An interesting question

[Charles Darnay]

What is it that makes an author worthy of Nobel?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/jk-rowling-nobel-prize_n_1202942.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

[My2cents]

I'd love to see Rowling win. What a Bugsbunny Curveball that would be!

[mortalterror]

She doesn’t write great sentences, and it would be hard to argue that the subject matter is hugely important. But the questions, characters, stories, and values in her work have resonated with the world.

And what more can books do than that?

What more can books do than that? What more can books do than that! Go read Dante, Shakespeare, Homer, Milton, Virgil, Tasso, Firdawsi, Rumi, Horace, Hafez, Nizami, Vyasa, Valmiki, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Herman Melville, Charles Dickens, Racine, Calderon, Goethe, etc. and then ask that question. They can lift you to another planet and make you proud to be a human being and somehow distantly related to the kind of beings who are capable of such magnificence. Blinding, unquestionable, world shaking talent, that should be the criterion for the Nobel Prize.

Since Gabriel Garcia Marquez already has one, I wouldn't mind if Tom Stoppard, Edward Albee, Adonis, or Haruki Murakami also got one to hang on their walls. At the moment, I can't think of anyone else who would be worthy. Getting people to read shouldn't be the goal of the Nobel Prize committee. If that's all literature was about then you could give the prize to Rupert Murdoch who put tits in newspapers and Amazon.com for inventing the Kindle.

[My2cents]

The Huffington article isn't endorsing Rowling based on literary merit. In fact, it concedes that literary merit wise her writing falls far short of the ideal.

The endorsement is based on altruism which is a strong element in all the Nobel prizes. And altruism wise, one could argue Rowling is at the very forefront.

[Emil Miller]

I wasn't in the least surprised to see that the poll registered 63.39% for and 36.61% against. It's what living in a declining civilisation is all about.

[PoeticPassions]

The Nobel awards... pfff... look who are all the fools they give the peace prize to...I wouldn't be surprised if the Nobel for literature took the same dive...

It would be tragic if Rowling and Steinbeck were in the same 'club.'

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

When I read the title of the article, "Should J.K. Rowling get the Nobel Prize," I literally thought, "for what." It took a few seconds to register that they actually meant the prize for literature.

[BienvenuJDC]

It seems that the giving of the prize is more political than anything. No matter how you feel about Obama and his political viewpoints, consider the reasoning that he received his Nobel. He received it without actually accomplishing anything for it yet. I think that J.K. Rowling has entertained lots of people, but should the prize be awarded based on popularity?

[cafolini]

What is it that makes an author worthy of Nobel?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/jk-rowling-nobel-prize_n_1202942.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

Hope for freedom, evolution and globalization of science.

[BienvenuJDC]

Hope for freedom, evolution and globalization of science.

The Freedom part is good...

[Charles Darnay]

What more can books do than that? What more can books do than that! Go read Dante, Shakespeare, Homer, Milton, Virgil, Tasso, Firdawsi, Rumi, Horace, Hafez, Nizami, Vyasa, Valmiki, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Herman Melville, Charles Dickens, Racine, Calderon, Goethe, etc. and then ask that question. They can lift you to another planet and make you proud to be a human being and somehow distantly related to the kind of beings who are capable of such magnificence. Blinding, unquestionable, world shaking talent, that should be the criterion for the Nobel Prize.


While I agree with you, I can hear Jeff Bridges saying "yeah, well, you know that's just like uhh your opinion, man."

"They can lift you to another planet and make you proud to be human" - can't Harry Potter do that?

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here.

[Charles Darnay]

Hope for freedom, evolution and globalization of science.

Despite his inclination for science, Nobel recognized Literature's importance as well and that is why is part of the legitimate awards....unlike Economics who slid under the wire and said "yeah, we're here too! We're important!" (not that economists aren't important.)

[cafolini]

Despite his inclination for science, Nobel recognized Literature's importance as well and that is why is part of the legitimate awards....unlike Economics who slid under the wire and said "yeah, we're here too! We're important!" (not that economists aren't important.)

True. But Nobel-recognized literature does not cause antiscientific currents. And Economics is pretty much US Federal Reserve conducted when it wins. Which is a good thing and will remain so.
An interesting thing happened with Octavio Paz, for example. After receiving the Cervantes around 1980, he spend the next decade pretty much reconciling himself with Rivera and Neruda, and most important, criticizing the Catholic faith in Mexico, through critics of the most famous nun. Soon he received the Nobel around 1990. Spainish conservatives were totally disgusted.

[tonywalt]

I wasn't in the least surprised to see that the poll registered 63.39% for and 36.61% against. It's what living in a declining civilisation is all about.

As always Emil, Here Here!!

In our culturally declinding and technologically advancing society our Technology has exceeded our Humanity a long time ago.

[cafolini]

As always Emil, Here Here!!

In our culturally declinding and technologically advancing society our Technology has exceeded our Humanity a long time ago.

We could go back to William James probably, but probably at least Henry Ford and his birdwatching friend. It's a good thing. We have come a long ways and moving on.

[Alexander III]

I wasn't in the least surprised to see that the poll registered 63.39% for and 36.61% against. It's what living in a declining civilisation is all about.

The masses have always been, are and shall always be ignorant. There was never a time when the common man was writing verse, philisophising and spent his entire nights in metaphisical debate. The common man is ignorant. The elite have always been the elite. Culture is theirs, not of the common man. The difference between now and the past is that the presentday common man is literate and has a basic grasp of culture. The common men before were not literate and had no grasp of culture.

If you see literacy as decline...


As to the topic at hand, looking back at 100 years of literature noble laureates, half of them are just about as good writers as Rowling anyways. So I hardly see a problem. The nobel prize has never been a prize given to the "best" writter, from the begining it it a heavily politicized prize.

[tonywalt]

We could go back to William James probably, but probably at least Henry Ford and his birdwatching friend. It's a good thing. We have come a long ways and moving on.\

I like our technological advancement, but it appears that so much entertainment and even the news is being dumbed down to something akin to a circus.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Maybe Dan Brown should get one too

Pfft the idea that either merit such a presitigious award is preposterous

[Charles Darnay]

Yes, but the thing is, the same sentiment was expressed in 1962, and is anyone here going to dispute the literary merit of John Steinbeck?

[mal4mac]

"C.S. Lewis nominated J.R.R. Tolkien for the Nobel Prize in Literature and that Tolkien was summarily dismissed by the committee."

Can I also nominate my pals down at the pub? :)

"Anders Osterling articulated the central objection to Tolkien, who he said “has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality.”

Not daft these Norwegians.

Rowling and Tolkein aren't even top of the fantasy genre - I recently reread the first two books in Anne McCaffrey's Dragons of Pern series and they are better. Given that I mostly gave up reading fantasy in my teens I was surprised they held up so well ! You don't get the depth of characterisation found in, say, Forster or Dickens. But they are good, tight fantasy adventure stories with none of the stodgyness of Tolkein or the lack of imagination in Rowling. Dragons teleporting to the Red Planet to fight Thread beat Quidditch anyday! Actually in the next two dragon books McCaffrey slips into kids book mode - still better than Rowling, but the first two remind you that fantasy can be for adults looking for light adventure reading. So Tolkein is stodgy and Rowling is a kids author - hardly Nobel material...

[mal4mac]

The masses have always been, are and shall always be ignorant. There was never a time when the common man was writing verse, philisophising and spent his entire nights in metaphisical debate. The common man is ignorant. The elite have always been the elite. Culture is theirs, not of the common man. The difference between now and the past is that the presentday common man is literate and has a basic grasp of culture. The common men before were not literate and had no grasp of culture.

Drivel.

[OrphanPip]

If they're going to give it to a genre writer, they could at least give it to a good one with an extensive body of work, like Ursula K. LeGuin.

[tonywalt]

[QUOTE=Alexander III;1107217]The masses have always been, are and shall always be ignorant. There was never a time when the common man was writing verse, philisophising and spent his entire nights in metaphisical debate. The common man is ignorant. The elite have always been the elite. Culture is theirs, not of the common man. The difference between now and the past is that the presentday common man is literate and has a basic grasp of culture. The common men before were not literate and had no grasp of culture.


Let Them Eat Cake!

[Aspirational]

Blinding, unquestionable, world shaking talent, that should be the criterion for the Nobel Prize.

Ahh ... the rest of your post echoed my views perfectly, but to nitpick here, J.K. Rowling does have a talent. Very few people have shrewder business skills than she. You should keep in mind that the talent in question is what you spent the rest of your post defining as literary talent. ;)

[Aspirational]

As to the topic at hand, looking back at 100 years of literature noble laureates, half of them are just about as good writers as Rowling anyways. So I hardly see a problem. The nobel prize has never been a prize given to the "best" writter, from the begining it it a heavily politicized prize.

I don't know what you mean by "just about as good writers" as Rowling, but the fact is (take this from someone who spent years training to become a literary author via the road of the commercial author, and succeeded in the second goal but not the primary one) that there is a gulf between the difficulty (in terms of writing ability and the class of ideas and understanding of humanity) of writing commercial fantasy and writing philosophical poetry.

[PeterL]

If you look at the list of nobel literature prize winners, then you might be able to see a pattern, but I didn't. I think that it is more a matter of what the Nobel committee wants to reward, rather than any particular matter of literature, its quality or whatever.

[mortalterror]

If they're going to give it to a genre writer, they could at least give it to a good one with an extensive body of work, like Ursula K. LeGuin.

Not while Ray Bradbury is still alive.

[Jack of Hearts]

It's the kind of thing outside of letters, which is ironic. You can't talk about it. But you know it when you see it.

Not a chance would Harry Potter lady win. But that's not the greatest miracle of all, that she should get that kind of poll result. A miracle is that an author like Cormac McCarthy can be mainstream in the same age that Harry Potter lady is. Because McCarthy is the real deal, deserves this prize probably even over Pynchon, and is going to be well known to a pretty wide demographic.






J

[Drkshadow03]

Rowling is a fairly talented kid's author who deserves a lot of the acclaim she gets from scholars, critics, reviewers, librarians, and readers, but I don't really see her as noble prize material. On the other hand, if she did win it's not the end of the world. There also seem to be a lot of people here under the weird delusion that the noble prize in literature is given solely or primarily for literary merit.

[Paulclem]

The masses have always been, are and shall always be ignorant. There was never a time when the common man was writing verse, philisophising and spent his entire nights in metaphisical debate. The common man is ignorant. The elite have always been the elite. Culture is theirs, not of the common man. The difference between now and the past is that the presentday common man is literate and has a basic grasp of culture. The common men before were not literate and had no grasp of culture.

If you see literacy as decline...



Elitism, like all the other negative -isms basically says my people are better than your people. The logical conclusion of this is that they are worth less than individuals in the elite - and we all know where that thinking goes.

Given a good home, good parenting, ambition, vision, good teaching and schools, opportunities for higher ed, money, support, private tutors, work opportunities, family support - it's no wonder that there seems to be self fulfilling elite.

The greater wonder is that anyone from the masses could ever - by virtue of their own cleverness, intelligence, fortitude, endeavour, luck, resiliance etc make anything more of themselves than become one of the masses. But they do.

[mortalterror]

Elitism, like all the other negative -isms basically says my people are better than your people. The logical conclusion of this is that they are worth less than individuals in the elite - and we all know where that thinking goes.

Given a good home, good parenting, ambition, vision, good teaching and schools, opportunities for higher ed, money, support, private tutors, work opportunities, family support - it's no wonder that there seems to be self fulfilling elite.

The greater wonder is that anyone from the masses could ever - by virtue of their own cleverness, intelligence, fortitude, endeavour, luck, resiliance etc make anything more of themselves than become one of the masses. But they do.

The masses are little better than sheep. Sterilize them all!

[Paulclem]

The masses are little better than sheep. Sterilize them all!

:lol:

[Emil Miller]

The greater wonder is that anyone from the masses could ever - by virtue of their own cleverness, intelligence, fortitude, endeavour, luck, resiliance etc make anything more of themselves than become one of the masses. But they do.

:iagree: And then they become one of the elite.

[Alexander III]

Elitism, like all the other negative -isms basically says my people are better than your people. The logical conclusion of this is that they are worth less than individuals in the elite - and we all know where that thinking goes.

Given a good home, good parenting, ambition, vision, good teaching and schools, opportunities for higher ed, money, support, private tutors, work opportunities, family support - it's no wonder that there seems to be self fulfilling elite.

The greater wonder is that anyone from the masses could ever - by virtue of their own cleverness, intelligence, fortitude, endeavour, luck, resiliance etc make anything more of themselves than become one of the masses. But they do.

Very well, if you wish to play by this route - tell me of just a single time in historey, when art was controlled and cultivated by the masses...

It's all nice and fun to think of ourselves as all equall, but then when we look at history, the pretense of human eqallity is just a disillusion. There has always been slave and there has always been master.

[Alexander III]

:iagree: And then they become one of the elite.

Thats how it works. If one is clever/beautifull/charismatic enough - he rarley does not end up well. For those with not enough beauty/intelligence/charisma, they remain part of the masses.

[Emil Miller]

That's how it works. If one is clever/beautiful/charismatic enough - he rarely does not end up well. For those with not enough beauty/intelligence/charisma, they remain part of the masses.

I'm glad you said rarely, because it certainly doesn't apply across the board.
Adolf Hitler was easily the most charismatic leader of any country during the 20th century and nobody could say that he ended up well. Going to the opposite end of the political spectrum, George Orwell, who came from the governing class and was also an old Etonian, spent most of his adult life trying to identify with the masses to the extent of living like a tramp and seeking out the low life. He hated elitism and railed against it in his writing but he remains to this day one of the literary elite.

[Paulclem]

Very well, if you wish to play by this route - tell me of just a single time in historey, when art was controlled and cultivated by the masses...

It's all nice and fun to think of ourselves as all equall, but then when we look at history, the pretense of human eqallity is just a disillusion. There has always been slave and there has always been master.

Equality - an unattainable dream. I never said that.

The presumption that being born into a rich and priviledged class, with the right blood perhaps makes you altogether a better person - no. There's no level playing field with which to compare, and so those with the advantages always retain the advantage. So a self fulfilling prophecy is set in motion. I'm better because I'm cultured and educated as opposed to those who are relatively uneducated and uncultured and thus lesser.

I've seen this kind of argument before. Of course there won't be any masses contributing much to the culture - they're too busy earning a crust.

Except of course those individuals who always emerge against the odds - Blake for example.

Our own Royal family are a prime example. Andrew - sacked as economic envoy for lining his own pockets. Edward with his failed and censured media company that traded on it's own connections. Fergie facing prosecution for illegal filming. These are the true blue bloods who should exemplify the best qualities according to your ideas.

The Queen herself - never interviewed but why? Is it that it would show her up to be a mediocre speaker who can't handle a question? Prince Phillip - too much of a priviledged loose cannon. Prince Charles - well less said.

[Alexander III]

Equality - an unattainable dream. I never said that.

The presumption that being born into a rich and priviledged class, with the right blood perhaps makes you altogether a better person - no. There's no level playing field with which to compare, and so those with the advantages always retain the advantage. So a self fulfilling prophecy is set in motion. I'm better because I'm cultured and educated as opposed to those who are relatively uneducated and uncultured and thus lesser.

I've seen this kind of argument before. Of course there won't be any masses contributing much to the culture - they're too busy earning a crust.

Except of course those individuals who always emerge against the odds - Blake for example.

Our own Royal family are a prime example. Andrew - sacked as economic envoy for lining his own pockets. Edward with his failed and censured media company that traded on it's own connections. Fergie facing prosecution for illegal filming. These are the true blue bloods who should exemplify the best qualities according to your ideas.

The Queen herself - never interviewed but why? Is it that it would show her up to be a mediocre speaker who can't handle a question? Prince Phillip - too much of a priviledged loose cannon. Prince Charles - well less said.

I never said being born rich makes you better - but being born rich gives one hugh advatnges to do with as one pleases.

But Elite, does not imply economic eilite soley.

I am not seeing what point if any your made with this post?

[Paulclem]

I never said being born rich makes you better - but being born rich gives one hugh advatnges to do with as one pleases.

But Elite, does not imply economic eilite soley.

I am not seeing what point if any your made with this post?

[COLOR="DarkRed"]The masses have always been, are and shall always be ignorant. There was never a time when the common man was writing verse, philisophising and spent his entire nights in metaphisical debate. The common man is ignorant. The elite have always been the elite. Culture is theirs, not of the common man. The difference between now and the past is that the presentday common man is literate and has a basic grasp of culture. The common men before were not literate and had no grasp of culture.[/COLOR

The masses have always been, are and shall always be ignorant.
The common man is ignorant
The common men before were not literate

I always thought common meant ordinary, everyday and, in the main, poor. It's just a bit pejorative, and was a favourite insult of the common people where I lived. I'm only surprised you didn't call them the great unwashed.

You're right - being rich gives a person huge advantages.

But Elite, does not imply economic eilite soley.
Unarguably so, beause some of the common mass join them by the mere virtue of their own great merits.

Your post reminded me of an incident in my past when one of the rich elite - a young chap who I was in the Officer TA with- claimed I could not have got the degree I did. He said "you can't have got that. You don't know what culture is".

I'm always suspicious of claims about who has, understands, contributes to, or who hasn't got culture, as if it is possible to make accurate sweeping generalisations about the great diversity of the populace.

[Alexander III]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]The masses have always been, are and shall always be ignorant. There was never a time when the common man was writing verse, philisophising and spent his entire nights in metaphisical debate. The common man is ignorant. The elite have always been the elite. Culture is theirs, not of the common man. The difference between now and the past is that the presentday common man is literate and has a basic grasp of culture. The common men before were not literate and had no grasp of culture.[/COLOR

The masses have always been, are and shall always be ignorant.
The common man is ignorant
The common men before were not literate

I always thought common meant ordinary, everyday and, in the main, poor. It's just a bit pejorative, and was a favourite insult of the common people where I lived. I'm only surprised you didn't call them the great unwashed.

You're right - being rich gives a person huge advantages.

But Elite, does not imply economic eilite soley.
Unarguably so, beause some of the common mass join them by the mere virtue of their own great merits.

Your post reminded me of an incident in my past when one of the rich elite - a young chap who I was in the Officer TA with- claimed I could not have got the degree I did. He said "you can't have got that. You don't know what culture is".

I'm always suspicious of claims about who has, understands, contributes to, or who hasn't got culture, as if it is possible to make accurate sweeping generalisations about the great diversity of the populace.

Like I said before, tell me anytime in history when culture was not dominated by the elite - art, literature, music ect..

[cafolini]

Like I said before, tell me anytime in history when culture was not dominated by the elite - art, literature, music ect..

I tell you when. Since the second half of the 20th century. But it is not culture that the common man controls. It is the elitist that has lost control of culture.
Culture has fallen and freedom of choice is expanding and being globalized in the hands of science, technology and marketing. Many refuse to see it or are paranoid about it, and so they go to a museum where they keep insisting they are where the action is.

[mortalterror]

When have the masses been the stimulus of art and culture? I suppose the answer to that is the whole period of public theater, and ever since the novel became a major genre. Plautus was a Roman playwright who competed for his audience on the public street with jugglers, singers, and tightrope walkers. Shakespeare likewise made his bread and butter as much from the "groundlings" who attended his plays as from royal patronage. Then there's Moliere, Racine, Lope de Vega etc. In short, all of the best playwrights.

Don Quixote was a popular novel, as were Robinson Crusoe, and The Three Musketeers. Sir Walter Scott and Charles Dickens were popular novelists of their time. Tolstoy may have been an aristocrat but he published his novels serially in public newspapers and not in private manuscripts like a poet of the Renaissance.

Mozart wrote his Magic Flute for the public among other things. And the Golden Age of Dutch Painting seems to have been driven in large part by the middle class. So I wouldn't say that the masses have never had a say in culture. They just usually don't have the final say in what gets passed on and preserved. That's usually left to a handful of critics, patrons, academics who write textbooks and educate the next generation, and other artists championed by the former.

On a personal note, I've lately begun to wonder if Dali and Chagall would be considered as important as Picasso and Matisse if they'd been better friends with Gertrude and Leo Stein. Did the Steins have great taste or did they have an abnormally large influence on the taste of of their peers, and is there even a difference? When people discuss the greatness of Picasso or T.S. Eliot they frequently do so according to the aesthetic criteria popularized by Picasso or T.S. Eliot and so it's an artificial metric. They can't fail to score high on their own system, a system perpetuated by a handful of influential disciples, and slowly becoming canon.

[stlukesguild]

Alexander III- tell me anytime in history when culture was not dominated by the elite - art, literature, music ect..

cafolini- I tell you when. Since the second half of the 20th century. But it is not culture that the common man controls. It is the elitist that has lost control of culture.
Culture has fallen and freedom of choice is expanding and being globalized in the hands of science, technology and marketing. Many refuse to see it or are paranoid about it, and so they go to a museum where they keep insisting they are where the action is.

Alexander... you might have better said that art, literature, and music have always followed in the footsteps of where the money lies. With the advent of mass production and mass media (sound recording, film, radio, TV, photography, etc...) the source of the chief financial support for many of the arts has moved from any idea of an "elite" to the masses. There is far more money to be found in the hit song, the best selling novel, or the blockbuster film than there is in many of the works of art recognized as the finest achievements by critics, academics, etc... (the "elite").

Having said this much, one may question whether this is true of culture as a whole, or only of the culture of the moment. Books have been mass produced since the mid-1400s and a broad reading public has been a reality since the 1700s and the development of the novel. If we look across the span of time since then, few of the best-sellers remain recognized as books worthy of recognition today, while many works that were reviled or ignored have become recognized as "classics". The opinions of the masses may dominate popular culture, but popular culture seems rather myopic in that it focuses solely upon the present... seduced by the latest novelties. The masses have little interest (and hence little impact) in the art of the past... and thus in the larger question of culture as a whole.

I would add that in certain traditional art forms, painting, sculpture... to a lesser extent (perhaps) architecture... the opinions of the masses are almost wholly irrelevant. Due to the nature of these art forms as unique objects that cannot be mass produced they remain almost wholly subservient to the opinions of a wealthy "elite". When a painting costs $5000... $50,000... $5,000,000 the masses find themselves completely irrelevant in terms of financial influence... no artist is about to pander to an audience who cannot afford to support his or her endeavors.

I am uncertain whether this has been for better or worse. While this has afforded the painter, sculptor, etc... a certain autonomy from the tastes of the masses, the tastes of the wealthy over the past century has not exactly proven itself to be aesthetically superior in any way. Of course this might be seen as owing to the fact that today's "elite" are often an elite solely in terms of wealth... they are not necessarily an elite in terms of experience, knowledge, education, and taste as was more true if one were looking at the elite of the Renaissance in which the aristocrat and the higher ranking clergy were expected to be something more than an elite in terms of wealth.

[stlukesguild]

I wouldn't say that the masses have never had a say in culture. They just usually don't have the final say in what gets passed on and preserved. That's usually left to a handful of critics, patrons, academics who write textbooks and educate the next generation, and other artists championed by the former.

Exactly.

On a personal note, I've lately begun to wonder if Dali and Chagall would be considered as important as Picasso and Matisse if they'd been better friends with Gertrude and Leo Stein. Did the Steins have great taste or did they have an abnormally large influence on the taste of of their peers...?

Gertrude and Leo were of little importance. Matisse was already an established figure and while they were a valuable source of support for Picasso during his early years in Paris, and their Salons introduced him to many influential individuals, but they stopped purchasing his work after the shift to Cubism. The same was true of his American collector, Albert C. Barnes. The dealers Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler, and Ambrose Vuillard were far more important, as were Guggenheim, Rockefeller, and Alfred Barr, who were establishing the presence of Modernism in the American art museums. It has actually been argued far more effectively that Matisse may have been seen as the greater artist... or at least an equal to Picasso, were it not for the fact that a majority of his finest masterworks were "lost" to the West in the collections of wealthy Russian collectors such as Sergei Shchukin. Beyond these art-world power-brokers, Picasso and Matisse were clearly far more influential and respected among subsequent artists as well as art critics and art historians.

When people discuss the greatness of Picasso or T.S. Eliot they frequently do so according to the aesthetic criteria popularized by Picasso or T.S. Eliot and so it's an artificial metric. They can't fail to score high on their own system, a system perpetuated by a handful of influential disciples, and slowly becoming canon.

And where has this not been true? The reality is that these biases are temporal. The critics championing Abstract Expressionism and the artists who road on their coattails rapidly faded into history until an artist such as Rothko, Pollock, or Motherwell... like the earlier Picasso and Matisse... need to be able to stand up within the context of the whole of art history... something T.S. Eliot himself recognized.

[mortalterror]

Gertrude and Leo were of little importance. Matisse was already an established figure and while they were a valuable source of support for Picasso during his early years in Paris, and their Salons introduced him to many influential individuals, but they stopped purchasing his work after the shift to Cubism. The same was true of his American collector, Albert C. Barnes. The dealers Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler, and Ambrose Vuillard were far more important, as were Guggenheim, Rockefeller, and Alfred Barr, who were establishing the presence of Modernism in the American art museums. It has actually been argued far more effectively that Matisse may have been seen as the greater artist... or at least an equal to Picasso, were it not for the fact that a majority of his finest masterworks were "lost" to the West in the collections of wealthy Russian collectors such as Sergei Shchukin.

Yes, I was thinking of Barnes and those billionaires too, but it is still a small handful of highly influential figures and I wanted to keep things literary for the rest of the forum who may have heard of Gertrude Stein but not of the others.


Beyond these art-world power-brokers, Picasso and Matisse were clearly far more influential and respected among subsequent artists as well as art critics and art historians.

Yes, and I included them in my assessment of "who gets the final say." But you are missing the point that the only artists who's opinions would matter are the other artists picked from the same agreed upon group. The art world is sort of self-sustaining and self-reflective in that way. Picasso is good because Rothko says he is good and Rothko's opinion is good because the people who like Rothko like Picasso, etc.

By the way, you know more about the Dutch Golden Age than I do, so it was to you I was looking for corroboration or possible correction about how big a role the middle class played.

I'd need to check with Lokaseena to know how much of the Icelandic Sagas and Eddas, or Celtic literature was popular folklore and how much was written by court poets for kings. But I suspect that even there the masses had their moment. Also, wasn't Tom o' Bedlam a popular drinking song of Elizabethan England? There must be quite a history of worthwhile outsider poetry from around the world, if I am not much mistaken.

I have to agree with you on one point. I think the best idea you put forward above is that the common people don't cultivate and preserve the past to the extent that the elite do. The lower class has short memories when it comes to art, and when they do produce something of real merit it is often the elite who will dip it in bronze.

[Alexander III]

I have to agree with you on one point. I think the best idea you put forward above is that the common people don't cultivate and preserve the past to the extent that the elite do. The lower class has short memories when it comes to art, and when they do produce something of real merit it is often the elite who will dip it in bronze.

Thank you. That is all I have been trying to say.

[JuniperWoolf]

:iagree: And then they become one of the elite.

Exactly. It might not be a popular opinion, but the fact remains that the majority of people have very little grasp of culture, science or technology. How can we strive to become better and yet at the same time pretend that everyone is equal? That doesn't make sense.


I've seen this kind of argument before. Of course there won't be any masses contributing much to the culture - they're too busy earning a crust.

I've heard this argument often. The thing is, I don't think that's fair to poor kids, especially in modern times when information is easy to access. This idea is outdated, money isn't a prerequisite to being considered an academic "elite" anymore. You can do a lot with a library card or a computer and a work ethic. Even someone with very little money can take full advantage of the education and chances that the government now provides and get far. Anyone could take the initiative to become educated, I come from a family of coal miners and prison guards and wasn't born with much; making excuses for me and others from my socioeconomic background is somewhat condescending (although I know you don't intend it that way). Almost every single person at my university is at least as poor as I am, we all eat pasta and work sh*tty part-time jobs and yet we can build computers from scraps, discuss classic literature and explain angiosperm reproduction in intricate detail.

[Emil Miller]

I tell you when. Since the second half of the 20th century. But it is not culture that the common man controls. It is the elitist that has lost control of culture.
Culture has fallen and freedom of choice is expanding and being globalized in the hands of science, technology and marketing. Many refuse to see it or are paranoid about it, and so they go to a museum where they keep insisting they are where the action is.

Yes but I wouldn't call it culture, sub-culture is more like it and even that may be stretching a point.

[cafolini]

Alexander III- tell me anytime in history when culture was not dominated by the elite - art, literature, music ect..

cafolini- I tell you when. Since the second half of the 20th century. But it is not culture that the common man controls. It is the elitist that has lost control of culture.
Culture has fallen and freedom of choice is expanding and being globalized in the hands of science, technology and marketing. Many refuse to see it or are paranoid about it, and so they go to a museum where they keep insisting they are where the action is.

Alexander... you might have better said that art, literature, and music have always followed in the footsteps of where the money lies. With the advent of mass production and mass media (sound recording, film, radio, TV, photography, etc...) the source of the chief financial support for many of the arts has moved from any idea of an "elite" to the masses. There is far more money to be found in the hit song, the best selling novel, or the blockbuster film than there is in many of the works of art recognized as the finest achievements by critics, academics, etc... (the "elite").

Having said this much, one may question whether this is true of culture as a whole, or only of the culture of the moment. Books have been mass produced since the mid-1400s and a broad reading public has been a reality since the 1700s and the development of the novel. If we look across the span of time since then, few of the best-sellers remain recognized as books worthy of recognition today, while many works that were reviled or ignored have become recognized as "classics". The opinions of the masses may dominate popular culture, but popular culture seems rather myopic in that it focuses solely upon the present... seduced by the latest novelties. The masses have little interest (and hence little impact) in the art of the past... and thus in the larger question of culture as a whole.

I would add that in certain traditional art forms, painting, sculpture... to a lesser extent (perhaps) architecture... the opinions of the masses are almost wholly irrelevant. Due to the nature of these art forms as unique objects that cannot be mass produced they remain almost wholly subservient to the opinions of a wealthy "elite". When a painting costs $5000... $50,000... $5,000,000 the masses find themselves completely irrelevant in terms of financial influence... no artist is about to pander to an audience who cannot afford to support his or her endeavors.

I am uncertain whether this has been for better or worse. While this has afforded the painter, sculptor, etc... a certain autonomy from the tastes of the masses, the tastes of the wealthy over the past century has not exactly proven itself to be aesthetically superior in any way. Of course this might be seen as owing to the fact that today's "elite" are often an elite solely in terms of wealth... they are not necessarily an elite in terms of experience, knowledge, education, and taste as was more true if one were looking at the elite of the Renaissance in which the aristocrat and the higher ranking clergy were expected to be something more than an elite in terms of wealth.

However you rationalize it, or turn it around and around and around, the fact remains that culture is falling, has already fallen in a large perentage, and this needed to happen to insure freedom of choice for the common man. Today the economic elites are cooperating with the common man and this socialism is unstoppable. Of course, it's not communism, which we demonstrated was completely stoppable.

[JuniperWoolf]

However you rationalize it, or turn it around and around and around, the fact remains that culture is falling.

No it isn't, chicken little. There has ALWAYS been garbage in every time period's culture. Don Quixote was a satire on old knight-errant penny novels. Ask Pip about some of the bad-to-the-point-of-being-funny classic books that he's been reading recently.

[Charles Darnay]

Ask Pip about some of the bad-to-the-point-of-being-funny classic books that he's been reading recently.

Three words: Castle of Otranto



Almost every single person at my university is at least as poor as I am, we all eat pasta and work sh*tty part-time jobs and yet we can build computers from scraps, discuss classic literature and explain angiosperm reproduction in intricate detail.

I think this statement applies to almost every single person at most universities. Pasta and ****ty jobs is the thing to do at our age.

[cafolini]

No it isn't, chicken little. There has ALWAYS been garbage in every time period's culture. Don Quixote was a satire on old knight-errant penny novels. Ask Pip about some of the bad-to-the-point-of-being-funny classic books that he's been reading recently.

Yes, there has always been garbage after every dinner. However, what I'm talking about is not garbage. It's where we are going, and it is unstoppable because it's the natural way of the future in freedom, evolution and globalizations. You are missing the point.

[Alexander III]

Yes, there has always been garbage after every dinner. However, what I'm talking about is not garbage. It's where we are going, and it is unstoppable because it's the natural way of the future in freedom, evolution and globalizations. You are missing the point.

cool story bro

[JuniperWoolf]

Yeah, what are you talking about?

[cafolini]

Yeah, what are you talking about?

Definitely not talking about "yeah."

[Paulclem]

I've heard this argument often. The thing is, I don't think that's fair to poor kids, especially in modern times when information is easy to access. This idea is outdated, money isn't a prerequisite to being considered an academic "elite" anymore. You can do a lot with a library card or a computer and a work ethic. Even someone with very little money can take full advantage of the education and chances that the government now provides and get far. Anyone could take the initiative to become educated, I come from a family of coal miners and prison guards and wasn't born with much; making excuses for me and others from my socioeconomic background is somewhat condescending (although I know you don't intend it that way). Almost every single person at my university is at least as poor as I am, we all eat pasta and work sh*tty part-time jobs and yet we can build computers from scraps, discuss classic literature and explain angiosperm reproduction in intricate detail.

I was talking about university the other week. What % of the poor kids actually go? I'm all for a fairer society that gives people the opportunity. Kids with intelligence and ambition will, and have always, done well - extra well because of the barriers that exist for them that just don't for those from a priviledged background.

I see a sweeping generalisation about "the masses" from from someone who has the priviledge of having the best educational opportunities, and I feel I have to respond. I don't begrudge anyone what they or their parents have earned. Good luck to them, and all the best. It's the setting up of one group against another - worth against worthless - that really annoys me. Of course most of the masses haven't contributed as much to culture. It's obvious. My Mother in Law left school at 14 to work in a factory, as did most of the kids of her generation in the 30's and 40's. Not only were they not expected to contribute, but the expectation was that you worked hard for what you got. And that's when things were improving. In the previous century you had to be someone special to get anywhere. HG Wells toiled as an apprentice until he was able to devote time to writing.

Nowadays, as you point out, there has been a democratisation of knowledge. There definately are more opportunities, better education and better living standards. It does contribute to the opportunities, and that's fantastic. There are still barriers though for many, and these relate to money, ambition and example of the parents, and all those other things that don't necessarily come easily to those of us who have had to work hard to get where we are. The barriers are still there - we get people through our door who are feeling the effects of poverty, lack of opportunity etc decades after.

My son's year group consisted of maybe 200 kids - all boys, boys' school. I asked him how many went to university, and he said 8 or 9. That's a poor showing by any standard. There are other routes of course, and some may go later. But where will they all be now? They'll be one of the masses that our friend talks of. Written off almost in a few words.

[tonywalt]

Almost every single person at my university is at least as poor as I am, we all eat pasta and work sh*tty part-time jobs and yet we can build computers from scraps, discuss classic literature and explain angiosperm reproduction in intricate detail.


You had me at angiosperm reproduction:)

[Emil Miller]

You had me at angiosperm reproduction:drool5:

Well everyone can discuss any subject in detail with Google at their disposal; whether they actually know what it means is another matter.

[stlukesguild]

By the way, you know more about the Dutch Golden Age than I do, so it was to you I was looking for corroboration or possible correction about how big a role the middle class played.

Oh yes... the so-called Golden Age of Dutch painting was built upon a huge shift in the patronage of art. Where the patrons of almost all art prior were aristocratic (whether secular or religious... in the sense of the patronage of the aristocracy of the church: cardinals, Bishops, Popes, etc...) it was the upper-middle class... the burgher or bourgeois... who became the chief patrons of art. The result is clearly evidenced in a comparison of the works by Dutch artists such as Rembrandt, versus that of Belgian artists such as Rubens. Rembrandt and his compatriots worked to meet the desires of the bourgeois for paintings of a modest scale preferably on subjects such as the Dutch landscape:

http://projects.asds.org/ClassProjects/8thAH_06/Dixion/ruisdael.jpg

Still life paintings that exhibit the wealth of the bourgeois in the form of exotic fruit (lemons), exotic sea food (lobster) and expensive china and glasswear:

http://www.daydaypaint.com/images/Still-Life/Still-Life-Painting-031.jpg

moralizing interior scenes:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DplGzHau1TM/TrjkFh1SZDI/AAAAAAAAH9k/r_6LWnGrE78/s1600/lemonade.jpg

and portraits showing one's modesty and piety:

http://sunsite.unc.edu/wm/paint/auth/rembrandt/1660/ostrich.jpg

All these may be seen in contrast to the grandeur of scale and flamboyance of the Belgian paintings intended for an aristocratic audience in which dominant themes included mythological narratives:

http://www.artunframed.com/images/artmis61/rubens39.jpg
-Perseus/Rubens

religious narratives:

http://www.artunframed.com/images/1vandyck/dyck178.jpg
-Samson/Van Dyck

-allegories:

http://www.arlindo-correia.com/rubens5.jpg
-Allegory of Peace/Rubens

-erotic narratives:

http://juliagrey.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/rubens431.jpg?w=780

and portraits that stressed flamboyance and color:

http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/1/9/9891-charles-i-king-of-england-at-the-h-sir-anthony-van-dyck.jpg

Belgian artists such as Rubens might paint landscapes for themselves which later became quite prized by British artists... but the closest thing to the Dutch landscape that might be commissioned by an aristocratic buyer would be something like a grand hunting scene (hunting being a privilege reserved to the aristocracy):

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss209/Vitalys/peinture/072.jpg

Personally, I spite of the emotional depth of Rembrandt and the jewel-like perfection of Vermeer, I greatly prefer the color, the audacity, and the sensuality of the art of the aristocracy.

Along with the shift in patronage came the intermediary art dealer. Where the painters such as Rubens and Van Dyck would have dealt directly with the aristocratic patrons... and as such have needed to have been well-spoken, educated, and well-versed in the manners of the court, the Dutch burgher class had little time of inclination to learn about art or artists or to develop a personal relationship with them. Art became a commodity marketed by the middleman: the art dealer. It shouldn't be surprising that it is to this period that we can trace the beginning of the hostility between the artist and the bourgeois or the middle-class

[stlukesguild]

However you rationalize it, or turn it around and around and around, the fact remains that culture is falling, has already fallen in a large perentage, and this needed to happen to insure freedom of choice for the common man. Today the economic elites are cooperating with the common man and this socialism is unstoppable.

As usual, you have completely missed the point... let alone the facts. The popular arts are certainly dominated by the tastes of the masses... for the moment. But that which remains and survives over time remains in the hands of an "elite" audience comprised of subsequent artists, critics, historians, and other academics... as well as that portion of the audience who actually follow the arts. The traditional art forms such as painting, sculpture, architecture, etc... remain almost wholly unaffected by the opinions of the masses for the simple reason that they make no economic impact upon these artists.

[JuniperWoolf]

Well everyone can discuss any subject in detail with Google at their disposal; whether they actually know what it means is another matter.

I know that it's been a while since you were in school, but we actually don't get to use google during biology exams.


I was talking about university the other week. What % of the poor kids actually go?

Almost all of us are in the same boat, like Alex said, eating pasta and working at sh*tty jobs is so common that it's become a cliche. It takes most students in Alberta at least five years to complete a bachelor's, because we have to work too much and don't have time to take a full course schedule. The tuition just keeps rising, and not many people have been able to gather much money (especially those who attend right after graduating highschool). Student loans exist and there are always private companies willing to dish out some PR cash, and that helps but it only covers about 1/3 - 1/2 of the cost and not all of us qualify.


I see a sweeping generalisation about "the masses" from from someone who has the priviledge of having the best educational opportunities, and I feel I have to respond. I don't begrudge anyone what they or their parents have earned. Good luck to them, and all the best. It's the setting up of one group against another - worth against worthless - that really annoys me.

Yeah I know, that's the guttural reaction against the whole image of the rich, snobby, educated "elite." I used to think the same way, until I realized that the snobby educated "elite" monopolizing human advancement doesn't exist anymore. The smartest people I know are poor, they live in dumps with five or six roomates. We all wish we had money, it would mean that we wouldn't have to work like dogs to get somewhere, but if you want an education you have to have a work ethic to study no matter how much your parents give you. In my experience, rich kids who have everything handed to them don't work hard in school. They don't have a work ethic. Also, unlike the past, poor kids are actually able to attend school because the government and private companies help by giving them bursaries, grants and scholarships. They also make a lot more because of standard wage laws. All of this means that now, in today's world, the rich students are more likely to have low grades and the poor kids are more likely to have high grades (haha actually, in my experience rich kids are more likely to pay poor kids to do their homework and then subsequently fail their midterms and finals).


There are still barriers though for many, and these relate to money, ambition and example of the parents, and all those other things that don't necessarily come easily to those of us who have had to work hard to get where we are. The barriers are still there - we get people through our door who are feeling the effects of poverty, lack of opportunity etc decades after.

That's true. I strongly believe that for most of us, as long as there are people in the world who care about us, the challenges help us grow and make us stronger, but I had people at school who's parents were complete garbage. They used to send their kids to school dirty and messed up. Those kids really didn't stand much of a chance. They didn't make up the majority though, most of us had normal parents who weren't addicted to anything, worked hard, didn't beat us and made sure we were clean, even though they didn't have very much money (especially during the 90's when the mine shut down).

[Emil Miller]

Today the economic elites are cooperating with the common man and this socialism is unstoppable. Of course, it's not communism, which we demonstrated was completely stoppable.

I'm sorry but this is not the case. The economic elites are actually using the common man in ways that were undreamed of before the advent of modern information technology.


[QUOTE=JuniperWoolf;1107918]I know that it's been a while since you were in school, but we actually don't get to use google during biology exams.
QUOTE]

I think it's fairly obvious that I was referring to its use on the internet.

[JuniperWoolf]

I think it's fairly obvious that I was referring to its use on the internet.

I think it's fairly obvious that I was originally referring to school. Where else would one care about angiosperms?

[Emil Miller]

I think it's fairly obvious that I was originally referring to school. Where else would one care about angiosperms?

In horticulture, which is where I first came across the term years before the Internet was invented.

[Paulclem]

Yeah I know, that's the guttural reaction against the whole image of the rich, snobby, educated "elite." I used to think the same way, until I realized that the snobby educated "elite" monopolizing human advancement doesn't exist anymore. The smartest people I know are poor, they live in dumps with five or six roomates. We all wish we had money, it would mean that we wouldn't have to work like dogs to get somewhere, but if you want an education you have to have a work ethic to study no matter how much your parents give you. In my experience, rich kids who have everything handed to them don't work hard in school. They don't have a work ethic. Also, unlike the past, poor kids are actually able to attend school because the government and private companies help by giving them bursaries, grants and scholarships. They also make a lot more because of standard wage laws. All of this means that now, in today's world, the rich students are more likely to have low grades and the poor kids are more likely to have high grades (haha actually, in my experience rich kids are more likely to pay poor kids to do their homework and then subsequently fail their midterms and finals).



I wish it were a level playing field here, but we have an obviously rich elite. I suppose every country is different. Still, you can go further than you used to.

I still see a lot of young people who would like to do better, but they're already pretty far behind in their twenties. They can still achieve of course, but it takes a long time and life happens - family children and responsibilities. Then the cycle starts again. I'm sure we lose a lot of talent one way and another.

[JuniperWoolf]

They can still achieve of course, but it takes a long time and life happens - family children and responsibilities. Then the cycle starts again. I'm sure we lose a lot of talent one way and another.

Hah! That is completely true, I'm spending my twenties guarding against pregnancy like it's the plague. I've lost a lot of very bright friends to pre-mature "accidents."