?"

Classical music is one of the centerpieces of being 'cultured.'
It is an art to be appreciated, much like the art of cooking or painting or sculpture.

I would argue as well that to be a cultured american means to regularly read two out of the three:
New York Times
New Yorker
New York Review of Books

Regardless of where you live. Culture is not a geographical thing.

Don't you think the NYTimes is rather middlebrow though? If not sometimes downright plebian.

I am fairly surprised by how many Americans here claim not to know who he is.
That half the Americans here don't know who is is shows the huge failings of the US schools. Even if you hate classical music, you should have heard of him. It's simply a matter of cultural literacy like knowing who O.J. Simpson is or who Elvis was. :(

Classical music is one of the centerpieces of being 'cultured.'
It is an art to be appreciated, much like the art of cooking or painting or sculpture.

I would argue as well that to be a cultured american means to regularly read two out of the three:
New York Times
New Yorker
New York Review of Books

Regardless of where you live. Culture is not a geographical thing.

I do not think being cultured requires reading reviews of any kind. I have met a lot of people who can spout back reviews of what other people think and write very nicely, it does not mean that they have a better appreciation for or more cultured view of an art than someone who hears something or sees something and enjoys it on their own.

...plebian.
Now there's a good word!
Thanks for resurrecting that one from the deep recesses of grey matter ensconsed inside my skull.
You get five extra bonus points from me, sir.
Plebian. Sweet!

I am fairly surprised by how many Americans here claim not to know who he is.
That half the Americans here don't know who is is shows the huge failings of the US schools. Even if you hate classical music, you should have heard of him. It's simply a matter of cultural literacy like knowing who O.J. Simpson is or who Elvis was. :(

a considerable number of people under 20 aren't very clear on who Elvis was or why OJ Simpson was a celebrity other than the fact that he was tried for killing his exwife. :rolleyes:

its that generation gap thing

Film borrows too heavily from things like German expressionism (where would Film Noir be without Cabinet of Dr. Caligari?) and the Eisenstien's montage opened the door to things like Griffith's continuity editing. While Edison is largely given credit with the "Black Maria," it was a french pair, the Lumiere Brothers, that really began to explore it's use. Melies' Voyage to the Moon and other films really form the creation of the magic of theater. Edison considered the motion camera as more of a utilitarian tool, and even stole Melies film for American release leaving Melies broke at his death.

It was french film critics that elevated the use of film to even the consideration as art in the post-world war II flood of films into europe. American film really borrows too heavily from foriegn inovation and interpritation to really be considered a soley american art form.

Popularly, America is credited with the Musical Stage Comedy and Jazz. (though jazz itself is a hybrid, it's hybridization happen almost entirely here and was not a repitition of what was done but a sum that was different than it's parts.)

Well, I think the best way to resolve that would be to look up the winners of the Academy Awards (which is primarily for English speaking films, not necessarily American ones) and the Cannes Film Festival, neither of which I can rattle off the top of my head but I am willing to bet that American films have more prizes at both. The technology was invented in the US (accidental or not), refined in the US, made popular in the US, and in a word, Hollywood is what most people think of when they think of movies, not France, Italy, or India (the largest non English speaking movie producing countries with India far and away the biggest)

Hollywood more than anything else is what shapes the image people outside of the US have of the US. I can't think of a bigger cultural export of the US except maybe popular music (from rock to rap).

And movies, at their best, uplift just as much as a fine symphony by any of the classical masters, or any painting by the grand masters.

Sounds like culture to me.

The technology was invented in the US (accidental or not), refined in the US, made popular in the US
I beg to differ.
Sergei Eisenstein? Andre Bazin? Rudolf Arnheim?
Truth be told, it's been fifteen years since I was in (and subsequently dropped out of) film school. But these are the names I associate with early filmmaking and film theory. Surely, not American.
As for the rest of your post that I obviously did not quote because it didn't support my reply above:
I concur, you're right. It's just that it has in the POPULAR culture aspect degenerated into a most heinous and vulgar art form. I would venture say a somewhat PLEBIAN (thanks DeaconDave!) art form.

Well, I think the best way to resolve that would be to look up the winners of the Academy Awards (which is primarily for English speaking films, not necessarily American ones) and the Cannes Film Festival, neither of which I can rattle off the top of my head but I am willing to bet that American films have more prizes at both. The technology was invented in the US (accidental or not), refined in the US, made popular in the US, and in a word, Hollywood is what most people think of when they think of movies, not France, Italy, or India (the largest non English speaking movie producing countries with India far and away the biggest)

Hollywood more than anything else is what shapes the image people outside of the US have of the US. I can't think of a bigger cultural export of the US except maybe popular music (from rock to rap).

And movies, at their best, uplift just as much as a fine symphony by any of the classical masters, or any painting by the grand masters.

Sounds like culture to me.
The Academy Awards are for American films, there is a catagory for foriegn films, and because of industry politics often favors studio films.

Dominance is largerly due to economic(sp) factors, espicially following WWII, like the American and western European largely dissembling the West German filmmaking facilaties while Russia actually rebuilt East Germany's film industry. West Germany was then flooded with West European and American films that had already had their run in thier home countries. Wim Wender comments on that in one of his early films after the Oberhausen convention through one of his characters; "The American's are colonizing our minds."

But, the point I was trying to make is that american film is really reflecting influence back at the rest of the world rather than neccisarily driving it itself. Editing, lighting and narrative styles have predominantly come from outside rather than inside. Even the pentultimate american film, Citizen Cane borrows more from the German tradition than an american one. So while we might use marketing force and industrial might to spread the most out, it does not neccisarily make it an American art or even one we are the best at. After all, we spend more time discussing Fassbinder and his films like Ali, Fear Eats the Soul than we do the Douglas Sirk films that inspire him. (such as All That Heaven Allows). Inventing mellodrama is not nearly as important as perfecting it as an art.

I beg to differ.
Sergei Eisenstein? Andre Bazin? Rudolf Arnheim?
Truth be told, it's been fifteen years since I was in (and subsequently dropped out of) film school. But these are the names I associate with early filmmaking and film theory. Surely, not American.
As for the rest of your post that I obviously did not quote because it didn't support my reply above:
I concur, you're right. It's just that it has in the POPULAR culture aspect degenerated into a most heinous and vulgar art form. I would venture say a somewhat PLEBIAN (thanks DeaconDave!) art form.
Bazin and Arnhiem (the latter I take umbrage with often) where more film theorists than film makers.

I do not think being cultured requires reading reviews of any kind. I have met a lot of people who can spout back reviews of what other people think and write very nicely, it does not mean that they have a better appreciation for or more cultured view of an art than someone who hears something or sees something and enjoys it on their own.


The Times isnt so much an engine of review as a source for news.

The New Yorker reviews things sometimes, but the chief pleasure in reading it is hardly the reviews.

The Review, though it does review books, does not review them primarily.

You really ought to pick up a copy of the NY review of books sometime, or read it free on the internet. (nybooks.com)

Don't you think the NYTimes is rather middlebrow though? If not sometimes downright plebian.


Compared to local papers? the USA Today? Hardly.

What alternative do you propose? What newspaper can honestly compete with the Grey Lady.

The Academy Awards are for American films, there is a catagory for foriegn films, and because of industry politics often favors studio films.

Dominance is largerly due to economic(sp) factors, espicially following WWII, like the American and western European largely dissembling the West German filmmaking facilaties while Russia actually rebuilt East Germany's film industry. West Germany was then flooded with West European and American films that had already had their run in thier home countries. Wim Wender comments on that in one of his early films after the Oberhausen convention through one of his characters; "The American's are colonizing our minds."

But, the point I was trying to make is that american film is really reflecting influence back at the rest of the world rather than neccisarily driving it itself. Editing, lighting and narrative styles have predominantly come from outside rather than inside. Even the pentultimate american film, Citizen Cane borrows more from the German tradition than an american one. So while we might use marketing force and industrial might to spread the most out, it does not neccisarily make it an American art or even one we are the best at. After all, we spend more time discussing Fassbinder and his films like Ali, Fear Eats the Soul than we do the Douglas Sirk films that inspire him. (such as All That Heaven Allows). Inventing mellodrama is not nearly as important as perfecting it as an art.

well, I wouldn't say that the following movies are American films

Dr Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia (primarily British productions)
Lord of the Rings (all three films) (primarily a New Zealand production with international cast and crew members)

I could go on, as there are many examples....

by the way, that is Citizen Kane and maybe it borrowed from a German style, but it doesn't make it German anymore than Seven Samurai is an American Western just because it is identitical in many respects to the Magnificent Seven

you are allowed to build on the works and ideas of others to create art, but it what you create is your art, not theirs

well, I wouldn't say that the following movies are American films

Dr Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia (primarily British productions)
Lord of the Rings (all three films) (primarily a New Zealand production with international cast and crew members)

I could go on, as there are many examples....

by the way, that is Citizen Kane and maybe it borrowed from a German style, but it doesn't make it German anymore than Seven Samurai is an American Western just because it is identitical in many respects to the Magnificent Seven

you are allowed to build on the works and ideas of others to create art, but it what you create is your art, not theirs
Bringing up Kurasawa is interesting. Magnifecent Seven actually follows Seven Samurai as a western adaptation. However, Kurasawa was heavily influenced by westerns, often evidenced by his opening tracking shot in Yojimbo.

However, my point in bringing up the German impressionist influence in Citizen Kane is that American films reflect the influence of foriegn cinema far too often to consider it a primarily american art form. That is the difference between film and Jazz-in film the sum is a reflection of the parts, in Jazz, the sum is different than the parts. I don't think mass production qualifies us to take credit for the art form.

I would have brought up Whalerider as a far more foriegn example, as Lord of the Rings and Lawrence of Arabia had funding ties to American production companies and opened in the states first.

EDIT: I spell like a dumbass, perhaps why I work in visual mediums. And I did just wake up...

Bringing up Kirusara is interesting. Magnifecent Seven actually follows Seven Samurai as a western adaptation. However, Kirusara was heavily influenced by westerns, often evidenced by his opening tracking shot in Yojimbo.

However, my point in bringing up the German impressionist influence in Citizen Kane is that American films reflect the influence of foriegn cinema far too often to consider it a primarily american art form. That is the difference between film and Jazz-in film the sum is a reflection of the parts, in Jazz, the sum is different than the parts. I don't think mass production qualifies us to take credit for the art form.

I would have brought up Whalerider as a far more foriegn example, as Lord of the Rings and Lawrence of Arabia had funding ties to American production companies and opened in the states first.


Kurasawa, not "kirasara". ;)

If you had spelt his name right, you might have got more "yes" votes.

Kurasawa, not "kirasara". ;)
I've never been the best speller, especially when I just wake up. That didn't look remotely right to me when I typed it, but I just let it go. Thanks for correcting it.

a considerable number of people under 20 aren't very clear on who Elvis was or why OJ Simpson was a celebrity other than the fact that he was tried for killing his exwife. :rolleyes:

its that generation gap thing

Cultural ignorance, pure and simple. Might as well try and excuse any person from the USA not knowing who George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and ML King were. That a large numer of people don't know even simply the name Aaron Copeland is a serious indictment of the education system.

No Child Left Behind MY LILY WHITE ASS!

It really is Copland with no e.

The other Copeland's have e's, though.

I would argue that the greatest American artform is the full length motion picture....the list of greatest films is dominated by American movies, not to ignore great films from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and India, but far and away the majority of the best movies on the top 100 films of all time are American.

the technology was invented by Edison (and his gang of techies), the three reeler (full length movie) was an American film Birth of a Nation (racist as hell, but still impressive for its day), sound systems, editing, cinematography, the list goes on and on...

then of course there is Jazz, Blues, Rock and some of the best music for creativity is the motion picture Sound Track

Oddly enough, these tend to get short shrift in the New Yorker
The movies were invented in France, though you're right that America has made the greatest contribution.

Agreed with you on the music too!

Ooh, ooh, I've heard of Copland! I've done played me some of his music too.

I've never been the best speller, especially when I just wake up. That didn't look remotely right to me when I typed it, but I just let it go. Thanks for correcting it.

It really is Copland with no e.

The other Copeland's have e's, though.


:D And this is a fine example of the pedantic law of correction - no one can correct another poster's spelling or grammar without making at least one error of their own. :D

Dvorak anyone?

Kurasawa, not "kirasara". ;)

kurosawa, not "kurasawa" ... 0.o

Dvorak anyone?
...figures

Dvorak > Copland.

Dvorak > Copland.

Ives > Dvorak
Copland > Ives


Discuss/solve/repudiate.

Ives > Dvorak
Copland > Ives


Discuss/solve/repudiate.

If Dvorak is greater than Copland, who is greater than Ives, who is greater than Dvorak... and let's assume (of course) that Beethoven is better than everybody and that Shostakovich is better than Beethoven... what's for dinner?

If Dvorak is greater than Copland, who is greater than Ives, who is greater than Dvorak... and let's assume (of course) that Beethoven is better than everybody and that Shostakovich is better than Beethoven... what's for dinner?

If music be the food of love?

Ives > Dvorak
Copland > Ives


Discuss/solve/repudiate.

Dallas > Buffalo
Buffalo > Minnisota
Minnisota > Dallas

The NFL can teach you 'magical' things... :D

I like Aaron Copeland a lot, actually.

And Stewart Copeland, too. Mostly from the Police and all, I heard of him, but I've always noticed when he pops up. :)

And Stewart Copeland, too. Mostly from the Police and all, I heard of him, but I've always noticed when he pops up. :)


Did you ever here any of his sole work from around '78 or '79 that he did under the name of Klark Kent? The 7" Don't Care/Thrills/Office Girls ain't too shoddy as a new wave/punk single.

....

There are those that argue that that is indeed the case. Often, an artist is the least capable of understanding, or at least conveying their works.

This can be grounded in the idea that if the artist could express what they where trying to express with words they wouldn't need the art.

....



An interesting idea. Based entirely on personal observation and prejudice, I have a long held pet theory that artists become artists at least partly because they are unable to express themselves, whether in words or behaviour, fully in normal life. And so feel the need to become `an artist'. This inability to express themselves might be either a good thing (powerful/unusual thoughts or feelings to be expressed) or a bad thing (general inability to cope with normal life).

I would exclude professional musicians and amateur actors from this general observation - both types seem to be inherently team players.

My observations are from my time in a benefit office in a trendy part of London, where 'artists' were easily the most irritating (and least successful) claimants, and from my wife's full time job in the arts. I would never tolerate in my work the kind of selfish behaviour she experiences as routine. As people to meet socially or even to be friends with, the artists may be cool, but I really don't know how my wife gets through her working days without shouting `grow up' or `get a life' at frequent, regular intervals.

Still, this is not the whole story. I have also noticed that the more successful (better?) artists do seem better able to explain their work, though of course the explanations may have been constructed post-hoc.


Originally Posted by Kinsella Islands
And Stewart Copeland, too. Mostly from the Police and all, I heard of him, but I've always noticed when he pops up.

Best rock drummer of his generation IMHO. In spite of his work with the Police.

Did you ever here any of his sole work from around '78 or '79 that he did under the name of Klark Kent? The 7" Don't Care/Thrills/Office Girls ain't too shoddy as a new wave/punk single.

I have it on green vinyl, if memory serves.

An interesting idea. Based entirely on personal observation and prejudice, I have a long held pet theory that artists become artists at least partly because they are unable to express themselves, whether in words or behaviour, fully in normal life. And so feel the need to become `an artist'. This inability to express themselves might be either a good thing (powerful/unusual thoughts or feelings to be expressed) or a bad thing (general inability to cope with normal life).

What you are basically putting forward here is a modified Freudian position where the artist only makes art in order to sublimate those desires which society disallows him from fulfilling in more direct ways, yes?


I have it on green vinyl, if memory serves.

Checks record collection... translucent lime green. Yup.

Boo hiss to Freud and all his dangling concepts.

What you are basically putting forward here is a modified Freudian position where the artist only makes art in order to sublimate those desires which society disallows him from fulfilling in more direct ways, yes?

Sounds plausible enough, though I know nothing of Freudian theory and tend to shy away from statements about what society does and doesn't allow. I was raised in an old fashioned beatnik/christian household, which didn't see itself constrained to social mores. Thus I've never really got the hang of conformity other than as a statistical construct and flag of convenience. I understand it's an issue for at least one of my sisters and one of my brothers, though.

I have to say that you have the honour of being both the first and second person to ever ascribe Freudian views to me. Instinctively, I feel more drawn to the Jungian standpoint, but you may be right.

Checks record collection... translucent lime green. Yup.

And how pleased were you to get that version? Ahh, life was simpler then.

An interesting idea. Based entirely on personal observation and prejudice, I have a long held pet theory that artists become artists at least partly because they are unable to express themselves, whether in words or behaviour, fully in normal life. And so feel the need to become `an artist'. This inability to express themselves might be either a good thing (powerful/unusual thoughts or feelings to be expressed) or a bad thing (general inability to cope with normal life).

I would exclude professional musicians and amateur actors from this general observation - both types seem to be inherently team players.

My observations are from my time in a benefit office in a trendy part of London, where 'artists' were easily the most irritating (and least successful) claimants, and from my wife's full time job in the arts. I would never tolerate in my work the kind of selfish behaviour she experiences as routine. As people to meet socially or even to be friends with, the artists may be cool, but I really don't know how my wife gets through her working days without shouting `grow up' or `get a life' at frequent, regular intervals.

Still, this is not the whole story. I have also noticed that the more successful (better?) artists do seem better able to explain their work, though of course the explanations may have been constructed post-hoc.
I think that the relative difficulty of an artist is some sort of bell curve related to their degree of success. On the bottom they are used to fighting off the 'philistines' who tell them to get a real job, or even worse, the constant unsolicited advice of having a 'fall back...' Irratating. Being a lawyer or a doctor is hard, no one ever tries to talk people out of that. These largely unsuccessful people are prematurely imbittered by the process and thus, hard to deal with. On the other end of the curve are the poeple who have in many ways the opposite problem. They are infriquently questioned and everything they do is a glorious contribution to the world. They are constantly reminded how they are special and only they can do what it is they do, which makes them bastards.

The middle of the curve is made up of people happily making all or part of their living doing what they do and couldn't be happier to have such luck, glad to do that and not the 'fall back' ('we almost had to work on your mom's emu farm...') and are more than happy to be as curtious as possible to the people who facilitate such a gravy train. It might be a steep bell with long ends.

I've worked the arts in some capacity my entire working life. Still doesn't qualify me to make such a theory, but what the hey.

My other theory on art is a slightly different version than yours or the Fruedian model. And, as most people's theory on art, way up my own ass. Art exists to fill in the spaces between words. It's not that they can't express themselves in words, it's that what they are expressing cannot be best expressed in words-so they do it in music or art or performance. The pieces can be discussed, their meanings extracted and examined, but they are ultimately best expressed in the medium that the artist used. The truer that becomes the better the art. A large part of why a more abstract map might be framed but a Rand-McNally map isn't likely to go on your wall.



Best rock drummer of his generation IMHO. In spite of his work with the Police.

I know it was a typo/format error deally, I just wanted to point out I have no opinion on the drummer from The Police.

I think that the relative difficulty of an artist is some sort of bell curve related to their degree of success. On the bottom they are used to fighting off the 'philistines' who tell them to get a real job, or even worse, the constant unsolicited advice of having a 'fall back...' Irratating. Being a lawyer or a doctor is hard, no one ever tries to talk people out of that. These largely unsuccessful people are prematurely imbittered by the process and thus, hard to deal with. On the other end of the curve are the poeple who have in many ways the opposite problem. They are infriquently questioned and everything they do is a glorious contribution to the world. They are constantly reminded how they are special and only they can do what it is they do, which makes them bastards.

The middle of the curve is made up of people happily making all or part of their living doing what they do and couldn't be happier to have such luck, glad to do that and not the 'fall back' ('we almost had to work on your mom's emu farm...') and are more than happy to be as curtious as possible to the people who facilitate such a gravy train. It might be a steep bell with long ends.

I've worked the arts in some capacity my entire working life. Still doesn't qualify me to make such a theory, but what the hey.

My other theory on art is a slightly different version than yours or the Fruedian model. And, as most people's theory on art, way up my own ass. Art exists to fill in the spaces between words. It's not that they can't express themselves in words, it's that what they are expressing cannot be best expressed in words-so they do it in music or art or performance. The pieces can be discussed, their meanings extracted and examined, but they are ultimately best expressed in the medium that the artist used. The truer that becomes the better the art. A large part of why a more abstract map might be framed but a Rand-McNally map isn't likely to go on your wall.





I know it was a typo/format error deally, I just wanted to point out I have no opinion on the drummer from The Police.

I have zero artistic sensibility, but your theory makes a lot of sense to me.

I think my theory conflates two characteristics: first, in shorthand, a lack of `common sense/practicality' in artists - so they follow their art, because they can't get the hang of living according to social norms. Second, an almost pathological selfishness and lack of reasonable perspective, especially (though not necessarily exclusively) when dealing with their art. There may be some form of feedback between the two.

The first is perhaps more characteristic of less successful artists, but the second seems quite pervasive in the individual arts. In one sense, it's probably reasonable - the artist needs such a defensive shell to preserve their vision, especially since that vision is going to be difficult to rationalise (or it wouldn't be art); and the arts world is so competitive that artists have to have enormous self-belief to survive and prosper. There are also the idiots who swallow the 'genius must be difficult' line either through belief or social laziness. However, this ego and lack of perspective does seem to make artists a pain in the ass to deal with professionally.

Incidentally, dunno about typos, but Copeland the drummer was brilliant. The Police most decidedly were not.