OT: Crazy Programming

[Patrick]

"Gonçalo Rodrigues" <op73418 at mail.telepac.pt> wrote in message
news:fufaeu882e9qv3eh7h2m2obhqk3s33n64d at 4ax.com...

> This type of reasoning is common in many schools of literary criticism.
> e.g. The supposed aesthetic supremacy of a given author, say
> Shakespeare, is more a product of historical conditions than anything
> else.

Please listen. You have not understood me. You have chosen to set me up as a
platform on which to defend Shakespeare against some imagined evangelist of
popular culture who believes that Kylie Minogue is in every way the artistic
equal of Shakespeare, but is only consigned to the lowly status of "pop
artist" by an "aristocratic", "elitist" intellectual establishment. But, get
off the high horse for a minute Goncalo. Whoever you're talking to, it is
not me.

Historical conditions *do* contribute to the perceived aesthetic value of
works of art. Van Gogh died a pauper, his works appreciated by virtually
nobody. The impressionists banded together as a "movement" only because
their works were scorned by the establishment. And (some of) their works
were, and remain, *beautiful*.

Historical conditions, particularly the tastes of the "elite", play an
enormous role in the popular appreciation of "quality". Before you shoot me
down as another crass socialist revolutionary (again!), please consider that
I'm using the word "elite" in a positive sense. Because anything that is of
exceptional merit is itself "elite" (is rare, rarefied, and usually somewhat
strange), and relies on an "elite" to pass it down to future generations,
and to teach future generations _how_ to appreciate it.

I suspect there is a philosophical issue that will prevent us from
understanding each other. I'll try to clear it up from my perspective.

If historical conditions (and not just historical conditions but social
conditions, demographics, geography, etc) have _any_ effect on the perceived
aesthetic value of a work of art, it implies that the "quality" of this work
of art is not entirely intrinsic. But now I'm gonna shout this because you
don't seem to want to grant me the subtlely of mind to understand this: THIS
DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THERE IS NO *INTRINSIC* VALUE IN IT! The intrinsic
quality, whatever it is, is what makes it more likely to be universally
appreciated (like Shakespeare) by those who have not necessarily been raised
in the culture / fashion / political social climate from which it emerged.
Or perhaps there really *is* some kind of Platonic essence of "good". I
don't know. (The fact that people from all times and places have actively
ranked and valued various things - and not just for their trade value - does
tend to suggest this).

> In other words, any supposed aesthetic supremacy is more of a
> diktat than anything else, and the literary critics that disagree have
> their visions distorted.

Wasn't it enough to use the loaded "diktat"? Did you really have to assign
it "more" value than "anything else"?

FWIW, I know that this is a common view. But again, it is not mine.

> I disagree profoundly with this. But, and even
> more importantly, and looking at the Shakespeare case, the fact that he
> is read, studied and represented everywhere, that sucessive generations
> have hailed him as a genius, that the best authors since Shakespeare
> inspire themselves, directly or indirectly, in him, is for me proof
> enough of Shakespeare's supremacy.
>
> Of course if you tell me that this is all complete bull, and that the
> real story lies in some of elitistic/aristocratic conspiracy, then I
> will not even bother to refute you.

By all means "refute" me if you feel it necessary. But please make sure
you're refuting *me*, not an imaginary opponent whose views are not mine. I
don't have the time or inclination to disavow that imaginary person's views
a second time.