Random Act of Culture


equality72521

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I really don't know why it was necessary for people to give me the standard Objectivist lectures on property rights. I imagine that if a neighbor of mine painted his house black with fluorescent green polka dots, and I mentioned that it was anything but classy, and that he was shoving his trashy tastes down his neighbors' throats, I'm sure the same people here would get just as Aspergery about making sure that I understood the property rights aspect of the issue.

No, you do not understand the property rights issue here. In the case of the store, you have a group of people acting with the owner's permission to give a performance which in no way affects anyone outside the store nor damages the property or value thereof of any person involved. In the case of the eyesore, it most certainly can harm the resale value of its neighbors properties. Unless the neighbours moved in after the neon remodeling, they would have no case, since they would have known what they were getting themselves into.

The problem is your rather bizarre Objectionist insistence on making what is a perfectly cromulent personal opinion, "I don't find the performance particularly valuable" into a categorical truth, "this sort of thing amounts to forcing culture on people, and is evil." Like an ARIan defending Peikoff's latest pontification, rather than qualify yourself, you resort to ever more silly analogies. The only actual aesthetic authoritarianism here is yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you do not understand the property rights issue here. In the case of the store, you have a group of people acting with the owner's permission to give a performance which in no way affects anyone outside the store nor damages the property or value thereof of any person involved.

M-kay, thanks for explaining property to me, Frisco.

In the case of the eyesore, it most certainly can harm the resale value of its neighbors properties.

Oh, so now you're advocating the idea that people should not have the right to choose whatever colors they wish for their own property, or take any other action with their property if it can be shown that their doing so will harm the resale value of their neighbor's property?

The problem is your rather bizarre Objectionist insistence on making what is a perfectly cromulent personal opinion, "I don't find the performance particularly valuable" into a categorical truth...

You're apparently still missing the point. My point is not that "I don't find the performance particularly valuable." You should try to follow along more closely if you're going to post on a thread.

"...this sort of thing amounts to forcing culture on people, and is evil."

I didn't say it was evil. I said it was pompous, presumptuous and uncultured.

Like an ARIan defending Peikoff's latest pontification, rather than qualify yourself, you resort to ever more silly analogies.

Do you have a reading disorder, Ted? I've explained myself quite clearly, and you still don't get it? Wow. I even offered some background context in post #16 that I had originally mistakenly assumed that others would have been aware of. How are you still not getting it?

The only actual aesthetic authoritarianism here is yours.

Uh-huh. The subtitle of this thread is "Hope for the future," as if the world is doomed if people prefer to listen to music that Alan (equality72521) has rated "in reality" to be "trash" and to be "disqualified as music," and I'm the aesthetic authoritarian! People need to be ambushed with the type of art that Alan prefers, for their own good, and for the good of mankind's future, and I'm the authoritarian for suggesting that such busy-bodies should mind their own business. Heh.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you do not understand the property rights issue here. In the case of the store, you have a group of people acting with the owner's permission to give a performance which in no way affects anyone outside the store nor damages the property or value thereof of any person involved.

M-kay, thanks for explaining property to me, Frisco.

In the case of the eyesore, it most certainly can harm the resale value of its neighbors properties.

Oh, so now you're advocating the idea that people should not have the right to choose whatever colors they wish for their own property, or take any other action with their property if it can be shown that their doing so will harm the resale value of their neighbor's property?

The problem is your rather bizarre Objectionist insistence on making what is a perfectly cromulent personal opinion, "I don't find the performance particularly valuable" into a categorical truth...

You're apparently still missing the point. My point is not that "I don't find the performance particularly valuable." You should try to follow along more closely if you're going to post on a thread.

"...this sort of thing amounts to forcing culture on people, and is evil."

I didn't say it was evil. I said it was pompous, presumptuous and uncultured.

Like an ARIan defending Peikoff's latest pontification, rather than qualify yourself, you resort to ever more silly analogies.

Do you have a reading disorder, Ted? I've explained myself quite clearly, and you still don't get it? Wow. I even offered some background context in post #16 that I had originally mistakenly assumed that others would have been aware of. How are you still not getting it?

The only actual aesthetic authoritarianism here is yours.

Uh-huh. The subtitle of this thread is "Hope for the future," as if the world is doomed if people prefer to listen to music that Alan (equality72521) has rated "in reality" to be "trash" and to be "disqualified as music," and I'm the aesthetic authoritarian! People need to be ambushed with the type of art that Alan prefers, for their own good, and for the good of mankind's future, and I'm the authoritarian for suggesting that such busy-bodies should mind their own business. Heh.

J

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/music.html

Uhh

Wide receever weezy

Throw da p-ssy at me

Ya p-ssy lips smilin

I make da p-ssy happy

Take your panties off

The p-ssy lookin at me

I'm the p-ssy monster

Now get the p-ssy ready

I like to kiss, she like to kiss

I deep stroke and make her bite her fist

More lyrics: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/l/lil_wayne/#share

Thank you Lil Wayne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Piss Christ is NOT art. Portraying Jesus giving a blow job is not art. I am no Christian, I think its a farce, but I will condemn anyone who pulls a stunt like that and calls it art.

There are style of music which I do not like, it is still music. There are some (very few) rap songs which are artistic. We are loosing our our culture, the internet has provided for the first time an alternative to the music industry who acts as a cultural dictator, the same with the movie studios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art is art and crap is crap but there is an awful lot of crappy art. The only way to objectify art is to put up a subjective standard. That's why an Objectivist esthetics is basically bogus even if interesting.

--Brant

There is nothing at all wrong with Rand's aesthetics so long as you keep in mind that she writes about fine art, not art or aesthetics in general, and that aesthetics in the broad and proper sense covers all optional values - i.e. all values outside politics and the purely utilitarian..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piss Christ is NOT art. Portraying Jesus giving a blow job is not art.

They're "selective re-creations of reality," and I can identify subjects and meanings in such artworks by identifying the evidence contained in the work, so, therefore, they are art according to Rand's definition and criteria.

The music that Rand liked, on the other hand, does not "re-create reality" and does not contain objectively identifiable subjects and meanings, since music lacks a "conceptual vocabulary," as Rand recognized. Music is therefore not art by her criteria, despite what she wanted to believe, at least not until someone discovers and identifies the elusive "conceptual vocabulary."

I am no Christian, I think its a farce, but I will condemn anyone who pulls a stunt like that and calls it art.

And is your condemnation supposed to have people shaking in their boots? Do you create anything, or are you expecting to save "our culture" by shouting louder than everyone else about the superiority of your tastes as a consumer? Do you have any degrees in sociology and music and/or the other arts, or is having read Ayn Rand the extent of your expertise and the sole source of your condemnatory powers?

There are style of music which I do not like, it is still music. There are some (very few) rap songs which are artistic.

Rap "employs the sounds produced by the periodic vibrations of a sonorous body, and evokes man’s sense-of-life emotions," and is therefore music by Rand's definition.

We are loosing our our culture, the internet has provided for the first time an alternative to the music industry who acts as a cultural dictator, the same with the movie studios.

Are you at all aware of the history of opera and classical music? Are you not aware of the fact that kings, emperors, popes and other arbiters of taste were literally cultural dictators who imposed their subjective aesthetic whims on composers who obeyed their commands and altered their music accordingly? Do you not realize that you are, in effect, fighting against Howard Roark's attitude of creative independence, and supporting Toohey and all of those who went along with him in demanding conformity to tradition notions of beauty?

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piss Christ is NOT art. Portraying Jesus giving a blow job is not art.

They're "selective re-creations of reality," and I can identify subjects and meanings in such artworks by identifying the evidence contained in the work, so, therefore, they are art according to Rand's definition and criteria.

The music that Rand liked, on the other hand, does not "re-create reality" and does not contain objectively identifiable subjects and meanings, since music lacks a "conceptual vocabulary," as Rand recognized. Music is therefore not art by her criteria, despite what she wanted to believe, at least not until someone discovers and identifies the elusive "conceptual vocabulary."

I am no Christian, I think its a farce, but I will condemn anyone who pulls a stunt like that and calls it art.

And is your condemnation supposed to have people shaking in their boots? Do you create anything, or are you expecting to save "our culture" by shouting louder than everyone else about the superiority of your tastes as a consumer? Do you have any degrees in sociology and music and/or the other arts, or is having read Ayn Rand the extent of your expertise and the sole source of your condemnatory powers?

There are style of music which I do not like, it is still music. There are some (very few) rap songs which are artistic.

Rap "employs the sounds produced by the periodic vibrations of a sonorous body, and evokes man's sense-of-life emotions," and is therefore music by Rand's definition.

We are loosing our our culture, the internet has provided for the first time an alternative to the music industry who acts as a cultural dictator, the same with the movie studios.

Are you at all aware of the history of opera and classical music? Are you not aware of the fact that kings, emperors, popes and other arbiters of taste were literally cultural dictators who imposed their subjective aesthetic whims on composers who obeyed their commands and altered their music accordingly? Do you not realize that you are, in effect, fighting against Howard Roark's attitude of creative independence, and supporting Toohey and all of those who went along with him in demanding conformity to tradition notions of beauty?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we supposed to guess at what you think of the Buckcherry song?

If so, my guess would be that you don't like it, and that your not liking it is somehow to be taken as proof that it (as well as all music that you'd put in the same genre) is "objectively inferior" to the music that you like. And anyone who disagrees with your tastes, interpretations and opinions must be morally and/or psychologically deficient and therefore in need of receiving your aesthetic guidance by being ambushed in malls with performances of excerpts of music that you do like. Is that about the gist of it?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now