Do you think there is still snobbery in academia?

[kelby_lake]

I attended a lecture today on The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, where the lecturer was incredibly dismissive of the films. Yes, the films may not be an accurate representation of the novel but they should at least be touched on, seeing as they are what has shaped our cultural perceptions of the story. They were completely ignorant: they told us that the Fredric March film was from 1954 when it was actually 1931. They completely derided the musical adaptation not based on the quality of the musical (it's okay but hardly a classic) but because it was a musical.

What annoys me is that they were displaying their ignorance but trying to mask it under their knowledge of the novel. I've found this in a few people during my whole education: teachers who are knowledgable about their own subject but completely ignorant of anything outside it.

Perhaps the "dead white male" studies have been killed off but has academia retained some of its snobbery?

The irony is that the lecturer pronounced "Jekyll" as "Jeckle"- a pronunciation introduced by the movies.

[cacian]

I do not know whether it is snobbery but more like stubborness and cultism.
Some groups like to keep a certain way because they believe their version on a subject is the best.
It is a bit like saying I would only call films cameras shots true arts as oppose to digital ones.
It is one mind over another.
That is how I see it.

[Charles Darnay]

I've seen this, and possibly been guilty of this myself. I don't think it's snobbery, but some honest mistakes. When you work with a text or author in such depth, facts are bound to get muddled in your mind.

For example - the March adaptation is indeed 1931, but there is a 1954 Olivier adaptation: perhaps this was an honest confusion.

The musical is amazing - I'm just throwing that out there. I don't think professors have to be free from personal opinion: if he hates musicals, so be it. It is, after all, not a direct adaptation of the text (still awesome.)

As for the pronunciation - both are acceptable (if I read your differences correctly). As it is a Scottish text, some settle on what should be the Scottish pronunciation: others (Americans and English) take a more standard English pronunciation.

[The Comedian]

You know, I sure as hope there's snobbery in academia. I love it. I know that it sounds goofy, but I sort of hope for some snobbery when I take a class in literature and the like.

[Emil Miller]

There was also a filmed version with Spencer Tracy in the lead role made in 1941.
At the time, a film was being made of one of W S Maugham's novels and he was invited to watch Tracy acting the scene where Dr. Jeykll had just turned from the mild mannered Jekyll into a mad frothing at the mouth, snarling Hyde. Maugham jokingly said: "Which one is he supposed to be now?"
Unfortunately, Tracy heard him and refused an invitation to stay at Maugham's villa in the South of France.

[PeterL]

I laughed when I saw the title of this thread.

There is snobery in academia, and many academics try to hide their ignorance under a pile of bull****. The amount of snobbery varies widely, bt there are many people who have considered their specialty the most important thing tin the world for decades, and they see no reason to change, even when they are wrong.

[tonywalt]

Anything that offsets the world of the Kardashians, Reality housewives, jersey shore is good in my books.

[The Comedian]

Anything that offsets the world of the Kardashians, Reality housewives, jersey shore is good in my books.

Amen, amigo!

[stlukesguild]

tonywalt
Anything that offsets the world of the Kardashians, Reality housewives, jersey shore is good in my books.

:hurray:

And Harry Potter and McDonalds

:D

[JCamilo]

Kelby,

the aversion of the films based on J&H is not new. The thing is that, while the movies are not awful (and Tracy movie gave the world Ingrid Bergman) and they are respectful to the plot of the movies, they damaged the reading of the book. Stevenson does everything hiding the conection between both, it is responsable for the quality of the book. The movies, due their own traits, could not do the same. And soon, the mistery was over. Hence, why book worms do feel less "touched" by the movies.

Long live snobbery, but in this case, it is more like bibliophilia.

[tonywalt]

Long live snobbery, but in this case, it is more like bibliophilia.

Exactly!

[Alexander III]

As has been said, snobbery has become very tolerable and even positive, simply because of the excesses of demagogy and the dire need for a counterbalance.

[Calidore]

Just curious, what would the Scottish pronunciation be?

I saw the John Barrymore silent version as a kid, and enjoyed it quite a bit. He transformed without makeup, just facial contortions.

I can also recommend (to those with patience and who don't mind liberal expansion of the original text) the 1932 Australian radio serial from producer George Edwards. It's 52 12-minute chapters, and writes an entire backstory starting from Jekyll's childhood that wasn't in the novel. I think it was nearly halfway through the run before the first event of the original novel took place. However, like all of Edwards' programs, it's very entertaining if you take it on its own merits.

[Charles Darnay]

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?22397-Pronouncing-Jekyll
(a discussion on the pronunciation)

[Emil Miller]

As has been said, snobbery has become very tolerable and even positive, simply because of the excesses of demagogy and the dire need for a counterbalance.

There's nothing wrong with snobbery, one just greets it with a supercilious smile and watch it lie there and die there.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Some snobbery is good. Too much isn't.

[kelby_lake]

I laughed when I saw the title of this thread.

There is snobery in academia, and many academics try to hide their ignorance under a pile of bull****. The amount of snobbery varies widely, bt there are many people who have considered their specialty the most important thing tin the world for decades, and they see no reason to change, even when they are wrong.

I've noticed this reading a lot of academic work. There's always going to be some degree of placing their speciality above everything else but that doesn't mean that they have to be ignorant about everything else.

[kelby_lake]

Some snobbery is good. Too much isn't.

This is my view really. Of course they're going to be discerning but they should at least have some knowledge of what they are disdaining.

[PeterL]

I've noticed this reading a lot of academic work. There's always going to be some degree of placing their speciality above everything else but that doesn't mean that they have to be ignorant about everything else.

Yes, I have known both kinds. There are some extremely sharp people in academia who are happy to know that their work is not the most important thing ever written, but there are many people who can't think outside their own boxes. I was going to add that there aren't many professors in Mensa, which is for the top 2% of IQ's, but I didn't have any hard data to back that up, until I found this page http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/01/average-iq-by-occupation.html . On the other hand, a few of the most intelligent people I have met were professors; but otut of the hundreds of professors I have met the bright ones were very rare.

I am making a differentiation that some people would not make; that there is a difference between being knowledgeable and being highly intelligent.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Could someone ask PeterL for me (since he has me on his ignore list) if he thinks he's really interacted with those "hundreds of professors" for enough time to accurately determine their "brightness." Maybe he could also explain the difference between intelligence and knowledge, beyond semantics, that is.

[Pierre Menard]

There's also the possibility that you're lecturer is just poor at communicating with his students, and not necessarily representative of wider academia.

[kelby_lake]

Maybe he could also explain the difference between intelligence and knowledge, beyond semantics, that is.

As I understand it, intelligence is the ability to learn and deduce and knowledge is information acquired.

[Drkshadow03]

The musical is amazing - I'm just throwing that out there. I don't think professors have to be free from personal opinion: if he hates musicals, so be it. It is, after all, not a direct adaptation of the text (still awesome.)


I was just thinking the same thing. I love the music from the musical.

[Emil Miller]

As I understand it, intelligence is the ability to learn and deduce and knowledge is information acquired.

Absolutely correct, and while we all rely on the super intelligent to create the means for our well being, they are not exactly the kind of people one would willingly go on holiday with. On the other hand, the well-informed are what makes civilised life acceptable beyond the purely utilitarian level.

[JBI]

Depends where, some academics can back it up. Stanford academics, from what I have experienced, can usually back it up. Small town universities in China, though, have a lower level of academic, though they are arguably less snobby, and don't get paid well.

The general depiction of academics in literature, interestingly, is rather negative, especially newer literature. Think The Human Stain, The Corrections, etc. Weak, petty, immature, sexually lustful, etc.

[OrphanPip]

I think the majority of academics I have interacted with have been generally quite intelligent and open people. Of course, I work in theatre/performance studies at the moment and I think there is a lot of openness in the field to interacting with different media and texts. I'm looking forward to meeting Joseph Roach tomorrow, who is perhaps the world's pre-eminent theatre studies scholar. There's going to be a colloquium on the 18th century Shakespearean actor/director/rewriter Garrick. I'm not so into celebrity studies, but I do find the relationship between personality and the reception of a performance interesting.

I'll report back if he turns out to be a dick.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

:lol: Please do, Pip.

Maybe my university is an odd duck, but our English department is pretty snob-free, with a few exceptions, though the exceptions I've had class under are some of the smartest people I've encountered. In a funny little rant, one of them apologized for being a snob, saying he was sorry he didn't like Star Wars and rock music, but he couldn't change who he was. Most of my professors, though, seem to be dorks who know a ton about their respective field, be it a literary period or compositional rhetoric. A lot of them love cheesy sci-fi and fantasy novels/movies and even play video games. They're a cool bunch, in my book.

[cacian]

Could someone ask PeterL for me (since he has me on his ignore list) if he thinks he's really interacted with those "hundreds of professors" for enough time to accurately determine their "brightness." Maybe he could also explain the difference between intelligence and knowledge, beyond semantics, that is.

As far as know intelligence are knowledge are not necessarily linked.
The ability to learn by heart gain knowledge does not always mean you are genuis.
There is quite a gap there.
Semantics I do not know enough about as I do not even know what it actually means.
Will go and look it up.

[kelby_lake]

As far as know intelligence are knowledge are not necessarily linked.
The ability to learn by heart gain knowledge does not always mean you are genuis.
There is quite a gap there.

I know a lot of students who fall into the "knowledge" sector. They are hardworking and will read a lot around their subject but if you ask them something slightly out of the ordinary, they get stuck. Other students I know are not as "knowledgable" as these people but they outperform them in exams because they are receptive and quick thinking.

[kelby_lake]

I think the majority of academics I have interacted with have been generally quite intelligent and open people. Of course, I work in theatre/performance studies at the moment and I think there is a lot of openness in the field to interacting with different media and texts.

This is what I've found as well. Theatre academics tend to have a working knowledge of literature as well whereas some English academics are completely clueless. For example, one English professor of mine said that we weren't going to study American plays as there wasn't a tradition for American Drama. However, American Drama completely changed the landscape of 20th century drama and some of the most important influential plays were American. There is a very traceable tradition, albeit one confined to the 20th century.

[Drkshadow03]

As far as know intelligence are knowledge are not necessarily linked.
The ability to learn by heart gain knowledge does not always mean you are genuis.
There is quite a gap there.
Semantics I do not know enough about as I do not even know what it actually means.
Will go and look it up.

I would agree being able to memorize something doesn't make one a genius. However, there have been studies done, such those highlighted in E. D. Hirsch's book Cultural Literacy, which show that in many cases critical thinking and interpretation requires background knowledge. In other words, there does seem to be a link between being able to interpret new data and having some background knowledge and experiences to work from that will assist in that interpretation.

I think the real problem isn't that professors aren't intelligent and merely knowledgeable. The actual problem is they aren't knowledgeable beyond their esoteric specialities. Camille Paglia talks about the dangers of reading too narrowly, more in reference to political theorist types in the humanities, but which could apply to some traditionalists as well I suppose. Basically one should read broadly in many subject areas, experience life away from books, and also be moderately up to date with pop culture as well.

[PeterL]

To clarify a little, I wanted to indicate that idiots savant are , or seem to be, quite knowledgeable as long as they are performing within a very limited sphere, but they are not intelligen; they have a very liimited capacity to learn or understand anything else. There are many ordinary people who have great knowledge within a limited sphere, or a few spheres, people who may be excellent auto mechanics and experts on baseball who can't understand matmatics beyond addition and subtraction. While few academics are that limited, many have little understanding of other fields.

Semantics is the branch of semiotics that relates to applying meaning to signs. All words are signs, and all words have meaning. To explain the meaning of a word without using semantics is an impossibility.

[mona amon]

Some snobbery is good. Too much isn't.

Exactly. It's good to have standards, but it's also good to have a mind that's eager and open to new experiences. Snobbery closes the mind.


Basically one should read broadly in many subject areas, experience life away from books, and also be moderately up to date with pop culture as well.

:iagree:

[Summer M]

I was going to add that there aren't many professors in Mensa, which is for the top 2% of IQ's,

No, Mensa is for those whose IQ is in the top 2% and who had the vanity to apply. High IQ societies are most laughable organizations on earth.

[Lokasenna]

No, Mensa is for those whose IQ is in the top 2% and who had the vanity to apply. High IQ societies are most laughable organizations on earth.

Agreed!

I'm a member of what used to be called the MRPDG (Medieval and Renaissance Postgraduate Discussion Group) here in Durham, but this year they've changed their name to MEMSA (Medieval and Early Modern Student Association) - apparently with the not-quite-tongue-in-cheek intention of aping Mensa. As far as I can see, it's lead to nothing but confusion.

I've no idea whether I'm in the top 2% of the human race in terms of my intelligence - probably not. I've never had an IQ test, and don't particularly want one. But I can say this about the academic class: for every professor you meet who has a mind like a lazer, that searing intelligence that is immediately and powerfully apparent, you meet at least a dozen who are incompetent cretins who seem mostly to have gotten where they have by sheer luck.

The vast majority of academics (including, I hope, myself!) fall somewhere between the two extremes: reasonably intelligent and inquisitive people who work hard doing something they love, and thus become good at it. But really no more so than anyone else in any other reasonably cerebral occupation.

[PeterL]

No, Mensa is for those whose IQ is in the top 2% and who had the vanity to apply. High IQ societies are most laughable organizations on earth.

I don't really disagree with you. The few Mensa meetings that I went to were full of people who weren't interesting, but they seemed to expect to be the center of attention.

It isn't necessarily vanity. My siblings and I were urged to apply by out mother (she wanted to be able to brag about her children). Only one of my brothers remains a member. There are much better ways to waste the dues money.

[stlukesguild]

I would agree being able to memorize something doesn't make one a genius. However, there have been studies done, such those highlighted in E. D. Hirsch's book Cultural Literacy, which show that in many cases critical thinking and interpretation requires background knowledge. In other words, there does seem to be a link between being able to interpret new data and having some background knowledge and experiences to work from that will assist in that interpretation.

I think the real problem isn't that professors aren't intelligent and merely knowledgeable. The actual problem is they aren't knowledgeable beyond their esoteric specialities. Camille Paglia talks about the dangers of reading too narrowly, more in reference to political theorist types in the humanities, but which could apply to some traditionalists as well I suppose. Basically one should read broadly in many subject areas, experience life away from books, and also be moderately up to date with pop culture as well.

As a teacher I have long realized the value of being somewhat up to date with regard to popular culture... but I'm just not all that convinced that it is a necessity that I know the lyrics of Lady Gaga's latest efforts, am well read in comic books, follow Sponge Bob, etc... to be considered a well-rounded individual.

I don't really disagree with you. The few Mensa meetings that I went to were full of people who weren't interesting, but they seemed to expect to be the center of attention.

It isn't necessarily vanity. My siblings and I were urged to apply by out mother (she wanted to be able to brag about her children). Only one of my brothers remains a member. There are much better ways to waste the dues money.

It seems like Peter wants us to all know/believe that he's a genius. Sounds like vanity to me.:hand:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I would agree being able to memorize something doesn't make one a genius. However, there have been studies done, such those highlighted in E. D. Hirsch's book Cultural Literacy, which show that in many cases critical thinking and interpretation requires background knowledge. In other words, there does seem to be a link between being able to interpret new data and having some background knowledge and experiences to work from that will assist in that interpretation.

I think the real problem isn't that professors aren't intelligent and merely knowledgeable. The actual problem is they aren't knowledgeable beyond their esoteric specialities. Camille Paglia talks about the dangers of reading too narrowly, more in reference to political theorist types in the humanities, but which could apply to some traditionalists as well I suppose. Basically one should read broadly in many subject areas, experience life away from books, and also be moderately up to date with pop culture as well.

As a teacher I have long realized the value of being somewhat up to date with regard to popular culture... but I'm just not all that convinced that it is a necessity that I know the lyrics of Lady Gaga's latest efforts, am well read in comic books, follow Sponge Bob, etc... to be considered a well-rounded individual.

Agree with all but the comic books. Comic books are the ****!

[kelby_lake]

As a teacher I have long realized the value of being somewhat up to date with regard to popular culture... but I'm just not all that convinced that it is a necessity that I know the lyrics of Lady Gaga's latest efforts, am well read in comic books, follow Sponge Bob, etc... to be considered a well-rounded individual.

Agreed, but I think an awareness of popular culture is important.

[cacian]

Agreed, but I think an awareness of popular culture is important.

I agree but I think awarness of each other as people across the globe is more important than pop culture.
Being able to understand that there are people that exist outside ourselves and the ability to acknowledge that differences is what makes the world go around is even more important then the top charts or lady gaga.

[Drkshadow03]

I would agree being able to memorize something doesn't make one a genius. However, there have been studies done, such those highlighted in E. D. Hirsch's book Cultural Literacy, which show that in many cases critical thinking and interpretation requires background knowledge. In other words, there does seem to be a link between being able to interpret new data and having some background knowledge and experiences to work from that will assist in that interpretation.

I think the real problem isn't that professors aren't intelligent and merely knowledgeable. The actual problem is they aren't knowledgeable beyond their esoteric specialities. Camille Paglia talks about the dangers of reading too narrowly, more in reference to political theorist types in the humanities, but which could apply to some traditionalists as well I suppose. Basically one should read broadly in many subject areas, experience life away from books, and also be moderately up to date with pop culture as well.

As a teacher I have long realized the value of being somewhat up to date with regard to popular culture... but I'm just not all that convinced that it is a necessity that I know the lyrics of Lady Gaga's latest efforts, am well read in comic books, follow Sponge Bob, etc... to be considered a well-rounded individual.

No, but I would think you've heard a couple of Lady Gaga's songs, seen a clip or two of Sponge Bob perhaps, etc. I think one should have a general knowledge of what is going on around them.

[Kafka's Crow]

I found an old professor friend of mine while Googling his name yesterday. Shot an email right away and got a prompt reply, so far so good. He has done well for himself with many books and scores of articles published and a teaching post at one of the most prestigious college of humanities in the world. I found him dry and very matter of fact and to the point. It is not his fault, they all become like that. I could have been in the same position if life had not taken a bad turn but my role-models are generous people who gave their students time, fatherly advice and affection. I still remember the introductory lecture I had on King Lear in 1990. It started at 5:00 PM and finished at 7:00 PM as planned but the Q&A session and the discussions that followed lasted till 2 in the morning and the professor, although a very senior scholar (both in years and in his professional position), never tried to discourage us. He even served us food and tea and the whole group stayed there and came out of his office literally drunk on intellectual stimuli. And what humour, what down to earth personalities, what vast reservoirs of all knowledge. A lot of background knowledge: philosophy, psychology, history, religions and mythology along with literature and classics. Sadly I have never seen such teachers in the UK. They don't say much. I think they like to keep their ideas to themselves so that nobody could steal their research. They lack generosity of spirit and seem happy in their ivory towers, sitting pretty making sure that people like me are kept out of their domain.

I taught for first 2 years of my professional life, before that I taught at the University while studying there. I spent a couple of years with a visually impaired friend. I read to him, drove him around to the campus and wrote with him during tests (he was doing his MPhil in literature and did a thesis on the effects of blindness on imagery in Borges, and Joyce etc). Then he was called to the US where text to speech technology literally eliminated the need for readers or writers but he still says that the main thing he misses is the discussion which he can't have with a computers. He has completed his PhD now. During my 2 years as teacher, I liked to give my students time, loads of time. College students, all desperate to get into the medical school. I used to sit with them and give them extra lessons in afternoons. Some of them used to come to my house in evening. My mum used to serve them dinner as well. This is what I had seen my teachers doing. This is how they looked after me when I was left in their charge as a young man far from home and family. In my academic career in the UK, I never came across any such generosity, just found aloofness and silence. I am sure a teacher without humour is a teacher without anything interesting to say. I miss humour in my teachers. There is no laughter and mirth in the classroom any more.

This is what I wrote to my friend yesterday:

PS: Am I not becoming like that character in Cervantes' Don Quixote, Bachelor Sanson Corrasco, who keeps on re-appearing at the most unexpected moments in this 1000 page-long story???

Now I am worried that he might take offence. You can't be at your ease with these people. Do we have academics on this board? Is it beneath them to come and have a chat with us literature enthusiasts?

[kelby_lake]

I agree but I think awarness of each other as people across the globe is more important than pop culture.
Being able to understand that there are people that exist outside ourselves and the ability to acknowledge that differences is what makes the world go around is even more important then the top charts or lady gaga.

Yes of course, but then that should be the case for everybody regardless of whether they are an academic or not. Acknowledging that you cannot look at literature in a vacuum,whether you like its place in popular culture or not, is important for an English lecturer. Being aware of cultural perceptions of your texts and literature in general is important.

[Alexander III]

Also I have never figured out why there is so much hate towards academics. I hate the administrative and disciplinary departments of my university, but the majority of my professors and tutors are remarkably intelligent, and highly amiable. They are kind and somewhat fatherly in their behavior, they always encourage the voicing of ideas and they have a solid sense of humor as well as a passion for the arts. Most of the people at my university, are erudite in a renaissance way. being well educate in a variety of subjects, having groomed enjoyable personalities for themselves, and most importantly they know how to communicate very well.

Anyone have ideas on why there is such a negative image of academia in literature. I mean, there is plenty I hate and find dull, but that is due to my faults of character. If a person is so inclined, a bag of weed, a drunken night out in london at Jalouse, a woman, playing sports with friends, gambling, and many other university activities; are all far more enjoyable than a seminar. But that is hardly the tutors fault.

[kelby_lake]

Also I have never figured out why there is so much hate towards academics.

I think it's because the student's perception of the academic is that they are presenting themselves as the tops, the intellectual level that the students should aspire to. Unlike school teachers, lecturers give very little contact time, therefore pupils don't see why they should make the effort.

[Phocion]

Yes. Its funny, because it's almost exactly like it is caricatured - see 'Lucky Jim',

[stlukesguild]

Alexander III- I have never figured out why there is so much hate towards academics.

kelby_lake- I think it's because the student's perception of the academic is that they are presenting themselves as the tops, the intellectual level that the students should aspire to.

For the most part, I believe the "hatred"... or more likely the dismissive attitude and mockery of academia is owed in part to a reverse snobbery. I think this is even more true in the US where a politician that puts forth the effort to do well in school and as a result graduates among the top of his class from a rigorous university can find himself portrayed as an "elitist" by another politician born into wealth who fritters his time away in college. It seems that with the exception of those stars in sports or popular culture, to achieve... or even aspire to the highest level is seen by a great many as proof of snobbishness... after all, just being another "Joe the Plumber" isn't good enough for such individuals. In other words... its a sort of class envy.

As for students... well surely you know, Alex, that students are all certain that they know so much more than their elders... whether it be their teachers or their parents.

[PeterL]

Looking at some of the replies reminded me that the worst snobs that I have met in academia had the least to be snobbish about; they were the flat characters. The best that I have met in academia have been genuinely intelligent, down-to-Earth people, who not only knew their own subject but were widely conversant. But that how it lways is, the bright ones don't have to put on airs, while the clown have to pretend to be bettr than they are.

[Calidore]

Looking at some of the replies reminded me that the worst snobs that I have met in academia had the least to be snobbish about; they were the flat characters. The best that I have met in academia have been genuinely intelligent, down-to-Earth people, who not only knew their own subject but were widely conversant. But that how it lways is, the bright ones don't have to put on airs, while the clown have to pretend to be bettr than they are.

Very well put.

[Lokasenna]

Alexander III- I have never figured out why there is so much hate towards academics.

kelby_lake- I think it's because the student's perception of the academic is that they are presenting themselves as the tops, the intellectual level that the students should aspire to.

For the most part, I believe the "hatred"... or more likely the dismissive attitude and mockery of academia is owed in part to a reverse snobbery. I think this is even more true in the US where a politician that puts forth the effort to do well in school and as a result graduates among the top of his class from a rigorous university can find himself portrayed as an "elitist" by another politician born into wealth who fritters his time away in college. It seems that with the exception of those stars in sports or popular culture, to achieve... or even aspire to the highest level is seen by a great many as proof of snobbishness... after all, just being another "Joe the Plumber" isn't good enough for such individuals. In other words... its a sort of class envy.

As for students... well surely you know, Alex, that students are all certain that they know so much more than their elders... whether it be their teachers or their parents.

Agreed, though I think politicians generally also have an anti-intellectual bias insofar as it tends to be the academically minded who are most inclined to examine and critique their methods of government.

[Paulclem]

Agreed, though I think politicians generally also have an anti-intellectual bias insofar as it tends to be the academically minded who are most inclined to examine and critique their methods of government.

Agreed -and they don't need their votes.

I dislike snobbery in all its forms including the inverted kind; it is a form of self declared superiority. I think it is different from talent, and intelligence. You may find snobbish people with these, though - as has been said - why would an intelligent and talented person need to be snobbish?

I recently changed disciplines in my job, from teaching english to Maths, and I had a few ideas about how I would like to teach it. These were based upon my opinion of the poor maths teaching that went on in the past and which still persists. The course I went on at the local Uni looked at the problem, and many academic researchers and writers were of the opinion that the intellectualisation of maths in the western tradition removed classroom maths from the real life maths that goes on everyday. In short, an intellectual, if not intended, snobbery.

I'm not of course saying that Maths should be dumbed down, but the opportunity to become maths literate has been denied to many people because the relevance to the everyday, and a recogniseable register, which can then develop into an academic register as time goes on, is lost.

I asked myself the question before the course - what do I remember of the maths teaching I had at secondary school - where I was very poor at maths. I have to say that, being a visual learner, my memory is dominated by magnolia. Yes, the maths classroom we sat in for three years was magnolia, and I have no recollection of any posters, diagrams, pictures or interesting charts or statistics whatsoever. I assume that this was similar to the Victorian idea of building classrooms with high windows so the children would not get distracted by looking out. (You can still see these in old school buildings).

I can see the teacher demonstrating matrices on the board and the time he held a cricket bat over my head in jest when I was too embarrassed to answer 2+2. It is fascinating to look back and then compare what I want to use now, and do use - such as Egyptian doubling charts, the story that zero was invented by Indians, possibly because they had developed the concept of emptiness or absence as a philosophical idea with a quality rather than a signifier of just nothing. it resonates with my learners from other cultures too, as what has happened in maths teaching is that the contribution of other cultures to its development has been looked over in favour of the scientific western/ greek based model we have.

And it makes no sense to abstract maths from the everyday. What would make it much more interesting is the input of history, geography, science, biography to colour and flesh it out. A good basic grounding would more to develop the necessary abstract ideas for further study. So I'm all for less academic snobbery as being able to relate to all kinds of people makes you a more effective teacher. If you can relate to them, then you can relate the subject to them, and it becomes alive.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob!” - Rick Santorum.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please note that discussion of current politics is not allowed on this Forum.

~

[RicMisc]

Agreed -and they don't need their votes.

I dislike snobbery in all its forms including the inverted kind; it is a form of self declared superiority. I think it is different from talent, and intelligence. You may find snobbish people with these, though - as has been said - why would an intelligent and talented person need to be snobbish?

[...]

And it makes no sense to abstract maths from the everyday. What would make it much more interesting is the input of history, geography, science, biography to colour and flesh it out. A good basic grounding would more to develop the necessary abstract ideas for further study. So I'm all for less academic snobbery as being able to relate to all kinds of people makes you a more effective teacher. If you can relate to them, then you can relate the subject to them, and it becomes alive.

Well, as far as maths go I have a very clear opinion on that. In secondary school I was horrible at maths and I plainly hated the subject in itself. I did however choose to study economics and business economics this year at uni which involves quite some maths. This time around I am not so bad at maths, where I used to score mostly insufficient grades I now score 7/10 - 8/10 (sufficient being anything over 5.5/10). The main difference between the two courses is not the overall difficulty of the courses but the approach on maths that they have. In secondary school everything was very very dry and I had no idea what application the things I had to learn might have, so I wasn't too bothered with putting in effort.

This time around the focus is really on the application of maths to economics and economic problems which makes me feel like I am doing something useful and this results in me putting in effort and therefore getting higher marks. If more my secondary school maths course had given me some real-life application of the things that I had to learn I think I would have done a lot better in maths.

As for snobbery in academia. Yes there is still snobbery in academia, it has always been there and it will most likely never go away. Mainly because he higher educated people feel they have better perspective on things than their lower educated fellow citizens and they more often think themselves to be the smartest one in the room, even when among other academics.

[Emil Miller]

Well, as far as maths go I have a very clear opinion on that. In secondary school I was horrible at maths and I plainly hated the subject in itself. I did however choose to study economics and business economics this year at uni which involves quite some maths. This time around I am not so bad at maths, where I used to score mostly insufficient grades I now score 7/10 - 8/10 (sufficient being anything over 5.5/10). The main difference between the two courses is not the overall difficulty of the courses but the approach on maths that they have. In secondary school everything was very very dry and I had no idea what application the things I had to learn might have, so I wasn't too bothered with putting in effort.
This time around the focus is really on the application of maths to economics and economic problems which makes me feel like I am doing something useful and this results in me putting in effort and therefore getting higher marks. If more my secondary school maths course had given me some real-life application of the things that I had to learn I think I would have done a lot better in maths.

As for snobbery in academia. Yes there is still snobbery in academia, it has always been there and it will most likely never go away. Mainly because he higher educated people feel they have better perspective on things than their lower educated fellow citizens and they more often think themselves to be the smartest one in the room, even when among other academics.

This is very true and has been for a long time. I found maths to be nothing but a total abstraction in secondary school and for the same reason. No attempt was made to show how the subject underlines practically everything we do and that without it civilisation is reduced to its barest essentials. It is this failure to communicate the necessity of mathematics to our very existence that turns the subject from somthing vital into a waste of time for many pupils.

[PeterL]

As has been said, snobbery has become very tolerable and even positive, simply because of the excesses of demagogy and the dire need for a counterbalance.

I think it's more beciase snobbery makes the excesses appear humorous.

[Kjetil]

I attended a lecture today on The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, where the lecturer was incredibly dismissive of the films. Yes, the films may not be an accurate representation of the novel but they should at least be touched on, seeing as they are what has shaped our cultural perceptions of the story. They were completely ignorant: they told us that the Fredric March film was from 1954 when it was actually 1931. They completely derided the musical adaptation not based on the quality of the musical (it's okay but hardly a classic) but because it was a musical.

What annoys me is that they were displaying their ignorance but trying to mask it under their knowledge of the novel. I've found this in a few people during my whole education: teachers who are knowledgable about their own subject but completely ignorant of anything outside it.

Perhaps the "dead white male" studies have been killed off but has academia retained some of its snobbery?

The irony is that the lecturer pronounced "Jekyll" as "Jeckle"- a pronunciation introduced by the movies.

Snobbery in academia?! Surely not - whoever has heard of such a thing?

Anyway, dismissing a musical because it's a musical isn't snobbery, it's just good sense. It is a vile and despicable genre.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

^ Snob, methinks.

[Alexander III]

^ not snob, common sense; it's musicals, no one likes musicals.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Les Miserables, Wizard of Oz, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, West Side Story. I rest my case.

[BienvenuJDC]

I love musicals...

[OrphanPip]

Lots of people like musicals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6S5caRGpK4

[Calidore]

Les Miserables, Wizard of Oz, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, West Side Story. I rest my case.

I'll see that and raise you Singin' in the Rain, Meet Me in St. Louis, Mary Poppins, The Sound of Music, and Lagaan.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'll see that and add South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (and I'm not joking: it has some excellently witty songs).

[JBI]

When we talk about snobbery in academia, we must realize that most academics are completely worthless beyond their field. Some are well rounded, but from my experience, the top of the academic ladder rarely knows anything beyond their research focus, especially today's academics. That being said, many of these specialties are completely useless to society, in and of themselves. If someone does research on moon imagery in a random poet nobody has heard of, well then, that is pretty useless as a whole. They are an authority, but their scope of authority is quite limited. The problem is people like to think of themselves as rounded when they are not. People like to think a Ph.D. actually qualifies you to be an authority on everything.

[Summer M]

José Ortega y Gasset wrote a whole chapter, titled The Barbarism of Specialization, in his book The Revolt of the Masses. The title speaks for itself: a specialist develops the notion that he is somehow an authority on everything and becomes essentially a barbarian who speaks nonsense on anything and everything.

Perhaps the most outrageous example of this barbarism is Noam Chomsky, once a great linguist and today a blubbering idiot who travels the world lecturing about things he knows nothing about.

[kelby_lake]

Anyway, dismissing a musical because it's a musical isn't snobbery, it's just good sense. It is a vile and despicable genre.

One which you clearly know nothing about then otherwise you wouldn't make such an idiotic comment.

[PeterL]

José Ortega y Gasset wrote a whole chapter, titled The Barbarism of Specialization, in his book The Revolt of the Masses. The title speaks for itself: a specialist develops the notion that he is somehow an authority on everything and becomes essentially a barbarian who speaks nonsense on anything and everything.

Perhaps the most outrageous example of this barbarism is Noam Chomsky, once a great linguist and today a blubbering idiot who travels the world lecturing about things he knows nothing about.

I applaude both sections. Chomsky was a pretty good expert in linguistics, but he has some rather strange ideas about some other things.

While Mr Ortega y Gasset is mostly right, there is another unfortunate side to that: generalists are given low regard. Few people think that anyone can know something about many things.

[mal4mac]

When we talk about snobbery in academia, we must realize that most academics are completely worthless beyond their field... The problem is people like to think of themselves as rounded when they are not. People like to think a Ph.D. actually qualifies you to be an authority on everything.

So how does one become rounded? Is this task not too difficult in modernity? Perhaps one should have a more modest aim, which should certainly include learning how not to be a snob. If, beyond that, someone finds personal fulfilment in studying moon imagery, then it would be snobbish to dismiss their pursuit, even if they are no more well rounded than a 19th century Tibetan monk.

[kelby_lake]

So how does one become rounded? Is this task not too difficult in modernity?

I don't think it's difficult. Being well-rounded does not mean being an expert; it means having a working knowledge of many things, which doesn't take that long to build. A working knowledge means being able to hold a discussion whilst not necessarily bringing anything new to it. For example, I have a working knowledge of the Bond films. I know which Bond is in what film, I can give you a general opinion on the Bonds and I can tell you my favourite Bond song. That would be enough to be able to participate in a conversation but it's hardly an expertise.

[FROADS]

there's probably even more snobbery in the art culture tbh, more specifically in the abstract genre.

[stlukesguild]

there's probably even more snobbery in the art culture tbh, more specifically in the abstract genre.

And why do you think that?

[PeterL]

So how does one become rounded? Is this task not too difficult in modernity? Perhaps one should have a more modest aim, which should certainly include learning how not to be a snob. If, beyond that, someone finds personal fulfilment in studying moon imagery, then it would be snobbish to dismiss their pursuit, even if they are no more well rounded than a 19th century Tibetan monk.

I am sure that many would disagree, but being "rounder" is something that is is from birth. There are people who are interested in many things and people who can't see beyond their own specialty. To paraphrase an adage, most people have a hammer, while a few people have a box of tools. Being like an 118th century liberal would be a vast broadening for most peopl.

[FROADS]

there's probably even more snobbery in the art culture tbh, more specifically in the abstract genre.

And why do you think that?
well the other day my friend invited me to an art gallery and there was an artist whose main presentation was a giant plastic squid lying on the floor covered in a pool of black liquid. And in the room of where the squid was at there was also a projector that showed interlaced images of some guy screaming and another man playing the trumpet. I guess the significance of the artist's work had something to do with death. I just thought it was too snobbish for my taste. I don't really see how impressive that work of art is compared to the other beautiful paintings and sculptures i'd seen that day. And yet that was the main attraction, and people talked about it like it was something big. If that's not snobbery i don't know what is. A child can create that type of work tbh, but if it's done by an artist with recognition; it's considered a work of art.

[PeterL]

there's probably even more snobbery in the art culture tbh, more specifically in the abstract genre.

That's the second note on this thread that got me to chuckle. I strongly agree with you.

[MystyrMystyry]

Well the other day my friend invited me to an art gallery and there was an artist whose main presentation was a giant plastic squid lying on the floor covered in a pool of black liquid. And in the room of where the squid was at there was also a projector that showed interlaced images of some guy screaming and another man playing the trumpet.

That's excellent!

I could explain it to you but it would ruin it. It's not snobbery, just that when you're tuned into something you're likely to get it quicker.

Imagine someone tells you a joke, and you don't laugh because your instinct is just 'that's not funny - it's stupid!'

Then one day you're travelling on a train, or in a cinema, or just about to go to sleep, and for some reason you start thinking about the stupid unfunny joke. Then it twigs and you suddenly understand it, and burst out laughing.

(Actually they're the best kind ;) )

[Delta40]

It's kind of like the canvas with a coloured dot in the middle and everybody goes 'wow' and 'ooh' as if they perceive a deeper meaning and your thinking, 'am I missing the big picture?' because it's pathetic watching these people with their glasses of champagne laud over something that a five year old could have done so you refuse to join the crowd and they shake their heads at you as if you're some kind of pitiful creature that should have never been allowed to walk this earth...

[BienvenuJDC]

No...some things JUST AREN'T FUNNY!
...and some "art" JUST ISN'T GOOD!

[BienvenuJDC]

No...some things JUST AREN'T FUNNY!
...and some "art" JUST ISN'T GOOD!

[BienvenuJDC]

Does The Emperor's New Clothes come to mind?


It's kind of like the canvas with a coloured dot in the middle and everybody goes 'wow' and 'ooh' as if they perceive a deeper meaning and your thinking, 'am I missing the big picture?' because it's pathetic watching these people with their glasses of champagne laud over something that a five year old could have done so you refuse to join the crowd and they shake their heads at you as if you're some kind of pitiful creature that should have never been allowed to walk this earth...

[stlukesguild]

well the other day my friend invited me to an art gallery and there was an artist whose main presentation was a giant plastic squid lying on the floor covered in a pool of black liquid. And in the room of where the squid was at there was also a projector that showed interlaced images of some guy screaming and another man playing the trumpet. I guess the significance of the artist's work had something to do with death. I just thought it was too snobbish for my taste. I don't really see how impressive that work of art is compared to the other beautiful paintings and sculptures i'd seen that day. And yet that was the main attraction, and people talked about it like it was something big. If that's not snobbery i don't know what is. A child can create that type of work tbh, but if it's done by an artist with recognition; it's considered a work of art.

I cannot speak to the specific work in question without having seen it... but I'm not certain that I would define art that challenges the traditional concepts of painting/sculpture and/or the world of collectors/curators/critics/educators that exist in support of such art as "snobbish"... or any more snobbish than any other realm of academia.

Recently I have been involved in a long drawn-out debate over the relative merits of the painter, Mark Rothko, which began in response to a recent act of vandalism of one of his paintings. In spite of the fact that the modern tradition of Non-Objective painting... that which we call "Abstract Art"... has been in existence for over 100 years, and the fact that Rothko's finest works are at least 60+ years old... there are still those who struggle to come to terms with such art as if it were something shockingly new... and who see fit to repeatedly employ such cliche's as "Something a child could do" and "The Emperors New Clothes" in an effort to not only dismiss the merits of such work... but all those who enjoy such art.

Now I am not suggesting that if you dislike a given work of modern or contemporary art that has been lauded to the heavens by critics and collectors that you are somehow lacking. I'd be the first one to point out a lot of Modern/Contemporary art that I believe is little more than pretentious crap. What I would suggest, however, is that you probably ought to make some effort to understand a given work or body of work... and the tradition that it is building upon... before you make such value judgments... Or just walk away. Not all art is for everybody. This isn't snobbishness... but merely pointing out the fact that most artists create with a given audience much like themselves in mind.

I, for example, am a great lover of "classical music". I have explored the "classical music" of non-Western cultures as well. I love a lot of Middle-Eastern and Indian music... but for whatever reason, I cannot get into Chinese music in the least. Chinese opera makes me want to rush for my ear-plugs. Clearly, it is not for me... and I am not prepared to put forth the effort needed to come about to a greater understanding and possible appreciation of it when there are so many works that I recognize are far more likely to afford me far more pleasure. Having said this... admitting that I know next to nothing of Chinese music... its history, tradition, goals, etc... I'll freely continue to admit that I don't like it... but I won't take it upon myself to offer a value judgment for which I am wholly unqualified... nor to suggest that any child could do better or that those that do find a degree of pleasure in Chinese opera are but fools afraid to admit to their real thoughts (which is essentially what citing the "Emperor's New Clothes" suggests).

You are suggesting that those who find a degree of pleasure... and who see a certain depth of "meaning" in a body of art that you don't understand, are in essence, but snobs. Do you not see a certain irony in such?

Is there a degree of snobbishness in the "art world"? Certainly. But no more than in any other field of endeavor.

[BienvenuJDC]

No, stlukes...it's not snobbish to have personal preferences. It's snobbish to think that someone ELSE who thinks that your preferences are a "little more than pretentious crap" is too stupid to understand the art.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't really see how art can be snobbish. Art is art. Snobbishness is the sole requisite of human behavior. Liking a painting "a five year old could do" is not snobbish, and neither is the painting. Thinking you're better because you do like it is. What's just as snobbish is looking down on such artworks and the people who like them, thus putting oneself on a higher plain because one is smart enough to not be fooled by said five-year-old composed painting (thus thinking you're better than those who like such work), which is exactly what some are doing here.

[kelby_lake]

I don't think art itself is snobbish but there is a snobbish culture as everybody has their own views of what is art and what isn't. Some things are obviously art- they're technically brilliant and clearly involve a great skill to do it. Then there's conceptual art, which can be more hit and miss. As we can't judge it by technical brilliance, we have to judge it on its concept- and that's a more subjective area.

[mal4mac]

I don't think it's difficult. Being well-rounded does not mean being an expert; it means having a working knowledge of many things, which doesn't take that long to build. A working knowledge means being able to hold a discussion whilst not necessarily bringing anything new to it. For example, I have a working knowledge of the Bond films. I know which Bond is in what film, I can give you a general opinion on the Bonds and I can tell you my favourite Bond song. That would be enough to be able to participate in a conversation but it's hardly an expertise.

Being well rounded means having a working knowledge of *everything*. I don't think that's possible. Depends what you mean by "working knowledge", of course.

I couldn't bring anywhere like as much detail to the discussion about James Bonds as you. Do I have"working knowledge" of James Bond?

If Fred only knows James Bond is a fictional MI6 agent created by Ian Fleming does Fred have a working knowledge of James Bond? It works as far as it goes!

If I memorise Hutchinson's one volume Softback Encyclopedia will I then be well rounded as regards all knowledge?

OK - that's silly. But in making that point, I think it highlights that it's impossible to be well rounded in everything "to a significant depth". The age of Renaissance man is over (it ended sometime in the...er... Renaissance...)

[mal4mac]

Looking at some of the replies reminded me that the worst snobs that I have met in academia had the least to be snobbish about; they were the flat characters. The best that I have met in academia have been genuinely intelligent, down-to-Earth people, who not only knew their own subject but were widely conversant. But that how it lways is, the bright ones don't have to put on airs, while the clown have to pretend to be bettr than they are.

Most I've met have been flat characters, and "genuinely intelligent, down-to-Earth people" have been few and far between. I was happy when I encountered "down-to-Earth", as long as "niceness" was part of their being down to Earth (so few are nice!) You do have the occasional "Bobby Fischer" type who is not flat, just crazy, with a massive ego, and amazing knowledge in one incredibly narrow area. To be avoided, or watched carefully at a distance (they are interesting...) The worst are flats who pretend to be Bobby Fischer...


I don't think art itself is snobbish but there is a snobbish culture as everybody has their own views of what is art and what isn't. Some things are obviously art- they're technically brilliant and clearly involve a great skill to do it.

Like a Saturn V rocket? But most people, surely, wouldn't define a Saturn V rocket as an art work. I might actually - it's quite a beautiful object... But what about the London sewer system?

There are no clear views about what art is, if you hold a clear view you will insult someone. For instance, you might dismiss an engineer as ignorant for suggesting the Saturn V is a work of art - that would be snobbish. It's art for him, but not for you. Both are equally entitled to their opinion. (By the way, today, I don't think James Bond moves are art... but that doesn't make me a snob... or mean I exist in a snobbish culture... just a culture in which boundaries of what people think is art are forever shifting across a plain of cultural equality...)

[Emil Miller]

It's kind of like the canvas with a coloured dot in the middle and everybody goes 'wow' and 'ooh' as if they perceive a deeper meaning and your thinking, 'am I missing the big picture?' because it's pathetic watching these people with their glasses of champagne laud over something that a five year old could have done so you refuse to join the crowd and they shake their heads at you as if you're some kind of pitiful creature that should have never been allowed to walk this earth...

Some people will do anything for a glass of champagne. But, on a more serious note, there are the auction houses and their 'experts' who authenticate and evaluate works of art and who thereby play a part in the public perception of those objects that come under the auctioneer's hammer. Art, like anything else, is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. So if some individual or group pay an extravagant amount for something that doesn't even have the value of antiquity to commend it, the perception will usually be one of two schools of thought. a) it must be good because nobody would pay that amount for something artistically questionable; and b) the buyer has been led up the garden path by the auctioneers.
A third and, to my mind, a more likely perception is that buyers and auction houses are in tacit alliance to promote such works in order to keep their investment, rather than artistic value.

[Drkshadow03]

Being well rounded means having a working knowledge of *everything*. I don't think that's possible. Depends what you mean by "working knowledge", of course.

I couldn't bring anywhere like as much detail to the discussion about James Bonds as you. Do I have"working knowledge" of James Bond?

If Fred only knows James Bond is a fictional MI6 agent created by Ian Fleming does Fred have a working knowledge of James Bond? It works as far as it goes!

If I memorise Hutchinson's one volume Softback Encyclopedia will I then be well rounded as regards all knowledge?

OK - that's silly. But in making that point, I think it highlights that it's impossible to be well rounded in everything "to a significant depth". The age of Renaissance man is over (it ended sometime in the...er... Renaissance...)

Well, I think being well-rounded is a matter of being culturally literate. A true Renaissance man is good at EVERYTHING or at least multiple fields; they have deep knowledge of a variety of topics or super talented in multiple areas (genius at the piano and star quarterback, while able to tell you intimate and insightful details of every painting found in the MET).

A culturally literate person (or well-rounded person), on the other hand, should have a working knowledge of basic subject areas: history, literature, the arts, pop culture, science, etc. It is deeper than superficial knowledge, but nowhere near as deep as an expert's knowledge of the subject. These ideas are adopted from E. D. Hirsch JR.'s book Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. I think it's possible for a person to be culturally literate (well-rounded) in that they understand the basics or big pictures issues and/or players of assorted fields.

Qualifying what constitutes basic literacy in a subject, of course, is always tricky business. It was interesting reading the comments of some of the online science literacy tests in regards to the question what constitutes scientific literacy. The question guiding an inquiry into what constitutes basic literacy in a subject should be: in a perfect world what should the average educated person, who isn't specializing or even focusing in this area of study, know about this subject?

[Summer M]

Is there a degree of snobbishness in the "art world"? Certainly. But no more than in any other field of endeavor.

Seriously? No more than in mechanical engineering or organic chemistry or structural biology? I don't recall ever seeing a scientist looking at a scientific fact a five-year-old could discover and saying, "if that doesn't strike you as a work of genius, then you just don't get it!"

[mal4mac]

Well, I think being well-rounded is a matter of being culturally literate. A true Renaissance man is good at EVERYTHING or at least multiple fields; they have deep knowledge of a variety of topics or super talented in multiple areas (genius at the piano and star quarterback, while able to tell you intimate and insightful details of every painting found in the MET).


A true Renaissance man is good at EVERYTHING that counts.

The idea developed in Renaissance Italy from the notion expressed by one of its most accomplished representatives, Leon Battista Alberti: that “men can do all things if they will.” Alberti was a Roman Catholic priest, architect, painter, poet, scientist, mathematician, inventor, and sculptor, was in addition a skilled horseman and archer. Notice he wasn't skilled at chasing a round cheese down a hill or any other trivial medieval sports - all "Renaissance Men" would have agreed that archery and horsemanship were essential skills of a man of Universal knowledge.

Today, few intelligent people in Europe would rate "Quarterback" as one of the highest achievements; an accomplishment as good as "cheese rolling champion", maybe, though being from the UK I rate cheese rolling higher, as it has a serious presence here (unlike American football...)

Also Renaissance man would have been round all the art galleries that count, not just one, like the MET (a young upstart!) Now it's impossible to go round all art galleries, and there are too many sports heralded by various intellectuals without crossover (Camus for soccer, Wodehouse for cricket, various Americans for baseball...)

There is no agreement on what counts. Renaissance man is dead, and Renaissance woman didn't get started :)

[stlukesguild]

No, stlukes...it's not snobbish to have personal preferences. It's snobbish to think that someone ELSE who thinks that your preferences are a "little more than pretentious crap" is too stupid to understand the art.

And you have come upon this in your experiences with the "art world"? I don't question that there are jerks in every discipline, but the display of snobbishness that I have come across most in my experience with art is that of those who are quick to dismiss that which they don't understand and employ the "Emperor's New Clothes" analogy to suggest that all those who do like such art are really fools who have been brainwashed into liking something no "normal" person would like. Ignorance and stupidity are two different things. Ignorance denotes a lack of knowledge and experience of a given topic. I am ignorant of Chinese music. If I were to begin making value judgments of Chinese music it might be valid to suggest that I was acting stupidly.

[Emil Miller]

Well the other day my friend invited me to an art gallery and there was an artist whose main presentation was a giant plastic squid lying on the floor covered in a pool of black liquid. And in the room of where the squid was at there was also a projector that showed interlaced images of some guy screaming and another man playing the trumpet.

That's excellent!

I could explain it to you but it would ruin it. It's not snobbery, just that when you're tuned into something you're likely to get it quicker.

Imagine someone tells you a joke, and you don't laugh because your instinct is just 'that's not funny - it's stupid!'

Then one day you're travelling on a train, or in a cinema, or just about to go to sleep, and for some reason you start thinking about the stupid unfunny joke. Then it twigs and you suddenly understand it, and burst out laughing.

(Actually they're the best kind ;) )

Isn't there something Freudian in defending 'modern art' by comparing it to an unfunny joke?

[stlukesguild]

Seriously? No more than in mechanical engineering or organic chemistry or structural biology? I don't recall ever seeing a scientist looking at a scientific fact a five-year-old could discover and saying, "if that doesn't strike you as a work of genius, then you just don't get it!"

Am I the only one who sees a certain irony in such comments? I know that there is the old truism about Americans not "getting" irony... but I had hoped that wasn't really true... and besides we do have our share of Brits and other Europeans here.

The suggestion is that the "art world" is somehow inherently more snobbish than other disciplines... and rather than making an attempt to illustrate the snobbishness of artists and dealers and collectors, it would seem to me that to suggest that a work of art that an individual doesn't like/cannot relate to... and most importantly doesn't understand "looks like something a a child could do" is in itself a rather snobbish statement. Somehow I don't understand how it could be construed as "snobbish" if I were to suggest that this:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_1beachpines_469x546.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=1beachpines_469x546.jpg)

or this:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_lawrence12-29-6.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=lawrence12-29-6.jpg)

or this:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_23012199.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=23012199.jpg)

or this:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_derain1.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=derain1.jpg)

are all marvelous works of art. To suggest such is not to suggest that those who disagree are inherently stupid... nor is it to suggest that art such as this:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_5949889465_d7f1cac02d_bmed.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=5949889465_d7f1cac02d_bmed.jpg)

or this:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_202_van_dyck_charles_I.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=202_van_dyck_charles_I.jpg)

or this:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_raphael54-1.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=raphael54-1.jpg)

are not also brilliant and marvelous.

[Drkshadow03]

A true Renaissance man is good at EVERYTHING that counts.

The idea developed in Renaissance Italy from the notion expressed by one of its most accomplished representatives, Leon Battista Alberti: that “men can do all things if they will.” Alberti was a Roman Catholic priest, architect, painter, poet, scientist, mathematician, inventor, and sculptor, was in addition a skilled horseman and archer. Notice he wasn't skilled at chasing a round cheese down a hill or any other trivial medieval sports - all "Renaissance Men" would have agreed that archery and horsemanship were essential skills of a man of Universal knowledge.

Today, few intelligent people in Europe would rate "Quarterback" as one of the highest achievements; an accomplishment as good as "cheese rolling champion", maybe, though being from the UK I rate cheese rolling higher, as it has a serious presence here (unlike American football...)

Also Renaissance man would have been round all the art galleries that count, not just one, like the MET (a young upstart!) Now it's impossible to go round all art galleries, and there are too many sports heralded by various intellectuals without crossover (Camus for soccer, Wodehouse for cricket, various Americans for baseball...)

There is no agreement on what counts. Renaissance man is dead, and Renaissance woman didn't get started :)

I know what a Renaissance man is, but apparently you don't. I was trying to re-imagine it in modern terms. Thanks, though, for not addressing any of the real points of my post or really making any point at all.

[kelby_lake]

Being well rounded means having a working knowledge of *everything*. I don't think that's possible. Depends what you mean by "working knowledge", of course.

I couldn't bring anywhere like as much detail to the discussion about James Bonds as you. Do I have"working knowledge" of James Bond?

If Fred only knows James Bond is a fictional MI6 agent created by Ian Fleming does Fred have a working knowledge of James Bond? It works as far as it goes!



Of course it would be impossible to have a working knowledge of everything. Maybe I should modify that to "a lot of things".

Working knowledge means enough knowledge so you could actually have a conversation on the topic. For example, some people discuss the merits of Roger Moore as James Bond. Fred has heard of Bond but has no knowledge on the subject and so would be unable to hold a conversation. Mary has a working knowledge of Bond: she has seen The Spy Who Loved Me and can give her opinion of him based on that and she has seen one film of each Bond, therefore she can compare them. Her knowledge is limited however as she is basing her opinion of Moore's performance based on one film. Dave has seen every Bond film and he is an expert.


Like a Saturn V rocket? But most people, surely, wouldn't define a Saturn V rocket as an art work. I might actually - it's quite a beautiful object... But what about the London sewer system?

People could if they wanted to- not that it was built to be artistic.


By the way, today, I don't think James Bond moves are art... but that doesn't make me a snob... or mean I exist in a snobbish culture... just a culture in which boundaries of what people think is art are forever shifting across a plain of cultural equality..

I would say that there is a degree of artistry there. They may not be as artistic as American Beauty but that does not mean that you couldn't see them as art if you wanted to.

[Kjetil]

Les Miserables, Wizard of Oz, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, West Side Story. I rest my case.

And I rest mine on the strength of the same. Well, I'll agree to WSS as an exception, but I would rather go to the dentist than sit through Les Miserables. I stand by my characterisation of musicals as a vile genre, which needless to say is not motivated by snobbery, but by a distaste for practically allspecific manifestations I have had the misfortune to encounter of it.

[Delta40]

No, stlukes...it's not snobbish to have personal preferences. It's snobbish to think that someone ELSE who thinks that your preferences are a "little more than pretentious crap" is too stupid to understand the art.

And you have come upon this in your experiences with the "art world"? I don't question that there are jerks in every discipline, but the display of snobbishness that I have come across most in my experience with art is that of those who are quick to dismiss that which they don't understand and employ the "Emperor's New Clothes" analogy to suggest that all those who do like such art are really fools who have been brainwashed into liking something no "normal" person would like. Ignorance and stupidity are two different things. Ignorance denotes a lack of knowledge and experience of a given topic. I am ignorant of Chinese music. If I were to begin making value judgments of Chinese music it might be valid to suggest that I was acting stupidly.

So the renown of the artist who painted the dot has nothing to do with the absolute mastery of the work itself?

[MystyrMystyry]

Isn't there something Freudian in defending 'modern art' by comparing it to an unfunny joke?

Sort of, sure, why not? Dali was big on it, and so is Lucien Freud ;)

I think it's perhaps like recognising the references - all art was modern at one time. Even scratching in the sand and painting on cave walls - once, these mediums were a new and fresh method of expression and symbolism.

Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, The Gherkin, Mona Lisa, Sistine Chapel, and the Parthenon - all began as a new idea built on earlier ideas, and now (even including The Gherkin) are all iconic. But are they necessarily practical or high aesthetics? The jury's still out on Michelangelo's lurid and grotesque, and The Mona Lisa just is.

The haters of 'modern art' (as a category) seem to all want a story, but it's a story which hasn't yet been explained to them yet. And the mental exercise of trying to figure it out for themselves is too much effort. They don't lose, but they don't win either.

Some people hate jazz, some hate the blues, some hate folk music, some others hate all three. But curiously, if it's used as the soundtrack for a movie they like they probably wouldn't even notice because suddenly it's part of another story they can happily relate to, even if it's a story completely outside of their actual life experience. It doesn't mean they have to rush out and buy every recording of Dizzy Gillespie

But having said this, I can't bear anything by Warhol, Pollock, or Koons (to cite but three notorious villains). I understand their stories (and indeed, their 'jokes') but they're not ones I have any time for.

[stlukesguild]

So the renown of the artist who painted the dot has nothing to do with the absolute mastery of the work itself?

I'm not quite certain where you are going with this question. But let's address the issue of "mastery". I'll assume that by the term "mastery" you are referring to craftsmanship. But even that term is somewhat ambiguous. Most would agree that this painting is "masterful":

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_gisze.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=gisze.jpg)

The artist displays an ability to render the illusion of visual reality... the textures and three-dimensionality of the objects rendered. But many artists and art lovers would argue that this painting is no less "masterful":

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_matisse_rifain_assis-1.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=matisse_rifain_assis-1.jpg)

Clearly this artist (Matisse) has a different set of goals. His aim is to distill the image down to the essentials... simple shapes and color first and foremost.

The problem with the issue of "mastery" or "craftmanship" is that we cannot assume that there is a single universally agreed-upon standard as to what skills are essential. If we judge the Matisse painting by certain values of greatest importance to the first artist (Hans Holbein)... primarily the ability to render the illusion of visual reality... then Matisse comes off rather poorly. If, on the other hand, we judge the Holbein by the values of great importance to Matisse: the ability to distill and simplify the image, the loose, spontaneous brushwork, and the masterful use of color for expressive and formal purposes as opposed to using color in order to mimic visual reality... how the objects really appeared... well then Holbein does not come off so well.

So then we are confronted with the painting of just a dot. I can think of a number of "dot paintings". The American Larry Poons painted fields of dots:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Poons-001_1-02.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Poons-001_1-02.jpg)

Poons was profoundly interested in the studies of the German Artist/Teacher Joseph Albers. Albers had made an in-depth study of the effects of color on the human eye. A short lived movement that was quite influenced by Albers was that of Op-Art (or Optical Art) which played games with optics. Poons' painting employs colors of a uniform value and chroma. Because there is no contrasting focal point the eye virtually cannot rest but rather jumps around the painting.

I don't think many critics would suggest that Poons or most of the artists of Op-Art were some sort of profound geniuses... or that their paintings had some great depth beyond what you see. They are great learning devices, however.

Damien Hirst has made... or rather his studio assistants have made a slew of dot paintings.

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Damien_Hirst_dots.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Damien_Hirst_dots.jpg)

Of course Hirst is little more than the clown-prince of contemporary art. For every critic or dealer who extols his genius, there are dozens of others who dismiss him as little more than a huckster. But he has a few super wealthy collectors willing to spend millions on his paintings and sculpture... and dealers willing to spend an equal fortune on publicity and influence peddling in order to maintain his reputation and sales... so yes... there are some questionable aspects of the modern art world.

That brings me to Kazmir Malevich. Malevich was one of the first real non-objective painters... what we commonly refer to as "abstract painters". Malevich was active in the early 20th century... at a time in which many artists believed we we witnessing the birth of a "brave new world"... a world that would be perfected by technology and science. These artists had yet to live through the horrors of the First... let alone the Second World Wars. Malevich sought to convey a sort of universal spirituality... but a non-denominational and certainly a non-religious spirituality. He believed that there was a sort of spirituality in math... and geometry... perhaps not unlike that which the medieval world referred to as the "music of the spheres"... and thus he focused upon compositions employing arrangements of simple geometric forms...

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_malevichludwigshafen.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=malevichludwigshafen.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_suprematism-1915-2.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=suprematism-1915-2.jpg)

... or even a single iconic form:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_2288571675-1.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=2288571675-1.jpg)

In order to reinforce his intentions of suggesting a sort of spirituality, Malevich hung his paintings in a manner suggestive of the manner in which Russian icons were hung in a family home:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_malewiczlastfuturistexhibition1915.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=malewiczlastfuturistexhibition1915.jpg)

Are his works poorly crafted? Actually they are very well rendered. But some would argue that the works are too "simple". That becomes an aesthetic debate. We have works of music of unquestionable strength that are actually quite simple:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7DBoiyBoJ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxwUOIlqhGA

Again... are they "masterful"? It would seem to me that the artist has mastered whatever skills he needs to create the image he is after.

But are they masterpieces? That's always open to debate. They are undoubtedly important in that they opened up the door to the whole of geometric abstraction... in subsequent painting... as well as in graphic design:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_AleksandrRodchenko26.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=AleksandrRodchenko26.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_brik2b.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=brik2b.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_vispoem-liss-01.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=vispoem-liss-01.jpg)

An artist's reputation or renown may be a result of how valued his or her work is to other artists, critics, curators... and ultimately collectors. A work of art is worth (in financial terms) whatever someone is willing to spend upon it. In the short term, this reputation can be manipulated through publicity and marketing, but eventually these external faddish influences fade. Just as J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels will eventually need to stand on their own as literature... without the support of a great PR machine... so if a work of art or artist is to survive over the long haul the work must continue to appear relevant... even influential on subsequent generations of artists and art lovers.

Again, I would not suggest that you or anyone else need to love or like something simply because it is recognized as a "classic". Personally, I'm not overly fond of Malevich or Poons... and I despise Hirst. On the other hand... I think that before you move on to making a judgment as to what is or is not "bad art" or a scam ala the "Emperor's New Clothes" that you need to make some effort to understand the work... its history... and the tradition in which the artist is working.

Much of what MystyrMystyry had to say above concerning Modern/Contemporary art I wholly agree with... although I would question the comments concerning Michelangelo or the Mona Lisa.

[Delta40]

Thanks Stlukes for addressing my query so informatively.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

And I rest mine on the strength of the same. Well, I'll agree to WSS as an exception, but I would rather go to the dentist than sit through Les Miserables. I stand by my characterisation of musicals as a vile genre, which needless to say is not motivated by snobbery, but by a distaste for practically allspecific manifestations I have had the misfortune to encounter of it.

So . . . why doesn't liking WSS invalidate your case, exactly?

[Ohmyscience]

Overt snobbery is at least acknowledging disdain for inferior art. Most of the time its beneath uber snobs to even warrant discussion. Concerning musicals , I doubt conductors would even entertain musicals. If Bernstein was only known for West side story, what would his legacy be?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What does it matter of conductors wouldn't even entertain musicals (overlooking the obvious fact that conductors don't). Musicals and classical are two different fields. That's like saying, "Well, no conductor is going to acknowledge a heavy-metal band, or jazz ensemble."

It's really weird that I'm the main defender of musicals, here . . . except the few I listed, I usually can't stand them.

[OrphanPip]

David Charles Abell often conducts for both opera and musical theatre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Charles_Abell

[Ohmyscience]

So musicals and classical can't be compared? And all genres merit some musical consideration? Isn't that just a relativists argument? My point was uber snobs just do their own thing without making their disdain known. Academia is full of them.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Of course they can be compared, but the comparisons have to be reasonable, no? Just because a conductor would supposedly not consider conducting a musical . . . I'm not quite sure how that comments on the qualities of musicals or classical, negatively or positively. But I do think all genres merit some consideration, whether that's relativistic or not.

[OrphanPip]

It doesn't really matter because academics do address musicals, and in a number of fields. Even omitting the music, if you're interested in staging, adaptation, choreography, song lyrics as vehicles for plot, or theatre history there are a number of reasons to study musicals, and indeed they are studied. Musical theatre can of course be traced back to the operettas of the 19th century and their predecessors in French and Italian comedic opera. Broadway incorporated elements of jazz dance and music to create the characteristic quality of American musicals, but the classical influences were never completely gone.

I do think jukebox musicals a little pointless though, like Rock of Ages or Mama Mia, which are both awful.

[Ohmyscience]

It does to some extent doesn't it? They have the liberty to chose from any repertoire and if they opt not to it either reflects their taste or the pubic they cater to. I won't say they are the arbiters of all music but consider that what they don't chose, they dismiss. So it speaks volumes if certain repertoire is excluded. That was my point.

[OrphanPip]

It also reflects their capabilities and what the genre of the musical entails. Character and plot are more central to the reception of the musical than they are in opera, but it is even rare to encounter an orchestra performing opera or ballet scores (apart from The Rites of Spring) without their intended accompanied performances. Some work well out of their context when adapted for orchestra, like Bernstein or Gershwin's film scores, or "The Habanera" or the aforementioned Rites of Spring. However, why would you expect an orchestra to perform scores from musicals when the score of a musical was never intended to be performed or received in that kind of environment? I've never personally encountered an orchestra playing an instrumental version of the Papagena/Papageno duet, but it's also one of Mozart's most popular arias.

[Kjetil]

So . . . why doesn't liking WSS invalidate your case, exactly?

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. That question requires no answer to anyone willing to look reasonably at the statements involved.

[Summer M]

Am I the only one who sees a certain irony in such comments? I know that there is the old truism about Americans not "getting" irony... but I had hoped that wasn't really true... and besides we do have our share of Brits and other Europeans here. [etc. etc.]

You're certainly the only one avoiding answering a simple question by using smug and self-congratulatory remarks that have nothing to do with my question. You have a way of writing a whole lot without saying anything.

And that's actually the gist of my previous comment: in the art world you can bully people by telling them that if they disagree with you or don't understand some subtle truth visible only to your artistic eyes, then they somehow don't get it and nothing can be done about it. But in science it simply doesn't work. There is authority and hierarchy and snobbery in science, but any scientist using stlukesguild's tricks will be mocked and ridiculed into submission, or out into the street.

[Ohmyscience]

The capabilities of the conductor or genre? I was referring only to the music of operas and ballet compared to musicals. What does it mean that a musicals requires character and plot? More so than opera? The differences are a few technical definitions but mainly opera has better singers. Barber could have chosen to write anthony and cleopatra the musical. However he set out to compose musically demanding opera. My point being if you want good music with plot opera is the better choice. The medium composers chose reflects what they think is worthy. Coming back to Bernstein and Gershwin I wonder what their musical reputations would be if they had only wrote musicals.

[JBI]

You hold science to such a high degree for no reason. Bullying and snobbery have always been a part of the game. Reputation and lab time determine much of success - you do not get a massive lab without having massive qualifications, you do not get qualifications without having great friends. There is ego involved heavily in much of science.

[Summer M]

Bullying and snobbery have always been a part of the game.

Part of the game. But what part? The same part as in art? How far can pretense carry you in science, and how far can it carry you in art? The same distance? stlukesguild thinks the answer is yes. I think it's preposterous to think that.

[JBI]

Perhaps it is to a lesser degree, but it is still there, and historically has always been there. It's the same in every field, because every field is dominated by people.

In terms of art and literary criticism, evaluation is only part of the game, most of the work is in analysis of already established positions. The same with science. That does not mean that individuals cannot act like snobs. For instance, look at the show the Big Bang theory - an awful TV show which I do not support, but will make reference to. It is basically a show about the snobbiness of Scientific geeks. IT is a Geek comedy, but is also somewhat a reflection of reality - they are petty, geeky, bullies of their own sort.

Engineers are proud to be engineers, and bully others with their "usefulness" and their thoughts of how accomplished they are. Doctors put honorifics in front of their name.

Quit pretending that some people don't thrive on that, and feel self-proud. Most doctors I have met get off on their usefulness to society (and themselves). That does not mean they do not do great things, or that they do not enjoy other things, but it also means they is a sense of snobbishness that comes with such positions.

Academics of all sorts are prone to being snobbish in regard to anything. Your argument is that some lay people may not agree with their judgment on a specific case, and they dismiss it as irrelevant. What I can say is, even scientists have been known to do that, with many Nobel Prize winners attesting to being dismissed early on in their careers for specific reasons before people caught on. Galileo would be the classic example, but you could also include anyone who is on the cutting edge.

In terms of art, you do not need an art historian to tell you that Raphael was a God, you take their word for it. The same can be said of almost every painter who has been "academy-ized" - Pretty much everybody until the 1st world war is set in concrete. It's when things get new and shakier that the concept of concept becomes an issue, which means we just need to wait longer.

New theories have a knack to be squashed in science to before proven correct. Everyone is petty to an extent, even scientists, and everyone is prone to thinking themselves brilliant, even sometimes more brilliant than they are.

[Summer M]

JBI,

Are you sure you are responding to my comments and not to something you read elsewhere? "Quit pretending that some people don't thrive on that..." When have I ever said anything to that effect? I said explicitly "there is authority and hierarchy and snobbery in science," but perhaps you missed that.

But anyway, your comments are off the point altogether. An engineer may be smug and full of himself, but if he tried to create a machine that you or I or anyone else can create and then present it at a scientific conference, he'd be laughed out of the room every single time. Artists who create works that almost anyone can create are often lauded as geniuses. That's the point. It's not about the engineer as a person, it's about the engineer as an engineer.

As for Big Bang Theory: Sheldon Cooper may be snobby, but his snobbery is scientifically (not morally!) justified because he is, according to the show, a genius. Whatever he is, he is not a fraud, and his theories are legitimate, and very few can understand them. Compare that with stlukesguild's "there's irony here that my sophisticated eye detected but most Americans can't", and there you have, in a nutshell, the difference between scientists and artists.

[kelby_lake]

Overt snobbery is at least acknowledging disdain for inferior art. Most of the time its beneath uber snobs to even warrant discussion. Concerning musicals , I doubt conductors would even entertain musicals.

Um, the BBC proms have a musical-based prom every year, if not more than one. This year, they semi-staged a production of Mr Fair Lady.

[kelby_lake]

Coming back to Bernstein and Gershwin I wonder what their musical reputations would be if they had only wrote musicals.

Don't most people know them for their musicals anyway? That's certainly the case with Gershwin.

It also depends on whether we include opera/operettas. Do you consider Porgy and Bess to be a musical or an opera?

[Emil Miller]

Isn't there something Freudian in defending 'modern art' by comparing it to an unfunny joke?

Sort of, sure, why not? Dali was big on it, and so is Lucien Freud ;)

I think it's perhaps like recognising the references - all art was modern at one time. Even scratching in the sand and painting on cave walls - once, these mediums were a new and fresh method of expression and symbolism.

Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, The Gherkin, Mona Lisa, Sistine Chapel, and the Parthenon - all began as a new idea built on earlier ideas, and now (even including The Gherkin) are all iconic. But are they necessarily practical or high aesthetics? The jury's still out on Michelangelo's lurid and grotesque, and The Mona Lisa just is.

The haters of 'modern art' (as a category) seem to all want a story, but it's a story which hasn't yet been explained to them yet. And the mental exercise of trying to figure it out for themselves is too much effort. They don't lose, but they don't win either.

Some people hate jazz, some hate the blues, some hate folk music, some others hate all three. But curiously, if it's used as the soundtrack for a movie they like they probably wouldn't even notice because suddenly it's part of another story they can happily relate to, even if it's a story completely outside of their actual life experience. It doesn't mean they have to rush out and buy every recording of Dizzy Gillespie

But having said this, I can't bear anything by Warhol, Pollock, or Koons (to cite but three notorious villains). I understand their stories (and indeed, their 'jokes') but they're not ones I have any time for.

It's interesting that the three you have mentioned as 'notorious villains' also loom large in the public conciousness whenever this discussion arises. Koons is said to produce art from banal objects and, while he isn't by any means the first to so, one dictionary definition of banal that most would agree with is: 'Common in a boring way, to the point of being predictable.' Now this may be the attraction for Koons, in that he seeks to make boring objects interesting, but does it necessarily follow that anyone else would find it interesting enough to classify it as art.
Similarly, one might try to explain the aesthetic and artistic qualities of Warhol's work when the only explanation might well be that some guy with a funny name decided to paint a picture of a can of soup.
As for the even more nominally challenged Jackson Pollock, I think that 'least said soonest mended' is how many would describe his work when attempting an explanation.

[cacian]

JBI,

Are you sure you are responding to my comments and not to something you read elsewhere? "Quit pretending that some people don't thrive on that..." When have I ever said anything to that effect? I said explicitly "there is authority and hierarchy and snobbery in science," but perhaps you missed that.

But anyway, your comments are off the point altogether. An engineer may be smug and full of himself, but if he tried to create a machine that you or I or anyone else can create and then present it at a scientific conference, he'd be laughed out of the room every single time. Artists who create works that almost anyone can create are often lauded as geniuses. That's the point. It's not about the engineer as a person, it's about the engineer as an engineer.

As for Big Bang Theory: Sheldon Cooper may be snobby, but his snobbery is scientifically (not morally!) justified because he is, according to the show, a genius. Whatever he is, he is not a fraud, and his theories are legitimate, and very few can understand them. Compare that with stlukesguild's "there's irony here that my sophisticated eye detected but most Americans can't", and there you have, in a nutshell, the difference between scientists and artists.

Hi Summer M this makes me think one can always classify science as art.
Is that a good or scary prospect? I dare to think.
I personally think people are snobs regardless of what they do.
It is within them already.
I don't think it is anything to do with the subject but more with the load of knowledge one become blinded by it.
Power is snobbery.

[Summer M]

I also think it's preposterous to claim that Sheldon Cooper & Co. are bullies of their own sort. They only "bully" non-scientists (or inferior scientists) on scientific issues—in other words, on issues in which they a have a large, indisputable, objective advantage. They may be mean about it, but they have objective facts on their side.

The difference between this and art is obvious.

[stlukesguild]

And that's actually the gist of my previous comment: in the art world you can bully people by telling them that if they disagree with you or don't understand some subtle truth visible only to your artistic eyes, then they somehow don't get it and nothing can be done about it.

If you cannot fathom how a statement such as:

"Seriously? No more than in mechanical engineering or organic chemistry or structural biology? I don't recall ever seeing a scientist looking at a scientific fact a five-year-old could discover and saying, "if that doesn't strike you as a work of genius, then you just don't get it!"

conveys not only a snobbishly dismissive attitude toward the so-called "art world" as well as suggests an ignorance of art, I do not know what else I can do to help you.

As I already admitted, there are certainly jerks in every discipline, but I honestly have not come upon any degree of snobbishness among those who are involved with art or might be defined as engaged art lovers that is in any way near equal to that
which I have come across among those who are quick to dismiss those examples of art which they don't understand as "something a child could do" or with the cliched analogy of the "Emperor's New Clothes" which essentially suggests that all those who do like such art are really fools who have been brainwashed into liking something no "normal" person would like. I

I made it very clear that "Ignorance and stupidity are two different things. Ignorance denotes a lack of knowledge and experience of a given topic." In no way did I suggest that artistic merit is something only visible to me... nor that there is nothing to be done for the individual who cannot see the merit in such work.

The appreciation of art quite often involves a bit of effort on the part of the audience. As a lover of literature, I wasn't born with a appreciation and love for Shakespeare and Keats and Kafka and Whitman. It involved a good deal of effort on my part... the acquisition of knowledge as well as experience. Quite honestly, there is a lot of art that I now appreciate which I disliked... or even thought was a scam... as an art student. You seem to be inferring that those who have gained a body of knowledge and experience that others lack in a specific subject are somehow to be deemed snobs if they dare to disagree with those who are lacking in experience or knowledge of the same subject. I am saying that I agree... we are all entitled to our opinions... and when it comes to art all opinions are subjective... but some opinions are better than others.

[stlukesguild]

As for Big Bang Theory: Sheldon Cooper may be snobby, but his snobbery is scientifically (not morally!) justified because he is, according to the show, a genius. Whatever he is, he is not a fraud, and his theories are legitimate, and very few can understand them. Compare that with stlukesguild's "there's irony here that my sophisticated eye detected but most Americans can't", and there you have, in a nutshell, the difference between scientists and artists.

Actually... I suspect that a good many would see that what we have here... in this very quote of yours... is proof that snobbishness is in no way limited to... or more prevalent among artists.

[stlukesguild]

I also think it's preposterous to claim that Sheldon Cooper & Co. are bullies of their own sort. They only "bully" non-scientists (or inferior scientists) on scientific issues—in other words, on issues in which they a have a large, indisputable, objective advantage. They may be mean about it, but they have objective facts on their side.

The difference between this and art is obvious.

So there is some "obvious" difference between scientists bullying those with little or no knowledge of a given aspect of science because they have this great scientific knowledge and experience on their side as opposed to artists or art historians or art critics bullying those who know little or nothing of art based upon their artistic/art historical knowledge?

Obvious?

Really?

[Summer M]

The difference is, indeed, obvious. The relative objectivity of scientific knowledge makes it very difficult for poseurs and frauds to move ahead and establish themselves as authorities and experts. The subjectivity of art makes it easier. It's not criticism of art or of art lovers; it's simply a description of the realities of different fields of human endeavor. It doesn't mean that art is less important or valuable than science, only that it contains a larger number of sciolists.

You dismiss the whole "a child can do it" argument, but it's a actually a fairly empirical claim: if I can do it, I who have no artistic talents whatsoever, the I can't see how it can be taken as a work of art. And I've seen plenty of so-called works of art that I could easily do. If anyone can do it, what's the value of it?

What we have here, I think, is an example of "science envy": you've established yourself, in your mind, as an art expert, and it upsets you that some people challenge the authority you've bestowed upon yourself while claiming that you do not have the prerogative of doing the same to their authority. It's not fair, and it upsets you.

It upsets you, and JBI, that while a scientist can relatively easily dismiss a piece of pseudo-art as such, you can't do the same with a joke within a joke within a joke such as Sheldon Cooper's “A proof that algebraic topology can never have a non self-contradictory set of abelian groups”. It's a joke you'll never get or be able to criticize, whereas a scientist can quite easily and justifiably dismiss your work.

But, life ain't fair.

[JCamilo]

You must be joking. Scientists dismiss other sciences all the time. I have seen peope claiming biology is not a science until the mapping of DNA (dismissing just Darwin out of hand), they accept no humanities (they mock philosophy for example, i have seen one saying he could pass any class without opening a book), there is the weird notion that without maths nothing is acceptable and no chemestry or physics institution was ever mistaken or disonest.

Sheldon even, he dismiss other genius too under the simple claim he is a genius. One of the guys is just a minor degree, the other not his field, etc.

To be honest, pseudo-art is more hard to be dismissed than pseudo-science. I can do with creationism. I doubt a physicist can tell me why Duschamps is art.

[Summer M]

JCamilo,

You are the third person here who attempts to refute claims I never made. But, forget it. Please explain what you mean by "I can do with creationism". I'm fascinated.

[kelby_lake]

It upsets you, and JBI, that while a scientist can relatively easily dismiss a piece of pseudo-art as such, you can't do the same with a joke within a joke within a joke such as Sheldon Cooper's “A proof that algebraic topology can never have a non self-contradictory set of abelian groups”. It's a joke you'll never get or be able to criticize, whereas a scientist can quite easily and justifiably dismiss your work.

That's a bit snobby, isn't it? I've always found The Big Bang Theory annoying and I don't really see its appeal. Essentially what you're implying is an intellectual superiority in scientists because of course, all artists are just fluffy-headed snobs.

[kelby_lake]

There is the weird notion that without maths nothing is acceptable and no chemestry or physics institution was ever mistaken or disonest.

Indeed. For all we know, our current scientific knowledge might be debunked in fifty years time.

[mal4mac]

The difference is, indeed, obvious. The relative objectivity of scientific knowledge makes it very difficult for poseurs and frauds to move ahead and establish themselves as authorities and experts.


That leaves plenty of room for social climbers, the madly ambitious, the fame seeker, the power mad, the greedy, the nasty to subordinates, the sexual predator, big heads, snobs, sinecure seekers, the lazy, the frenziedly anxious, the depressed, the dismissive, the political, those who don't suffer fools (or anyone else...) gladly ... and a host of other negative types you will find in any science common room. (I'm sure its the same in art common rooms, but I didn't frequent them for thirty years so I can't speak from experience... as I can from science common rooms...)



It upsets you, and JBI, that while a scientist can relatively easily dismiss a piece of pseudo-art as such, you can't do the same with a joke within a joke within a joke such as Sheldon Cooper's “A proof that algebraic topology can never have a non self-contradictory set of abelian groups”. It's a joke you'll never get or be able to criticize, whereas a scientist can quite easily and justifiably dismiss your work.

... oh... I forgot the main type you find in the science common room... the one who thinks he knows everything, and dismisses other branches of knowledge, about which he knows nothing, with breath-taking arrogance.

[Ohmyscience]

kelby,

BBC proms does TV show theme songs too. I won't get into whether those are comparable to any other scores they could have chosen. However the bulk of a serious orchestras work is not of that variety. Conductors and composers have ideas they want to advance. The choice to advance a work, aesthetic, or idea means to dismiss others similar to it. Musicals are similar to operas, one has better music while the other has "merits" beyond music.

If you invest your time in any discipline some snobbery is bound to exists. There are charlatans but they exists in all fields, it's just more rampant in the art world.

[Summer M]

It's remarkable how crazy many of you go over a few very simple, innocent remarks. All this started because I said this:


Seriously? No more than in mechanical engineering or organic chemistry or structural biology? I don't recall ever seeing a scientist looking at a scientific fact a five-year-old could discover and saying, "if that doesn't strike you as a work of genius, then you just don't get it!"

about that:


Is there a degree of snobbishness in the "art world"? Certainly. But no more than in any other field of endeavor.

My only point (not criticism!) was that the relative subjectivity of art makes it more conducive to snobbery and quackery than the relative objectivity of science. I can't see how anyone would disagree with such a simple statement, but here we have someone talking about sexual predators in science common rooms and what not, so clearly the discussion was derailed by those who can't keep on topic or form a thought.

[Drkshadow03]

I also think it's preposterous to claim that Sheldon Cooper & Co. are bullies of their own sort. They only "bully" non-scientists (or inferior scientists) on scientific issues—in other words, on issues in which they a have a large, indisputable, objective advantage. They may be mean about it, but they have objective facts on their side.

The difference between this and art is obvious.

You're implying that an art critic or enthusiast cannot muster objective facts to support their contentions, even as you claim in a different post that "a child can do it" argument is a fairly empirical claim, which contradicts the suggestion that an art enthusiast cannot bring facts to support an argument in favor of a work's merit.

The problem here is that I'm fairly confident Stlukesguild is factually more knowledgeable about art than you. You might not agree with his tastes, but ultimately from his multiple posts in this thread alone and on literature network in general it's apparent he is familiar with the history of art, interpretative traditions, biography of different artists, the various movements and their different aesthetic goals, fundamentals of techniques and materials (color, composition, genre, etc.). Having such background knowledge will obviously inform subjective tastes. If you understand what an artist is trying to accomplish aesthetically, especially when they deviate from naturalistic visual representation, you're going to have a better chance of evaluating whether they were successful or not, and a better chance of appreciating the work for its own merits. If you don't understand an artist's aesthetic goal, then there is little chance of appreciating the artistic work. This doesn't mean all art is good or one need like a particular work, just that some attempt at an objective understanding of what is happening in a work is needed before one then judges according to subjective tastes.

[Kjetil]

And that's actually the gist of my previous comment: in the art world you can bully people by telling them that if they disagree with you or don't understand some subtle truth visible only to your artistic eyes, then they somehow don't get it and nothing can be done about it.

If you cannot fathom how a statement such as:

"Seriously? No more than in mechanical engineering or organic chemistry or structural biology? I don't recall ever seeing a scientist looking at a scientific fact a five-year-old could discover and saying, "if that doesn't strike you as a work of genius, then you just don't get it!"

conveys not only a snobbishly dismissive attitude toward the so-called "art world" as well as suggests an ignorance of art, I do not know what else I can do to help you.

As I already admitted, there are certainly jerks in every discipline, but I honestly have not come upon any degree of snobbishness among those who are involved with art or might be defined as engaged art lovers that is in any way near equal to that
which I have come across among those who are quick to dismiss those examples of art which they don't understand as "something a child could do" or with the cliched analogy of the "Emperor's New Clothes" which essentially suggests that all those who do like such art are really fools who have been brainwashed into liking something no "normal" person would like. I

I made it very clear that "Ignorance and stupidity are two different things. Ignorance denotes a lack of knowledge and experience of a given topic." In no way did I suggest that artistic merit is something only visible to me... nor that there is nothing to be done for the individual who cannot see the merit in such work.

The appreciation of art quite often involves a bit of effort on the part of the audience. As a lover of literature, I wasn't born with a appreciation and love for Shakespeare and Keats and Kafka and Whitman. It involved a good deal of effort on my part... the acquisition of knowledge as well as experience. Quite honestly, there is a lot of art that I now appreciate which I disliked... or even thought was a scam... as an art student. You seem to be inferring that those who have gained a body of knowledge and experience that others lack in a specific subject are somehow to be deemed snobs if they dare to disagree with those who are lacking in experience or knowledge of the same subject. I am saying that I agree... we are all entitled to our opinions... and when it comes to art all opinions are subjective... but some opinions are better than others.

Sorry, but he is right, and you don't seem to get the point. Science is empirical, and relies on demonstrable proof. Art is not, and relies for its value judgment ultimately on taste. For obvious reasons, snobbery is hugely more feasible in the latter context than it is in the former - indeed, it is, again for reasons one would think would be obvious, probably more feasible than in nearly any other field of endeavor, seeing as it lacks both any agreed or easily definable criteria for judgment or any pretension to utility. It has nothing to do with scientists being better people or science being a more worthy endeavor, it is simply inherent in what science and art is. None of what you argue above affects that.

[Kjetil]

You're implying that an art critic or enthusiast cannot muster objective facts to support their contentions, even as you claim in a different post that "a child can do it" argument is a fairly empirical claim, which contradicts the suggestion that an art enthusiast cannot bring facts to support an argument in favor of a work's merit.

The problem here is that I'm fairly confident Stlukesguild is factually more knowledgeable about art than you. You might not agree with his tastes, but ultimately from his multiple posts in this thread alone and on literature network in general it's apparent he is familiar with the history of art, interpretative traditions, biography of different artists, the various movements and their different aesthetic goals, fundamentals of techniques and materials (color, composition, genre, etc.). Having such background knowledge will obviously inform subjective tastes. If you understand what an artist is trying to accomplish aesthetically, especially when they deviate from naturalistic visual representation, you're going to have a better chance of evaluating whether they were successful or not, and a better chance of appreciating the work for its own merits. If you don't understand an artist's aesthetic goal, then there is little chance of appreciating the artistic work. This doesn't mean all art is good or one need like a particular work, just that some attempt at an objective understanding of what is happening in a work is needed before one then judges according to subjective tastes.

Sorry, but that is a fairly sophistic twist by reductio ad absurdum on a perfectly reasonable and valid point, namely that science is by and large an activity judged on the basis of objective and empirical standards, while art by and large is not. Which leads you to kick in open doors. I do not see anyone actually making the point you seem to be arguing against.

[kelby_lake]

Art has more objectivity involved than you think.

[cacian]

Academia is for the privilege few who can afford it and snobbery is as a results of that very 'few' circle of friends.
Many academics tend to hang out together and so hardly mix with the average person.
I think knowledge can take one both way. It can either opens door to more opportunities to mix with the average commoner hence become part of the real life or the other way which to close one's the mind and limits one way of thinking or behaving hence snobbery as a result.
Many academics I have come cross do not live in the real world.

[Kjetil]

Art has more objectivity involved than you think.

However that may be, the point remains that it obviously has much less objectivity than science.

[JBI]

The only thing I see here is a bunch of snobbishness from you, far worse than many art critics, and even the ever egotistical St. Lukes. Well done.

[Kjetil]

Academia is for the privilege few who can afford it and snobbery is as a results of that very 'few' circle of friends.
Many academics tend to hang out together and so hardly mix with the average person.
I think knowledge can take one both way. It can either opens door to more opportunities to mix with the average commoner hence become part of the real life or the other way which to close one's the mind and limits one way of thinking or behaving hence snobbery as a result.
Many academics I have come cross do not live in the real world.

Oh, please. The "life" and "world" of a bus driver is neither more or less real than an academic's.

This discussion is badly in need of some agreed and stringent definition of "snobbery". People talking past each other left and right, and a lot of murky arguments being made.

[Kjetil]

The only thing I see here is a bunch of snobbishness from you, far worse than many art critics, and even the ever egotistical St. Lukes. Well done.

If you have an argument, make it. You were presented with a perfectly rational objection to your post, and have no reason to sulk.

[cacian]

Oh, please. The "life" and "world" of a bus driver is neither more or less real than an academic's.

This discussion is badly in need of some agreed and stringent definition of "snobbery". People talking past each other left and right, and a lot of murky arguments being made.

Well I have myself been immersed in a life of academics for a fair of bit of years and this how they came cross.
I speak from experience and I cannot help if this is the impression they gave me.

[JBI]

Sorry, but that is a fairly sophistic twist by reductio ad absurdum on a perfectly reasonable and valid point, namely that science is by and large an activity judged on the basis of objective and empirical standards, while art by and large is not. Which leads you to kick in open doors. I do not see anyone actually making the point you seem to be arguing against.

The argument is not about which field is more objective, but which discipline is the snobbiest. As evidenced by your two posts, it would appear that science is winning the snob award - We are more objective, therefore can dismiss you. Good job, you can graph things, but your sun of lines and light is nothing like the halleluiah I behold with the rise of the glowing day, regardless of the fact that a sun rise is an illusion.

[JCamilo]

The ever egostical St Lukes deserves a Director Cut on Monty Phiton and the holy grail :D

Summer:

You used Big Bang theory to claim Sheldon does not bully other scientists but in the subjects they domain. Implying that is what scientist do. That is false. Both in the series (Sheldon has not knowledge of engineer and keep bullying the Jew guy about it), there is enough momments where he dismiss - as it is commun among physic and chemestry students and teachers - any other field of knowledge (The blondie girl is not just a blondie, she is also a with an art degree). The very status of Freud should dismiss how hard or easy is to be accepted by scientists or not.

You are clearly confuding the objectivness of science with the human beings that pratice it.

And clearly abusing the idea of fraud on art or science. True frauds are not done by any kid ("any kid" can write a false papper too). I doubt anyone but a art specialist can tell if a imitatation of Monalisa is real or not.

[JBI]

If you have an argument, make it. You were presented with a perfectly rational objection to your post, and have no reason to sulk.

It was not supposed to be a reply to you, I tried out a new feature on the website that just didn't work. Relax kid, I do not even know who you are, much less what you post about.

[Kjetil]

The argument is not about which field is more objective, but which discipline is the snobbiest. As evidenced by your two posts, it would appear that science is winning the snob award - We are more objective, therefore can dismiss you. Good job, you can graph things, but your sun of lines and light is nothing like the halleluiah I behold with the rise of the glowing day, regardless of the fact that a sun rise is an illusion.

1. The point is that less objectivity means greater scope for snobbery. It is not in question which field is more objective, obviously science is.
2. I am not a scientist. My degree is wholly in humanities, including literature.
3. This is not about which is better. They are simply different. Both have their pitfalls to be avoided, but the particular one of snobbery are clearly much more in the picture for art than it is for science. I'm sure scientists would be no better than art critics in that regard if given the opportunity ( or about other things than science), but they just don't have the scope. Any gifted critic can rubbish any work of art and find plusible reasons for it even if the real cause is snobbery, should he or she want to. But you can't make electrons behave any differently, and it's hard to make snobbery count when you have to present a demonstrable and measureable causal chain based on criteria you don't choose.

[Kjetil]

It was not supposed to be a reply to you, I tried out a new feature on the website that just didn't work. Relax kid, I do not even know who you are, much less what you post about.

Glad to hear it, I thought that was a bit harsh. :) Anyway, no offense takn.

[Summer M]

The argument is not about which field is more objective, but which discipline is the snobbiest. As evidenced by your two posts, it would appear that science is winning the snob award

So I represent science or scientists? If you knew half a thing about science (or reason) you'd know that this is no way to argue.


- We are more objective, therefore can dismiss you.

Wow, you insist on putting words in my mouth that were nowhere there, ever. Practically every argument you made in this thread was an attempt at refutation of something I never said. Good job, indeed.


Good job, you can graph things, but your sun of lines and light is nothing like the halleluiah I behold with the rise of the glowing day, regardless of the fact that a sun rise is an illusion.

I'm not your mother or art teacher or girlfriend, so this vain attempt at appearing artsy or sophisticated or whatever is more embarrassing than it is anything else. Save it for the next Poetry Slam.

[OrphanPip]

3. This is not about which is better. They are simply different. Both have their pitfalls to be avoided, but the particular one of snobbery are clearly much more in the picture for art than it is for science. I'm sure scientists would be no better than art critics in that regard if given the opportunity ( or about other things than science), but they just don't have the scope. Any gifted critic can rubbish any work of art and find plusible reasons for it even if the real cause is snobbery, should he or she want to. But you can't make electrons behave any differently, and it's hard to make snobbery count when you have to present a demonstrable and measureable causal chain based on criteria you don't choose.

Oh, they have the scope. There's no lack of evolutionary psychologists out there trying to explain ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and sociology. I'm not opposed to those inquiries either, but the scientific method is a different methodology, and I'd agree it is more objective. However, there are also places where other methodologies are more appropriate.

I have degrees in the arts and sciences and the people in either field are much the same, except the science majors spend more time memorizing facts by rote.

[Drkshadow03]

Sorry, but that is a fairly sophistic twist by reductio ad absurdum on a perfectly reasonable and valid point, namely that science is by and large an activity judged on the basis of objective and empirical standards, while art by and large is not. Which leads you to kick in open doors. I do not see anyone actually making the point you seem to be arguing against.

Thank you for apologizing ahead of time for misreading my post. I never said science isn't judged on objective and empirical standards, or that art is an objective endeavor rather than subjective one. It's actually an intersubjective one.

The argument put forward was Sheldon (on Big Bang Theory) has grounds to dismiss those who don't understand his scientific ideas because they lack scientific knowledge to properly understand those ideas since scientific knowledge is based on objective reality, and this is fundamentally different than an art critic dismissing someone who doesn't like a particular work of art because they lack knowledge of art because art is a more subjective field. No one has disagreed that art is a more subjective field. Ultimately, though, good art criticism needs to offer a rationale (in the form of evidence or at least an argument based on reason to defend why a work is good or bad) to support subjective opinions at the end of the day. As it turns out, some people turn out to be better at looking at an artistic object (be it painting, poem, or film) and finding clues or details to support an interpretation of said work.

This was brought on by the suggestion that some art critics are snobs because they dismiss those who don't see the glories of a particular painting. In this case, the hypothetical dot on canvas. However, the point Stlukes was making is that it very well could be that those who dismiss dot on painting might lack the background knowledge to understand the work and an appeal to subjectivity is a weak argument for this reason since art isn't entirely subjective, but rather intersubjective with the opinions of those who are more knowledgeable about the subject counting for more. In some cases, it might be the Emperor's New Clothes, but it also quite often might just be the individual in question is lacking in ability to discern the details that will make sense of the work and necessary background knowledge to understand the work.

[Kjetil]

Thank you for apologizing ahead of time for misreading my post. I never said science isn't judged on objective and empirical standards, or that art is an objective endeavor rather than subjective one. It's actually an intersubjective one.

The argument put forward was Sheldon (on Big Bang Theory) has grounds to dismiss those who don't understand his scientific ideas because they lack scientific knowledge to properly understand those ideas since scientific knowledge is based on objective reality, and this is fundamentally different than an art critic dismissing someone who doesn't like a particular work of art because they lack knowledge of art because art is a more subjective field. No one has disagreed that art is a more subjective field. Ultimately, though, good art criticism needs to offer a rationale (in the form of evidence or at least an argument based on reason to defend why a work is good or bad) to support subjective opinions at the end of the day. To bring it back to a literary context, some people are good readers, some people inferior ones.

This was brought on by the suggestion that some art critics are snobs because they dismiss those who don't see the glories of a particular painting. In this case, the hypothetical dot on canvas. However, the point Stlukes was making is that it very well could be that those who dismiss dot on painting might lack the background knowledge to understand the work and an appeal to subjectivity is a weak argument for this reason.

Well, thank you for reinforcing my accusation of sophistry. You will notice that I did not in fact characterise your position in the terms you are arguing against here, so it is again a case of kicking in open doors.


Oh, they have the scope. There's no lack of evolutionary psychologists out there trying to explain ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and sociology. I'm not opposed to those inquiries either, but the scientific method is a different methodology, and I'd agree it is more objective. However, there are also places where other methodologies are more appropriate.

I have degrees in the arts and sciences and the people in either field are much the same, except the science majors spend more time memorizing facts by rote.

As stated repeatedly, the point is not that scientists are different from art critics, but that science is different from art. Including in the amount of scope there is for snobbery.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm sure we're all impressed with responses like this, "science is by and large an activity judged on the basis of objective and empirical standards, while art by and large is not," which no one disagreed with and doesn't really address how anyone is using those particular arguments.

Since you seem to be confused, I was describing my points in relationship to the larger argument everyone else is making (St Luke and SummerM) rather than anything you said because you didn't really say much of value worth addressing or anything that rebutted what I already said. Basically all you did was call my arguments sophistry without giving evidence to support the claim, gave the quote above that didn't challenge anything anyone said, and employed a weak cliche about kicking open doors. Someone was engaging in sophistry, but it wasn't me.

[OrphanPip]

As stated repeatedly, the point is not that scientists are different from art critics, but that science is different from art. Including in the amount of scope there is for snobbery.

And as I said, they have as much a capacity for it as anyone else. You apparently never had the experience of frequenting a science department where the chemists ridicule the biologists for being either not objective enough if they are behaviouralist, or as just knock-off chemists if they are biochemists. There is as much jockying for self-importance in the sciences along lives of objectivity, importance of research, and availability of funding as in any field.

[PeterL]

As stated repeatedly, the point is not that scientists are different from art critics, but that science is different from art. Including in the amount of scope there is for snobbery.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but science is art. Art comprises everything that humans do that isn't simply natural survival based activity. Most intellectual activity is art.

[JCamilo]

Meh, Someone can be ojective, right and Snob. Since when snobism equate being subjective and wrong?

[stlukesguild]

The only thing I see here is a bunch of snobbishness from you, far worse than many art critics, and even the ever egotistical St. Lukes. Well done.

Coming from a true master snob, that is high praise indeed.:lol:

[Kjetil]

I'm sure we're all impressed with responses like this, "science is by and large an activity judged on the basis of objective and empirical standards, while art by and large is not," which no one disagreed with and doesn't really address how anyone is using those particular arguments.

Since you seem to be confused, I was describing my points in relationship to the larger argument everyone else is making (St Luke and SummerM) rather than anything you said because you didn't really say much of value worth addressing or anything that rebutted what I already said. Basically all you did was call my arguments sophistry without giving evidence to support the claim, gave the quote above that didn't challenge anything anyone said, and employed a weak cliche about kicking open doors. Someone was engaging in sophistry, but it wasn't me.

Oh well, that's your third consecutive post in which you evidently choose to simply decide for yourself what your interlocutor is talking about, with no inconvenient regard for semantics. Meanwhile, Orphanpip responds to the assertion that the point involved is not what scentists are like but what science is by repeating what he thinks scientists are like, PeterL assures me that science is, in fact, art and JCamilo asks the kind of question to whom the answer would be as laborious as it should be superfluous. no wonder you're already at ten pages! think I opt to withdraw from any further use of time on this discussion. You all won't miss me, and I certainly will not miss you.

[stlukesguild]

So I represent science or scientists? If you knew half a thing about science (or reason) you'd know that this is no way to argue.

I'm not your mother or art teacher or girlfriend, so this vain attempt at appearing artsy or sophisticated or whatever is more embarrassing than it is anything else. Save it for the next Poetry Slam.

Well... no snobbishness there.

It must be that time of the season again... when we get that influx of obnoxious and pretentious college sophomores who feel the need to prove themselves... and usually fail miserably in the effort and last all of a week or two.

Of course we also get a few like JBI or Mutatis who stick around... out of sheer stubbornness... and because they eventually recognize that everyone who disagrees with them is not inherently ignorant.

[Drkshadow03]

Oh well, that's your third consecutive post in which you evidently choose to simply decide for yourself what your interlocutor is talking about, with no inconvenient regard for semantics.

Any interlocutor I engage with is free to elaborate on their points or explain themselves.


You all won't miss me, and I certainly will not miss you.

Aw, you're throwing a temper tantrum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyltK6pmJGg).

[OrphanPip]

Oh well, that's your third consecutive post in which you evidently choose to simply decide for yourself what your interlocutor is talking about, with no inconvenient regard for semantics. Meanwhile, Orphanpip responds to the assertion that the point involved is not what scentists are like but what science is by repeating what he thinks scientists are like, PeterL assures me that science is, in fact, art and JCamilo asks the kind of question to whom the answer would be as laborious as it should be superfluous. no wonder you're already at ten pages! think I opt to withdraw from any further use of time on this discussion. You all won't miss me, and I certainly will not miss you.

You don't read attentively enough, your initial basis for arguing why science is different from art was based entirely on how scientist approach it, in that they would not participate in the same questioning of objectivity as the arts. When in fact this is not true, the sciences debate the boundaries and execution of their methodology just as the arts debate the methodology. There is no Platonic ideal of science out there to be compared to without taking into account how science is practised by scientists. We wouldn't have terms like hard or soft sciences if there wasn't a recognition of different conceptions of the burden of the scientific method. The arts themselves employ the same methodology at a further remove when they strive for intersubjectivity.

[stlukesguild]

Oh well, that's your third consecutive post in which you evidently choose to simply decide for yourself what your interlocutor is talking about, with no inconvenient regard for semantics. Meanwhile, Orphanpip responds to the assertion that the point involved is not what scentists are like but what science is by repeating what he thinks scientists are like...

It seems to me that if there is any confusion as to what the dispute is about, it is one your part. As several have already admitted, no one is suggesting that the arts are not more subjective than the sciences. But the issue at hand is the relative snobbish nature of the practitioners of either discipline. I believe JCamilo put it best when he suggested:

You are clearly confu(s)ing the objectiv(ity) of science with the human beings that practice it.

It is interesting that anyone speaking for a field noted for objectivity and statistical proofs would feel free to make sweeping statements about the greater snobbishness inherent in the arts without any real data to back this up. As a working artist and art educator I take immediate offense to all such generalizations about artists and the art world because I recognize that the stereotypes about artists are no more or less true than those concerning any other group of human beings... including scientists. There is no simple generalized artist "type". I know artists who are politically conservative... and those who are hard-core liberals; I know flaky dreamers, highly motivated workers, brilliant academics, and those obsessed with technology, engineering, and geometry. I know outrageous iconoclasts... and lovers of art history. I know artists who struggle with words... and others who can use language as well as anyone. The "art world" and the world of science are both made up of a vast range of human beings with different interests, goals, passions, etc... It seems more than likely that either group is prey to the same human vices... such as arrogance, pretension, and snobbery.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I also think it's preposterous to claim that Sheldon Cooper & Co. are bullies of their own sort. They only "bully" non-scientists (or inferior scientists) on scientific issues—
Dude, have you ever watched the show? Sheldon bullies everyone on any topic.


You dismiss the whole "a child can do it" argument, but it's a actually a fairly empirical claim: if I can do it, I who have no artistic talents whatsoever, the I can't see how it can be taken as a work of art. And I've seen plenty of so-called works of art that I could easily do. If anyone can do it, what's the value of it?
Here's the difference: you didn't do it, the artist did. If every single piece of art that "could've been done by a five-year-old" could've been done by a five-year-old, then five-year-olds would be doing it. But they're not, and neither are you.

It upsets you, and JBI, that while a scientist can relatively easily dismiss a piece of pseudo-art as such, you can't do the same with a joke within a joke within a joke such as Sheldon Cooper's “A proof that algebraic topology can never have a non self-contradictory set of abelian groups”. It's a joke you'll never get or be able to criticize, whereas a scientist can quite easily and justifiably dismiss your work.

But, life ain't fair.
Snobbish much?

It's remarkable how crazy many of you go over a few very simple, innocent remarks. All this started because I said this:

Know, it started because you're being a snob.

ds in my mouth that were nowhere there, ever. Practically every argument you made in this thread was an attempt at refutation of something I never said. Good job, indeed.

You got that backwards, buddy.


I'm not your mother or art teacher or girlfriend, so this vain attempt at appearing artsy or sophisticated or whatever is more embarrassing than it is anything else. Save it for the next Poetry Slam.
You're on a literature forum. What do you expect? And JBI at a poetry slam. 'Tis to laugh.



It must be that time of the season again... when we get that influx of obnoxious and pretentious college sophomores who feel the need to prove themselves... and usually fail miserably in the effort and last all of a week or two.

Of course we also get a few like JBI or Mutatis who stick around... out of sheer stubbornness... and because they eventually recognize that everyone who disagrees with them is not inherently ignorant.
I'm still waiting to recognize that. :D

[stlukesguild]

And JBI at a poetry slam. 'Tis to laugh.

He'd leave 'em all baffled by throwing out a slew of verses in Chinese... and then could always fall back on Hebrew.:p

[Summer M]

I apologize, stlukesguild, that I don't give you the respect you think you so richly deserve, but I'm simply not impressed by your pretense.

Here is, for the last time, the difference between us: you are far more knowledgeable than I am on matters of art. There's no doubt about that. But, give me a week in the local public library and I can learn enough to have an eye-to-eye conversation about art with you or with anyone else.

How long will it take you to figure out what an abelian group is? How long before you can have an eye-to-eye conversation with me about abstract algebra?

Now you'll write one of your one-liners with multiple ellipses and call me snobby, but therein lies the point: what I know is far more difficult than what you know, so my snobbery is, to some degree, justified. I have far less room for sciolism and pretense, and I am held to higher, more objective, more rigorous standards.

And that's a point you just can't seem to get.

[cacian]

I am sorry to disappoint you, but science is art. Art comprises everything that humans do that isn't simply natural survival based activity. Most intellectual activity is art.

Hi PeterL you say science is art I say it isn't what say you? Haha
I am thinking about how intellectualism is art and I agree but science in a lab is not art. It is debauchery.

I am thinking I could not be an artist if I was a scientist.
The whole point of artistry is that it shows off science at its worse and rightly so. If anything is going to stand up to science it is art.
That is my understanding of art.
I see your views are different.
Intellectualism and science are two very separate things in my views. That is me.

[JBI]

I apologize, stlukesguild, that I don't give you the respect you think you so richly deserve, but I'm simply not impressed by your pretense.

Here is, for the last time, the difference between us: you are far more knowledgeable than I am on matters of art. There's no doubt about that. But, give me a week in the local public library and I can learn enough to have an eye-to-eye conversation about art with you or with anyone else.

How long will it take you to figure out what an abelian group is? How long before you can have an eye-to-eye conversation with me about abstract algebra?

Now you'll write one of your one-liners with multiple ellipses and call me snobby, but therein lies the point: what I know is far more difficult than what you know, so my snobbery is, to some degree, justified. I have far less room for sciolism and pretense, and I am held to higher, more objective, more rigorous standards.

And that's a point you just can't seem to get.

What, that you are a spoiled child who thinks himself/herself better than everybody else? Snob much? Regardless of your justification, you could win a Nobel and people still wouldn't respect you with this attitude.

As for your point of learning what Luke can no, good luck. You cannot learn it any faster than someone can learn some proficiency in science.

I speak, read and write Chinese at a near native Fluency. The task exhausted me for years. I read classical Chinese better than most Native Chinese speakers. Which means, I can appreciate Chinese poetry, which is language, far more than you. I do not care if you can read a translation in a Week, you still cannot scratch the surface.

The point of the snob is to explain to the uneducated what they are missing. st. Lukes can do that for you if you do not get it. The response to my reference to the sun 3 pages back missed the entire point that I was paraphrasing William Blake from memory, in a humorous fashion, as this argument is the exact one he was responding to. An excellent artist and poet, who would have faded into oblivion if not properly explained by critics, most notably Northrop Frye, who studied for years to be able to decode the work of the mad-genius.

What you do not seem to get is that snobbishness and objectivity have no correlation. You are a snob, I do not even need to ask if you study science or are an artist, either way you are a snob.


As for St. Lukes, didn't we agree before that you are the king of snobs on this board, and that it is a non-competition. Of course I am a snob, I worked hard to be.

[cacian]

Hi JBI about this


The point of the snob is to explain to the uneducated what they are missing.

A snob does not teach the uneducated anything surely because what he or she teaches is snobbery.
That is if we go by the title of snob like calling someone a teacher. One goes with ones title.
The other thing is this: is it correct to assume that a snob is of a particular appearance and tendencies?
Because if it is not then what is or what does a snob look like?

[OrphanPip]

How long will it take you to figure out what an abelian group is? How long before you can have an eye-to-eye conversation with me about abstract algebra?

Now you'll write one of your one-liners with multiple ellipses and call me snobby, but therein lies the point: what I know is far more difficult than what you know, so my snobbery is, to some degree, justified. I have far less room for sciolism and pretense, and I am held to higher, more objective, more rigorous standards.

And that's a point you just can't seem to get.

It's a little sad that you think this is true. I have degrees in both science and art, and it took the same amount of time and dedication to become good at either field of study.

[Summer M]

you could win a Nobel and people still wouldn't respect you with this attitude.

JBI, it pains me to think that you don't like me and never will. You sound like my ideal man, all artsy and quoty and whiny and angry at people smarter than you are. I wish I were with you right now so we could share some organic alfalfa and discuss The Cucumber's Angst or whatever new book of poetry you just picked up. Ah, dreams!



It's a little sad that you think this is true. I have degrees in both science and art, and it took the same amount of time and dedication to become good at either field of study.

It's a little sad you failed to grasp my point so miserably. My point was that within a week I could enter a room full of art folk and no one would know that I just came from the library because, for the ninth time, with some knowledge and some pretentious talk I could convince everyone there I'm proficient. Try that with a room full of physicists and tell me how it worked out.

[Lokasenna]

It's a little sad you failed to grasp my point so miserably. My point was that within a week I could enter a room full of art folk and no one would know that I just came from the library because, for the ninth time, with some knowledge and some pretentious talk I could convince everyone there I'm proficient. Try that with a room full of physicists and tell me how it worked out.

You would, I suspect, be found out very quickly. The ability to spot bull**** becomes second nature to we 'art folk', if only because we are so often required to interrogate every idea that is espoused. It is sadly apparent when someone has not researched their work in depth, or hasn't understood it, or hasn't read it. I experience it with my students on a frequent basis.

A great many students arrive at university thinking that English Literature is an 'easy' degree - they are rapidly disabused of this notion. It requires as much dedication, insight, intelligence and hard work as any other discipline. It takes many years of diligent study to become truly proficient in any area of it. A surface knowledge quickly falls apart in the arts just as much as it does in the sciences.

[Delta40]

Wow guys I just don't know who to cheer for! Ooops! excuse me a moment, my popcorn is ready....

[JCamilo]

It is possible for a very good charlatan to trick a bunch of art people. Just like he does with a bunch of science people. The key thing is the talent of the given charlatan, not who he is tricking or what he is pretending to be.

Such argument is funny, but if you want, try to prove it. Return in one week and try to argue with the ever Egoistical St.Lukes. It is that simple.

[JBI]

JBI, it pains me to think that you don't like me and never will. You sound like my ideal man, all artsy and quoty and whiny and angry at people smarter than you are. I wish I were with you right now so we could share some organic alfalfa and discuss The Cucumber's Angst or whatever new book of poetry you just picked up. Ah, dreams!



It's a little sad you failed to grasp my point so miserably. My point was that within a week I could enter a room full of art folk and no one would know that I just came from the library because, for the ninth time, with some knowledge and some pretentious talk I could convince everyone there I'm proficient. Try that with a room full of physicists and tell me how it worked out.

I didn't realize science people talk only about science all the time. Seriously, most of us arts people talk about the same general stuff as science people in daily conversation.

As for arts, you could never really fool any specialist, the same way you could never fool any specialist in the sciences. You do not need to know advanced level masthematics to have a conversation, on the other hand, and nobody is really going to bother quizing you.

You missed my whole point that every field requires a specialization. No matter how hard you try, within a week you could never convince me of any proficiency in my field of study, not even with 2 years of full-time work would you get here, unless you really had a talent for it. You couldn't fool it either.

Some people clearly have never met the unfoolable arts types who know their stuff so well that bull**** just doesn't work anymore. Basically anyone we respect as an authority.You cannot bull**** authority, in any field, regardless of how many weeks you pretend to be intelligent.

[kelby_lake]

But, give me a week in the local public library and I can learn enough to have an eye-to-eye conversation about art with you or with anyone else.

How long will it take you to figure out what an abelian group is? How long before you can have an eye-to-eye conversation with me about abstract algebra?


Yes, it would take longer for us to have a conversation about science because the understanding of that topic is contingent on other topics. But you could not have a conversation about art just by reading things out of the public library because art is more than book knowledge.

[cacian]

It is possible for a very good charlatan to trick a bunch of art people. Just like he does with a bunch of science people. The key thing is the talent of the given charlatan, not who he is tricking or what he is pretending to be.

Such argument is funny, but if you want, try to prove it. Return in one week and try to argue with the ever Egoistical St.Lukes. It is that simple.

Art is tricked all the time it is called faking it.
These days it is very hard to tell a genuine article from a none.
There are programmes about it on tv all the time.

[kelby_lake]

It's a little sad you failed to grasp my point so miserably. My point was that within a week I could enter a room full of art folk and no one would know that I just came from the library because, for the ninth time, with some knowledge and some pretentious talk I could convince everyone there I'm proficient. Try that with a room full of physicists and tell me how it worked out.

Art folk can see through cant- there's enough of it around. Once I've learnt physics, I've learnt it- it would take me longer but I can tick that off. Besides, nobody cares about abstract algebra and abelian groups. They only become important when you do something with them and knowing what to do with them requires that extra leap of imagination- similar to that of an artist. I don't believe that science and art are mutually exclusive.

[JCamilo]

Art is tricked all the time it is called faking it.
These days it is very hard to tell a genuine article from a none.
There are programmes about it on tv all the time.

And there is Discovery Channel too Cacian.

The idea that one cannot have a conversation about Science after a week of research, without being an field specialist - is ridiculous. Just research several internet forum where several people talk about science without expertise in the field - Evolution, Theory of Relativity. This because you can have a conversation about anything. Those chats are not going to have influence on the scentist? Of course not, but who is kidding that 99% of art talk here will ever go to the mind of the academics? It is exactly the samething. Either the art specialist or science specialist will nod happily enough to see there is some overall knowledge on his field or just snob it out with the "you have not enough knowledge to understand this".

Try to imagine this, in one week one does not learn a new language. Literature specialists often know a handful of languages. They will not say attack the casual reader of Virgil for not knowling latin, but he will easily spot if the guy is a specialist in latin literature just by knowing what the guy talks.

[Alexander III]

That awkward moment when at the age of twenty, one feels like one of the mature members on the forums...

Also while we are on the subject of snobbishness, sure a man of science might say that he has more right to snobbishness than a man of letters; but even more objective and rigorous than the empiricism and objectivity of science, is that of noble blood. A painting may or may not be a work of genius, a scientific theory may or may not be disproven; but a man either posses or lacks noble blood, and from the day of his conception that is determined and immutable. If any one has a right to be snobbish by proclaiming objectivity, what candle or camp-fire of scientist or artist can compare to the neon-lights of nobility? The only man who has a right to be snobbish is the aristocrat, for there is no human discipline more objective than that ancient craft which determines between the the plebeian and the cream.

[Emil Miller]

That awkward moment when at the age of twenty, one feels like one of the mature members on the forums...

Also while we are on the subject of snobbishness, sure a man of science might say that he has more right to snobbishness than a man of letters; but even more objective and rigorous than the empiricism and objectivity of science, is that of noble blood. A painting may or may not be a work of genius, a scientific theory may or may not be disproven; but a man either posses or lacks noble blood, and from the day of his conception that is determined and immutable. If any one has a right to be snobbish by proclaiming objectivity, what candle or camp-fire of scientist or artist can compare to the neon-lights of nobility? The only man who has a right to be snobbish is the aristocrat, for there is no human discipline more objective than that ancient craft which determines between the the plebeian and the cream.

On that basis there is no such thing as a snobbish American.

[Drkshadow03]

That awkward moment when at the age of twenty, one feels like one of the mature members on the forums...

Also while we are on the subject of snobbishness, sure a man of science might say that he has more right to snobbishness than a man of letters; but even more objective and rigorous than the empiricism and objectivity of science, is that of noble blood. A painting may or may not be a work of genius, a scientific theory may or may not be disproven; but a man either posses or lacks noble blood, and from the day of his conception that is determined and immutable. If any one has a right to be snobbish by proclaiming objectivity, what candle or camp-fire of scientist or artist can compare to the neon-lights of nobility? The only man who has a right to be snobbish is the aristocrat, for there is no human discipline more objective than that ancient craft which determines between the the plebeian and the cream.

Seriously? Sure nobility is objective in the sense that one inherits a title or one doesn't, one descends from an aristocratic family or one doesn't, but it has no real objective reality in the sense that an aristocrat actually is any different physically from a normal plebeian off the streets in a genetic sense. In other words, nobility is really just a matter of a societal convention, not a genuine objective difference in blood.

[stlukesguild]

Also while we are on the subject of snobbishness, sure a man of science might say that he has more right to snobbishness than a man of letters; but even more objective and rigorous than the empiricism and objectivity of science, is that of noble blood. A painting may or may not be a work of genius, a scientific theory may or may not be disproven; but a man either posses or lacks noble blood, and from the day of his conception that is determined and immutable. If any one has a right to be snobbish by proclaiming objectivity, what candle or camp-fire of scientist or artist can compare to the neon-lights of nobility? The only man who has a right to be snobbish is the aristocrat, for there is no human discipline more objective than that ancient craft which determines between the the plebeian and the cream.

Now, now, Alex... As usual I am left torn as to just how much of this you expect to be taken at face value... and how much is just pure sarcasm. Of course as a good Italian of noble heritage you are more than aware of Baldasare Castiglione and his book, Il Libro del Cortegiano. Castiglione was himself of noble blood... related to the Gonzaga family, and it was he who put forth and established the Renaissance ideal of nobility or the true gentleman that was rooted in actions and achievements of the individual and not merely to the accidents of birth. Arrogance was certainly not an attribute that denoted the ideal gentleman or nobleman, and was better left to the uncouth French.

[cacian]

Think pedantry think snobbishness.
I feel that academia and intellectualism are two different things.

[stlukesguild]

Art is tricked all the time it is called faking it.
These days it is very hard to tell a genuine article from a none.
There are programmes about it on tv all the time.

Who is tricked... and by whom? Pretty much the only time that the traditional visual arts (painting,sculpture, etc...) make the news in when some work has recently broken the records at auction... or when they are having a slow news week and so we get these documentaries about extremes in the art world. Most of these shows are purely populist in nature. Even if those more knowledgeable on the topic find themselves agreeing with the opinions with regard to a given artist or body of work, the difference is that the one group has drawn its conclusions with little or no knowledge of the subject as a whole... and this is painfully obvious... where the other group has drawn its conclusions based upon an intimate familiarity with the same subject.

There are web sites like this:

http://reverent.org/true_art_or_fake_art.html

or this:

http://reverent.org/quizomatic/answers.php?test=pollock_or_birds

...which propose to prove that "experts" cannot discern real art from fakes. Of course the tests are intentionally skewed in that many of the images of "real" art are but fragments of the whole, and the viewer is confronted with the fact that much is lost in an image seen in reproduction... especially a small digital image on the web... while at the same time, a number of the fakes imitate the look of legitimate art movements. Even so... I can easily tell you not only which paintings are real... but who the artists are.

But yes... art can be faked by forgers. The problem is that forgers are "experts" as well. They are deeply knowledgeable of the working methods and materials of a given artist. They research the materials (paint, canvas, panels, painting media, brushes) available to an artist at a given time and place. Generally it takes an equal experts... a curator or conservation artist... to uncover the best forgeries.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Here is, for the last time, the difference between us: you are far more knowledgeable than I am on matters of art. There's no doubt about that. But, give me a week in the local public library and I can learn enough to have an eye-to-eye conversation about art with you or with anyone else.
:icon_bs:



It's a little sad you failed to grasp my point so miserably.
Read what you wrote. He didn't grasp your point miserably. It was spot on. You said with a week of study, you could have a discussion among equals with a veritable expert. If that wasn't your point. It's not Pip's fault that you articulated it so poorly.



My point was that within a week I could enter a room full of art folk and no one would know that I just came from the library because, for the ninth time, with some knowledge and some pretentious talk I could convince everyone there I'm proficient.

:icon_bs:

[Alexander III]

It was meant to be sarcastic....

I hoped "neon lights of nobility" would have been the clear signal of the sarcastic tone of my prose.

[Summer M]

You said with a week of study, you could have a discussion among equals with a veritable expert.


No, I said with a week of study I could have a discussion among equals with stlukesguild...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Who is a veritable expert....

[Sancho]

It was meant to be sarcastic....

I hoped "neon lights of nobility" would have been the clear signal of the sarcastic tone of my prose.

Dang it! I was really hoping you were being serious, which would make Emil’s comment a crack-up. The idea of a bunch of illegitimate snobs running around in North America strikes me as hilarious. I was looking forward to a confrontation with one: “You pompous perfidious bastard, you!”

Ah well.

So anyway, here’s where I go sideways and get way off topic. But what the hell - I like getting off topic.

A couple of months ago I was strolling through Amsterdam, going nowhere in particular, just walking around, and I spotted this:

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae197/mollyandbruno/stlucasgild-1.jpg

I thought - Well, whattaya know? There’s a guy on the lit-net who might like this. So I snapped a cell-phone picture of it. Later I got to thinking - how odd. I used to see things and think how my sister might like it or my nephew might like it or any of a number of people I actually know might like it, but now I’m wandering around and seeing things that remind me of folks on the lit-net. Weird. Or maybe not. Sometimes I think I know some of the people on these forums better than I know some of my face-to-face acquaintances (particularly when it’s a lit-netter who makes a lot of posts).

[JBI]

No, I said with a week of study I could have a discussion among equals with stlukesguild...

Then get to it and report back. Actions speak louder than words, even if you do presumably go to or work at Duke.

[qimissung]

The point of the snob is to explain to the uneducated what they are missing. JBI

I don't think this is the definition (or the point) of a snob. I'm pretty sure snobs like to exclude-not include. The definition, forthwith:


1. a person who imitates, cultivates, or slavishly admires social superiors and is condescending or overbearing to others.
2.
a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field: a musical snob.

It seems to fit, especially the condescending and disdainful part. Since you guys are knowledgeable-and you are- can you not impart your knowledge kindly? What would you lose by doing so?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If one wants to see an example of a literary/artistic snob, just watch an episode of Frasier. (Of course, most snobs aren't as lovable as Frasier and Niles.)

[qimissung]

Do you guys think you could figure out a way to be lovable snobs?

:leaving:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Do I come off as a snob? I mean, come on, I got a Family Guy character as my avatar.

[YesNo]

Do I come off as a snob? I mean, come on, I got a Family Guy character as my avatar.

I'm not sure. I usually think of snobs as comic characters. If you used Stewie as your avatar I might have an easier time deciding.

[Summer M]

Then get to it and report back. Actions speak louder than words, even if you do presumably go to or work at Duke.

You've been cyber-researching me? I'm so flattered! I'm not even sure where you got that info, but I'm touched you care. Oh, JBI, there may be something between us after all!

[JBI]

You've been cyber-researching me? I'm so flattered! I'm not even sure where you got that info, but I'm touched you care. Oh, JBI, there may be something between us after all!

Just taking a guess, otherwise I would say you are isolated in your little South Carolinian hovel and aught to come back to planet earth. However you want it!.

[cacian]

I'm not sure. I usually think of snobs as comic characters. If you used Stewie as your avatar I might have an easier time deciding.

I thought snobbery was art myself but there you go.
Comics are merely a toy in their hands a something to brag about lol

[cacian]

Art is tricked all the time it is called faking it.
These days it is very hard to tell a genuine article from a none.
There are programmes about it on tv all the time.

Who is tricked... and by whom? Pretty much the only time that the traditional visual arts (painting,sculpture, etc...) make the news in when some work has recently broken the records at auction... or when they are having a slow news week and so we get these documentaries about extremes in the art world. Most of these shows are purely populist in nature. Even if those more knowledgeable on the topic find themselves agreeing with the opinions with regard to a given artist or body of work, the difference is that the one group has drawn its conclusions with little or no knowledge of the subject as a whole... and this is painfully obvious... where the other group has drawn its conclusions based upon an intimate familiarity with the same subject.

There are web sites like this:

http://reverent.org/true_art_or_fake_art.html

or this:

http://reverent.org/quizomatic/answers.php?test=pollock_or_birds

...which propose to prove that "experts" cannot discern real art from fakes. Of course the tests are intentionally skewed in that many of the images of "real" art are but fragments of the whole, and the viewer is confronted with the fact that much is lost in an image seen in reproduction... especially a small digital image on the web... while at the same time, a number of the fakes imitate the look of legitimate art movements. Even so... I can easily tell you not only which paintings are real... but who the artists are.

But yes... art can be faked by forgers. The problem is that forgers are "experts" as well. They are deeply knowledgeable of the working methods and materials of a given artist. They research the materials (paint, canvas, panels, painting media, brushes) available to an artist at a given time and place. Generally it takes an equal experts... a curator or conservation artist... to uncover the best forgeries.

I totally agree and I think forgers are artists themselves and in a way it should be celebrated. If done the right way genuine and fake can look quite interesting together. It is always good to let the imagination wonder to places such as guessing who is who.
Looking at two similar painting and thinking who has done what is a skill in itself and allows for new ideas to shape the thinking processes. It must be encouraged and not put down.
A sensible way to stop forgers from cashing in is to allow it to be.
I think humanity has yet to explore the mind and its capabilities and challenge its power. We are too reliant on safe and same. Routine can be grinding and damaging the human psychic.

[Summer M]

Just taking a guess, otherwise I would say you are isolated in your little South Carolinian hovel and aught to come back to planet earth. However you want it!.

If you're going to insult me, I'd appreciate it if you tried a bit harder (and learn to spell, Oh He who speaketh Chinese and quotes great poets!)

[cacian]

If you're going to insult me, I'd appreciate it if you tried a bit harder (and learn to spell, Oh He who speaketh Chinese and quotes great poets!)

Hi Summer sorry do not mean to interrupt.
Is your avatar a flag?
Thought Provocateur reminded me of Agent Provoceteur a very nice shop.

[Pierre Menard]

If you're going to insult me, I'd appreciate it if you tried a bit harder (and learn to spell, Oh He who speaketh Chinese and quotes great poets!)

You know you're beaten when you start picking out minor spelling mistakes from generally erudite people on an internet forum...

[JBI]

If you're going to insult me, I'd appreciate it if you tried a bit harder (and learn to spell, Oh He who speaketh Chinese and quotes great poets!)

I admit, I got the wrong state, but the spelling?

As it is, I do not even use English daily, and this board is about the only communication I do in the language, much of it done on my phone of all things. My point was merely that you are in an isolated box perhaps in an isolated university, or if not in an isolated university town in the middle of an isolated state in an isolated country. By extension, it was a prompt for you to go out and do something, other than defend yourself and yell at everyone who disagrees for you. Likewise, I aught to have remarked get out from under your bridge, but quite frankly, such cliches are beyond you.

You resort to rhetoric and nitpicking my language, good job, I could care less. My grammar is bad, and my English has always been full of errors on these boards, since day one.

[Summer M]

I admit, I got the wrong state, but the spelling?

Wow!


My point was merely that you are in an isolated box perhaps in an isolated university, or if not in an isolated university town in the middle of an isolated state in an isolated country.

Durham, North Carolina, United States???

JBI, are you drunk, or is the pot in China particularly potent? Get thyself to bed, honey, and we'll talk again tomorrow, OK?

[JBI]

Wow!



Durham, North Carolina, United States???

JBI, are you drunk, or is the pot in China particularly potent? Get thyself to bed, honey, and we'll talk again tomorrow, OK?

Not exactly - North Carolina - not the centre of the universe. United States, a quite isolated country, especially in the more provincial places, such as small cities in North Carolina.

JBI, Shanghai, 20million or so people, near downtown, in a city which is ever cosmopolitan, and a centre of international business. From Toronto, one of the most international cities in the world, with a population similar to Chicago. Has traveled to forty countries and lived for extended periods in 3 of them - speaks 3 languages, with a rudimentary command of 2 more. Has been educated in 3 countries, and read more widely than most people. Albeit, I am not the most rounded, most traveled, most international, I am still doing alright for not even being 25.

You see my point - the world looks brilliant from your perspective on planet Durham, but you miss the big picture altogether. You think one week will make you some sort of God, but quite frankly, one week would not even get you over the jet lag, and when you came to discuss Chinese poetry with me, you would be struggling to find the washroom.

Ok, granted you mentioned St. Lukes, but everyone can attest to the fact that St. Lukes knows his stuff about his stuff. That is, he knows art, having studied and created it, and no amount of nonsense about going to a library for a week is going to let you even in the door. Maybe you can pass your 101 class on art appreciation, but the true master has years of experience, and more exposure.

Even st. Lukes will attest that his own experience is hampered by his lack of international journeys, and that he only gets to see art on rotation as it arrives - he can appreciate the Sistine Chapel, but from what I recall, has never actually seen it.

If we want to talk about expertise, anyone will attest that when you get to a certain level, you need a wide, deep exposure, usually with a unique set of objects, an unique archive of books, or a specific scientific lab. In art and in science it is no different. If you want to do research on the Rembrandt collection of a certain museum, you will need access to it. I have used connections to enter the backroom of several museums, but I could not possibly research the collection without an extended period of time there and the connections to do so.

Now, we are dealing with literature on these boards - most of it is universal, though some collections are essential. That aside, language is completely essential. I would really value anybody's word on Chinese literature unless they were familiar with the cultural background of the texts, and almost definitely familiar with the language itself to a degree. Try doing that in a week.

You see my point. In regard to even specific artistic fields, I could have you beat without you even having a chance, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year. If you want to talk Chinese Bronzes, I have actually held them, and studied them up close, and seen a great many more than most people, having been to all the major museums in China, and many in the West, while working in the back of one of the most significant collections doing catalogue and research work. I'll give you a week, come here and tell me something interesting. You won't be able to, you would not even get a foot in the door, you would not know how any of them work, or how to read them, let alone appreciate them, or date them.

You see what I mean now - there is a specialty involved with any form of discipline - you could not critically assess a Chinese text the way an Oxford sinologist can, regardless of which week you choose to spend studying them. You could perhaps tell him about a nice poem you like from Chinese (in English translation), but that is about it. The same way most people can talk about impressionist painting, but many cannot even find the right place to stand in the room to view them from. Most people can talk about an opera, but not many can tell you why people get these feelings, and why they are good - it is not just the libretto or the music, it is more involved than that. The same way a food critic can be trained to pick out the right and wrong flavors of a meal, the art critic must be trained to discern the meaning and composition, in addition to the significance both historical and cultural, of a specific piece. It's not for the sake of being a snob, but for the sake of understanding and discerning - of cataloguing if you will.

[kelby_lake]

As for the production of art and science, it does not take any inherent skill to carry out scientific experiments. It requires a long period of research but it does not take anybody special. Whereas to produce fine art, you could spend thirty years studying and still not be able to do it.

[Summer M]

Has traveled to forty countries and lived for extended periods in 3 of them - speaks 3 languages, with a rudimentary command of 2 more. Has been educated in 3 countries, and read more widely than most people.

Then for aught you have learned, you ought to know how to spell!

That was quite a speech, JBI. Now seriously, off to bed!

[JCamilo]

No, but you wasted 1 day. Now you have only 6 to study and match St.Lukes. And counting.

[YesNo]

As for the production of art and science, it does not take any inherent skill to carry out scientific experiments. It requires a long period of research but it does not take anybody special. Whereas to produce fine art, you could spend thirty years studying and still not be able to do it.

It does take creativity to come up with an experiment that would convince others that the results of the experiment verify or falsify some statement.

The execution of the experiment might be like preparing paint for an artist to work with, but that would be to make sure the experiment is repeatable.

[JBI]

Then for aught you have learned, you ought to know how to spell!

That was quite a speech, JBI. Now seriously, off to bed!

From Oxford:

aught1 Pronunciation: /ɔːt/
(also ought)
Definition of aught
pronoun
archaic

anything at all: know you aught of this fellow, young sir?

Origin:

Old English āwiht (see aye2, wight)
aught2
Definition of aught
noun

variant spelling of ought2.

Grammar

A modal auxiliary verb used to refer to possible, rather than actual, events. It expresses a view about how desirable an action might be and is normally followed by the infinitive of the main verb: You ought to go and see a doctor. It can also stand alone: No, I ought not. NegativeThe negative form of verb phrases containing ought is formed simply by adding not: you ought not to go and see the doctor. It is not standard English to use didn't ought to.


Albeit not the common spelling you Americans use, but still an acceptable variant.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You know someone is out of any substantive argument when that person resorts to petty remarks on one's grammar and spelling . . . and there went even anything misspelled in the post you first mentioned, Summer! :lol: JBI's spelling and grammar, not to mention his overal posting voice, has always been quite good and eloquent. Plus, this is an informal forum board, so take you're stupid pedantry somewhere else, unless you want to continue reinforcing you image as a snob (and now a completely ignorant one, to boot).

[YesNo]

I thought snobbery was art myself but there you go.
Comics are merely a toy in their hands a something to brag about lol

Come to think of it, I don't know of any place where snobs are not portrayed as clowns. The word only has negative associations in my mind.

Of course, that might be my cultural limitations. I might be living in a hovel. Maybe I should travel more, learn more languages, tell people about my authority rather than show any evidence for it, or forget how to spell and then whine when someone takes me to task for it. Maybe then I'll see snobs as they really are.

[Alexander III]

Come to think of it, I don't know of any place where snobs are not portrayed as clowns. The word only has negative associations in my mind.

Of course, that might be my cultural limitations. I might be living in a hovel. Maybe I should travel more, learn more languages, tell people about my authority rather than show any evidence for it, or forget how to spell and then whine when someone takes me to task for it. Maybe then I'll see snobs as they really are.

Snobbery you have clearly mastered. A working understanding of Irony, not so much...

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm just wondering if Summer and JBI are finished with the pissing contest? I find both angles rather frustrating. There are no winners in such battles.

[BienvenuJDC]

Hear, hear...now we can get back to talking about all the OTHER snobs in the world. ;)
But I'm glad that we had a wonderful demonstration. Thanks guys!

[JBI]

Come to think of it, I don't know of any place where snobs are not portrayed as clowns. The word only has negative associations in my mind.

Of course, that might be my cultural limitations. I might be living in a hovel. Maybe I should travel more, learn more languages, tell people about my authority rather than show any evidence for it, or forget how to spell and then whine when someone takes me to task for it. Maybe then I'll see snobs as they really are.

You missed the entire point of my whole post. The point was simple, but one you consistently fail to understand, there is a such thing as authority, and it usually comes from experience. Experience is usually something that comes from exposure, and from constant movement. I, who have not been to Croatia, would not dream of claiming to be an authority on Croatian literature. Nor would I dismiss an authority on the subject for knowing more than me.

As for me being a snob, well, I already admitted that several pages back. But then again, you are the one who kept a thread alive with your whining about how good Harry Potter is based on your own love of the text, so you are just as snobby. Everyone who is confident is a little bit snobby, everyone who has achievements or expertise and is somewhat called to task every five minutes by those who have none, and dismissed as a schmuck because they happen to know the right answer, and know where others go wrong, is generally called a snob.

If you would like to see my authority, well it is simple, read my posts and judge for yourself. Unfortunately there are only 2-3 others that I know of who post somewhat regularly who deal with my area of expertise (and only one of them who actually deals with it to any level to comment), but you can ask one of them. I need not try to convince you I am more knowledgeable on a subject you know nothing about. St. Lukes has already wasted his time talking to people who wish not to learn.

I'll be honest with you, I would love to see more discussion of Chinese texts, and more critical reading and debate on these forums. But as of now, the posting has all to do with shallow nonsense and my grammatical errors, rather than anything I actually say, or anything to do with literature at all. You, for one, went on and on about Harry Potter's greatness yet not once opened the text. You never speak with anything concrete and just make blanketed dismissive statements. Is that not the definition of a snob?

Quit calling the kettle black. I at least admit it. Maybe traveling a little would be good for you, certainly another language couldn't hurt.

[JBI]

Ah, yes, alternative spellings: when the ignoramus can't learn the language, the language will change for the ignoramus. Do you know that NOOH-key-lehr is now a legitimate pronunciation of "nuclear", according to Webster?

But JDC is right: it's getting tiresome. I have things to do, JBI needs to find a map, and Mutatis needs to crawl back into St. Luke's rectum, where he feels warm and safe.

Good night.

I am not an etymologist, but I believe the form aught would be closer to the word's origin, at least from the impression the OED gave me.

As for Webster, you do know the text is in the public domain right? There is no definitive Webster's dictionary, as anyone can publish their own.

As for a map, perhaps you need to understand that the little town you live in happens to be a rather insignificant place in the world. My point was that you are talking as if you are in the centre of the world, whereas you are in the middle of nowhere. The "city" of Durham, North Carolina, has barely 200,000 occupants - let me now take another similarly sized place, and see - Langzhong (阆中) in Northern Sichuan. A place with an history of at least 2400 years. A famous examination and education centre, former ancient capital of the state of Ba, a major producer of Vinegar, as well as traditional handicrafts. Examples of traditional Chinese architecture still standing. Have you heard of it? Of course not. It's the same size (or bigger) than where you live, and is more historically relevant, yet you almost certainly never have heard of it, let alone know anybody from there. In fact, most people reading this would probably have never encountered the name of the place had I not mentioned it. If Sichuan was divided into halves, I would not begrudge someone making an honest error of putting it in the south instead of the north. After all, it is hardly a major place in most people's geography (even Chinese people's!), and people make mistakes. Anybody can see from your signature, North Carolina. People make typing mistakes because they are thinking of other things, it takes a real prick, however, to waste someone's time about them.

You missed my point. You do not live in the centre of the world, was my point. For all the other people from rather unknown places, you should not get angry that these places are not known to someone who is not even American. Can you put Shijiazhuang on a map, for instance? That's several million people, not just 200,000, with a longer history etc. You see my point. We can play obscure cities in India next.

For those of us from smaller places (and from isolated countries like the US, or China, who in general, are not very international in terms of cultural exposure, this was not meant to be an insult. It was meant, as a lesson in truths. For someone isolated, it takes more to become knowledgeable on a subject apart from them - the same way I, having not been brought up in Chinese culture, had to learn to understand it through exposure. 1 week didn't do it. With art, you are dealing with the past. The past is like a foreign culture, you need to become absorbed in it to understand how it works - you do this by reading, looking at works, listening to the music of time, viewing the fashion, the thought - basically the world of the past. It is not something done in a week.

[BienvenuJDC]

oh...sorry...I didn't know that JBI still had to go some more...

...just don't spray that upwind...'k?

[JBI]

oh...sorry...I didn't know that JBI still had to go some more...

...just don't spray that upwind...'k?

If you have nothing to add, at least don't be repetitive. You aren't joining in the discussion, so I see no need for you to comment on it. If it is over already, and of such little interest to you, feel free to not read it. If, as I suspect, it is interesting to you, then at least have the decency to add something beyond your nonsense if urination, or at least keep your mouth closed.

[qimissung]

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic or inflammatory posts will be removed without further reminder.

[JBI]

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic or inflammatory posts will be removed without further reminder.

Sorry for not responding to your PM, I meant to say no offense taken, and no need to apologize. The PM system does not work for me on these new boards, and the mobile version is completely broken.

[qimissung]

Thanks you, JBI. Also, this warning is not intended for you necessarily, but for the rather acrimonious tone of the thread at this point.

[Calidore]

Authority <> snobbery, as confidence <> arrogance
Authority = confidence = strength
Snobbery = arrogance = weakness

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Pedantry at its finest.

Still, the issue here isn't that JBI did or didn't correctly spell a word, it's that Summer has no substantive points to make, and resorts to such petty nitpicking. Though JBI isn't helping by indulging his trolling, but I understand his urge to since HE MADE NO SPELLING MISTAKE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Now, I shall return to StLukes's rectum . . . he had chili last night, but I still prefer it over Summer's company.

[mal4mac]

Everyone who is confident is a little bit snobby...

Does anyone of significance call Confucious, Lao Tzu, or the Dalai Lama snobby?

[JBI]

Does anyone of significance call Confucious, Lao Tzu, or the Dalai Lama snobby?

I will answer the first two. Confucius has a line in the Analects, that reads 不耻下问. The meaning is essentially, do not feel ashamed to learn from those beneath you. You can tell from the turn of phrase that there is an inherent top and bottom within the hierarchy, the same way Confucius thinks himself more knowledgeable because of his age, and gender. Education, especially private education, was perpetuated by the school of Confucius. His first real detractor, 墨子 Mozi, criticized him for his emphasis on elaborate funerals and rites that were beyond the reach of the poor, likewise he was also criticized by the same school for his emphasis on music, which, if we believe what history tells us, was more or less left for the rich. Even the book of poems, which probably had nothing to do with Confucius is loaded with an over emphasis on a sort of upper-classism.

As for Laozi, first we are going to assume the figure exists, even though I do not believe he is one figure. That aside there is still much affirmation in his argumentation - the use of the word "sage" (圣人) is particular, it is an interesting word, especially from an etymological perspective. But even so, I concede Laozi is really to elliptical a text to talk of its "author" as anything. There is a reason it is called Xuanxue, study of mysteries (darkness). Basically everything we understand from the book comes from the work of Wang Bi, who interpreted it for us. Certainly the interpreters, however, were highly snobby.

Zhuangzi, perhaps the next great interpreter, most definitely would be considered a sort of snob. That is what makes the text so much fun, how he uses word play to play with arguments. But here we are dealing with a Chu sage who uses a vibrant position of the self which is altogether absent from Laozi - Laozi has little of a self in it, therefore it is hard to call it "snobby". It has no "one", as in Everyone - it is as if it is without an author, grammatically and figuratively. This is coming from someone who has much of it memorized.

As for the Dalai Lama, I will reserve judgment as contemporary politics are not allowed, but I will say my assessment of the Hollywood celebrity would not be favorable.

[mal4mac]

I will answer the first two. Confucius has a line in the Analects, that reads 不耻下问. The meaning is essentially, do not feel ashamed to learn from those beneath you. You can tell from the turn of phrase that there is an inherent top and bottom within the hierarchy, the same way Confucius thinks himself more knowledgeable because of his age, and gender.


I don't see this as snobbish. To be a true snob, you have to despise those "beneath" you. Didn't Confucious apply the Golden Rule? Isn't that a rule a snob would never use?

[cacian]

Hi JBI

I will answer the first two. Confucius has a line in the Analects, that reads 不耻下问. The meaning is essentially, do not feel ashamed to learn from those beneath you. You can tell from the turn of phrase that there is an inherent top and bottom within the hierarchy, the same way Confucius thinks himself more knowledgeable because of his age, and gender. Education, especially private education, was perpetuated by the school of Confucius. His first real detractor, 墨子 Mozi, criticized him for his emphasis on elaborate funerals and rites that were beyond the reach of the poor, likewise he was also criticized by the same school for his emphasis on music, which, if we believe what history tells us, was more or less left for the rich. Even the book of poems, which probably had nothing to do with Confucius is loaded with an over emphasis on a sort of upper-classism.

Let me explain it my way.
I could not help but notice the word shame and beneath you. The other I have underlined because I think they need to be.
First of all there is never a shame about anything least or not least learning. Stigmatising learning with shame is going about it the wrong way and leads to nothing.
Secondly there is no hierarchy regardless of age colour or shape even less so gender in learning.
Hierarchy is a noting indented by those wishing to control others whom they consider to be above them never beneath them.
They will not admit to you and so indent a superpower a class system where by they divide and rule. The more controlling they are more and the more ignorant they become. Power is blinding.
Schools of this or that only inhibit ideas and make them secular. What one calls one school means nothing to another make no mistake. Ignorance is because of divisions and a feeling of superiority on the ground of elaborative propabilities based on a book and a map. It is entirely surpeficial to think age is wisdom and learning is part of it.
There is no system and no beliefs in learning what there is is wanting to learn choice and thinking processes.
So to recap I wish not to learn form those who they are above or underneath me because there are none up underneath in between standing in front or behind. There is me and then there is them and then there is intellect and intelligence.
Just because he thinks he can spell does not mean I am going to read it.


I don't see this as snobbish. To be a true snob, you have to despise those "beneath" you. Didn't Confucious apply the Golden Rule? Isn't that a rule a snob would never use?

The question is who is next above Confucious himself? because in the scheme of any system there is always one above you if one wish to go about this way.
Just because one is above another it does not mean it stops there. The sky's the limit.

[YesNo]

If you would like to see my authority, well it is simple, read my posts and judge for yourself.

That is the problem, JBI. I have read your posts. I see you telling me you have authority, but you do not show it.

For example, the exchange you had with Drkshadow03 in the recent Harry Potter thread where you had a chance to actually show some authority, you lost. Drkshadow03 didn't need to tell anybody he was competent. He showed it.

That is the kind of authority that counts.

[Gerard Quain]

where would mankind be without snobbery, labels, and steriotypes , I mean it is what gives us reason to challenge, and to argue, we all need something to rail against , it is what gives life meaning

[JBI]

Hi JBI


Let me explain it my way.
I could not help but notice the word shame and beneath you. The other I have underlined because I think they need to be.
First of all there is never a shame about anything least or not least learning. Stigmatising learning with shame is going about it the wrong way and leads to nothing.
Secondly there is no hierarchy regardless of age colour or shape even less so gender in learning.
Hierarchy is a noting indented by those wishing to control others whom they consider to be above them never beneath them.
They will not admit to you and so indent a superpower a class system where by they divide and rule. The more controlling they are more and the more ignorant they become. Power is blinding.
Schools of this or that only inhibit ideas and make them secular. What one calls one school means nothing to another make no mistake. Ignorance is because of divisions and a feeling of superiority on the ground of elaborative propabilities based on a book and a map. It is entirely surpeficial to think age is wisdom and learning is part of it.
There is no system and no beliefs in learning what there is is wanting to learn choice and thinking processes.
So to recap I wish not to learn form those who they are above or underneath me because there are none up underneath in between standing in front or behind. There is me and then there is them and then there is intellect and intelligence.
Just because he thinks he can spell does not mean I am going to read it.

The problem with Confucian doctrine is it always has an idea of ideal, and emphasizes it. There is a correct form of conduct, and those who do not follow it, are at the bottom, there is an inherent sense of top and bottom (生而知者，上也，学而知者，次也，困而学者，又次也，困而不学，人斯为下矣）。 Those who are born knowing are on the top, those who study and learn are the second tier, those who have difficulty and study are on the next level, and those who have difficulty and do not study are forever on the bottom. There is a clear sense of cultural superiority, the whole term 君子，or gentleman, enlightened one, is one who follows the code of Confucius. Of course this can be read as a snobbish doctrine. The Tang prose master and Confucian scholar 韩愈, Han Yu, believed that there was a tier that aught never to be taught, as they were not worthy (a rule held until the collapse of Imperial China, yet is still felt today). The idea of Women not being worthy is reinforced by Confucius never having a female student.

Now, he advocates the golden rule in modified form - Do not do unto others and you do not want done to yourself. Don't rape their wives or kill their fathers, is basically the message - let them starve and suffer is another thing. It's not the same as the golden rule of Do unto others and you would have done unto yourself. Regardless of the dismissal, Confucius still has inherent sense of his own rightness in his mind. He still has a class system ingrained, he still emphasizes the need for material wealth for cultivation.

Basically Confucian education has always favored the rich, always favored an aristocratic, paternal system, and always reinforced the power of authority. Mencius cemented these early developments, in the most elegant sophist writing the Chinese canon has.

To be a snob you do not have to despise those beneath you, you only need to be somewhat dismissing in the sense of their authority. For Confucius, this means, you need to listen to them, but know you are on top of them, and that though you may learn from them, you are doing it only for your own interests. He is a flawed theorists in that he is like Cicero, playing political games. He believes deeply in the religious authority, and the hierarchy based on birth (the same hierarchy that lead to mass funerals and human burial, though he came to suggest we substitute terracotta with live humans).

Much of the Maoist eras criticism of the Confucian tradition was well-founded. It is an elitist doctrine that places birth, wealth, and power at the top. The goal of the ruler is not to be elected, but to maintain his position of power - his divine right.


That is the problem, JBI. I have read your posts. I see you telling me you have authority, but you do not show it.

For example, the exchange you had with Drkshadow03 in the recent Harry Potter thread where you had a chance to actually show some authority, you lost. Drkshadow03 didn't need to tell anybody he was competent. He showed it.

That is the kind of authority that counts.
Perhaps, but I am no "authority" on Potter, having not even read the 7th book. I was interpreting and debating based on an understanding, and I am sure Drkshadow harbors no ill thoughts about the exchange, as he and I have been having the same argument for years already.

Perhaps you must realize that your authority is perhaps questionable - I at least gave examples. Quit calling the kettle black, especially when, this time you mention, I did not claim myself an authority. My remark was simple, judge for yourself. I assume you commenting here makes you a JBI expert? Are you an expert on my posts? Do you know what I talk about? I beat you to the boards by 3 and a 1/2 years. I will admit, my earliest posts are rather shameful. However, there is more to me than a silly debate about Potter, as anybody who has read my posts can attest.

I need not defend myself to somebody who, as far as I am concerned, has never substantiated any real claims made. You dismiss me, but you do not back it up. I call into your question on the subject of JBI that allows you to dismiss me.

[Alexander III]

The problem with Confucian doctrine is it always has an idea of ideal, and emphasizes it. There is a correct form of conduct, and those who do not follow it, are at the bottom, there is an inherent sense of top and bottom (生而知者，上也，学而知者，次也，困而学者，又次也，困而不学，人斯为下矣）。 Those who are born knowing are on the top, those who study and learn are the second tier, those who have difficulty and study are on the next level, and those who have difficulty and do not study are forever on the bottom. There is a clear sense of cultural superiority, the whole term 君子，or gentleman, enlightened one, is one who follows the code of Confucius. Of course this can be read as a snobbish doctrine. The Tang prose master and Confucian scholar 韩愈, Han Yu, believed that there was a tier that aught never to be taught, as they were not worthy (a rule held until the collapse of Imperial China, yet is still felt today). The idea of Women not being worthy is reinforced by Confucius never having a female student.

Now, he advocates the golden rule in modified form - Do not do unto others and you do not want done to yourself. Don't rape their wives or kill their fathers, is basically the message - let them starve and suffer is another thing. It's not the same as the golden rule of Do unto others and you would have done unto yourself. Regardless of the dismissal, Confucius still has inherent sense of his own rightness in his mind. He still has a class system ingrained, he still emphasizes the need for material wealth for cultivation.

Basically Confucian education has always favored the rich, always favored an aristocratic, paternal system, and always reinforced the power of authority. Mencius cemented these early developments, in the most elegant sophist writing the Chinese canon has.

To be a snob you do not have to despise those beneath you, you only need to be somewhat dismissing in the sense of their authority. For Confucius, this means, you need to listen to them, but know you are on top of them, and that though you may learn from them, you are doing it only for your own interests. He is a flawed theorists in that he is like Cicero, playing political games. He believes deeply in the religious authority, and the hierarchy based on birth (the same hierarchy that lead to mass funerals and human burial, though he came to suggest we substitute terracotta with live humans).

Much of the Maoist eras criticism of the Confucian tradition was well-founded. It is an elitist doctrine that places birth, wealth, and power at the top. The goal of the ruler is not to be elected, but to maintain his position of power - his divine right.

My God! An aristocrat had an aristocratic bias?!?! What next, Blacks taking pride in the achievements of other blacks? Housewives extolling and praising the importance of a Housewife? Canadians having an anti-american bias? God forbid, but I secretly suspect that Muslims and Christians might just have a positive bias towards other who profess their same religion.

[rait56]

right emil.....but somethink have problem with snoberry....u know?

[mal4mac]

where would mankind be without snobbery, labels, and steriotypes , I mean it is what gives us reason to challenge, and to argue, we all need something to rail against , it is what gives life meaning

Perhaps mankind would be in a much better state! There is plenty to challenge and argue about without bringing snobbery into play. Railing is a bit hot-headed for me, but, if you must, you can easily rail against many things without being a snob, or accusing someone of snobbery.


There is a clear sense of cultural superiority, the whole term 君子，or gentleman, enlightened one, is one who follows the code of Confucius. Of course this can be read as a snobbish doctrine.

Not if the doctrine is anti-snob, take Analects 12:2 (Waley translation), for example:

"Behave away from home as though you were in the presence of an important guest. Deal with the common people as though you were officiating at an important sacrifice. Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no feelings of opposition to you, whether is the affairs of a State you are handling or the affairs of the family."




Now, he advocates the golden rule in modified form - Do not do unto others and you do not want done to yourself. Don't rape their wives or kill their fathers, is basically the message - let them starve and suffer is another thing.



I don't see this - it's not what A12:2 is saying, if the Waley translation is to be trusted.



... he still emphasizes the need for material wealth for cultivation.


How is this snobbish?




To be a snob you do not have to despise those beneath you, you only need to be somewhat dismissing in the sense of their authority.


Well according to my dictionary (concise OED), and my experience in the UK, "despising those beneath you" is the defining characteristic of a snob. You seem to be mistaking a snob for an expert, of course an expert doctor can dismiss a patient's self diagnosis (if it's obviously flawed) but he's only a snob if he treats the patient as fundamentally inferior to himself. Maybe you have a "lighter" definition of a snob in your part of the world... in the UK "full on" snobbishness has been a really sore point since 1066 (or earlier...)


Much of the Maoist eras criticism of the Confucian tradition was well-founded. It is an elitist doctrine that places birth, wealth, and power at the top. The goal of the ruler is not to be elected, but to maintain his position of power - his divine right.

In the tradition maybe, but can you say that about the key figure? There have certainly been many snobs in the Christian tradition, but would you say Jesus was a snob?

[kelby_lake]

For me, a snob is somebody who rationalises their ignorance on a subject by implying that it is not worth learning about.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That is the problem, JBI. I have read your posts. I see you telling me you have authority, but you do not show it.

For example, the exchange you had with Drkshadow03 in the recent Harry Potter thread where you had a chance to actually show some authority, you lost. Drkshadow03 didn't need to tell anybody he was competent. He showed it.

That is the kind of authority that counts.

Oh please. I don't care if you disagree with JBI or not (and I often do), but it's pretty clear he had displayed a vast knowledge of literature over the years. (I guess I'm up JBI's rectum now. Who'd of ever thought that'd happen?)

[JBI]

My God! An aristocrat had an aristocratic bias?!?! What next, Blacks taking pride in the achievements of other blacks? Housewives extolling and praising the importance of a Housewife? Canadians having an anti-american bias? God forbid, but I secretly suspect that Muslims and Christians might just have a positive bias towards other who profess their same religion.

Well, it is not unheard of, but the problem is Confucius is still the big propaganda machine behind "Chinese cultural" propaganda. If you are a politician here, chances are you had the Analects memorized at one point (they are tested on it). Then again, if you are a politician here of any standing, your father was too.

Someone asked me how the tradition of Confucius could be understood in terms of snobbery. As for Islam, it is far more humble than Confucianism, which says nothing of charity or hospitality. The same could be said of Christianity. Then again, the thought is far more advanced. Generally we think of Confucius as an early thinker, who has been oudated, the same way we do not hold Plato as the supreme of morality, though an influential thinker.

That being said, Confucius is still held up as a god here. Politics are unyielding, and most textbooks are revisionist, with only his good quotes put in there.

Confucius was a lowly aristocrat keep in mind, whose 13 year old mother was probably 60-odd years younger than his father. None of that is wrong in Confucianism - the only thing that is wrong is not burying the father properly.

People asked me to comment on the subject so I did, of course I realize we are dealing with a figure 2500 years in the ground.

[Paulclem]

I don't equate snobbery in academia with knowledge or skill in a subject. There are ignorent and informed snobs. I see snobbery as a character failing, as something to do with pride in academia and something to do with egotism over ones social position when not. Snobbery is ugly and is at odds with modesty and reasonableness. It also seems to be self defeating in that you might admire a person for their academic achievements, but this is tainteed by their character flaw.

I think the term is used unfairly on these boards to describe some who are probably nice people who like a thumping good argument. And yay to that.

Apologies for any misspellings - seeing as it's become a sensitive issue - I'm posting on my phone with sausage fingers.

[YesNo]

Perhaps you must realize that your authority is perhaps questionable

This looks like a cultural difference between us.

I have no authority, nor do I want any. You seem to want more authority than it is reasonable to grant you.

For what it's worth, it is also possible for one's authority to go negative, or for one's reputation to become negative. When that occurs anything the person writes, no matter how accurate, is dismissed even before it is read. To avoid such things from happening, courtesy rather than alienation is required.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

How is it a cultural difference?

[stlukesguild]

Snobbery you have clearly mastered. A working understanding of Irony, not so much...

Sometimes Alex you are the master of the one-liner.:lol:

[Delta40]

For me a snob is someone who, becoming an expert in their field becomes complacent and therefore is no longer open minded to the views of others.

[stlukesguild]

For me a snob is someone who, becoming an expert in their field becomes complacent and therefore is no longer open minded to the views of others.

That may be a form of snobbery... but what some here seem to be suggesting is snobbish is an individual with a great deal of experience and knowledge in a given field dismissing less-than-credible claims by others with little experience/knowledge in the same field.

[mal4mac]

... but what some here seem to be suggesting is snobbish is an individual with a great deal of experience and knowledge in a given field dismissing less-than-credible claims by others with little experience/knowledge in the same field.

"Some here" are quite right. Less-than-credible claims are credible to those who make them. To just dismiss them is an act of an arrogant snob. If a specialist says you have lung cancer, and you say, "My Aunt Madge had similar pains and it was just a cold, I'll just take an aspirin and not bother with the chemo...", then the doctor should carefully argue your good self into a higher level of understanding, with full compassion, surely; not just dismiss you with an arrogant comment: "I'm the doctor, you're an idiot, take the chemo, or leave it".

[YesNo]

How is it a cultural difference?

I think it is cultural because it seems like habitual behavior that has been developed over time in an environment that supported it.

In my case, claiming that I neither have nor want authority is a position of strength. It means that I am emotionally in a position where I have nothing to lose, nor am I positioning myself as a threat to anyone else. I think that is a habit I developed as a child.

Come to think of it, that might be worth studying as much as snobbishness. Does this behavior trait exist in academia to paraphrase the OP? Although I am not an academic, my memory recalls professors who seemed to have these same habits.

If you think about it, on forums such as this where we are all more or less anonymous, who really cares about authority? We might as well learn from each other and enjoy each others' uniqueness.

[Psycheinaboat]

My most snobbish or elitist professors often seemed the most insecure or vulnerable when scrutinized. It was as if they sought the positions they had for validation and resented being questioned.

A couple who truly seemed brilliant and were well published sometimes came across as snobbish, I think, simply because they were so used to being perceived as knowledgeable. They spoke as if they expected to be listened to and found correct. They did not seem as shaky and vulnerable as the others.

I am now considering grad school and I've been told the professors I encounter will seem more on my side.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

"Some here" are quite right. Less-than-credible claims are credible to those who make them.

Your point being?


To just dismiss them is an act of an arrogant snob. If a specialist says you have lung cancer, and you say, "My Aunt Madge had similar pains and it was just a cold, I'll just take an aspirin and not bother with the chemo...", then the doctor should carefully argue your good self into a higher level of understanding, with full compassion, surely; not just dismiss you with an arrogant comment: "I'm the doctor, you're an idiot, take the chemo, or leave it".

Not many have been doing that, and stlukes less than anybody. No one gives more elaborate, thought out answers to even the most ignorant of questions/comments.


I think it is cultural because it seems like habitual behavior that has been developed over time in an environment that supported it.

What environment would that be, though? An academic environment?


In my case, claiming that I neither have nor want authority is a position of strength. It means that I am emotionally in a position where I have nothing to lose, nor am I positioning myself as a threat to anyone else. I think that is a habit I developed as a child.

It sounds more like you don't claim any authority so you can constantly have an excuse when you say something completely inaccurate, not to mention being able to avoid any accountability.




If you think about it, on forums such as this where we are all more or less anonymous, who really cares about authority? We might as well learn from each other and enjoy each others' uniqueness.

Personally, I like to know why someone thinks they know what they're talking about. It's why I value some members' opinions way over others. When I ask for reccomendations on poetry, I'm going to listen to stlukes, DrkShadow, and JBI because they've established through the years a strong knowledge base. If I want to know what the best translation is for something, I'll listen to the person who's studied that field--I'll listen to Lok if asking about a translation for a medieval text before anyone else, for example.

[mal4mac]

Not many have been doing that, and stlukes less than anybody. No one gives more elaborate, thought out answers to even the most ignorant of questions/comments.


Well he did use the word "dismiss", which is sailing a bit close to snob land. But I wouldn't accuse him of being an out-and-out snob.

You are also in danger of appearing snobbish here - a question/comment does not seem ignorant to the person making it.

You can't accuse them of ignorance, that is snobbish. If a small child insists that 7*7 is 56, you don't (I hope) accuse them of ignorance and drill them in the times table 'til their ears bleed, but patiently explain to them just why it is 49. If they still insist, after your best efforts, that it is 56, then better turn to a bedtime story... accusations of ignorance get people nowhere, it is a tactic of snobs...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Oh please. You're advocating a completely PC world here because telling someone they're wrong would be snobbish? I hate to break it to you but people are dumb, ignorant, prejudiced, and any number of pejorative adjectives one can think of. Are you seriously telling me that when someone says something stupid/racist/all-around-appalling, they shouldn't be called on it because they think it's true, and it might hurt their feelings? Man, I hope you're just being sarcastic.

And, no, I'm not advocating calling young children ignorant (kind of a loaded example don't you think). Sometimes there's just no other way to put it to someone other than "you're wrong."

[kelby_lake]

Having knowledge is not in itself snobbish, just as having talent is not in itself arrogant. If that was the case, we wouldn't get anywhere.

Snobs cannot admit their lack of knowledge in certain areas because they like to present themselves as somebody who knows everything. Of course, people will think that their knowledge is worthy but they will also admit that there are equally worthy areas that they know nothing about.

[Delta40]

So despite how knowledgable we are, should our beliefs always remain like a fragile house of cards, ready to collapse at the smallest breeze?