This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think the elitism was so different in earlier centuries. It was still elites trying to impress elites. They didn't ask for the opinions of the serfs and peasants whether they like the Baroque style better than the Renaissance style, or whether Gothic is an improvement over Romanesque. It just so happens that the metagame was at a place where making stuff beautiful was the right costly signal to use. But it was still about whatever is hot right now in Italy and other fancy trendsetting places, so commissioning similar stuff in your town meant being worldly and connected and a proper insider. Now, with machines and easy manufacturing, the meta has moved to a sophisticated understanding of nuance and implications and appreciating non-obvious context, which can mark you as being in the conversation.
Regular people did their own folk art in parallel to this, which got brought into the mainstream with Romanticism but the taste of the average nobody was never seen as all that important.
I don't think the elitism was extremely different in earlier centuries either. Elitism is pretty much a constant and the difference is just that status has shifted from "signalling wealth" to "signalling taste" (and the time and wealth necessary to develop said taste). The difference here is, as you mention, that the metagame was at a different place back then which would have brought it more in line with your average person's aesthetic preferences, and it is understandable that the things elites venerate end up being far more controversial when what they do starts significantly diverging from the preferences of the masses.
The more the public disagrees with the elites, the less justifiable the elitism is going to seem. And currently the elites are becoming increasingly incomprehensible to the average member of the public. I don't believe that your average member of the laity would have considered the murals in their local cathedral or temple to be ugly, but I certainly do believe that most people think the mural in Toronto's Union Station is ugly.
Okay, but beauty was never the goal of it, it's not failing at being beautiful, it's just playing a different game entirely. And the posted picture is the most ugly part, the rest are somewhat more colorful. You can read about it here: https://stuartreid.ca/zones-of-immersion
Making a space pretty, like putting up some nice flowers, is kind of pedestrian and kitschy for the in-crowd. They want to make a statement about the grim reality of having to take the subway day after day in this daily grind. A social statement, a critique of society. The purpose was never to brighten people's day. It's to draw their attention to the grim reality and I guess to spark the activist fire in their hearts or something?
I was in Toronto two years ago and actually gazed upon at the whole mural in person, it covers the length of the visible tube and I thought it was all terrible (the posted picture actually isn't the most ugly part in my opinion); in addition I also had a look at the artist's page right after since I wanted to see what was up with the mural after being confronted with it on the subway.
And yes, I agree it's playing a different game entirely. A non-trivial amount of contemporary art isn't playing at being beautiful and this one certainly isn't; it is indeed very successful at inducing misery and in that sense the goal was achieved. But as evidenced by the comments, it completely conflicts with what the public wants for themselves on their morning commute, thus the radical feeling of disconnection from the public I mentioned in my prior post.
Right, the question is, what's the role of the elite towards the masses? Should they simply satisfy all their desires, or should they try to shape them and educate them and "raise them" like a parent raises a child? The classic liberal/libertarian democratic view would be that the "masses" consist of knowledgeable units of citizens who have well-thought out positions and beliefs and attitudes and they should be able to exert this authentic will and the "elites" should just be administrative managers who make this will manifest. The more classical, traditional way is that the elite should help civilize the masses, moderate their excesses, keep them in check, set them good examples and bring out the better side of them. Even if your kid just wants to eat candy and not go to bed, you know better and don't entertain all their wishes.
Of course they don't want to express it this way, but performatively it's the best explanation.
The idea that the elites need to make the masses miserable "to spark the activist fire in their hearts" (presumably against the elites) borders on parody.
I'm not in favor of this and it's my outsider perspective trying to make sense of what their honest self-conception may be. As I understand, a lot of postmodern public-space art and architecture was designed to be ugly for this purpose. To deny normalness, to make people face the very non-normal guilty nature of western civilization. To awaken them to the crimes of the previous way of things, and to signify a discontinuity etc. And I'm likening this to a more general pattern where the elite tries to guide and educate the people.
It's one type of elite against another. The revolutionary leftist elite who have risen to the top of the prestige in academia and art and institutions etc. against the elite that embodies the patriarchy, oppression of minorities and capitalist exploitation.
My point was that what the revolutionary elite is doing is not all that different from classical elites at least in this high level analysis. Neither is about some kind of authentic majoritarian voice of the average people (they call catering to the base nature of the masses populism). Critical theorists have the concept of "false consciousness" that is a jolly joker to explain away any "wrong" opinion of the masses. "If only they were more educated, they would not wish it."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The authoritarian/libertarian debate is one that has raged on forever and seems unlikely to be resolved soon, and note I'm actually not fully unconvinced of the more classical auth position. And I'm certain they view themselves as educating the public. But an argument for denying the public their preferences with regards to art would actually need to include some convincing case that what is currently being provided like Zones of Immersion carries overall positive utility (I suppose Stuart Reid would say it raises awareness of the current social state of atomisation and isolation), whereas I would say that message is not being picked up by the public, or if it is, it's being received with annoyance and dismissal, and as such its existence is mildly negative utility-wise. I'd say many modern art installations are similarly net negative utility.
In order to "benefit the public through art" and "civilise the masses", you don't need to always fully cater to the public, but you need it to connect with them in a somewhat productive manner or the message will be lost. For a far more successful example of this, Mexican muralism is right there; these pieces of public art were meant to promote national identity and revolutionary ideals. Whether I agree with all of those ideals is another matter, I would say they largely succeeded at getting the message through to a receptive public, and there is a certain populist quality to that entire movement that makes it easy to engage with on the intended level. The aspects of modern art that allow it to be a vehicle for signalling taste is the very thing that disqualifies it as being an effective tool for social improvement. It just has too many hoe scaring qualities.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link