Australian Politics Forum

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Roger Scruton
Reply #60 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 4:28pm

Grey wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 4:06pm:

So Dante for the written, Michelangelo for visual and who for music Soren? Is it to be Bach or Mozart? Does the term 'cultural desert' ever come to mind?

I think you examplify very well just the kind of peole who discard Dante, Michelangelo, Bach (to you each is just a roadsign in your theory of resentment) because you do not understand them. You have never had the ability or interest or personal qualities to apply yourself sufficiently to anything that requires effort. You resent high art because it is not available to the lazy and inattentive.

To you only the junk food of the mind is demotic enough because only that requirs no effort on your part whatsoever and you can grasp it just as it hits you between the eyes with its stupendous banality. Pop culture is for the lazy and the stupid. It's for you.

All you can do with Dante and Bach is grimace at them because to you they are otherwise unttainable. They call you to give up lazyness and stupidity, but you'd rather give up Dante and Bach and side with the wanky artificial semen in a condom around Emin's unmade bed which is fake art for fake people.

Back to top

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Roger Scruton
Reply #61 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 4:32pm

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 4:28pm:

Grey wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 4:06pm:

So Dante for the written, Michelangelo for visual and who for music Soren? Is it to be Bach or Mozart? Does the term 'cultural desert' ever come to mind?

I think you examplify very well just the kind of peole who discard Dante, Michelangelo, Bach (to you each is just a roadsign in your theory of resentment) because you do not understand them. You have never had the ability or interest or personal qualities to apply yourself sufficiently to anything that requires effort. You resent high art because it is not available to the lazy and inattentive.

To you only the junk food of the mind is demotic enough because only that requirs no effort on your part whatsoever and you can grasp it just as it hits you between the eyes with its stupendous banality. Pop culture is for the lazy and the stupid. It's for you.

All you can do with Dante and Bach is grimace at them because to you they are otherwise unttainable. They call you to give up lazyness and stupidity, but you'd rather give up Dante and Bach and side with the wanky artificial semen in a condom around Emin's unmade bed which is fake art for fake people.

How's that for a bit of Welsh Chapel ! Grin

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

Annie Anthrax Gold Member Offline Take the plan, spin it sideways Posts: 7057 Gender:	Re: Roger Scruton Reply #62 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 4:47pm Soren, you are missing out on a lot.
Back to top	I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway. IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Roger Scruton Reply #63 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 5:24pm Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 4:47pm: Soren, you are missing out on a lot. No time for shite if you live only once.
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Roger Scruton
Reply #64 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 5:26pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 4:32pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 4:28pm:

Grey wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 4:06pm:

So Dante for the written, Michelangelo for visual and who for music Soren? Is it to be Bach or Mozart? Does the term 'cultural desert' ever come to mind?

I think you examplify very well just the kind of peole who discard Dante, Michelangelo, Bach (to you each is just a roadsign in your theory of resentment) because you do not understand them. You have never had the ability or interest or personal qualities to apply yourself sufficiently to anything that requires effort. You resent high art because it is not available to the lazy and inattentive.

To you only the junk food of the mind is demotic enough because only that requirs no effort on your part whatsoever and you can grasp it just as it hits you between the eyes with its stupendous banality. Pop culture is for the lazy and the stupid. It's for you.

All you can do with Dante and Bach is grimace at them because to you they are otherwise unttainable. They call you to give up lazyness and stupidity, but you'd rather give up Dante and Bach and side with the wanky artificial semen in a condom around Emin's unmade bed which is fake art for fake people.

How's that for a bit of Welsh Chapel ! Grin

You are Irish. You are not in a position to crack this kind of lame-o joke.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 19^th, 2011 at 7:00pm by Soren »

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Roger Scruton
Reply #65 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 6:51pm

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 4:28pm:

Grey wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 4:06pm:

So Dante for the written, Michelangelo for visual and who for music Soren? Is it to be Bach or Mozart? Does the term 'cultural desert' ever come to mind?

I think you examplify very well just the kind of peole who discard Dante, Michelangelo, Bach (to you each is just a roadsign in your theory of resentment) because you do not understand them. You have never had the ability or interest or personal qualities to apply yourself sufficiently to anything that requires effort. You resent high art because it is not available to the lazy and inattentive.

To you only the junk food of the mind is demotic enough because only that requirs no effort on your part whatsoever and you can grasp it just as it hits you between the eyes with its stupendous banality. Pop culture is for the lazy and the stupid. It's for you.

All you can do with Dante and Bach is grimace at them because to you they are otherwise unttainable. They call you to give up lazyness and stupidity, but you'd rather give up Dante and Bach and side with the wanky artificial semen in a condom around Emin's unmade bed which is fake art for fake people.

Except that I do not discard them. They are the begining, well..not really, perhaps the apogee of classical art. But what is to understand? They are all skilled craftsmen who had patience, dedication and feeling for their material and subject. Beautiful, beautiful, very very, beautiful. Taxing? Not Really.

You keep saying the same things Soren. With no regard for what others have said. Just more turgid prose feebly trying to bolster your lack bank. It is you that discards, anything, (and apparently everything) that falls outside your own limited view.

Dante, Michelangelo, Bach call me to appreciate art, to engage with it, to open my eyes to the beauty of this jewel Earth. And along the way to lament, to be angry, to defy the dominant paradigm that destroys beauty at wholesale prices. The most beautiful irises are not monet's or Van Goph's they are the originals I have in my pond.

Art must be relevant to the times. The pastoral optimism of the enlightenment had to give way to the questioning rising panic of modernity. it was inevitable and artists wouldn't matter if they didn't take the vanguard position in the questioning of the prime subject, us.

And it is absolutely right that the 'how do we control this new power?' of modernity, became the 'we cannot, we must try anything and accept what works' of post-modernity.

And of course a lot of junk gets produced. It was ever thus. We must discern, and hope it's the cream that rises to the top of the milk and not the scum that rise to the top of the stew, as it is in the commercial world.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Roger Scruton
Reply #66 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 7:08pm

Grey wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 6:51pm:

Art must be relevant to the times.

Right there is the massive fallacy and the root of our (yours, helian's annie's vs me) differences. To be merely up to date and relevant is what Chesterton characterised as keeping up with fashion (running after one's hat). The precise point of art, literature, philosophy and theology is NOT to be a slave to the (fashionable) thought and reflexes of the times.

Back to top

IP Logged

Annie Anthrax Gold Member Offline Take the plan, spin it sideways Posts: 7057 Gender:	Re: Roger Scruton Reply #67 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 7:20pm You are a very stubborn man. I can't recall you ever backing down on anything - even when you're clearly wrong. It's fascinating. You're like another species.
Back to top	I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway. IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Roger Scruton
Reply #68 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 8:11pm

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 7:20pm:

You are a very stubborn man. I can't recall you ever backing down on anything - even when you're clearly wrong. It's fascinating.

You're like another species.

When/how/where/why was I wrong in this discussion?
Is there a common ground from which you can assert that I am wrong?

Or are you just blowing bubbles? Again.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Roger Scruton
Reply #69 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 8:20pm

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 7:08pm:

Grey wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 6:51pm:

Art must be relevant to the times.

Right there is the massive fallacy and the root of our (yours, helian's annie's vs me) differences. To be merely up to date and relevant is what Chesterton characterised as keeping up with fashion (running after one's hat). The precise point of art, literature, philosophy and theology is NOT to be a slave to the (fashionable) thought and reflexes of the times.

Art ought to question the dominant thoughts, but it ought to also be relevant to it. Are you SURE you want to say that, 'art should not only be confined to producing beauty, but must also be irelevant' ?

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Annie Anthrax

Gold Member

Offline

Take the plan, spin it
sideways

Posts: 7057
Gender: female

Re: Roger Scruton
Reply #70 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 8:35pm

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 8:11pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 7:20pm:

You are a very stubborn man. I can't recall you ever backing down on anything - even when you're clearly wrong. It's fascinating.

You're like another species.

When/how/where/why was I wrong in this discussion?
Is there a common ground from which you can assert that I am wrong?

Or are you just blowing bubbles? Again.

I did not say you were wrong in this particular discussion. In fact, I think you got it very right a few pages back when you were talking about the artistic elite.

You are stubborn because you are unwilling to have an open mind. You are certain that Grey and Helian and I have inferior taste because we appreciate different kinds of art. You seem to think an appreciation of Bukowski equates to an inability to understand the genius of Dante. Or that a love of rock is incompatible with a love of Gorecki.

A narrower view doesn't mean finer taste.

Are you creative yourself?

Back to top

I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Roger Scruton
Reply #71 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 9:13pm

Grey wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 8:20pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 7:08pm:

Grey wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 6:51pm:

Art must be relevant to the times.

Right there is the massive fallacy and the root of our (yours, helian's annie's vs me) differences. To be merely up to date and relevant is what Chesterton characterised as keeping up with fashion (running after one's hat). The precise point of art, literature, philosophy and theology is NOT to be a slave to the (fashionable) thought and reflexes of the times.

Art ought to question the dominant thoughts, but it ought to also be relevant to it. Are you SURE you want to say that, 'art should not only be confined to producing beauty, but must also be irelevant' ?

It is most narrow minded to see everything politically - "dominant thought'.

It is a monomania.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Roger Scruton
Reply #72 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 9:23pm

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 8:35pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 8:11pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 7:20pm:

You are a very stubborn man. I can't recall you ever backing down on anything - even when you're clearly wrong. It's fascinating.

You're like another species.

When/how/where/why was I wrong in this discussion?
Is there a common ground from which you can assert that I am wrong?

Or are you just blowing bubbles? Again.

I did not say you were wrong in this particular discussion. In fact, I think you got it very right a few pages back when you were talking about the artistic elite.

You are stubborn because you are unwilling to have an open mind. You are certain that Grey and Helian and I have inferior taste because we appreciate different kinds of art. You seem to think an appreciation of Bukowski equates to an inability to understand the genius of Dante. Or that a love of rock is incompatible with a love of Gorecki.

A narrower view doesn't mean finer taste.

Are you creative yourself?

This is not what I think. You are speaking with the assumption of equivalence - you can appreciate Dante and Bukowski equally.
Not so.
In my view there is a hierarchy of values and tastes, art, expression and perception and so on. You can appreciate Bukowski as long as you realise that Dante is better than Bukowski. The moment you say that Dante, Bach, Goethe, Beethoven, Rembrand is no better than Bukowski, Emin, Eminem, pop music and all that junk-for-your-mind crap, you are talking, well, crap.

To tell the difference is to perceive a hierarchy. To see that one thing is better than another is to rank in order of value. Choosing the best is elitism. Embrace it. We all live it anyway, why repudiate it?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 19^th, 2011 at 9:28pm by Soren »

IP Logged

Annie Anthrax

Gold Member

Offline

Take the plan, spin it
sideways

Posts: 7057
Gender: female

Re: Roger Scruton
Reply #73 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 9:35pm

Quote:

In my view there is a hierarchy of values and tastes, art, expression and perception and so on. You can appreciate Bukowski as long as you realise that Dante is better than Bukowski. The moment you say that Dante, Bach, Goethe, Beethoven, Rembrand is no better than Bukowski, Emin, pop music

Hold on to your hat, Mr Soren. We may be in agreement, on this part at least.

And I think you'll find that Bukowski would have been the first to admit he was no Dante or Blake.

Back to top

I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96575	Re: Roger Scruton Reply #74 - Nov 19^th, 2011 at 10:26pm Dante is better than Bukowski? Has anyone actually read Dante? Postmodern nonsense.
Back to top	IP Logged