# Highbrow Exclusivity



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Since the literature thread was locked and my points were wholly misconstrued I thought I should set things straight.

I believe people can listen to whatever music they want, read what they feel like and enjoy whatever art they want to. I have no problem with anybody enjoying whatever art they like. However, when someone exclusively enjoys and/or rates only 'high' art, I am highly suspicious of to what extent their taste is 'natural'.

What reasons are there for a person only consuming 'fine' art?

I can only imagine it stems from predisposed prejudices held by the person or factors not directly inherent within the art itself. I don't there is an adequate word to describe this behaviour. I use snobbery and elitism as catch all terms, but there's also elements of pseudo-intellectualism and ego-stroking. So it is not only the exterior (reinforcement from others of one's own taste) but the interior (a bolstering of self-esteem from affirmation of prejudices). 

Now I am not saying everyone who reads Rabelais should also watch the X Factor or read OK! magazine, but to neglect vast swathes of the artistic landscape simply because they don't conform to imaginary standards of what constitutes 'high' art is, in my opinion, a very negative and repressive way of thinking about art.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

I don't understand this. What's wrong with devoting our limited time to the best?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> However, when someone exclusively enjoys and/or rates only 'high' art, I am highly suspicious of to what extent their taste is 'natural'.


So am I, but in all cases I find it positive - if it is natural indeed it's great, if it's only snobbism then, well, it's not bad either because snobs are consumers too and in these rough times for "high culture" we need some snobs to buy classical CDs and new editions of classic literature so these releases will continiue appearing for those of us, dying species, who have natural inclination for qualities represented by such art. I feel no special need to fight bad reasons for doing good things.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

```

```
I largely agree with you, musical and cultural taste has also been the means of defining oneself or one´s relationship to/distance from a social group (as proven by for instance the sociologist Bourdieu), but the only thing I think you forget to mention is the variety and scope actually inherent in classical music (if this is what you mean with "fine art" as regards music) which is in itself enough to fill out a lifetime study. The most primitive or sophisticated patterns, and varied emotional, political or poetic content can be found there, as well as inspiration from folk, jazz or rock music.

I think perhaps the most conservative/elitist element of classical music is the restrains of the concert situation, but even this has been undermined a lot in modern times.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Argus said:


> What reasons are there for a person only consuming 'fine' art?


Because they like it...


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Chris said:


> I don't understand this. What's wrong with devoting our limited time to the best?


If by 'best' you mean what you like the most, then nothing is wrong with that. If you don't mean that then you are wasting you're time on things that aren't the 'best'.



Aramis said:


> So am I, but in all cases I find it positive - if it is natural indeed it's great, if it's only snobbism then, well, it's not bad either because snobs are consumers too and in these rough times for "high culture" we need some snobs to buy classical CDs and new editions of classic literature so these releases will continiue appearing for those of us, dying species, who have natural inclination for qualities represented by such art. I feel no special need to fight bad reasons for doing good things.


That should be down to supply and demand. Snobbery cheats the snobs themselves out of the widest experiences of art, and for what? Affirmation of ones taste is just a limitation of ones possibilities in his instance.

If unpopular 'high' art can be saved by snobbery, why does unpopular 'low' art not deserve the same treatment?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

joen_cph said:


> I largely agree with you, musical and cultural taste has also been the means of defining oneself or one´s relationship to/distance from a social group (as proven by for instance the sociologist Bourdieu), but the only thing I think you forget to mention is the variety and scope actaully inherent in classical music (if this is what you mean with "fine art" as regards music) which is in itself enough to filll out a lifetime study. The most primitive or sophisticated patterns, and varied emotional, political or poetic content can be found there, as well as inspiration from folk, jazz or rock music.
> 
> I think perhaps the most conservative/elitist element of classical music is the restrains of the concert situation, but even this has been undermined a lot in modern times.


Classical music may have the most variety out of the individual genres or it may not, but if it contained full variety it wouldn't be called 'classical' music it would just be called 'music'.

Limiting oneself to a section of art rather than choosing from all of it and letting your taste decide, doesn't make sense to me.

The hardest thing to reconcile is exactly how natural taste can really be.



Klavierspieler said:


> Because they like it...


Okay, but why don't they like 'low' art then?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

> Limiting oneself to a section of art rather than choosing from all of it and letting your taste decide, doesn't make sense to me.


If the impression is that I personally don´t value or investigate other music, it is not correct, so again I can only agree, except from the apparent abstaining from letting one´s taste decide _anything_ ?


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Because it isn't necessary that they don't; there is a portion (albeit small) of what you call 'low' music or art which I do enjoy. However, I listen to mainly classical music simply because I like it better.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

joen_cph said:


> If the impression is that I personally don´t value or investigate other music, it is not correct, so again I can only agree, except from the apparent abstaining from letting one´s taste decide _anything_ ?


I wasn't saying you, personally, limit your tastes (if by impression you meant implication).

Could you elaborate on that because I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Klavierspieler said:


> Because it isn't necessary that they don't; there is a portion (albeit small) of what you call 'low' music or art which I do enjoy. However, I listen to mainly classical music simply because I like it better.


Why do feel that to be the case? Why do like classical more than other music? (I know that is a difficult question to answer)

More importantly, do you consider the 'low' art you like to be of the same quality as the 'high' art you like?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I might be simplifying, but to me you were undermining the very concept of personal taste by pointing out the obligation of studying other genres and saying ".............letting your taste decide, doesn't make sense to me".


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

joen_cph said:


> I might be simplifying, but to me you were undermining the very concept of personal taste by pointing out the obligation of studying other genres and saying ".............letting your taste decide, doesn't make sense to me".


I said:



> Limiting oneself to a section of art rather than choosing from all of it and letting your taste decide, doesn't make sense to me.


Meaning limiting your variety doesn't make sense to me, and that one should pick and choose from the entirety of art and let natural taste dictate further.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

What is "natural taste"? No matter what you like, and how sincere it is, your taste was shaped in part by a variety of environmental factors. Is my taste more natural or sincere than someone with highbrow taste because I like B-movies and classic literature? That's sort of a lazy thought process.

I agree people ought to enjoy things sincerely rather than bow to academic opinion, but when it gets to the point of questioning the authenticity of any "literary, highbrow" taste, I don't really get what you're saying.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

> Meaning limiting your variety doesn't make sense to me, and that one should pick and choose from the entirety of art and let natural taste dictate further.


Quite agree
- though, as scientists are saying, the limits of the human brain are beginning to show, due to the vast information and knowledge available, mediated by modern technology and society; we can´t know it all in detail, actually only a tiny and personal fraction ... .


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> What is "natural taste"? No matter what you like, and how sincere it is, your taste was shaped in part by a variety of environmental factors. Is my taste more natural or sincere than someone with highbrow taste because I like B-movies and classic literature? That's sort of a lazy thought process.
> 
> I agree people ought to enjoy things sincerely rather than bow to academic opinion, but when it gets to the point of questioning the authenticity of any "literary, highbrow" taste, I don't really get what you're saying.


Natural taste might best be described as a judgement made based solely on the artwork and no outside factors. To what extent it is possible to have a complete blank slate/open mind is difficult to determine but an exclusive disposition towards 'high' art seems unlikely to me.

I'll add this works both ways to include people who only consume and rate 'low' art, but I have never meant someone who does enjoy 'low' art exclusively and/or who doesn't believe 'high' art is indeed better art. A penchant for only 'low' art is more much likely due to lack of exposure to 'high' art, which is nowhere near as popular/ubiquitous as 'low' art. Therefore, snobs have to work harder to not enjoy 'low' art because it is so widespread and easily available.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

> Natural taste might best be described as a judgement made based solely on the artwork and no outside factors.


The problem is, with the exception of an honest few, I think most people would claim not to be affected by any outside factors. I'm not saying we have no self-determination, but positive and negative associations are unavoidable, it's just how the human brain works.

There is a difference in how strongly some people act on these associations, I just don't think it's easy to gauge.

I get your argument, but it would probably be better directed at the "objective greatness" camp (very common on this forum!) rather than some intangible mental process.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

For the most part based just on the OP I actually agree with you. But since I've read a lot of your other posts, I think you yourself haven't spent much time devoted to 'high art', at least outside of music. You have stated you don't think such a thing as 'musical substance' even exists. These examples in my mind are clear indicators that you don't really enjoy (by your own admission) much of what could be considered 'high art'. I would suggest that because of this lack of enjoyment you over-extend your labels of elitists and snobs, to anyone who seems to enjoy 'substance in art'. I think it is mostly based on a lack of understanding that you come to the conclusion most others must have ulterior motives for this enjoyment, because you don't understand why.

Think about the people who you usually have debates with here for example ... StLukes listens to Blues, Bluegrass and the Rolling Stones not to mention many others. I listen to a wide variety of music (have you ever heard me insulting Black Sabbath once for example, despite your constant bashing of Mozart?). Most people here I think do appreciate a lot of different art forms - both what some could loosely define as 'high' and 'low'. The elitists and snobs are mostly phantoms in your own mind. Take a look in the mirror, your tastes are just as snobbish as someone who prefers mostly classical. The bottom line is you are the one making a post questioning people's tastes, or whether or not they even think for themselves suggesting they should be more 'open-minded' or 'honest with themselves'. Do you realize how arrogant and snobbish that could be perceived as?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Is it wrong for me to enjoy music on philosophical grounds? Must I only enjoy music for its aesthetics? Would you rob me of the pleasure I get from such philosophy?

Maybe it would help if I explained why I like classical music better than any other type? I like classical music not only for aesthetic reasons, but also for philosophical reasons. I like it because it is necessarily created with a purpose out of an understanding of music theory. It has rules, but it is beautiful to me because of the variety those rules allow.

But what do I listen for aesthetically in music? Clarity of texture, strong motives which are varied throughout, variety of texture and color, among other things. There are also a few specific aesthetic purposes which I prefer above others: strong, dark themes and complex textures, mostly, because I find it easier to distinguish them from each other in my mind's catalogue. Accordingly, there are some pieces of music from other genres that I enjoy, but without the philosophical enjoyment to compliment the aesthetic enjoyment, I'm left less satisfied than I would be if I had both. However, most popular music doesn't even match my aesthetic requirements: songs which play only a single riff for five minutes without variation, songs which have the exact same texture as thousands of other songs...

I've tried a variety of pop music: I find individual songs repetitive and the genre as a whole lacking depth. I've tried a variety of country music: I find the genre as a whole so similar that it's difficult for me to distinguish individual songs unless I memorize lyrics. I've tried a variety of hard rock and metal: I find the genre lacking in a similar way to country music, though there are a few gems which I enjoy; I like AC/DC, even though it sounds like they only wrote five songs. I haven't tried much jazz, R&B, hip hop, rap, or blues, so I can't really speak of those genres. Of all genres besides classical music, I enjoy classic rock from the '60s to the '80s the best, as most bands are unique enough to be easily distinguished from each other: Styx, Rush, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Steve Miller Band, Yes, The Who... I find progressive rock especially appealing, as the genre matches my philosophical requirements fairly well (though not as well as classical music).


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I get your argument, but it would probably be better directed at the "objective greatness" camp (very common on this forum!)


I'm sick of those guys, they never shut up about Black Sabbath.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Argus said:


> I'm sick of those guys, they never shut up about Black Sabbath.


They're just jealous because they're lame.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

tdc said:


> For the most part based just on the OP I actually agree with you. But since I've read a lot of your other posts, I think you yourself haven't spent much time devoted to 'high art', at least outside of music.


Apart from fictional literature, which I just don't enjoy across the board, I don't even make the distinction between 'high' and 'low', I just consume what takes my fancy at that point in time.

The elitists and snobs are definitely not phantoms of my own mind, I know that for sure. Maybe, if you weren't one yourself you'd be more able to discern them.

Maybe most people here do appreciate both 'high' and 'low' art, but no doubt most of them believe the 'high' and 'low' parts are indicative of an innate quality or perhaps 'substance/depth'.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Kopachris said:


> Is it wrong for me to enjoy music on philosophical grounds? Must I only enjoy music for its aesthetics? Would you rob me of the pleasure I get from such philosophy?


It's not wrong for people to be snobs either. That would be a moral judgement. I personally think snobbery and elitism have more negative effects on the arts than positive effects. They stunt variety and hamper experimentation, lead to conformity and generally reduce the sheer amount of music that could be created because artists don't think their art is 'worthy'.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Argus: do you rank Black Sabbath (sorry) above Justin Bieber?

Obviously, right? And not even purely going by your experience with the substance of the art, but because the latter's music objectively and obviously is a mindless corporate product.

Maybe the snobbery you're talking about is just the same mentality on another level, even if it's not valid, or if it's misguided.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

The fact that you distinguish 'low' and 'high' art, and im assuming you have a fairly clear idea of what constitutes each one in your mind, means that there must be some difference between art of each group (altitude?) that defines the distinction. If you agree then that there is a property distinguishing 'high' art from 'low' art then you must also accept that there are people who's taste follows quite precisely this line of distinction.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

The problem with your contributions to that thread was that no one was being exclusive. No one was saying: "You must _only_ bother to read these things" or "I _only_ read these things" - people were just listing their favourites. And - hypocrisy of hypocrisies - you didn't like what you saw in those lists, so you decided to make snide comments, implying that you're an affected ponce if you like that stuff. You clearly just have an issue with established ideas, and your constant one-man battle against them is tiresome, even childish.



Argus said:


> What reasons are there for a person only consuming 'fine' art?
> 
> I can only imagine it stems from predisposed prejudices held by the person or factors not directly inherent within the art itself.


Your imagination is, then, clearly lacking. I can certainly say that one book I _would_ exclude is anything you might ever write.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Argus: do you rank Black Sabbath (sorry) above Justin Bieber?
> 
> Obviously, right? And not even purely going by your experience with the substance of the art, but because the latter's music objectively and obviously is a mindless corporate product.
> 
> Maybe the snobbery you're talking about is just the same mentality on another level, even if it's not valid.


I like Black Sabbath's music better than I do Justin Bieber's and that's all there is to it. Everything else is inconsequential.

If someone thought Sabbath was objectively better than Justin Bieber then they would still be a snob*/elitist.

*It's a different kind of snobbery but the same relationships exist.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I'm a snob/elitist. 

Why you gotta do me wrong?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Polednice said:


> The problem with your contributions to that thread was that no one was being exclusive. No one was saying: "You must _only_ bother to read these things" or "I _only_ read these things" - people were just listing their favourites. And - hypocrisy of hypocrisies - you didn't like what you saw in those lists, so you decided to make snide comments, implying that you're an affected ponce if you like that stuff. You clearly just have an issue with established ideas, and your constant one-man battle against them is tiresome, even childish.
> 
> Your imagination is, then, clearly lacking. I can certainly say that one book I _would_ exclude is anything you might ever write.


I know for a fact, from previous discussions, Stlukes is a snob/elitist and so are you.



emiellucifuge said:


> The fact that you distinguish 'low' and 'high' art, and im assuming you have a fairly clear idea of what constitutes each one in your mind, means that there must be some difference between art of each group (altitude?) that defines the distinction. If you agree then that there is a property distinguishing 'high' art from 'low' art then you must also accept that there are people who's taste follows quite precisely this line of distinction.


I know what is definitely 'high' and what is definitely 'low' but there is plenty that could be either.

Replace the 'high' and 'low' with totally neutral words like 'red' and 'blue' or even 'x' and y', then think about what difference that would make. None, it would be equally silly to limit yourself for non-artistic reasons.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I'm a snob/elitist.
> 
> Why you gotta do me wrong?


I stand by my beliefs and follow them to all logical conclusions.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Argus said:


> I know for a fact, from previous discussions, Stlukes is a snob/elitist and so are you.


Thankfully, I couldn't care less about your pettiness. Funnily enough, I just spend my time listening to music and reading books that I enjoy for the pure purpose of pleasure. I couldn't give a damn about anything else. It just so happens that you either can't believe or can't stand the fact that I like what I like. For someone who's incessantly promoting "each to his own" and "everything is subjective", you sure have a problem with leaving people to just like what they like.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Yes, Argus seems awfully privy on making people think his way for a proponent of "live and let live". It's sort of snobby in its own way to tell people they enjoy art wrong!


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Argus said:


> Why do feel that to be the case? Why do like classical more than other music? (I know that is a difficult question to answer)


I honestly don't know.



> More importantly, do you consider the 'low' art you like to be of the same quality as the 'high' art you like?


It's not so much that it's better or worse, it's just something different.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Argus said:


> I can only imagine it stems from predisposed prejudices held by the person or factors not directly inherent within the art itself. I don't there is an adequate word to describe this behaviour. I use snobbery and elitism as catch all terms, but there's also elements of pseudo-intellectualism and ego-stroking. So it is not only the exterior (reinforcement from others of one's own taste) but the interior (a bolstering of self-esteem from affirmation of prejudices).


It is very disturbing that you can "only imagine" those reasons you wrote. I think you have a class-inferiority complex, at least subconsciously that is symptomatic of very naive perceptions of people around you (like a great majority of opinions you have expressed), and in the end _bolstering your own self-esteem_, as you have suggested others might be doing. In other words, take a look at the mirror (with BS/Black Sabbath music in the background).



Argus said:


> However, when someone exclusively enjoys and/or rates only 'high' art, I am highly suspicious of to what extent their taste is 'natural'.


Many of us dedicate a significant money, time and effort to listening to Bach's 200 plus church cantatas in private and also in concerts for example, which is no small feat. I very much doubt folks would be willingly to consistently put themselves through to listening each of these 10 to 30 minutes long pieces of work (on the average) a couple of hundred times, or 2 to 4 hours long pieces of operas for years almost every weekend or month to justify a weird "naturalness of taste" in high-art.

Sorry, your posts are just getting stranger over time.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Argus said:


> Maybe, if you weren't one yourself you'd be more able to discern them.


You may not be elitist, but you're definitely a snob.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Argus would consider me a snob because of my tastes, but to me it is a matter of how I treat people with different tastes. No one who knows me thinks I'm a snob.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Argus said:


> Since the literature thread was locked and my points were wholly misconstrued I thought I should set things straight.
> 
> I believe people can listen to whatever music they want, read what they feel like and enjoy whatever art they want to. I have no problem with anybody enjoying whatever art they like. However, when someone exclusively enjoys and/or rates only 'high' art, I am highly suspicious of to what extent their taste is 'natural'.
> 
> ...


in order to answer this question, you must break it down into easier to answer subquestions


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Oi. I get the feeling this is going to end up locked as well.

Hypothetical situation: I enjoy music purely and exclusively for philosophical reasons outlined in my other post. I'm open to any genre of music and I'll listen to any work at least once, but I have so far only found enjoyment in classical music. *I don't try to push my tastes onto anyone and I understand and accept that different people have different tastes.* But I still only enjoy classical music, even though I've tried plenty of other music. Would that still make me a snob/elitist?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> Oi. I get the feeling this is going to end up locked as well.
> 
> Hypothetical situation: I enjoy music purely and exclusively for philosophical reasons outlined in my other post. I'm open to any genre of music and I'll listen to any work at least once, but I have so far only found enjoyment in classical music. *I don't try to push my tastes onto anyone and I understand and accept that different people have different tastes.* But I still only enjoy classical music, even though I've tried plenty of other music. Would that still make me a snob/elitist?


[The standard spelling is 'oy'.]

Doesn't make you a snob/elitist. Makes your taste in music pretty narrow (notice I didn't say 'refined'). I once worked a job with a guy who listened to '70s rock exclusively. He had the car, and the driver got to choose the music. He even drove in response to the music, not driving conditions. Oy.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Argus said:


> What reasons are there for a person only consuming 'fine' art?


How about this: in general fine art is more complex and takes more skill to create so a person who admires complexity and skill in creating a work of art will in general prefer fine art? Look, no value judgements! To account for the exceptions (consumers of fine art preferring simple classical music such as the lighter works of well known composers to more complex works in a popular style), I'd just say that this is a bit of harmless subconscious bias: personally I immediately switch off when I hear anything written for an electric guitar-bass-drums-vocals band (or similar) because of overexposure to crap music of this 'genre'. But given that it's fairly rare to come across a piece of popular music which approaches the complexity of a Romantic piano miniature, never mind a Bach fugue, I don't think this is a major issue. Having said this, I do listen to popular music sometimes, but I think the viewpoint of people who consume only fine art is defensible.

I'd probably have more time for popular music if it had less of a pretension to grandeur. No other form of art is so relentlessly impressed upon people and this constant bombardment makes me a bit sick.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Argus said:


> I believe people can listen to whatever music they want, read what they feel like and enjoy whatever art they want to. I have no problem with anybody enjoying whatever art they like...


Agreed there.



> However, *when someone exclusively enjoys and/or rates only 'high' art,* I am highly suspicious of to what extent their taste is 'natural'.





> ...What reasons are there for a person only consuming 'fine' art?...


Well, I haven't come across virtually anyone in "real" life who does that. I know a number of people into classical music, some musicians, & none of them come across like that (I'm talking from ages in twenties to their sixties). Not that the type of people you describe don't exist, but I think they are a small minority. Most classical listeners are in the middle part of the spectrum, which is the biggest part.



> ...So it is not only the exterior (reinforcement from others of one's own taste) but the interior (a bolstering of self-esteem from affirmation of prejudices)...to neglect vast swathes of the artistic landscape simply because they don't conform to imaginary standards of what constitutes 'high' art is, in my opinion, a very negative and repressive way of thinking about art.


The people you suggest are "snobs" or whatever on this forum just have their own tastes, like you or I do, or any individual does. My issue is not with them but with trends on this forum to have "whipping boys" or "scapegoats." The rationality behind this is wobbly at best. A couple of years ago when I joined, there were a number of ideologial members who rubbished minimalism and atonalism. Now it seems to be chance-based things (eg. John Cage) & microtonal or mathematics-based things (eg. Xenakis) & electronic, electro-acoustic musics.

IMHO, rubbishing or putting down music that one does not like is not necessarily an issue of being "highbrow" or whatever, it's basically a matter of mixing one's own personal ideology or dogma with the actual music in question. Yes, this is quite restrictive and negative. It's okay to like things, be middling about them, or dislike them, but when people start dissing them, it's a whole new ball game, I don't know what people are trying to achieve, except "push" their own barrows, which belongs in the world of politics more so than music or the arts...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Kopachris said:


> ...*I don't try to push my tastes onto anyone and I understand and accept that different people have different tastes.*...


I think that is a worthy "game plan" to go by & it's become kind of like my own "credo" as well...


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

How about if you really don't give a ***** about other people's tastes?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Argus said:


> I like Black Sabbath's music better than I do Justin Bieber's and that's all there is to it. Everything else is inconsequential.


 This is pretty much the negation of everything else you've said. I hope you get to notice it at some point in your life.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Argus is just trying to justify his ignorance of most of the treasures of classical music... let it pass, folks.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Rasa said:


> How about if you really don't give a ***** about other people's tastes?


And furthermore, don't give a bleet about them giving a h00t about your tastes?

Then the whole discussion becomes irrelevant and one just enjoys what they enjoy. Music and literature in their original form are not a multiplayer activity.

This whole highbrow discussion stems only from some weird compulsion of dicussing what one just enjoyed with other people, and the proceeding to be ticked if the other thinks it's dreadful.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I feel like there's a good point somewhere in OP lost in the haste to paint in broad, absolute strokes.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Also, here is a handy chart on how to avoid discussions about taste (pointless) and your level of elitism (elitely annoying)










Why does everything have to be so difficult all the time... intellectuals!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I had similar ideas when starting the thread below, just reading it now reminds me how much good contributions went into that from our members here -

http://www.talkclassical.com/12659-naming-dispelling-cliches-classical.html


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I agree people ought to enjoy things sincerely rather than bow to academic opinion, but when it gets to the point of questioning the authenticity of any "literary, highbrow" taste, I don't really get what you're saying.

What Argus is saying is clear enough. He is accusing others... myself included, no doubt... of feigning a like for a given body of art out of a desire to impress others as being intellectually superior. Of course such a paranoid assumption might be owing to an inferiority complex... a suspicion that his own tastes are less than exemplary. Seriously... what I spend the majority of my time with in terms of art is that which gives me the most pleasure. As another here suggested, one might prefer "high art" because they prefer that which "employs a greater complexity and takes more skill to create..." Some people enjoy solving the New York Times crossword puzzles. Some gain pleasure from working through the challenges presented by Dante, or T.S. Eliot. (It is ironic that James Joyce was repeatedly used to mock my "highbrow" taste for the simple reason that I am actually not much of a fan of Joyce. I far prefer Kafka, Proust, Faulkner, Beckett, and Borges). It is also possible to glean something different from different art forms or styles or genre. It is also possible that as the result of experience an individual may come to recognize that what he or she once thought of as "great" really wasn't all that. There is some music that I once loved which I look back upon with embarrassment.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Think about the people who you usually have debates with here for example ... StLukes listens to Blues, Bluegrass and the Rolling Stones not to mention many others. I listen to a wide variety of music (have you ever heard me insulting Black Sabbath once for example, despite your constant bashing of Mozart?). Most people here I think do appreciate a lot of different art forms - both what some could loosely define as 'high' and 'low'. The elitists and snobs are mostly phantoms in your own mind. Take a look in the mirror, your tastes are just as snobbish as someone who prefers mostly classical. The bottom line is you are the one making a post questioning people's tastes, or whether or not they even think for themselves suggesting they should be more 'open-minded' or 'honest with themselves'. Do you realize how arrogant and snobbish that could be perceived as?

I have argued here on several occasions against the very notion of the term "classical music" being employed to denote a superior style of music. Indeed, I'd question that it is a "style" at all. Looking at the differences between Byzantine chant, a madrigal by Monteverdi, plainchant, an opera by Donizetti, Beethoven's string quartets, a Wagnerian opera, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Gershwin, Takemitsu, and John Adams... I am hard pressed to denote a unifying style. To me, the term "classical" when imposed upon music should not be different from when it is employed in denoting art ("classic art") or literature ("the classics"). In other words... "classical"... or "classic music" is the best of whatever genre. I find the notion that Xenakis or Ligeti or Glass are inherently superior to Miles Davis because they are part of the "classical tradition"... whatever that may be... an anathema. I quite suspect that some songs by the Carter Family, Duke Ellington, John Lee Hooker, Muddy waters, the Beatles, and Frank Sinatra may well outlast anything by Xenakis, Ligeti, or Glass.

Personally, I think Picasso was right when he suggested that great art was produced in much the same manner as the Renaissance aristocrats produced heirs: a merger of "high" and "low". The Renaissance aristocrats were notorious for knocking up the beautiful millers daughter. Leonardo was the product of such a union. In a like manner Picasso churned out the greatest body of visual art of the 20th century by merging an absolute mastery and love of the tradition of "fine art" (Manet, van Gogh, Gauguin, El Greco, Goya, Velasquez, Cezanne, Rembrandt, etc...) with "low art" (the comics, advertising, the newspapers, folk art, African art, photography, etc...).


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

Argus, listening to music and reading books are some of the many things people do for "not so good" reasons, like feeling elitist, looking down on people, and what not. There are people who use language in a way that is snobbish, but then again, there are people like Richard Dawkins whom I enjoy reading because not only he enriches my vocabulary, but he can also nuance his writing and as a result give it a more precise meaning. I do admit that it would be tiresome for me to read that kind of text all the time, especially because English is my second language. Many people will try to imitate him (and others like him) and end up silly and snobbish, but that does not mean that people who do have something smart to say, and have mastery of language should not use that mastery to communicate their ideas.

The real question is - why is that so important to you? I can stop reading Dawkins wannabe anytime I want, or stop reading, watching or listening to any pretentious BS of any kind. I can even laugh at people who can distinguish between BS and real value, but I don't have to be all "in their face" about it. I also don't think that those things have any detrimental effect on works of real quality. I wouldn't say that some new Dawnkins will be unable to write a finely nuanced and beautifully worded book because snobs have taken over the book market, or that painters can't produce quality work just because nouveau riche will buy any canvas with randomly sprayed paint on it, or that any abstract art is BS because Piero Manzoni tried to make a certain point with his "Merda d'artista". And the fact that I'm not particularly interested in abstract art at all does not mean that I have to bash it, I can just ignore it, and that's what I do.

Aramis gave it an economic perspective - as long as snobs buy what is usually seen as "high art", genuine aficionados can be sure production will go on. And both snobs and "BS art" were always around and always will be. It's just a matter of how successfully you can ignore it.

After reading all that I wrote here, it seems to me that it might have too much of a "personal touch" and too little of a "general art discussion", but I think that is because there isn't really much to it in terms of art anyway. I mean, I can't escape the feeling that you almost expect people to write down in this thread something like "ok, you got me, I'm a snob and elitist and it helps me cope with my low self esteem due to lack of this and that, so this is my placebo of choice"... Would you feel better if someone wrote that? Why, when we know there must be people like that anyway (both on and off forum)? What would help getting actual names, especially on a forum where people do not each other anyway?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

You all have to realize that Argus is the member who said that he likes to provoke people by challenging their tastes in order to enjoy their reaction and get his Internet hijinks (in his own words).

Like I've said many times, I encourage other members to refrain from fighting back because:

1-That's what he wants.
2-Then the member who fights back is subject to violating the Terms of Service (although, like I've also said many times, we take into consideration the difference between stimulus and response).

The old advice "don't feed the troll" applies here.

Such behaviors are best left ignored, and the moderation team will deal with them.

It's the second time in a few days that this member has posted offensive material, putting down other members.

One can't help but think of the "three strikes and you're out" rule. 
 
Thread closed for repairs.


----------

