OT: Crazy Programming

[Gonçalo Rodrigues]

On Sat, 18 May 2002 13:13:30 +1000, "Patrick" <postmisc at yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"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.

I did understood you, I just may have not expressed myself correctly. My
protest was against an unguarded use of arguments like, and I quote from
you again:

>It's possible that this consensus emerges as a result of training, 
>rather than as a result of any quality inherent in the wine.

And then I raised an example of the very bad effects that this leads to,
e.g. in literary criticism, where aesthetics is replaced by ideology. In
particular I did not chose you as a rampart for any supposed crusade to
defend Shakespeare. He was just an example and, anyway, he hardly needs
my defense.

>
>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*.

I use the term "Historical conditions" in a slightly different sense. 

>
>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.

First, I will not shoot you down. Only revolutionaries shoot each other
down <wink>.

Second, the difference between "perceived aestethic value" and
"aesthetic value" de facto. My experience in literature as well as in
life tells me that "aesthetic value" is an effective reality and not
just a diktat (I confess I love this word) from a self-appointed
enlightened elite. Where historical conditions enter in the "perceived
aesthetic value" is what I would simply call "fashion".

Third, to repeat myself and to keep the record straight, I also
contended that there is no objective proof of this "aesthetic reality",
If by objective proof we mean, as I do, proofs as in Physics.

>
>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.

Glad do hear <wink>

>
>> 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.
>

Best regards,
Gonçalo Rodrigues