Debuts and Hype

[Xray the Enforcer]

[quote name='Dark Wolf' post='1371852' date='May 27 2008, 04.21']And speaking of music examples, I think that older musicians even better is the new music. Today after one year we tend to forget the "hot release" of the previous year, but we never forget songs or groups much older, like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Queen etc.[/quote]

"What you mean 'we,' white man?" Music did not end when John Bonham died. In fact, that's when it started getting interesting.

[Dark Wolf]

[quote name='Xray the Enforcer' post='1371920' date='May 27 2008, 14.41']"What you mean 'we,' white man?" Music did not end when John Bonham died. In fact, that's when it started getting interesting.[/quote]

"We" is meant as a general notion, doesn't mean anything more than that. And I know that music didn't end when John Bonham died, it ended when Bon Scott died :).
I meant that today it's more difficult to find very good songs. And even some groups I like don't make music like that used to, and I mean here Helloween or Manowar for example.

[Dinsdale!]

Dark Wolf:

We're never going to forget Raphaello or Botticelli as artists, but if they produced their stuff now, we wouldn't give it a second look, because it just isn`t up to modern standards. Similarly, I suspect there is a lot of good music produced these days. I'm practically tone deaf, so I won't speak further

To the general point:

Some stuff that is really liked now, is liked now because it is particularly relevant, in the moment, [i]now[/i]. There's plenty of stuff that was plenty good when it was produced, but unless your a specialist of no interest.

[Dark Wolf]

[quote name='Dinsdale!' post='1372029' date='May 27 2008, 16.09']Dark Wolf:

We're never going to forget Raphaello or Botticelli as artists, but if they produced their stuff now, we wouldn't give it a second look, because it just isn`t up to modern standards. Similarly, I suspect there is a lot of good music produced these days. I'm practically tone deaf, so I won't speak further[/quote]

I sound kind of conservatory, don't I? :)

[Shryke]

[quote name='Dark Wolf' post='1371852' date='May 27 2008, 03.21']And speaking of music examples, I think that older musicians even better is the new music. Today after one year we tend to forget the "hot release" of the previous year, but we never forget songs or groups much older, like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Queen etc. Same goes for books too. After the initial hype what happened with Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code", for example?[/quote]

YOU may tend to forget the "hot release" of the previous years, but that's cause you were never listening in the first place. There's TONS of great music being made right now.

Led Zepplin/Pink Floyd/Queen/etc are not the pinnacle of music.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1372082' date='May 27 2008, 08.53']YOU may tend to forget the "hot release" of the previous years, but that's cause you were never listening in the first place. There's TONS of great music being made right now.[/quote]

*firm nod*
Yea verily, even in the microcosm of power metal. (no, not Dragonforce. ;) )

[Lord of Oop North]

[quote name='Dark Wolf' post='1372023' date='May 27 2008, 08.01']"We" is meant as a general notion, doesn't mean anything more than that. And I know that music didn't end when John Bonham died, it ended when Bon Scott died :).
[b]I meant that today it's more difficult to find very good song[/b]s. And even some groups I like don't make music like that used to, and I mean here Helloween or Manowar for example.[/quote]

Totally subjective, sorry. Just like all these lamentations about the over-reverence of the 'new' over the 'old'. I walk into a record store, or a book store, or a movie store, and I still see plenty of old material. In fact, it seems to outnumber the new material. Weird, eh? What about if I walk into a high school? I guarantee you they will be learning about Jane Austen or Shakespeare, not Abercrombie or Bakker. Same with any University 'english' class. Obviously the 'cult of the new' seems to be a huge force, but that is just marketing. Publishers push the 'latest and the greatest' not necessarily because that's true, but due to the fact that they want to sell you a new book.

One hundred and fifty years ago, Dickens' publishers was snapping his ass in order to pump out the latest hit novel. Things haven't changed.

edit: spelling.

[Caligula_K]

[quote name='Dark Wolf' post='1372023' date='May 27 2008, 09.01']"We" is meant as a general notion, doesn't mean anything more than that. And I know that music didn't end when John Bonham died, it ended when Bon Scott died :).
I meant that today it's more difficult to find very good songs. And even some groups I like don't make music like that used to, and I mean here Helloween or Manowar for example.[/quote]

This is simply not true. Its perfectly easy to find very good songs these days; it just takes a little bit of effort and research. Go to any metal message board and you'll find tons of excellent newer bands to enjoy (and while the new Manowar CD does suck, the latest Helloween is their best in about 20 years). There's nothing that makes old things automatically better than new things,

[Arthmail]

I can see where Dylan Fanatic is coming from, however. He is touching upon a larger socioecnomic issue, that of mass consumerism. And it is relevant to his original post. The dumbing down of language is really the dumbing down of society. Its apparant in what we see around us. The newest flash and fade, while it does not replace the old, creates a generation that is is more dependant on such things. Its really not something that one can deny, and while there will be exceptions, one only has to look at what is going on now to see what the TRENDS are.

For instance, texting and emailing. Both will, to some extent, dumb down language pretty drastically. I think for those of us that straddle the two generations between not having it for most of our lives, and being incapable of living without it for at least the last five years, its not a big deal. But have people honestly looked at what its doing to the next generation? Now i am not saying all of them, but i am saying ALOT of them. DF mentioned the trouble his students had with Poe, i know that aside from Shakespeare, a great deal of such books that were part of regular school teachings are no longer being taught.

Though i do not have the educational focus that DF does, one only has to look around to see his point. My brother, as i have mentioned, and his generation, are an example of this. It is not that they are not smart, far from it. But they don't care. Perhaps in time, with age and experience, things change and they grow to question more and learn more. But the focus is turning away from learning, in many ways, and focusing on consumerism.

And not to be a conspiracy theorist, but in many ways thats the intent. Intelligent, reasoning people will often consider their purchases. They will look first at what will better themselves, rather than what will entertain them for a short time. Advertising is meant to keep you lost in the product purchases, to overwhelm you with the newest and the greatest.

This extends, as well, into the realms of books. Now, personally, i see any reading as a good thing. If a person reads books about how to play better Poker, its a start. And part of it as as Lord of the oop North (sp?), that we are jamming a hatred for reading down some kids throats.

But overall the nature of language is changing. Its not just a matter of, well, they spoke better in other eras. I don't believe that. But i do believe that they were better educated in many ways. Better educated in terms of what they had read, with a broader base of literary knowledge. One can see this even in the university level focuses. The arts are not in decline, but they are certainly not on the ascendence. As a person with a major in Political Science, minor in history, i know where the money is at...and it sure as hell is not there. Business, some of the sciences, math, engineering see a great deal of money flow through their front doors. I went to the University of Alberta, where the Tory Building (history, political science, arts in general) was taught. It was attached by an atrium to the business building. The dichotomy between the two is pretty severe. I always thought that i was going to get carded for using the business building bathroom: "I'm sorry sir, you can't shit here. Our fecal matter smells like money. Yours smells like mold."

Now, admittidly, there is more money to be made in some areas. But society was built on the arts, everything of worth is built upon it. And there is a societal shift, in many ways, away from it. It is not as apparant in our generation, but in the next, i believe it is. So, to finish this rant, i guess i mostly agree with DF.

[Dark Wolf]

[quote name='Brahm_K' post='1372247' date='May 27 2008, 18.54']This is simply not true. Its perfectly easy to find very good songs these days; it just takes a little bit of effort and research. Go to any metal message board and you'll find tons of excellent newer bands to enjoy (and while the new Manowar CD does suck, the latest Helloween is their best in about 20 years). There's nothing that makes old things automatically better than new things,[/quote]

I didn't say that old things make automatically good things. Just in my conservatory opinion (yes I know I'm conservative :)) I like more the old ones. And being human I'm directly influenced by subjectivism.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[quote name='Dark Wolf' post='1372023' date='May 27 2008, 09.01']I meant that today it's more difficult to find very good songs. And even some groups I like don't make music like that used to, and I mean here Helloween or Manowar for example.[/quote]

Also, join us in [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=19795"]the metal thread[/url]! :)

[Zoë Sumra]

The music example of cultural change - IMO - is only apt in a certain way.

My tastes in pop music solely run to rock, soft metal and the like, because that was the sound I listened to - both consciously and subconsciously, as part of society's soundtrack in shops and on TV - during the 1980s while I was growing up. I don't like modern pop, hip-hop, rap etc. because I didn't grow up with them so I'm not accustomed to the particular conventions of the forms. There are a lot of modern bands I like, Evanescence being the first to come to mind, but they are the ones that echo the sound of my youth.

Books have a longer shelf life, partly due to the length of time they take to produce and consume and partly due to the lifespan of a physical as opposed to an aural product, but they are still subject to trends - both linguistic and thematic (for the latter, consider the recent trend for "gritty fantasy").

Cultural trends are a good thing. They are one mechanism that stops society from stagnating. I think that with books in particular (as we're on a book board :) ) we need to take an older book in context of the trends at the time in which it was created, and also - as DW and DF have exemplified - to accept that people are generally going to prefer things done in the style with which they became familiar at a particular time in their lives.

Linguistic standards are subject to the same gentle drift, and I believe we need to separate changes in style of language used from changes in the level of prescriptiveness from a (perceived or actual) decline in people's awareness of English. Thirty or forty years ago, for instance, "into" wasn't a word under any circumstances - it was always "in to". Nowadays this is not the case. Except when consciously attempting to write slang I'm hyper-alert with my English grammar, but that doesn't extend to "any more" - 90% of the time, I write "anymore" instead. The former is the correct usage, but I'd be willing to bet that the combined word will be acceptable in a dozen years or fewer. On this topic, a recent UK survey showed that young texters show a clear awareness of when textspeak is acceptable and when it isn't.

(gets off Soapbox of the Obvious)

[salinea]

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1372267' date='May 27 2008, 18.07']Its apparant in what we see around us.[/quote]
No, it's not.

[quote]Its really not something that one can deny[/quote]
Yes, it is.

[quote]For instance, texting and emailing. Both will, to some extent, dumb down language pretty drastically.[/quote]
Oh, please!

[quote]But the focus is turning away from learning, in many ways, and focusing on consumerism.[/quote]
There used to be a focus on learning? When was this hallowed age? :huh:

[quote]Intelligent, reasoning people will often consider their purchases. They will look first at what will better themselves, rather than what will entertain them for a short time.[/quote]
Okay. So pop culture, genre literature, pulps and the like are a new invention. Riiiiiiiiight.

[quote]Better educated in terms of what they had read, with a broader base of literary knowledge.[/quote]
Yes, they read more white males literature. More things that were the same. Now they have more choice. More choices in media, as well. Not only literature, but movies, TV shows etc. But as you mention they are smart. People are getting literate in those formats and doing things with them. Participatory culture is one of the fascinating subject in terms of creation and co creation of cultural products that didn't use to exist before. That's a positive thing IMHO. If there's one thing you can trust humans is for them to do culture out of anything.

[quote]As a person with a major in Political Science, minor in history, i know where the money is at...and it sure as hell is not there. Business, some of the sciences, math, engineering see a great deal of money flow through their front doors.[/quote]
And that's new? The specific might change, but art & literature were never realms of pure thoughts blessed with the money to focus on pure research and intellectual fun. The world today isn't any more corrupted than it used to be.

[quote]Now, admittidly, there is more money to be made in some areas. But society was built on the arts, everything of worth is built upon it.[/quote]
Are you serious? "Society is built on the arts"? Since when?

[quote]And there is a societal shift, in many ways, away from it.[/quote]
If anything, society is currently more focussed of the consumption of artistic and cultural products now than it has ever been. That's part of what "entertainment society" means. However it is true that for the last century or so, the professionalising of artistic production means that less people product art as amateurs, which used to be something integral to popular culture. I think the putting old, hallowed artistic products, "classics", on a piedestal was one of the thing which participated to that, so moving away from this culture of "old" worship is a good thing. Again, I believe with the internet, we're getting back to a day were artistic production and sharing is done also by amateurs. Well, if copyrights holder don't get too much on the way, that is.

[Lord of Oop North]

[quote]Imagine if the future readers will not give a chance to the present novels just because the works doesn't fit their era. They will miss a hole lot of good stuff.[/quote]

I still don't think this is happening, but I'll humour your supposition. No one is denying anyone the chance to read the novels of the past. Every single element of education within our society encourages the reading, analysis, and reverence of the classics. This is unlikely to change. Standards may fall, but they will eventually rise. If the readers of tomorrow don't want to read Bronte, for whatever reason, then so be it. It doesn't mean that all the writings of Bronte will be burned and forgotten about. Her writings will always be there. If people find that they love her, then they will read her. Art should be about enjoyment, first and foremost. I'll admit it, I hate Dickens. Does that make my opinions on literature any less valid? Does that mean I have created discontinuities with my past? Perhaps that past doesn't represent me.

I'd love it if everyone would study the roots of rock n' roll, so that they can see what their modern music is founded upon, but that is never going to happen. You can't force art upon someone. It is too subjective for that. It needs to be relevant to them, otherwise they aren't going to give a shit about it. The choice of what to be embraced should be determined by the population at large, not by the minority who deems certain authors to be relevant and worthy of study. I may not like romance novels, and I may even say they are 'stupid', but that doesn't mean jack-shit. Who am I to say they are dumb, irrelevant, and not part of our grandiose cultural tradition? If people enjoy them, and it entertains them, then that is great. THAT is what art is about, and what it has [i]always[/i] been about.

Heck, since most of the world used to be illiterate, this is exactly what music is. The literature that has been handed down to us was the culture of the [i]privileged[/i], and was imposed on the rest. It never really represented the cultural tradition of the common man. It only came to be seen as the cultural tradition of the masses because they participate in the school system that was created by the privileged. The explosion of modern music was the first real time that the culture of the common man was made available to the mass market. Is that culture wrong because it does not revere the old? The old cultural traditions did not represent them, so they turned to something else. That's reality, and is a cycle that has continued for [i]centuries.[/i]

Maybe they'll miss some good stuff, but they might not. The opportunity is not being denied to them. They may even find some stuff that they like better.

[quote]The dumbing down of language is really the dumbing down of society.[/quote]

Who are the few to determine what constitutes the classics, or the touchstones of good literature? Maybe they are the ones who are out of touch. Consumerism is not a new phenomenon. There was no enlightened age of pure learning, when we all engaged in a grand wankfest to hallowed literary themes. People speak of the 'dumbing down of language', but I ask what is that relative to? For the [u]majority[/u], the language of the past was much simpler. If you think otherwise, then I believe you are a little out of touch with reality. Go speak to any uneducated person, anywhere in the world. I guarantee you they will not be using some comprehensive Victorian vocabulary.

---

In the end, does it really matter? Not really. I will like a certain genre, and you will like a certain genre. It doesn't make my choice any less valid than your choice. Embracing the new doesn't mean I am overvaluing it. It's just what I like. The new is built upon the old, so that strikes me as sort of impossible. That's the great thing about this new age of rapid expansion. It is easier than ever before for an individual to discover art that they will enjoy. What the hell is wrong with that? More choice can only be a good thing.


ETA:

It probably seems like I am some huge classics hater, but that is not true. I may not be as educated as you, or even as well-read, but that doesn't mean I value the new at the expense of the old. I simply value what I enjoy. I have an extensive library of the so-called [i]classics[/i]. Shockingly, I have even read a few of them. Even more surprising is that the language of a simple commoner like me has actually improved over the last century. I mean, holy shit, crazy eh? We went from 90% of the people having no education, to the opposite, and we actually [i]improved[/i]. Isn't that hard to believe?

Suddenly, the population is able to make it's own choices about what art holds value to them, and they begin to desire new ideas. But wait a moment, they are forgetting their 'Cultural Traditions!', the traditions that have been handed down by the privileged and imposed as the culture of the majority! They can't do that! They are dumbing down the world!

Christ, that smacks of elitism.

/end rant

[Arthmail]

I think you're taking it wrong, Lord of Oop North. No one is speaking of elitism, though i mentioned it earlier and i admitted my mistake. It is not a matter of calling down other works, of deciding what is better. As i said, reading is reading.

But what is being discussed is a movement away from understanding what you yourself have recognized as the base of our literary tradition. Do things change, of course they do. I honestly could not handle reading books with the density of the Count of Monte Cristo all of the time, and i friggin love that book. I want change, i want dynamics.

But i also want to have the literary tradition respected. Of course, forcing it on people does nothing to help their love of reading. But ignoring it does nothing to help the situation either. At the end of the day, i think a person will read because they enjoy reading, or they won't. What they read in school will not determine that, it is the influences around them that will.

The dumbing down of language is a reflection of the society around it. If you can't see that to some extent, in movies and literature, in current affairs and what the next generation find important, then there is nothing that i can do to convince you. But i personally feel that being involved, being informed, takes place at so many different levels. It is literature, and math, and politics - it is understanding, to a great extent, the world around you. But as i mentioned, i am a history minor, so perhaps i am overly touchy on that subject.



Etrangere: Close your eyes if you want, but there seems to be people actually looking at the problem. DF, who seems fixated on it - i'll admit, i have only given this topic passing consideration in the past. For you to say its not obvious, or to refute my arguments by simply saying you don't see it, does nothing to make your argument more valid. I have tried to cite examples based on my own experiences with the next generation, all you have done is...what?

As for texting and emailing, there have been a number of articles and studies done on it, so you can probably keep your oh please to yourself. Its based on the idea that people are falling back less on grammer, and more on quick responses. No capitalization, etc. Now, at this stage it might not mean a great deal, but the more that one relies on it, the more language tends to shift in that direction. Or, at the least, that is the fear of some. I find it hard to disagree with them.

As for society being built on the arts, look it up before you deride it. Here, i'll list some out for you myself.

-Architecture - Drawing - Painting
-Arts and visual - Fashion - Poetry
-Crafts - Language - Sculpture
-Culinary - Literature - Theatre and performing arts
-Dance - Music
-Decorative art -Opera
-Design

Without any of these, whatever it is you are trying to defend does not exist. Without them we would still be living in the fucking trees. Cultures derived their history from the arts, from visual to oratory histories, until language and literature gave the means by which it could be communicated. Politics could not happen without language, a great deal of western political society of course being based off of the Greeks.

Did other things play a part, of course. Mathematics, engineering - they all did something. But the basis of modern civiliazation is the arts.

As has been stated before however, this is all going to be subjective to ones own personal opinion. When i say that one cannot deny it, subjectively speaking, from my view point its not something one can deny. Though you do deny it, thats fine, but keep your snide responses to yourself next time.

As for more white male literature, if you live in the west, you are looking at the traditions that formed the thinking that surrounds us right now. Does that mean other cultures, other societies, do not have works of worth? No, never. But when one considers that we are barely willing to look at our own historical literary tradition, why the hell would we begin teaching others? That is for people to expand into, and would certainly be something to even approach in schools to some extent. But as for this white male literature crap, well, western society - for good or ill - is derived a great deal from that. It is part of the history, and it makes no sense to me why we would ignore it.
- As an aside on this, despite the number of different ethnic groups that inhabit many nations, its simply impossible to teach the literary traditions of every society that inhabits them. There is a tendancy to teach what that society is derived from, though there are instances were it branches out, for the most part it focuses on why that group of people formed into what they are today. Even then, we don't touch down upon a great deal of what is actually out there. Though the vikings played their part in discovering North America, we don't go around studying the Icelandic Chronicles to get a better sense of them. Its simply impossible to be everything to everyone.


Edit: And i am not claiming that this is the end of the friggin world here, or even that, at the end of the day, it will lead to anything worse. But this is the fear that some have, and it is legitimate. There seems to be a great deal of derision going on here for what some people feel is very important - at least to them.

[Dinsdale!]

Lord of Oop North:

Literature is not a historically upper class medium. For a very long time, it was considered low-brow, and that includes a lot of works we now consider classic. High class art was music, in particular opera. The idea that music is the populist form

Even in the 1800's most books sold weren't the classics, but genre, most notably the Adventure genre, which eventually transformed itself into the Sci-Fi genre.

As far as language goes, I'm with George Orwell. He wrote an essay called [i]Politics and the English Language[/i]. You should read it. A lot of very educated people are awful writers, and many of them write for established outlets like the New York Times or the New Yorker. In academia bad writing is very common.

Arthmail:

I had a professor that dislikes SMS and email because they discourage our story-telling traditions. Whereas once information was composed and delivered in complex narratives, now information is disbursed in short bursts.

The history of the last 400 years is that of the accelerating interaction between science, technology and society. The principal distinction between previous epochs and ours is that technological advance and spread has occurred faster than social systems handle well.

You should not curse when making intricate arguments. It undermines your reasoning.

I find your inclusion of language as an art form as odd. I think your argument about art being the most important aspect of society/civilization rests upon this categorization, and I don't believe it is proper. Language or perhaps its better to say thinking through the medium of abstractions is a fundamental aspect of humanity. It is more basic than art.

[quote]As has been stated before however, this is all going to be subjective to ones own personal opinion. When i say that one cannot deny it, subjectively speaking, from my view point its not something one can deny.[/quote]

You should be careful. This sort of reasoning often leads to the enshrining of the thinker's arbitrary rationalizations as dogma. It's saying essentially, don't bother responding because I won't listen. Which makes me wonder why you bother arguing over it, if you view it as an issue, like which color is most awesome, for which consensus is impossible.

[Larry.]

Lots of replies since I last checked in! :o Umm...I'll just add a couple of points and reiterations/clarifications and probably call it a day/night:

1. While I can understand some taking my comment about "stripping down" a language as being congurent with "dumbing down," I was viewing it from a slightly different and perhaps even more pessimistic angle. Although it wasn't until last night, while I was reading Howard Zinn's [i]A People's History of American Empire[/i] (2008 graphic novel format) and its implicit focus on hegemony, that I realized that my thoughts were starting to shift in that direction. One who controls the discourse (and no, no explicit gender bias there, itself a major semantical shift, ruined perhaps by my referring back to it ;)) controls the imagination. Instead of "tao" or "dharma" being those je ne sais quoi expressions, what if it were to be those words that create a mental artwork with their broad palettes? Sidenote: I love the near-moribund English subjunctive. I fear it's going the way of the dodo, though.

2. Education is much more than of the formal type. It was odd, being more of a suburbanite than anything else, having to explain to a group of students recently how to tell the compass directions by sun and cloud movements. Things that most farmers would know without even thinking about it.

3. I'm pretty much a neo-Marxist (or Thompsonite, to be more precise) in my views regarding culture. That is going to color things quite a bit. While it has its flaws, that model for interpreting historical discourse is the most suitable one that I've worked with and thus it's going to influence my take on things.

4. I view mass consumerism as a parasitic entity in its final stages. But it's not a successful parasite, especially if it threatens to destroy its host.

5. When I refer to "culture," I'm referring to popular culture, specifically the pre-literate to working class cultures through to the post-lit culture emerging today. Literature is only the tip of the iceberg and I'm well-aware of its formerly-privileged status (and its potential to resume said status in a post-lit society).

6. I don't expect most to agree with me and wouldn't be surprised if some react vehemently. Wouldn't have it any other way :P

[salinea]

Arthmail,
I was overly aggressive in my last message, sorry for that. I still strongly disagree with what you say though.

If I made simple denials to your affirmations without backing them with anything more that was in order to underline the fact you were doing the same. You just said "this is a grave problem that cannot be denied!", you brought no actual hints of a real trends (I don't count anecdotal evidences as such!). Basically I thought your argument rested on the "kids those days!" attitude that any society can have at any given time. This is not enough. You're the one making arguments needing to be proven.

If there are articles and studies about emailing and texting as dumbing down the language, can you link me to them? The only things I saw on the subect were written from the Language Log (which I've already linked to earlier) and they were systematically mocking the issue.
My impression is that assuming that because people use abbreviation and bad grammar in specific places to communicate they lose the capacities to use the full potential of language in other places is extremely naive. I've used abbreviations in various places through my childhood myself (usually icq), despite this Literature and writing essays were my forte in school. Actually the places I used to be using abbreviation and bad grammar the most where while taking notes in classes, and I believe most children share this experience... but if people said that going to school was the place where they learned to dumb down language, they wouldn't be able to make the "kids these days!" arguments so well received :smoking:

[quote]Without any of these, whatever it is you are trying to defend does not exist. Without them we would still be living in the fucking trees. Cultures derived their history from the arts, from visual to oratory histories, until language and literature gave the means by which it could be communicated. Politics could not happen without language, a great deal of western political society of course being based off of the Greeks.[/quote]
You mistake me. I do believe that arts are a very big mart of what makes a culture. I just don't think that one day man discovered art and from there was able to go out of their state of nature and to build society - which was the kind of narrative I got the impression you were suggesting. Art is one of the thing that defines culture, but so is food production techniques, political organisation, religion & symbolical systems, techniques&technologies, etc. Asking which causes all of the others seems to me to be a chicken or eggs question; and I don't believe that arts - language excepted which I wouldn't classify as an art - was the most fundamental of them although it had to become an important one soon enough.

I've no idea what you mean when you say "modern civilisation". Are we talking about civilisation as it existed from the Modern Age, post Renaissance society? That sounds like an odd place to start the civilisation definition and an odd place also to emphasizes the importance of art.

[quote]As has been stated before however, this is all going to be subjective to ones own personal opinion. When i say that one cannot deny it, subjectively speaking, from my view point its not something one can deny.[/quote]
If this is a matter of faith and you don't need to base your arguments on proof, I don't think I can discuss with you.

[quote]As for more white male literature, if you live in the west, you are looking at the traditions that formed the thinking that surrounds us right now. Does that mean other cultures, other societies, do not have works of worth? No, never. But when one considers that we are barely willing to look at our own historical literary tradition, why the hell would we begin teaching others? That is for people to expand into, and would certainly be something to even approach in schools to some extent. But as for this white male literature crap, well, western society - for good or ill - is derived a great deal from that. It is part of the history, and it makes no sense to me why we would ignore it.[/quote]
All these arguments address, somewhat, the "white" part of the expression "white male literature", but not the "male" part. There's some interesting books and studies out there outlining how much women's contributions to the realm of art & culture (as well as science and production actually) has been systematically elided, dismissed or out rightly forgotten by History.

Even to go back to the "white" part, your arguments aren't enough. This might be a western civilisation, but it was also built upon the back of people of colour, through the colonization of the 18th & 19th century, through the importance of slavery. Through the existence of artistic movements like orientalism! Through simple borrowings. One of the influence of a lot of the classics in literature and graphic art was from a lot of art from non western cultures. If we study the results of those influences and borrowings, shouldn't we also study the sources? Not to mention, are you also saying the influence of Black music on the whole of modern popular music as it exists now should be forgotten?

Lastly; a lot of us who live in Western societies today have something more than purely Western origins. Dylanfanatic mentioned both Native American and Welsh and Irish origins and the loss of this cultural heritage, for example.

Anyway, I was making a point of that because some of the people crying at the loss of standards in education (not you, but some of the arguments I've heard) was about having people study more African American literature, for example, at the (supposed) loss of white anglo saxon writers. The idea that broadening the subjects taught and having more diversity in what we call literature and art is actually a loss!

I think it is worth criticizing what was the standards of education of yesterday.

[Lord of Oop North]

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1372606' date='May 27 2008, 14.35']And i am not claiming that this is the end of the friggin world here, or even that, at the end of the day, it will lead to anything worse. But this is the fear that some have, and it is legitimate. There seems to be a great deal of derision going on here for what some people feel is very important - at least to them.[/quote]

Your fear that it is legitimate is your opinion. I won't derride someone for having their opinion, but in the end, I can't agree with the position.

[quote]The dumbing down of language is a reflection of the society around it. If you can't see that to some extent, in movies and literature, in current affairs and what the next generation find important, then there is nothing that i can do to convince you. But i personally feel that being involved, being informed, takes place at so many different levels. It is literature, and math, and politics - it is understanding, to a great extent, the world around you. But as i mentioned, i am a history minor, so perhaps i am overly touchy on that subject.[/quote]
[quote]As has been stated before however, this is all going to be subjective to ones own personal opinion. When i say that one cannot deny it, subjectively speaking, from my view point its not something one can deny. Though you do deny it, thats fine, but keep your snide responses to yourself next time.[/quote]

This is exactly the kind of elitism I was talking about. You are basically calling my generation functionally retarded. Movies and literature have been 'dumbed down', but I can't see that. The art of the past is obviously superior. The implied reason why you can not convince me seems obvious. I would encourage you to [i]keep your snide responses to yourself next time[/i].

So if I don't respect the literary tradition, then I am not properly informed? I don't understand the world? I never advocated a singular focus on specific knowledge. There are a thousand other ways to understand the world. The study of literature (or any art) is not necessarily the only way, or even a required way. Again, let me be clear, I don't think we should actively encourage the ignorance of the [i]classics[/i] of art. I never said that. I take issue with the fact that the broadening of art, through the expansion of choice, is somehow equated with the active ignorance of the past.


--- Also, minor points:

[quote name=''Dinsdale'']Literature is not a historically upper class medium.[/quote]
Forgive me. When I say 'upper-class', I am referring to those who had the ability to read and write, the means to purchase a novel, and the leisure time to read it. These traits were typically confined to the privileged of society rather than the huddled masses.

[quote name=''Dylanfanatic'']One who controls the discourse controls the imagination.[/quote]
It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure what you mean. Are you implying there is an active power attempting this? (ala [i]Zeitgeist[/i])

Also: I have never read that graphic novel, which could explain why I'm left confused.

[quote name=''Dylanfanatic'']6. I don't expect most to agree with me and wouldn't be surprised if some react vehemently. Wouldn't have it any other way[/quote]
The internets are serious fuckin' business!!

[salinea]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1372739' date='May 28 2008, 07.40']I'll just add a couple of points and reiterations/clarifications and probably call it a day/night:[/quote]
It's funny how your clarifications leave me ever more confused about what's your point than previously :lol: