# If you Had to Move to Another Country Where Would You Go?



## TrazomGangflow

Whether you live in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, or Austrailia (or Antarctica if you like the cold) where would you move. State where you currently live, where you'd go, and why.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I'd move to Austria. I think the alps are beautiful. I'd probably move to Salzburg because of the music festival.


----------



## Weston

I'd move to a slope of Valles Marineris. It can get warmer than Antarctica and there are fewer people to expect things of me.


----------



## Kopachris

Switzerland. There are three reasons for this: authentic German food, French food, and Italian food within just a couple hours' drive.


----------



## Ukko

Malta. Climate & attitude. I'd bring my canned music and my photo albums. Easier to pretend a connection to relatives from a couple thousand miles.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Switzerland; good food, Alps, and probably the best political climate in the world US aside.


----------



## violadude

Klavierspieler said:


> Switzerland; good food, Alps, and probably the best political climate in the world US aside.


You think the US has the best political climate in the world?


----------



## starthrower

I'd probably move to Holland, because I have a friend living in Amsterdam.


----------



## CountessAdele

Germany, probably somewhere in Bavaria. My dad has always wanted to take me there, he loves Germany. So growing up hearing wonderful things about it has made living there one of the things on my bucket list.


----------



## Klavierspieler

violadude said:


> You think the US has the best political climate in the world?


Yes.

Always remember: _Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others._


----------



## Krummhorn

It's a toss up between the UK or Denmark. I love both countries as, from an organists point of view, both offer ample opportunities to play on some very wonderful instruments. If it were the UK, probably around the Salisbury area, or the coastal areas of Dorset. 

I'm of Danish heritage .. my paternal grandfather was born there and I have a living cousin there, too. But, living in the UK would allow more frequent trips to other European countries.


----------



## violadude

Thailand or Japan.


----------



## Kopachris

Klavierspieler said:


> Yes.
> 
> Always remember: _Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others._


And the US is the only country that has democracy⸮ The United States' form of "democracy" is far less direct and less efficient than, say, Switzerland's form of democracy.


----------



## joen_cph

_Sweden _ has a lot to offer, and an inexpensive, cozy and spacious countryside villa is potentially just 1 hour away from where I live now ( in the culturally quite rich Danish capital of Copenhagen).

Financial issues apart, I´d rather combine a couple of addresses. Perhaps set up a B&B. Other options would be

_France_, Paris and a mountain village just behind the French Riviera called Saorge.

_Japan_ : Kyoto

_Portugal_: a village not too far from Lisbon or Porto, in the Douro Valley, which is wonderful and yet quite cosmopolitan / English-flavoured.

_The Czech Republic_: Prague is very nice. But I already know it very well. And the sea is very far away ...´

_Ukraine_: the city of Lviv is an upcoming place with an incredible cultural heritage, but currently one would need too much stamina due to the social conditions there and the place is still rather isolated and run-down. Better in, say, 20-30 years from now, disregarding the fact that one gets older ...


----------



## sospiro

Italy

I'd get an apartment in Maranello. They ring the church bell in Maranello whenever a Ferrari wins even if it's in the middle of the night local time.

And I'd get another apartment in Milan. Of course I'd like to be able to go to La Scala when I felt like it but I'd also like to see operas at the smaller regional theatres like Bergamo.

And I'd love to be able to get to know the places where Verdi lived & worked.

Italian culture, climate, food & people are also a major factor.


----------



## Sid James

Maybe somewhere around the Mediterranean area. But I'm a bit iffy with the politics there (eg. the area has weak economy, prone to economic downturn/meltdown - as far as I've heard - and politicians who appear to be on the extreme side, eg. Berlusconi). But nice scenery & very rich history, I suppose. But basically we have a similar mild climate & good surrounds here, so I'm kind of happy where I am, all in all...


----------



## science

I'm a US citizen living in South Korea; if I had to move to a 3rd country, I'd choose China. 

But if the move is supposed to be a permanent one, I'd choose somewhere in Western Europe.


----------



## Eth

I'm from Russia and I'd like to move to the USA.


----------



## Xytech

I'm from Australia and would hate to leave Australia - I really would. If I did have to I think I would go UK - good job prospects (my profession is easily transferable there moreso than any other country), English speaking, and on the doorstep of Europe.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I've always been curious about Uruguay in general and Montevideo in particular. My dad visited the place while he was in the Royal Navy and mentioned how lively and colourful it was - just like in that film Battle of the River Plate. Uruguay never gets the kind of reportage that neighbours Argentina and Brazil do but maybe that's a good thing - my rule of thumb for a Latin American country is that if it isn't mentioned in the news then there is less chance of being kidnapped, shot or caught up in any violent demonstrations. There is also a rich tradition of European/African multi-culture that you don't see in places such as Argentina and Chile and compared to most of South America the climate is relatively temperate. Anyone been there?


----------



## Taneyev

Spain. (Madrid, Burgos or Cadiz)


----------



## Taneyev

Before even thinking of Uruguay, you must get the habit of drinking "yerba-mate", about 10 times a day.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Odnoposoff said:


> Before even thinking of Uruguay, you must get the habit of drinking "yerba-mate", about 10 times a day.


Ten! I barely drink ten cups of tea a week! I do like smoky teas, though. Anything like Lapsang Souchong?


----------



## sabrina

I have already moved to Canada, but I would gladly move back to Europe, in Spain, Barcelona, por que me gusta mucho hablar Espagnol. Second option, would be Vienna, Austria, but my German is just basic. But I love Europe!


----------



## Klavierspieler

Kopachris said:


> And the US is the only country that has democracy⸮ The United States' form of "democracy" is far less direct and less efficient than, say, Switzerland's form of democracy.


Precisely my point.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

TrazomGangflow said:


> Whether you live in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, or Austrailia (or Antarctica if you like the cold) where would you move. State where you currently live, where you'd go, and why.


I was always curious about "the Americas". America (whether you like it or not) is just ONE continent.



sabrina said:


> I have already moved to Canada, but I would gladly move back to Europe, in Spain, Barcelona, por que me gusta mucho hablar Espagnol. Second option, would be Vienna, Austria, but my German is just basic. But I love Europe!


¿Espagnol or español?



Odnoposoff said:


> Before even thinking of Uruguay, you must get the habit of drinking "yerba-mate", about 10 times a day.


Nobody will force you to drink that...But by the way it is very healthy. I lived in Argentina more than 30 years and my parents (British father and French mother) never drunk mate, nether did I.

Martin, Argentinian, living in Canada.


----------



## Almaviva

elgars ghost said:


> I've always been curious about Uruguay in general and Montevideo in particular. My dad visited the place while he was in the Royal Navy and mentioned how lively and colourful it was - just like in that film Battle of the River Plate. Uruguay never gets the kind of reportage that neighbours Argentina and Brazil do but maybe that's a good thing - my rule of thumb for a Latin American country is that if it isn't mentioned in the news then there is less chance of *being kidnapped, shot or caught up in any violent demonstrations*. There is also a rich tradition of European/African multi-culture that you don't see in places such as Argentina and Chile and compared to most of South America the climate is relatively temperate. Anyone been there?


Your idea of South America seems to be heavily influenced by the media. It's not that bad. I've been to Brazil multiple times (my wife is Brazilian and my sister lives there) and to Argentina several times, and Uruguay once.

All three countries are nice and interesting places, modern and developed, and the extreme poverty and urban violence that people seem to associate with these countries do exist but are much less common than Hollywood and the news would want you to believe.

Yes, Uruguay is a beautiful and civilized country. I've been to Montevideo and Punta del Este, and they're both wonderful cities, with friendly people, calm and sophisticated. The first picture is of Punta del Este, and the the collage is of Montevideo.



















This said, I'd move to Italy, of which I'm also a citizen.
I wouldn't even say it in conditional form.
It is actually very likely that I *will* move to Italy when I retire.


----------



## Aksel

If I could move to another country, I think it would have to be Austria, preferably Vienna. It's my favourite town here in this world and there is a short way to just about anywhere in Europe.


----------



## sabrina

You are right, I don't have special signs like the needed n pronounced something like gn, although it's more like ni...
My mistake! I must admit I forgot much of the Spanish I learned long time before. I had no way to exercise it. I have never visited/lived in a Spanish speaking country. By the way I love Uruguay. I was inspired by the story of the survivors of the Uruguayan plane crush in the Andes. So I read a lot about it. I hope I will be able to visit it one day.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Almaviva said:


> Your idea of South America seems to be heavily influenced by the media. It's not that bad. I've been to Brazil multiple times (my wife is Brazilian and my sister lives there) and to Argentina several times, and Uruguay once.
> 
> All three countries are nice and interesting places, modern and developed, and the extreme poverty and urban violence that people seem to associate with these countries do exist but are much less common than Hollywood and the news would want you to believe.
> 
> Yes, Uruguay is a beautiful and civilized country. I've been to Montevideo and Punta del Este, and they're both wonderful cities, with friendly people, calm and sophisticated. The first picture is of Punta del Este, and the the collage is of Montevideo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This said, I'd move to Italy, of which I'm also a citizen.
> I wouldn't even say it in conditional form.
> It is actually very likely that I *will* move to Italy when I retire.


I wasn't being very serious - I was just reminded of the movie/comedy cliche of the office of a South American civil servant where a large portrait of El Presidente graces the wall - and then after a few gunshots riddle the room from down in the street the official turns it over to show a portrait of the opposition guerilla leader. I'm aware that just like any place in the world there are areas to enjoy and areas to avoid. To whom it may concern, my apologies for any offence. Thanks for the pictures, by the way.


----------



## clavichorder

I live in the U.S., pacific northwest.

I was just looking at a video of Lisbon, Portugal. If the economy weren't so bad in that part of the world at that time, I wouldn't hesitate to go to Lisbon. The video I watched was from the '90s, I've never glimpsed such a fascinating place. 

I also am fascinated by the Black Sea area in north Turkey.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

It would have to be English speaking (too old, too lazy to learn another language).

A few years ago, I was kicking my heels in Vancouver (never been there before) one Sunday morning waiting for a private bus to continue my journey to Vancouver Island. I went up the viewing tower. It's very clever. When you get out at the top you are confronted with the same skyscrapers that you saw falling away from your feet as you ascended. However, the viewing platform is ring shaped, and you want to walk around it to see what's on the other side. What I saw was utterly unexpected and took my breath away. You get some idea of it at 1:36 on this fine video. The way that the mountains, the forests, the water all intrude into the city is spectacular.


----------



## kv466

Chosica, Peru


----------



## Almaviva

Jeremy Marchant said:


> It would have to be English speaking (too old, too lazy to learn another language).
> 
> A few years ago, I was kicking my heels in Vancouver (never been there before) one Sunday morning waiting for a private bus to continue my journey to Vancouver Island. I went up the viewing tower. It's very clever. When you get out at the top you are confronted with the same skyscrapers that you saw falling away from your feet as you ascended. However, the viewing platform is ring shaped, and you want to walk around it to see what's on the other side. What I saw was utterly unexpected and took my breath away. You get some idea of it at 1:36 on this fine video. The way that the mountains, the forests, the water all intrude into the city is spectacular.


Yep, and I hear that Vancouver has won several contests for best quality of life in North America.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I'm with Alma on this one. As a visual artist I'd love to live somewhere where I would have the greatest access to great art. There is absolutely no rival here to Italy. A somewhat distant second choice would be Paris with it's great museums and cathedrals and rapid access to Holland, Belgium, Germany, and London.


----------



## Sid James

I must say I'm quite a bit cynical of Europe, yes it did give us many wonderful artistic things but it also gave us many horrible things, eg. the Holocaust. & now we have more political extremists there. Before I said the Mediterranean but cancel that, I choose the* Bahamas* or *the Carribean* now. Good climate & I think politics isn't so extreme, less d*ckheads there.

But I agree with Xytech above, I'm happy with Down Under...

[EDIT - I think that UK and Scandinavia are okay, moderate in terms of politics like here, but otherwise I think some of the things going on in Europe in terms of extremism, etc. is a worry, it turns me off no matter how many great monuments, etc. are there...I'd find UK & Scandinavia not to my liking in terms of weather, I don't like that kind of weather, I've been spoiled by our mild weather here :lol:]...


----------



## Guest

I lived in Switzerland for a couple of years and loved it - I would like to go back. When looking for postdoc positions, I considered a couple of places there, but my wife said no.

I lived in Aarau, a couple of suburbs of Zurich, and a small town called Wollerau, down near the Southern end of Lake Zurich. Wollerau was beautiful, but if I were to go back, I think I would like to live some place like Glarus. Beautiful, and nestled in its own little alpine valley, and not too far of a trip from Zurich.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Come to think of it, Switzerland is nestled in between four of the most important musical countries (Germany, Austria, France and Italy).


----------



## clavichorder

Klavierspieler said:


> Come to think of it, Switzerland is nestled in between four of the most important musical countries (Germany, Austria, France and Italy).


But the only Swiss composer I can think of off the top of my head is Honneger.


----------



## Klavierspieler

clavichorder said:


> But the only Swiss composer I can think of off the top of my head is Honneger.


So what? I'd only be a few hours from Wien.


----------



## Ukko

And several composers have _composed_ in Switzerland - including Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Bartók and Schnabel.


----------



## Sid James

^^ *& I think R. Strauss composed his Metamorphosen for 23 solo strings in Switzerland, as an exile after WW2.* This is my favourite piece by him, the only work that I really connect with to the max. Maybe the scenery or being surrounded by nature had something to do with it being different from his other works? I know the history of the piece, I'm just taking an extra stab in the dark here...


----------



## Almaviva

Sincerely, I think that Switzerland is a little boring.
As far as opera is concerned, maybe the opera company that I dislike the most in the world is the one in Zurich.
Switzerland doesn't attract me as a place I'd like to move to. Beautiful and all, but bland.

Yes, it's in the middle of four very attractive countries, but so what? I wouldn't be willing to travel constantly to get to see and do what I crave. I'd much rather live in one of those countries that all four already have locally what I crave; and if need be, air travel and high speed rail would easily take me to other places. So, Milan to the South, Vienna to the East, Lyon and Paris to the West, Berlin and Munich to the North in my opinion are much more exciting places than any city in Switzerland.

No offense intended to any Swiss among us; I'm just expressing my preferences, and yes, I've been to Switzerland so I'm not saying it out of the blue.


----------



## Sid James

^^ Well, you'd maybe hear quite a bit of yodelling. Does that rock your boat as much as Ms Netrebko, Alma? :lol: ...


----------



## Almaviva

Sid James said:


> ^^ Well, you'd maybe hear quite a bit of yodelling. Does that rock your boat as much as Ms Netrebko, Alma? :lol: ...


No it doesn't, that's why I said I'd rather move to Italy. No yodeling in Italy.
Although... hm... Anna lives in Austria. [Alma, reconsidering]


----------



## Klavierspieler

Sid James said:


> ^^ *& I think R. Strauss composed his Metamorphosen for 23 solo strings in Switzerland, as an exile after WW2.* This is my favourite piece by him, the only work that I really connect with to the max. Maybe the scenery or being surrounded by nature had something to do with it being different from his other works? I know the history of the piece, I'm just taking an extra stab in the dark here...


Actualy, I believe it was composed in Germany, but premiered in Zürich.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I'd move where my real roots are. Actually, I have no roots....Because, my mother was French, my father British, I was born in Argentina and I have been living in Canada for 29 years...BUT, I read a lot of Russian literature, listen to a lot of Russian music, I went to Russian twice and fell in love with this country. I'm also learning this language...But the Actual Russia is rotten with mafia and very rich and very poor people. I think we have to WAIT. Russia as it is actually is a new country, they changed on a 180 degrees philosophy, passing from socialism to capitalism in a question of weeks! People are not used to capitalism any more...The used to be socialist for so long...But Russia would be a possibility if I am still alive when "things" will become "normal" again...I'd say that 68.934562738% of my musical collection IS Russian. I love this country, I live its culture, its food (the black caviar is awesome), its people.

Martin, Russky


----------



## Sid James

^^Agreed, Russia is fascinating, but the main problem is that there I'd freeze my butt off! So thanks but no thanks to living there for any extended period of time. The further East you go in Europe, the colder it gets. I'm sure the people of Siberia are very nice and hospitable, but their weather isn't...


----------



## samurai

In line with Sid's quite telling observations, I'd move to either Canada or Australia, and both for the same reasons. I have always admired both peoples. The bravery they have exhibited in all the wars that they have fought besides us as Allies has always far exceeded their relative numbers when compared to other, larger nations such as America and Russia. Gallipoli is only one example which comes readily to mind. I'm also given to understand that--at least for the most part--their climates are basically temperate and tolerable. As I despise extremes--especially of heat--I think that for a person like myself, the weather would be a good fit. Last--but by no means least--I have heard that they have a fair and effective health care system {the NHS?}. I for one do not mind in the slightest if I have to pay at a higher rate of taxation if in return I am guaranteed that my family and me will receive adequate health care which will not in the process bankrupt me, as so often happens in this country. If any of my Canadian or Aussie brothers and sisters wish to disabuse me of this notion, please feel free to do so.


----------



## Sid James

^^ I agree with you strongly about the more moderate politics, etc. of Canada & Australia. But I have known some Canadians and they say that their winters can be quite harsh. But I suppose it depends on where you are in the country, it's a huge country. I think Montreal's climate is comparatively mild. Anyway, our resident Canadian members can be more specific about this. But yes, if forced to choose between say Russia & Canada, I'd definitely choose Canada, it's a country that has a solid democracy whereas places like Russia - as Martin pointed out - are just starting out establishing democracy more recently...


----------



## samurai

@ Sid, I am really very tempted by what I have heard, seen and read of your country. Now, whether Australia would *want* *me *is of course a whole other question.


----------



## Sid James

samurai said:


> ...Now, whether Australia would *want* *me *is of course a whole other question.


^^ You'll have to get in touch with those faceless bureaucrats in our Department of Immigration about that :lol: ... but as far as this Australian is concerned, you'd be quite welcome here Down Under!  You'd be surprised how much you'd feel at home here, many Americans I've come across say that...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I remember that Emerson put forth the question in one of his essays as to whether it was better to live in a nation at the peak with a grand history and wealth of culture behind it (here he put forth the Roman Empire under Caesar or Augustus) or a new-born nation that had yet to establish itself (as in the Roman Republic). Emerson was clear that he preferred being a citizen of the nascent United States where he might be part of establishing the great culture that would be as opposed to living in Europe where such culture and history (according to Emerson) was a thing of the past.

While I can respect his point of view, I am of the opposite camp altogether. I need access to art (in person) as well as music and literature, and I cannot imagine (in spite of the incredible natural splendors of such places) living in Australia or New Zealand or most of South America... or most of the South and Western states of the US for that matter.


----------



## Sid James

^^ Interesting you mention the Roman Empire. There have been many Emperors in Europe, both who actually held that title or those who imagined themselves to be or were virtual emperors (eg. dictators of modern times). That's what I don't like about Europe, it's a breeding ground for these types of characters to take over. I think that in places like Europe, you can't get away from the history, good or bad. In places like the new worlds you mention - Australia, USA, NZ, etc. - it's more of a blank slate & we kind of learn from the older places what their mistakes were & *try* not to put them into practice.

As for "natural splendours," yes we have plenty, but the average Australian won't see them or at least many of them, a lot of them are in very remote areas. Chances are that a dedicated traveller from somewhere overseas - like your country - may end up seeing more of Australia in a couple of trips here with good itinerary than the average Aussie would in a lifetime. We're so surrounded by such great natural areas that we kind of take it for granted, which is quite a shame. A lot of us cling to the Eastern coast like superglue and never venture much beyond for any extended period of time...


----------



## samurai

Sid James said:


> ^^ You'll have to get in touch with those faceless bureaucrats in our Department of Immigration about that :lol: ... but as far as this Australian is concerned, you'd be quite welcome here Down Under!  You'd be surprised how much you'd feel at home here, many Americans I've come across say that...


Sounds like a plan, Sid. Thanks!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Joyce had the great quote, "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake..." in spite of the fact that his writings are absolutely laden with history... and especially the history of literature... more than any comparable American writers except for the very European Eliot and Pound. In a sense I think Eliot and Joyce had opposing views of history that owed as much to their nationality than to anything else. History may have been a nightmare to Joyce, in spite of the fact that it was a nightmare from which he could not awake... or escape. To Eliot... born in the rather culturally dead American mid-west, the loss of history and the sense of shared culture which he eulogizes in _The Wasteland_ in something he loves deeply... and envies.

Your fellow Australian, the art critic, Robert Hughes, spoke of something he called the "cultural cringe". To Hughes, this was the feeling of complete artistic and cultural inferiority and irrelevance in contrast to the art of the great Imperial cultural centers. To Hughes, looking at the explosion of art and music and film and literature in the US during the 1950s, it was the United States that was the unquestionable cultural center of the West. While I was still an art student, I got to know several European exchange students who were still of such an opinion... absolutely enthralled with American art and music and culture. For the life of me I couldn't understand the envy of Pollock and DeKooning and George Crumb and rock-n-roll when they had Shakespeare and Michelangelo and Rembrandt and Bach.

I think the American lack of history still plagues us. I think that many younger Americans hold on to a sort of adolescent egocentric mentality in that they exaggerate everything negative that happens to the point of tragedy (rather like the teenage girl who imagines the fact Billy in going to the dance with someone else to being equivalent to the end of the world). As a nation we are no longer free from all competition (as were were immediately following the Second World War) and we have our economic and political struggles... but these are not without precedent. World war II, the Great Depression, the Civil War were all far more trying times. I also recognize that our lack of a grasp of history is politically dangerous. We have far too many willing to give up their freedoms for some illusion of security to power-hungry demagogues.

On a personal note, our relative absence of history... indeed our general apathy toward history to the point of willingly destroying many of our historical sites and buildings in the name of "progress"... the preference for progress and the "new" over the "old" has resulted in turning many of our cities into ugly collections of cheap warehouses and parking lots. There are exceptions, certainly, in such great older cities as New York, Boston, Charleston, Washington, and even San Francisco, but on the whole, I must admit as an artist that I greatly envy the access to art and culture in many European nations. I also question just whether Europe is quite as much a breeding ground of the worst aspects of humanity today as is the ol' USA itself.


----------



## Lukecash12

I live in Manteca, California, and would move to Rome. Good enough place to play music, with excellent cuisine (especially the seasonal produce, and local animals), and amazing experiences for a Christian (the Masses, libraries available, and general Christian environment). But I've got an obligation to my church back home, where I minister, so I really wouldn't think of moving there.


----------



## Couchie

I would take the UK, some parts of the USA, and France.


----------



## Sid James

^^ :lol:

...Maybe your ideal place would be New Orleans (USA + France but without the UK bit). Two out of three ain't bad? Anyway, who wants to live in the UK, it's like a cold shower, is it not?...


----------



## Couchie

Sid James said:


> ^^ :lol:
> 
> ...Maybe your ideal place would be New Orleans (USA + France but without the UK bit). Two out of three ain't bad? Anyway, who wants to live in the UK, it's like a cold shower, is it not?...


Well, they speak english in the UK. I suppose Australia is an option, but I'm scared by how south it is and the whole inverse of the seasons and toilet flush direction. I feel like I could pick French up pretty easily with a few years of immersion, so France is in. The rest of Europe is too European for my tastes and I don't really care for any of their languages.


----------



## Sid James

Couchie said:


> ...I suppose Australia is an option, but I'm scared by how south it is and the whole inverse of the seasons *and toilet flush direction*...


That reminds me of former Aussie Prime Minister Paul Keating saying "Australia is the a*se end of the world." To add insult to injury, he was apparently going on a trip to Paris the next day or something. But he came back, he still lives here, a lot of what he said was tongue firmly in cheek...


----------



## Almaviva

StlukesguildOhio said:


> While I was still an art student, I got to know several European exchange students who were still of such an opinion... absolutely enthralled with American art and music and culture. For the life of me I couldn't understand the envy of Pollock and DeKooning and George Crumb and rock-n-roll when they had Shakespeare and Michelangelo and Rembrandt and Bach.


But StlukesguildOhio, I don't think that our culture is negligible either. You know, even in places like Italy there has been strong cultural decline of late. Funding for the arts is shrinking, people are growing uninterested (although some still protest), mindless TV shows are taking over, the great Italian movie directors are dead and even though there are some good young ones, they aren't as great as the ones in the past. Architecture, painting, sculpture are not what they were. We still have progressive and creative places like Milan, but Italian culture being generated today is a shadow of what it once was. And this is not to offend anyone - I'm a dual citizen of Italy and the United States, so I picked Italy as an example so that nobody accuses me of being anti-European or something.

So, being a young nation, the United States naturally can't benefit of thousands of years of art and history, but for our limited life as a nation, we have produced quite a lot.

Let's think of a little list... Just a few names out of my head, with so, so many others not included:

Visual Arts, in addition to Pollock and Kooning we got Edward Hooper, Mary Cassats, Thomas Benton, Andy Warhol, Georgia O'Keeffe, etc... Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright in architecture... Alexander Calder, Gaston Lachaise (foreign born but naturalized American), George Segal in sculpture...

In theater we have Tennessee Williams, Washington Irving, T.S. Eliot, Eugene O'Neil, Arthur Miller...

In dance we got Isadora Duncan, Marta Graham, Merce Cunningham, Alvin Ailey...

In literature we got Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, Henry James, Ernest Hemingway, Ezra Pound, John Steinbeck, F. Scot Fitzgerald, William Faulkner, Toni Morrison, Charles Bukowsky... etc., etc., too many to mention.

In music we got the entire Jazz tradition plus George Gershwin, Leonard Bernstein, Charles Ives, Aaron Copland, John Cage, Philip Glass, John Adams...

In Cinema there is a long list of notable directors such as Orson Welles, Frank Capra, Alfred Hitchcock (well, naturalized), Howard Hawks, plus the Golden Age classics, plus the post-classical ones like Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Sidney Lumet, etc., and then the modern independent cinema with Spike Lee, Steven Soderbergh, etc, etc - again, too numerous to quote.

Let's not forget that numerous other forms of American culture also do exist, maybe less refined than the above mentioned, but with significant world impact - say, Walt Disney in animation, musical genres like classic rock-and-roll, comic book illustrators, fashion designers, etc., etc.

And I'd also add that a form of culture is the US contributions to the sciences, with a large number of inventors and Nobel Prize winners who have greatly advanced physics, chemistry, medicine, bioengineering, communications, space travel, etc.

I think that for a young country we've done VERY well, and we shouldn't be ashamed of our culture (or perceived lack thereof) at all.

[Alma, patriotic]


----------



## Sid James

^^ I'd add that wherever you are, there will be some culture. Humans naturally make music, do painting, have some form of either oral or written literary tradition. It's just a matter of what certain people value, which is okay.

I think that aspects of the "cultural cringe" will forever be present here in Australia if we compare ourselves to UK-Europe-USA. There was an idiot on another classical forum which I left saying our most popular living classical composer, Peter Sculthorpe was "mediocre" and his popularity here (& abroad?) was a sign of the "cultural cringe." I thought this was utter bullsh*t, because basically it is. It was one of the reasons I left that forum. & you know the most surprising thing? The guy talking this **** was a fellow Australian . 

So yes, Alma, we should be at least supportive of our own artistic creators, or at least positive (put up or shut up, basically). I'm not going to say something like Sculthorpe is as significant to the world as Boulez or whoever (they're of the same age), but I will say that Sculthorpe has a unique style, a unique vision, is a craftsman of a very high standard, etc. This idiot critic was going on little experience of the actual music, he was just talking rubbish ideology. As you all know, I hate ideology, I think it's bullsh*t to be honest, esp. when it's mixed up with the actual music...


----------



## Tapkaara

In order of preference:

Finland, Japan, France


----------



## Ukko

Sid James said:


> So yes, Alma, we should be at least supportive of our own artistic creators, or at least positive (put up or shut up, basically). I'm not going to say something like Sculthorpe is as significant to the world as Boulez or whoever (they're of the same age), but I will say that Sculthorpe has a unique style, a unique vision, is a craftsman of a very high standard, etc. This idiot critic was going on little experience of the actual music, he was just talking rubbish ideology. As you all know, I hate ideology, I think it's bullsh*t to be honest, esp. when it's mixed up with the actual music...


Sculthorpe has a place in my collection. Excellent orchestration, emotionally effective music that for me evokes the 'feel' of Australia that snuck in during the short time I was there (near Sydney). The Finnessy piece 'Red Earth' doesn't have much for hooks I can feel, but there's a strong hint of Sculthorpe influence there, I think.

[The current series of Foster Beer 'definitions' advertisements has some damn good things, wherein I can sometimes smell stale beer, gone-by perfume, and in the football things some BO. This has nothing to do with the thread...]


----------



## Sid James

Hilltroll72 said:


> Sculthorpe has a place in my collection. Excellent orchestration, emotionally effective music that for me evokes the 'feel' of Australia that snuck in during the short time I was there (near Sydney)...


Well, if his music can bring those images, evoke those feelings in your mind's eye, then he's a talented composer, he's reached his goal, imo. I've been listening to his guitar music and it's just great how he brings up those kinds of images with a single instrument, the sound is so rich and instantly recognisable as his own.



> ...The Finnessy piece 'Red Earth' doesn't have much for hooks I can feel, but there's a strong hint of Sculthorpe influence there, I think...


I haven't come across that name, didn't know Sculthorpe influenced anyone in a more direct way, he's more like one of the first to bring in new trends here as well as connect more with Asia-Pacific region & Aboriginal Australian music, culture, etc.



> ...
> [The current series of Foster Beer 'definitions' advertisements has some damn good things, wherein I can sometimes smell stale beer, gone-by perfume, and in the football things some BO. This has nothing to do with the thread...]


Now that, Fosters Beer, give the image of us Aussies being beer swilling yobbos (or hoons in your lingo) = CULTURAL CRINGE!!! :lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Alma...

In no way would I dismiss the cultural contributions of the US... especially considering the relative youth of the nation. I agree that the US has made some major contributions to nearly all the arts... to the point that they might indeed be seen as having dominated the culture of the 20th century. American contributions to film and television is unrivaled. Considering not only that music of the last century which is labeled "classical" but also jazz, rock n roll, blues, and bluegrass, American musical influence has spread around the world. The US contributions to literature is equal to that of any other nation over the last 150 years. The US established Modern architecture with the skyscraper and Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright. Our contributions to the traditional visual arts are perhaps less impressive... but not without definite highlights: Albert P. Ryder, Winslow Homer, Edward Hopper, John Singer Sargent, William DeKooning, Mark Rothko, Jackson Pollock, Jasper Johns, Philip Guston, Charles Burchfield, Fairfield Porter, Stuart Davis, George Tooker, Andrew Wyeth (Please! let's forget the other Andy!) etc... These don't stack up to Picasso, Matisse, Klee, Beckmann, Bonnard, Modigliani, Klimt, Maillol, etc... but they aren't bad.

(By the way... only a "boob man" like yourself would even know of, let alone mention Gaston Lachaise among the "great" artists of the century.:lol

New York remains the center of the art market, and the US probably continues to turn out as many if not more talented and innovative visual artists as any other nation (although Germany, Japan, Britain, and perhaps China are hot on our heels).

Historically, the greatest cultural achievements have occurred at the crossroads... those places where cultures meet and clash... whether it be ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, Paris, or now the United States. Contrary to the fears of xenophobics and Neo-Cons, the influx of immigrants from Latin-America, Asia, the Middle-East, etc... have helped to fuel our culture.

Where we fall short, is as you suggest, in our lack of hundreds and thousands of years of art and culture. We have absolutely nothing to rival this in the US:




























****continued****


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

These are all examples of works of art that older than our nation and are an everyday presence in many major European cities. And these are but some of the most obvious examples. How many endless castles, palazzos, cathedrals, chapels, churches, houses, etc... that predate the US exist throughout Europe? The closest we might come is the Brooklyn Bridge, some of the monuments in Washington D.C., the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Chrysler Building. Our lack of any historical sense has led to the destruction of how many of our historical buildings? Here in Cleveland the major avenues that were once lined with stunning Victorian brownstones and mansions were all torn down to make way for aluminum warehouses, parking lots, and wider roads. Much of the visual artistic culture we do have is that pillage from Egypt, Greece, Rome, and the rest of Europe by the great robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Met, the National Gallery, the Chicago Art Institute are marvelous collections of art... but they are largely collections of the art of the rest of the world. Paris and London and Florence and Madrid and Moscow have similar collections. But they also have that great wealth of artistic and architectural works that are uniquely French or Italian or British. One can glean a sense of the continuity of French culture in Paris running through Notre Dame, the Louvre, Versailles, Arc de Triomphe, Sainte-Chapelle, St. Denis, the Eiffel Tower, the Pompedou, the Louvre, the Musée d'Orsay, the Paris Opera, etc... I don't see us as approaching this at all... and considering the manner in which the arts are viewed as mere entertainment... and often as nothing more than entertainment for the rich... which fuels the Neo-Con efforts at slashing and burning funding for the arts and art education, I don't think we are going to see a nation where the arts are taken seriously for a long time to come.

I understand that most European cities and nations are in no way at the leading edge of contemporary art. Paris, London, and Germany may be exceptions. But they do have the incredible wealth of art behind them which is recognized and valued... if only because it is valuable to the tourist trade. This, of course, was what Emerson was asking. Would you, as an individual, prefer to live in a culture surrounded by the monuments and achievements of a brilliant past... even if that culture were no longer at the leading edge? Or would you rather live in a nascent culture that was in the process of building itself into a great culture? Rome/Venice/Vienna or New York/Chicago/Los Angeles?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Now that, Fosters Beer, give the image of us Aussies being beer swilling yobbos (or hoons in your lingo)

I haven't come across "hoons" or "yobbos" myself. Perhaps Yahoos (which of course dates back to Swift), Morons, Cretins, and other less delicate terms... but "hoons"?


----------



## Sid James

^^ Maybe it's wrong, hoons might be Aussie slang/colloquial as well (eg. car hoons). I think I was thinking of something close to morons, so "beer swilling morons" will do, thank you...


----------



## Almaviva

Stlukes, Gaston Lachaise and I seem to share some appreciation for *cough cough* certain assets.


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...Contrary to the fears of xenophobics and Neo-Cons, the influx of immigrants from Latin-America, Asia, the Middle-East, etc... have helped to fuel our culture...


& you have to be glad, as we are here, that you don't have "xenophobics" holding highest office as they do in Europe with the rise of the far right - eg. Berlusconi, Haider, Pym Forteyn or whatever his name was, & also dinosaurs from the Communist era like Milosevic doing his wonderful things with Radko Mladic, not to speak of the strongmen who are ruling the former USSR with an iron grip - but now they're called "democracies." What a joke politics in Europe is.

Nice tourist snaps but I wouldn't live there, except as I said moderate countries like UK or Scandinavia.



> ...Where we fall short, is as you suggest, in our lack of hundreds and thousands of years of art and culture. We have absolutely nothing to rival this in the US...


I don't doubt they have some of the greatest monuments, but they also have genocide bought to you courtesy of various extreme political ideologies that are not dead as they should be.

Of course, I'm talking from my own perspective of having family coming from Europe, getting away from all that. Funnily enough they're critical of Australia for reasons of cultural cringe and backwardness & other reasons, but I'd rather have less culture and better democracy, not extremism in politics along with all their great monuments in Europe. Political culture, civil society is more important to me, it seems, than artistic culture when it boils down to comparing one to the other. I don't value what my family value in old Europe, they forget why we're here in the first place...


----------



## Almaviva

Stlukes, now, seriously; I know, I wasn't trying to compare our culture to the products of thousands of years of artistic activity like we see in Europe. I was merely saying that for a young nation we've done quite well. There aren't many nations on Earth that are as young as we are and have contributed artistically and scientifically as much as we have (OK, let's not be PC, there *aren't* ANY nations on Earth that are as young...etc.).

As for your question (or Emerson's): "Would you, as an individual, prefer to live in a culture surrounded by the monuments and achievements of a brilliant past... even if that culture were no longer at the leading edge? Or would you rather live in a nascent culture that was in the process of building itself into a great culture? Rome/Venice/Vienna or New York/Chicago/Los Angeles?"

I'd say, both.

I love Europe, my ancestors came from Europe, I hold the European Union's citizenship and passport, I lived in Europe for 5 years, and have visited it many times. I have family and friends there. I plan to move to Europe when I retire, and spend the rest of my life there.

But I also love the United States. 

Both places have their strengths, and the key to cultural fruition is to enjoy both. 

I also have strong ties to South America (Brazil - my wife's homeland).

All three of these world regions have strong culture. 

I don't endorse the concept of a superior culture. I believe that all cultures are valuable, and the main differences can be explained by cultural age. Given enough time, all cultures can produce wonders.

Europe got a head start, and what they (we, I'm also European) have produced in 2000-3000 years is spectacular. But the United States in 235 years and Brazil in 511 years have produced some very interesting art as well, and if given 2000-3000 years these countries might be able to match what Europe has done (assuming that humankind will survive that long and countries will still exist - probably they won't).

Today there is a global village. From the comfort of my home I can enjoy a good dose of European culture, using my smartphone, my laptop, my satellite TV provider, and my Internet-capable TV. I can watch cultural TV from France, Germany, Spain, and Portugal. I can attend opera in movie theaters in real time as the performances are happening in London, Barcelona, and Milan. I can visit Europe almost as often as I feel like (given work and family commitments) for a reasonable price and in a few hours (even the local airport in my small metropolitan area which is a 15-minute drive from home has non-stop flights to London, reachable in 7 hours). My children often spend summers in Europe. In our household we speak five European languages.

So, the bottom line is, I'm not culturally deprived because I'm American, and I don't resent the fact that we're a young nation with less history and less ancient art than European countries. Youth often also means dynamism and innovation.


----------



## Couchie

Canada is the best aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh lol


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Gaston Lachaise and I seem to share some appreciation for *cough cough* certain assets.










Indeed!:lol::devil:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

& you have to be glad, as we are here, that you don't have "xenophobics" holding highest office...

Don't be so sure about that, Andre. We have far more than our share of xenophobes and racists... and I suspect this is owed in part to our somewhat isolationist history... but also due to our physical distance from different cultures. The distance from London to Paris to Amsterdam to Hamburg is like a drive from Chicago to New York. As such, most Europeans are bilingual. I suspect learning a second language... and exploring the arts of other cultures is one means of gaining a greater sense of empathy and understanding of others.

_"...Where we fall short, is as you suggest, in our lack of hundreds and thousands of years of art and culture. We have absolutely nothing to rival this in the US..."_

I don't doubt they have some of the greatest monuments, but they also have genocide bought to you courtesy of various extreme political ideologies that are not dead as they should be.

I would not be quick to suggest that we have not undertaken part in our share of genocide. We have slavery and the virtual elimination of the native Americans behind us... and racism is in no way a thing of the past.

Of course, I'm talking from my own perspective of having family coming from Europe, getting away from all that. Funnily enough they're critical of Australia for reasons of cultural cringe and backwardness & other reasons, but I'd rather have less culture and better democracy, not extremism in politics along with all their great monuments in Europe. Political culture, civil society is more important to me, it seems, than artistic culture when it boils down to comparing one to the other. I don't value what my family value in old Europe, they forget why we're here in the first place...

It is perhaps an instance of the "grass is always greener..." but interestingly enough, more than a few of our greatest artists in any number of fields were of the opposite view... believing that art and culture were far more important than the politics of the moment. I think especially of Pound and Eliot. I would also suggest that I doubt the current American democracy is in any way inherently superior to what exists in England, France, Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, etc... and I suspect in many ways... education, universal access to health care, and social safety nets on the top of this list... we may lag quite a bit behind in terms of not merely democratic but civilized nations.


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> 
> Don't be so sure about that, Andre. We have far more than our share of xenophobes and racists... and I suspect this is owed in part to our somewhat isolationist history... but also due to our physical distance from different cultures...


Well, I was generalising of course. I am not as aware of what's happening in the USA in terms of race relations apart from the "big events," eg. the riots after the Rodney King bashing in L.A. but that was like 20 years ago. I think it looks somewhat better, less extreme/polarised now in the USA than then, but I'm talking of my limited view from here. But I would have found out if someone like far rightists esp. Haider of Austria I mentioned would rear his head in USA politics. Of course, it's hard to compare, there's probably a bigger, more influential Jewish community in the USA than some European countries for obvious reasons of history. Switzerland, Austria, & probably some East European countries are the most anti-Semitic places on the planet.



> ...
> The distance from London to Paris to Amsterdam to Hamburg is like a drive from Chicago to New York. As such, most Europeans are bilingual. I suspect learning a second language... and exploring the arts of other cultures is one means of gaining a greater sense of empathy and understanding of others.
> ...


This is true, and this was the reason behind setting up of what has now become the European Union after 1945.



> ...I would not be quick to suggest that we have not undertaken part in our share of genocide. We have slavery and the virtual elimination of the native Americans behind us... and racism is in no way a thing of the past...


Same in Australia but in recent decades "head in sand" attitudes in relation to that have been less marked, there's been an effort to deal with what happened in colonialism. I'd hazard a guess that in Europe many people have forgotten, or chosen to forget, so they elect people to high office who play the race card and feed on underlying fears & prejudices. A politician in Queensland called Pauline Hanson tried this in the 1990's and had some electoral success in that state, but in the end her lack of real policies was revealed, her party called _One Nation_ imploded from divisions within.



> ...
> 
> It is perhaps an instance of the "grass is always greener..." but interestingly enough, more than a few of our greatest artists in any number of fields were of the opposite view... believing that art and culture were far more important than the politics of the moment. I think especially of Pound and Eliot. I would also suggest that I doubt the current American democracy is in any way inherently superior to what exists in England, France, Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, etc... and I suspect in many ways... education, universal access to health care, and social safety nets on the top of this list... we may lag quite a bit behind in terms of not merely democratic but civilized nations.


Well I was thinking more of Australia, I'd say we are equal to Europe in many ways, but not all. Infrastructure here is not as good as there, education and health funding have gone down over the past few decades in relative terms. I think culture/arts is mixed, certainly there is a lot going on in the major cities, but less in rural/regional areas. Indeed, one politician here of the National Party representing rural Australia said that we have two countries here, the cities are like first world level, the rural/regional areas (the farther out you get from the cities, big towns) they are like second or third world level. It's food for thought and I would certainly not say that everything is perfect here.

I'm just projecting because I get this from my family all the time, eg. "I'd rather go back to Europe" or "I'd rather live in Europe, it's the real thing, Australia is just a backwater." I totally disagree with them and sometimes I have to bite my lip, just put up and shut up. I'm cynical of the "real" history of Europe behind all those grand facades, the emphasis on the glories of the past, a kind of narrow field view which ignores the dark/ugly side of what's going on there, the divisions & those that feed on them, etc...


----------



## Guest

@StlukesguildOhio

I think you are looking at things a bit wrong. From an art perspective, Europe may be ahead of us, simply because they got a headstart. Sure, what came to be the USA has been on the North American continent for a while, but they had to start from scratch, and there is always a steep development curve. You can't build huge monuments when you are barely eeking out existence. No time to build a cathedral while chopping down wood to build your basic home.

But consider also the price paid to construct some of those great monuments in Europe. How many peasants were squeezed to obtain the funds to build such structures? How many people were living in squalor while those magnificent, opulent buildings were being erected? Where did those organizations come by the funds to produce such grand structures? The culture that was capable of producing such things just has never existed in the USA.

But why is it that you only point to structures that are centuries old from Europe? So they have a past? They have been there long enough, the fact that they have those things isn't amazing - what would be more amazing is if they didn't have them. Look back on the USA at some point in the future analogous to what you now look back upon in Europe, and I think it will be comparable. But what has Europe done since? Are they still erecting epic monuments? I would hold up the record of the USA with pride. It is not out of xenophobia, but rather out of national pride.

How many countries in the world now have forms of government patterned after the U.S. constitution? In an era when Europe was being subjected to the whims of monarchs whose only claim to power was the interbreeding of "royals" throughout Europe whose ancestors at one point managed to win a battle and claim leadership of a geographic region - at that time, the US set up a system of government of, by, and for the people. Now we can argue the success of that government in this day and age, but it has thus far proven the most successful model. Despite all the wrongs that the US has committed in its history (and before we bring up slavery, it should be noted that the US did not invent slavery, and European nations were more than happy to abduct Africans and sell them in the US), the fact of the matter is that we have never sought for global hegemony, and have never initiated a world war, or a 30-years war, or a 100-years war. Yes, we did take a much larger role in the world after WWII, but Europe was decimated, and Russia was on the rise, and very aggressive. Russia was on our side in WWII, but only after Hitler violated his treaty with Russia - Russia had been happy to divide up Poland with Germany when the Germans blitzed. They joined us because that was their only hope of survival, not out of some affinity towards us, or England. And after the war, Western Europe had nothing to protect themselves.

With all the complaints of how conservative and backwards Americans can be, what nation in the world today spends more money on the arts and sciences? This is still the place to go for that. I'm not saying we are perfect, or that we rival other countries in the arts. I agree that Europe has the lion's share of great works of art. And I enjoy visiting Europe. I love visiting the grand cathedrals and castles. But I am still mindful of the other side of that history. I think art is a reflection of civilization. Wherever you have civilization, you will have art - whether it is ancient Greece, medieval Europe, or modern America.

I would also suggest that what you so admire in the western European democracies - the social safety nets, the social spending - would very likely not exist were it not for Americans. First of all, without American intervention, Europe might very well now be one large German empire. Most of Europe had fallen prior to our intervention. Were it not for the support that we provided to Russia to keep them pressuring the Eastern Front, they would have crumbled. England alone might have survived, being an island nation, but cut off. But we interceded, and worked together with the Allies to defeat Germany. But then Russia was on the move, and thanks to NATO, with the lion's share coming from the US, Russia was kept in check. Western European countries cut back on defense spending, while we continued to protect them in Western Europe. Had we left them alone, and let them see to their own defense, I seriously doubt that they would ever have had the funds to pay for any of their social programs.


----------



## Ravellian

I'm thinking Norway, or Switzerland, or New Zealand. Can't decide.


----------



## Xytech

Ravellian said:


> I'm thinking Norway, or Switzerland, or New Zealand. Can't decide.


Rule out New Zealand


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> @StlukesguildOhio
> 
> I think you are looking at things a bit wrong. From an art perspective, Europe may be ahead of us, simply because they got a headstart. Sure, what came to be the USA has been on the North American continent for a while, but they had to start from scratch, and there is always a steep development curve. You can't build huge monuments when you are barely eeking out existence. No time to build a cathedral while chopping down wood to build your basic home.
> 
> But consider also the price paid to construct some of those great monuments in Europe. How many peasants were squeezed to obtain the funds to build such structures? How many people were living in squalor while those magnificent, opulent buildings were being erected? Where did those organizations come by the funds to produce such grand structures? The culture that was capable of producing such things just has never existed in the USA.
> 
> But why is it that you only point to structures that are centuries old from Europe? So they have a past? They have been there long enough, the fact that they have those things isn't amazing - what would be more amazing is if they didn't have them. Look back on the USA at some point in the future analogous to what you now look back upon in Europe, and I think it will be comparable. But what has Europe done since? Are they still erecting epic monuments? I would hold up the record of the USA with pride. It is not out of xenophobia, but rather out of national pride.
> 
> How many countries in the world now have forms of government patterned after the U.S. constitution? In an era when Europe was being subjected to the whims of monarchs whose only claim to power was the interbreeding of "royals" throughout Europe whose ancestors at one point managed to win a battle and claim leadership of a geographic region - at that time, the US set up a system of government of, by, and for the people. Now we can argue the success of that government in this day and age, but it has thus far proven the most successful model. Despite all the wrongs that the US has committed in its history (and before we bring up slavery, it should be noted that the US did not invent slavery, and European nations were more than happy to abduct Africans and sell them in the US), the fact of the matter is that we have never sought for global hegemony, and have never initiated a world war, or a 30-years war, or a 100-years war. Yes, we did take a much larger role in the world after WWII, but Europe was decimated, and Russia was on the rise, and very aggressive. Russia was on our side in WWII, but only after Hitler violated his treaty with Russia - Russia had been happy to divide up Poland with Germany when the Germans blitzed. They joined us because that was their only hope of survival, not out of some affinity towards us, or England. And after the war, Western Europe had nothing to protect themselves.
> 
> With all the complaints of how conservative and backwards Americans can be, what nation in the world today spends more money on the arts and sciences? This is still the place to go for that. I'm not saying we are perfect, or that we rival other countries in the arts. I agree that Europe has the lion's share of great works of art. And I enjoy visiting Europe. I love visiting the grand cathedrals and castles. But I am still mindful of the other side of that history. I think art is a reflection of civilization. Wherever you have civilization, you will have art - whether it is ancient Greece, medieval Europe, or modern America.
> 
> I would also suggest that what you so admire in the western European democracies - the social safety nets, the social spending - would very likely not exist were it not for Americans. First of all, without American intervention, Europe might very well now be one large German empire. Most of Europe had fallen prior to our intervention. Were it not for the support that we provided to Russia to keep them pressuring the Eastern Front, they would have crumbled. England alone might have survived, being an island nation, but cut off. But we interceded, and worked together with the Allies to defeat Germany. But then Russia was on the move, and thanks to NATO, with the lion's share coming from the US, Russia was kept in check. Western European countries cut back on defense spending, while we continued to protect them in Western Europe. Had we left them alone, and let them see to their own defense, I seriously doubt that they would ever have had the funds to pay for any of their social programs.


I think you're a bit off-topic here, DrMike. We're discussing art rather than politics. You post reads more as a history of the major armed conflicts in Europe and America's participation in some of them, than as a history of art, in spite of a few observations that link what you're saying with artistic output.
Although I agree with you regarding America's culture (see my post above), I believe that at one point there you forgot that democracy comes from Greece.


----------



## Lukecash12

Almaviva said:


> I think you're a bit off-topic here, DrMike. We're discussing art rather than politics. You post reads more as a history of the major armed conflicts in Europe and America's participation in some of them, than as a history of art, in spite of a few observations that link what you're saying with artistic output.
> Although I agree with you regarding America's culture (see my post above), I believe that at one point there you forgot that democracy comes from Greece.


At the risk of discussing something too tangential to this thread (which I can fix soon by discussing Greece and it's art!), I'd like to point out that Attic Greece was a disorganized democracy; it was plagued by Sophistic demagogues, and popular vote swayed with some regularity. It was such a fickle form of government that during war times, financial support and organization was heavily sporadic, and it was overthrown during the Peloponnesian War by Sparta. For the longest time thereafter (that is, once Greece was under Macedonian and then Roman rule), Attic democracy was often feared and hated until the Enlightenment era. American democracy is not at all like Attic democracy, because it operates according to a constitution, and that constitution contains charters about separation of powers, foreign diplomacy policies (adopted from the Articles of Confederation), membership, journals, and adjournment policies, election policies (much more structured than Attic elections), revenue bills, presidential vetoes, Article 1 sections 8, 9, and 10 on the powers and limits of Congress and the States, civilian power over military expressed in Article 2 section 2, a clear distinction of judicial powers and trial by jury in Article 3, and so on and so forth. Each branch of the government is given express obligations, and codes of conduct. Attic democracy gives no permanent or even long lasting guarantee for any of this, it's election processes are cutthroat, it's jury trials are comparatively arbitrary in organization, and hearing proceedings, and it never legislated any such triumphant achievements as the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

The democracy depicted by the historians of and recording the days of Attic Greece, like Seutonious, and the philosophers of the day, like Plato with his literary dialogue _The Republic_, record a fickle form of government that fell apart during a war where decisive measures and comparable unity was needed. Their demagogues either bled away money entitled to the navy, or argued vehemently over strategical concerns. There was no substantial executive security.

So, while people call America a democracy, if one was to read the constitution in it's entirety and if one was to read the literature it's ideals are contingent upon, it would be apparent that there is hardly any comparison between Attic Greece and the U.S.; American democracy comes from Enlightenment era social ideals, Platonic and neo-Platonic literature (the Republic being the basis behind Hobbes and Montesque especially, who likely thought of the government as reflective of Plato's idea of the soul), as opposed to Attic democracy which relied heavily on the Sophist movement (very relativistic and despised by philosophers for long thereafter).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think you are looking at things a bit wrong. From an art perspective, Europe may be ahead of us, simply because they got a headstart. Sure, what came to be the USA has been on the North American continent for a while, but they had to start from scratch, and there is always a steep development curve. You can't build huge monuments when you are barely eeking out existence. No time to build a cathedral while chopping down wood to build your basic home.

Of course I am aware of this... and this was part of what Emerson was toying with. He recognized that the United States was a nation that was spending the majority of its efforts upon building a nation. Homes, farms, roadways, and waterways took precedence over the arts. Emerson and Whitman combined virtually establish the American myth of this new virgin nation free from class and aristocracy and religious intolerance and European "decadence". They embraced the option of being part of establishing a great new culture as opposed to living in a nation already at the heights of civilization.

The question at this point is somewhat moot. America is no longer (if it ever was) this virgin nation... a clean slate... free from those negative elements that so mar European culture... with endless possibilities lying before it. Emerson imagined an America not unlike the early Roman Republic. The America we have inherited is far closer to the Roman Republic: an Imperial superpower with far more militaristic aspirations than cultural. Just as a great majority of the Roman culture was rooted in the achievements of the Greeks, so much of our culture is rooted in the achievements of Europe.

But consider also the price paid to construct some of those great monuments in Europe. How many peasants were squeezed to obtain the funds to build such structures? How many people were living in squalor while those magnificent, opulent buildings were being erected? Where did those organizations come by the funds to produce such grand structures? The culture that was capable of producing such things just has never existed in the USA.

Do you honestly believe this? Did it demand greater resources to construct this:



















than it did to construct this:



















We simply see a shift in priorities. Notre Dame was the product of a civilization that placed God and religion as the center of the culture. Versailles places the Aristocracy and the King at the pinnacle. The Chrysler Building was the result of a culture that placed the great corporations at the center. Essentially both involved the glorification of those with wealth and power... whether it was the Church leaders, the Aristocracy, or the Billionaires.

Certainly the standard of living for the poor and middle classes in the US today is far better than it was under the aristocracy 500 years ago... but quite arguably this is owed as much to progress and mass production as it is to any social/political system. "Democracy" such as it is, makes no pretense as to guaranteeing economic equality or fairness. It is not an economic system at all.

But why is it that you only point to structures that are centuries old from Europe? So they have a past? They have been there long enough, the fact that they have those things isn't amazing - what would be more amazing is if they didn't have them. Look back on the USA at some point in the future analogous to what you now look back upon in Europe, and I think it will be comparable.

Perhaps... but is that really what Emerson was getting at? let's look at it from another angle. Would you prefer to be the individual who struggles for years to achieve a degree of economic stability... eventually attaining real success and becoming a millionaire? Or would you rather be the son of the millionaire able to enjoy the fruits of your predecessor's labors from the outset? Which life would you rather have for your children?

But what has Europe done since? Are they still erecting epic monuments? 

You really don't imagine that European culture has somehow slipped into a dark ages, now do you. Just looking at the last 100 years, how many composers do we have that rival Shostakovitch, Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, Debussy, Puccini, Rachmaninoff, etc...? We have T.S. Eliot, Faulkner, Hemingway, etc... but Europe has James Joyce, W.B. Yeats, Proust, Camus, Kafka, Mann, Hesse, Rilke, etc... We have Hopper, Warhol, Pollock, Rothko, and Dekooning... but Europe has Picasso, Matisse, Beckmann, Klee, Kandinsky, etc... As for architectural achievements... I doubt any nation holds the lion's share here. Paris, London, Berlin, etc... have become just a modern... even more so in some ways... than big American cities.

*****]


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Considering the need for reconstruction following two world wars, the modernity and scale of many European metropolises may be even more impressive. Unfortunately, I think many of our cities have suffered from short-sighted political biases that have supported subsidies for building in the suburbs and rural areas in the belief that it is the Leave it to Beaver small towns that are the spiritual and economic engine that fuels the nation, when it has always been the cities.

How many countries in the world now have forms of government patterned after the U.S. constitution?

Of course political systems have little to do with artistic achievements. Indeed, one might argue that democracy and egalitarianism are in some ways detrimental to art. The opinions of the public... the "lowest common denominator"... rarely equate with artistic quality. One need only look to television and popular culture as a whole.

I agree that many countries have modeled their form of government upon ours... but then again, our form of government was equally modeled upon examples from Greece, Rome, France, England, etc...

In an era when Europe was being subjected to the whims of monarchs whose only claim to power was the interbreeding of "royals" throughout Europe whose ancestors at one point managed to win a battle and claim leadership of a geographic region - at that time, the US set up a system of government of, by, and for the people.

That was the ideal. Of course women weren't people, Neither were Blacks, nor Native Americans... nor for the most part, those who did not own land. Personally, I am not convinced of the inherent superiority of any political system. The proof lies in the pudding... in the individuals in the position of leadership and how they use their position for better or worse. The have been benevolent dictators and aristocrats... and there have been elected officials who were the worst. G.B. Shaw suggested that the sole failing of the aristocracy lie in the inability of the most educated, privileged, and one would assume "intelligent" class of individuals to come up with a single competent ruler. He continued who ask just how we might imagine a largely uneducated populace might be expected to achieve something better.

Now we can argue the success of that government in this day and age, but it has thus far proven the most successful model.

"Successful" by what standards? Do we have the longest life span? Do we have fair access to education? Do we have universal health care? How do we rate of the Quality of Life Index? It would seem there are a good many European (and one Asian) countries ahead of us and a good many more European countries not far behind us.

Despite all the wrongs that the US has committed in its history (and before we bring up slavery, it should be noted that the US did not invent slavery, and European nations were more than happy to abduct Africans and sell them in the US)...

I would never suggest that others were not complicit in slavery. European participation in the slave trade could have been banned far earlier, and European nations could have refused to trade with the US... or at least with anyone profiting from slave labor. But we continued to allow slavery long after most European nations had banned the practice... largely out of greed. The practice assured great wealth for Southern land-owners.

The fact of the matter is that we have never sought for global hegemony...

That's debatable. I would agree that as a nation I don't believe the populace has ever supported the idea of imposing our rule upon others... but certainly various political and economic interests are quite supportive of employing force toward certain goals. One would also have to point out that the whole arms race suggests that we were not adverse to attempting to maintain military dominance in the world.

...and have never initiated a world war, or a 30-years war, or a 100-years war.

But any number of the wars we have participated in from the French Indian war, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the war on the Native Americans, the Spanish American War, the Korean War, the covert wars in South and Central America, the Vietnam War, the War in Kuwait, the covert aid for the Taliban in Afghanistan against the USSR, the current wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc... are not without less than "pure" intentions.

Yes, we did take a much larger role in the world after WWII, but Europe was decimated, and Russia was on the rise, and very aggressive. Russia was on our side in WWII, but only after Hitler violated his treaty with Russia - Russia had been happy to divide up Poland with Germany when the Germans blitzed. They joined us because that was their only hope of survival, not out of some affinity towards us, or England. And after the war, Western Europe had nothing to protect themselves.

Certainly the Soviet Union under Stalin was a worse master than the United States... but I doubt we were defending Europe out of some noble ideal. We were involved in a war of influence and control.

With all the complaints of how conservative and backwards Americans can be, what nation in the world today spends more money on the arts and sciences? 

You don't want to go there. The public money spent on the arts through NEA and the NEH is minuscule based upon _per capita_ investment in comparison to many other countries. We used to invest far more when the government supported jazz concerts, and exhibitions of Abstract Expressionist paintings as part of a means of promoting American culture around the world. Almost the whole of money invested in the arts today comes from private donors and corporations. Support for arts education is negligible, and support for arts endeavors from private and corporate sources come with limitations.

This is still the place to go for that. I'm not saying we are perfect, or that we rival other countries in the arts. I agree that Europe has the lion's share of great works of art. And I enjoy visiting Europe. I love visiting the grand cathedrals and castles. But I am still mindful of the other side of that history. I think art is a reflection of civilization.

Certainly... but I question the notion that in most instances this or that political system results in greater return from the arts. Many of the Renaissance masters worked for some of the most rapacious and blood-thirsty tyrants. Many cultures of peace and harmony produced little of any artistic merit. Or in Orson Welles immortal words: _"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."_:lol:

***********


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Wherever you have civilization, you will have art - whether it is ancient Greece, medieval Europe, or modern America.

But all art is not created equal. Ultimately, what it comes down to is the fact that as an an artist I am far more inspired by this:










and this:










and this:










and this:










and this:










and this:










*******


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

than I am by this:










or this:










or this:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I would move to Antartica.


----------



## Almaviva

StlukesguildOhio said:


> than I am by this:


Aren't you being a bit selective? You're taking the best of European art, to compare to the worst of American art.
I don't have the energy to go searching right now, but I'm sure I could easily post some pictures of some very compelling American art, if I weren't far from home in a hotel with relatively slow Internet speed, after a few glasses of wine, winding down before another intense day tomorrow.


----------



## Almaviva

Lukecash12 said:


> At the risk of discussing something too tangential to this thread (which I can fix soon by discussing Greece and it's art!), I'd like to point out that Attic Greece was a disorganized democracy; it was plagued by Sophistic demagogues, and popular vote swayed with some regularity. It was such a fickle form of government that during war times, financial support and organization was heavily sporadic, and it was overthrown during the Peloponnesian War by Sparta. For the longest time thereafter (that is, once Greece was under Macedonian and then Roman rule), Attic democracy was often feared and hated until the Enlightenment era. American democracy is not at all like Attic democracy, because it operates according to a constitution, and that constitution contains charters about separation of powers, foreign diplomacy policies (adopted from the Articles of Confederation), membership, journals, and adjournment policies, election policies (much more structured than Attic elections), revenue bills, presidential vetoes, Article 1 sections 8, 9, and 10 on the powers and limits of Congress and the States, civilian power over military expressed in Article 2 section 2, a clear distinction of judicial powers and trial by jury in Article 3, and so on and so forth. Each branch of the government is given express obligations, and codes of conduct. Attic democracy gives no permanent or even long lasting guarantee for any of this, it's election processes are cutthroat, it's jury trials are comparatively arbitrary in organization, and hearing proceedings, and it never legislated any such triumphant achievements as the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> The democracy depicted by the historians of and recording the days of Attic Greece, like Seutonious, and the philosophers of the day, like Plato with his literary dialogue _The Republic_, record a fickle form of government that fell apart during a war where decisive measures and comparable unity was needed. Their demagogues either bled away money entitled to the navy, or argued vehemently over strategical concerns. There was no substantial executive security.
> 
> So, while people call America a democracy, if one was to read the constitution in it's entirety and if one was to read the literature it's ideals are contingent upon, it would be apparent that there is hardly any comparison between Attic Greece and the U.S.; American democracy comes from Enlightenment era social ideals, Platonic and neo-Platonic literature (the Republic being the basis behind Hobbes and Montesque especially, who likely thought of the government as reflective of Plato's idea of the soul), as opposed to Attic democracy which relied heavily on the Sophist movement (very relativistic and despised by philosophers for long thereafter).


The Greeks planted the seeds.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Aren't you being a bit selective? You're taking the best of European art, to compare to the worst of American art.

Then what American artists would you have? Seriously, I admire John Singer Sargent and Thomas Eakins and Edward Hopper and Andrew Wyeth but I will be the first to recognize that none of these artists were leading figures in the world of art or great innovators. American painting, for better or worse (like it or not) took center stage for the first time with the developments of the Abstract Expressionists: Pollock, DeKooning, Motherwell, Rothko, Kline, Gorky, Guston, etc... The United States continued to dominate the international art scene into the 1960s with the developments of Neo-Dada artists such as Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns, as well as Pop Art with Tom Wesselman, Andy Warhol, James Rosenquist, etc... The American dominance in the visual arts continued into the 1970s with Conceptual Art, "Happenings", Minimalism, Photorealism, and Color Field Painting. The American hegemony only began to crack in the mid-1980s with the explosion of leading figures out of Germany and Britain. For better or worse, Abstract Expressionism remains recognized as the pinnacle of American painting... a heroic period the equivalent of the innovations in jazz and the contemporary classical music of George Crumb, Morton Feldman, Elliott Carter, Milton Babbitt, John Cage, etc... Currently the Museum of Modern Art in New York is staging a giant retrospective of William (Willem) DeKooning, which would seem to suggest that he and his peers are not seen as examples of the "worst of American art". (Trust me... I could find far worse)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I would move to Antartica.

It's not that far from Australia, is it?


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> I think you're a bit off-topic here, DrMike. We're discussing art rather than politics. You post reads more as a history of the major armed conflicts in Europe and America's participation in some of them, than as a history of art, in spite of a few observations that link what you're saying with artistic output.
> Although I agree with you regarding America's culture (see my post above), I believe that at one point there you forgot that democracy comes from Greece.


With all due respect, Alma, my post was responding to what StLukesguildOhio had written, which was more heavily commenting on the politics and history than the art. True, he did touch on art, as did mine, but I think my comments were relevant to what he had said.


----------



## Lenfer

I would very much like to return home to *France * and I will eventually so I am not sure if that counts. I love *Switzerland * especially the area around *Geneva*. Either there or perhaps *Vienna * or *Budapest * as I've yet to see either city.


----------



## science

Ultimately the problem is that Europe has had about two thousand years of great civilizations (500 BC to 400 AD and 900 AD to 2000) while North America has had perhaps two hundred. North America also loses to the Middle East and East Asia, and for the same reason.


----------



## Almaviva

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Aren't you being a bit selective? You're taking the best of European art, to compare to the worst of American art.
> 
> Then what American artists would you have? Seriously, I admire John Singer Sargent and Thomas Eakins and Edward Hopper and Andrew Wyeth but I will be the first to recognize that none of these artists were leading figures in the world of art or great innovators. American painting, for better or worse (like it or not) took center stage for the first time with the developments of the Abstract Expressionists: Pollock, DeKooning, Motherwell, Rothko, Kline, Gorky, Guston, etc... The United States continued to dominate the international art scene into the 1960s with the developments of Neo-Dada artists such as Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns, as well as Pop Art with Tom Wesselman, Andy Warhol, James Rosenquist, etc... The American dominance in the visual arts continued into the 1970s with Conceptual Art, "Happenings", Minimalism, Photorealism, and Color Field Painting. The American hegemony only began to crack in the mid-1980s with the explosion of leading figures out of Germany and Britain. For better or worse, Abstract Expressionism remains recognized as the pinnacle of American painting... a heroic period the equivalent of the innovations in jazz and the contemporary classical music of George Crumb, Morton Feldman, Elliott Carter, Milton Babbitt, John Cage, etc... Currently the Museum of Modern Art in New York is staging a giant retrospective of William (Willem) DeKooning, which would seem to suggest that he and his peers are not seen as examples of the "worst of American art". (Trust me... I could find far worse)


I'll defer to you. As a visual artist, you know more than I do about these things. I just think you are a bit self-deprecating. Our American culture is strong, Stlukes. Like I said, we've done a lot for our young years.

On another note, I'm in New York City for two days of fun and arts, and I'm planning a trip to the MOMA on Tuesday. I'll be able to see the DeKooning exhibit if it's already being displayed, and will let you know what I think.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

On another note, I'm in New York City for two days of fun and arts, and I'm planning a trip to the MOMA on Tuesday. I'll be able to see the DeKooning exhibit if it's already being displayed, and will let you know what I think.

I actually quite like DeKooning... and I will admit to having worked in an abstract manner for some years... building upon a combination of the gestural works of Robert Motherwell especially as well as the geometric abstractions of Paul Klee and the collage efforts of Kurt Schwitters and most importantly, Joseph Cornell, one of the towering figures of American art in miniature:




























Just as many composers experimented with serialism and atonality and then returned to a more traditional approach to tonality, so many artists toyed with abstraction before returning to figurative art. I fit into that category. I reached a point where I couldn't imagine not drawing "things" again... after all, like most artists, I started with a love of making images. In my case, the images I was most attracted to was one that you would no doubt approve of. If Eros et Mort are the twin dichotomies of art, I am clearly on the side of the former. My own work now falls into what might be termed a Post-Modernist approach. I draw from a vast array of art historical styles until the end product might be described as Neo-Byzantine, Neo-Gothic, even Neo-Rococo more than Modernist. As such, I am much more interested in the pre-Modern visual languages of Europe, the Middle-East, India and Japan as opposed to American Modernism which has largely burned itself out.


----------



## Ukko

Hah! Major thread drift! Well, unless you would consider moving to-into Motherwell's gestural works.


----------



## Almaviva

StlukesguildOhio said:


> On another note, I'm in New York City for two days of fun and arts, and I'm planning a trip to the MOMA on Tuesday. I'll be able to see the DeKooning exhibit if it's already being displayed, and will let you know what I think.
> 
> I actually quite like DeKooning... and I will admit to having worked in an abstract manner for some years... building upon a combination of the gestural works of Robert Motherwell especially as well as the geometric abstractions of Paul Klee and the collage efforts of Kurt Schwitters and most importantly, Joseph Cornell, one of the towering figures of American art in miniature:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as many composers experimented with serialism and atonality and then returned to a more traditional approach to tonality, so many artists toyed with abstraction before returning to figurative art. I fit into that category. I reached a point where I couldn't imagine not drawing "things" again... after all, like most artists, I started with a love of making images. In my case, the images I was most attracted to was one that you would no doubt approve of. If Eros et Mort are the twin dichotomies of art, I am clearly on the side of the former. My own work now falls into what might be termed a Post-Modernist approach. I draw from a vast array of art historical styles until the end product might be described as Neo-Byzantine, Neo-Gothic, even Neo-Rococo more than Modernist. As such, I am much more interested in the pre-Modern visual languages of Europe, the Middle-East, India and Japan as opposed to American Modernism which has largely burned itself out.


Can we see samples of your work?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

-_"A Balancing Act"_ from the _Lamentations_ Series. 11x8.5"










-_The Ghost Sonata_ 11x8.5"










-_Terza Rima_ 11x8.5"


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content










-_Speak No Evil_ 80x42"










-_Speak No Evil_ (detail)


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content










-_Sisters II_ 80x42" (The color is a bit off on this one... too red/orange in the photo)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

StlukesguildOhio said:


> -_Sisters II_ 80x42" (The color is a bit off on this one... too red/orange in the photo)


My favourite. Are these your works of art, StlukesguildOhio?


----------



## Vaneyes

I've thought about it (Moving to another country....) long 'n hard. I think the best answer for me is to just keep moving.


----------



## Guest

Probably to Canada. It strikes me as a more civilized version of the US.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

My favourite. Are these your works of art, StlukesguildOhio?

Yes. THis is what I spend the majority of my "free time" doing when I go to my studio.


----------

