> Generally, we don't, and the result is an America that is hypercommercialized and ugly, with very few cultural achievements
I've seen this viewpoint before, but it doesn't seem right at all - people drastically underestimate how amazing some of the America's cultural achievements are in a very short time.
The United States has got a pretty impressive literature tradition in less than 250 years. It doesn't stack up with, say, England's, but they've had a lot longer to build theirs... Our industrial design is out of the-world-good, one of the best of all time. Movies, of course. I'm not sure, but the best video games might wind up being studied and looked at as high art later - not sure which, I get the feeling the Planescape: Torment is incredibly high art, very philosophically deep and makes you think on some really interesting questions but who knows if that'll stick around, and who knows what else will.
Comic books and graphic novels have been criminally underrated as art until very recently, and I didn't even like comics that much as a kid. I only got into it when a friend of mine gave me some Frank Miller stuff, and I don't like all of it, but the good stuff is pretty amazing.
We've had some pretty amazing cartoons, animation, and amazing drawing and rendering in those mediums, ranging from Walt Disney's time to Pixar and so on. I'm in China right now and I was watching some Mickey Mouse dubbed into Chinese, and it's amazing how accessible it was. There was one cartoon with Daffy Duck going hunting and they analogized it to the trench warfare in WWI - amazing how it mixes deep themes about violence, animals, the barbaric nature of man trying to conquer and get trophies with some comic humor and pretty scenery that keeps kids interested. I don't even agree with that particular cartoon's political stance, but it's impressive that the visuals alone could tell a rather complete story without me understanding the language.
By the way, on a personal note, do you mind if I ask if you're an American? I see lots of comments on American culture from you, and I can't tell if you're from the States or Europe or elsewhere. I'm an American myself, grew up on the East Coast and in the middle of the country, have since lived, worked, and/or traveled through 30-40 countries or so.
I know some Europeans pooh-pooh American culture because we don't have as much classical high art in painting, etc, as Europeans do. But damn man, it's been 250 years, we've done some bloody marvelous things in that time. And I'm not even talking about talking about the technology necessarily - American movies, literature, animation in both cartoons and feature films, American architecture, American design and industrial design, American innovations in music... America's done some cool stuff in not very long. It's currently considered "pop culture", but all high art starts out that way. Some of the most celebrated European artists were lambasted or ignored for deviating from the classical Academy style of painting. From England, The Beatles were considered pop culture, and are now evolving to be considered high art.
Likewise, if you like at the IMDB Top 250[1], I'd bet many of those films are studied and debated and talked about for quite a long time, and the bulk of them are American.
I'm American, and I agree that I'm being a bit unfair. We have had some cultural successes, but (in my opinion) fewer than I would have hoped, given our resources and ability.
The problem is that nearly everything that is produced has to be filtered through large corporations; in most of these, major decisions are often made by filthy, uncultured pig-like creatures who hate creativity (even though they'll say they're all about "innovation") and defile everything they touch. There are glowing exceptions to this rule, but they're rare. The next-quarter mentality is killing refinement.
In the US, to be creative requires that you fight against the larger society, and succeed in spite of it rather than with its assistance. Our artistic successes exist because we have a large population and (for other reasons) draw ambitious people from all over the world, but for us to truly fledge (and I believe we can; we have an incredible number of talented people within our borders) we'd have to move to a different socioeconomic model than the corporate-dominated mess we have now, in which parasites who don't actually do anything have almost all of the power, and the truly creative are almost always treated as pawns.
Not necessarily. Even though average people are generally not creative themselves, you can have a social arrangement where such people respect and admire creativity.
Jesus, people, please stop downvoting. I disagree a bit with pw0n's basic philosophy, but he put some time into his comment. Discuss, debate, and look to clarify instead of just flicking the arrow. I mean, hell, I asked him to respond and he did and clarified what he thought.
That said...
> The problem is that nearly everything that is produced has to be filtered through large corporations; in most of these, major decisions are often made by filthy, uncultured pig-like creatures who hate creativity
Hasn't this always been the way, everywhere? The high art of the Renaissance was mostly financed by the Medici, who were... well I wouldn't call them uncultured pig-like creatures, but they were definitely businessmen/statesmen/power-first, love-and-good-feelings second type people. Lots of such people finance art throughout history - the Catholic Church, for instance, has been pretty barbaric at various times, but also commissioned a lot of history's greatest art. The Tokugawa Shogunate financed much of the art from 1600 to 1850 in Japan, the various dynasties in China, and so on.
> we'd have to move to a different socioeconomic model than the corporate-dominated mess we have now, in which parasites who don't actually do anything have almost all of the power, and the truly creative are almost always treated as pawns.
Isn't the internet doing just that? I think more decentralization is the answer, with services like Amazon, Youtube, cheap hosting, etc. letting artists connect directly with people. I tend to think rule by large government is no better than rule by large corporation, and potentially much worse - the Soviet Union isn't exactly known for its beauty and high culture... but you know what, I'm often guilty of doing too much talking and not enough listening in discussions like this. How do you think we could stimulate the arts in the States?
I think the Internet is making a great deal of progress with regard to decentralization.
On the subordination of culture to commerce, it hasn't always been this way. In dynastic China, the social pecking order was this: scholars, farmers, artisans, then merchants. Although the merchant class had the most money, they were lowest on the totem pole. I'm not arguing that we should move to a caste system based on occupation, but I think it's important to note that societies haven't always allowed the rich to buy their way into elite spots.
What fails about American elitism is that it's post hoc elitism. Those who have wealth and power are presumed superior and allowed to get away with almost anything (white collar criminals get busted sometimes, but usually those turn out to have humble beginnings, and they're getting nailed in part because of all the rich people they caused to lose money).
For example, in our society, we take it on assumption that the nicest apartments will go to those with the most money, rather than the most cultured. Education is heading that way, as well-- sold to the highest bidder. This isn't right. Trashy celebrities and powermongers shouldn't be able to displace the natural leaders-- the ones chosen by God, genetics, and culture to make the major decisions-- or affect the lives of such people at all.
I agree that a large, powerful government can be as bad as rule by large corporations, but I think that, in general, corporate rule is worse. Corporations have a unique ability to give us the worst of both worlds between socialism and capitalism, and their ad hoc "because I say so" elitism (as opposed to elitism based on talent and culture) leads to mediocrity and worse-than-useless leadership.
I do think that government needs to take a stand on the issue of re-elevating the cultured and talented, but I don't think that a government needs to necessarily be massive or overbearing in order to do so.
A scholastic or religious or political elite isn't "chosen by God, genetics, and culture" either--it's chosen solely by culture, more precisely by whatever power system happens to exist in that culture. Most of the time, it's hereditary (so I guess genetics play a role). But there's no "talent and culture" involved in choosing that elite--they're a self-perpetuating parasitic class at best, which is why many countries had the whole lot of them killed.
In fact most elitists in effect define "high culture" as the culture consumed by the elite class. On a purely artistic and creative level, this is absolute horseshit--some of the best culture was historically created for and consumed by a mass audience. A vulgar, tasteless merchant elite will gladly subsidize that, but a snobby "high-culture" elite won't. Some of the greatest music produced in the West since the 20th century originated from American blacks. The "natural elite" gifted by "God, genetics, and culture" wasn't about to let "Negro music" be popularized or even adapted by white musicians, but even the racist corporate merchant elite realized people would pay money for jazz and rock-and-roll records.
And, in fact, when you talk about an elite that's "chosen by...genetics", you're talking about the functional equivalent to racism. It's possible to get into a vulgar merchant elite if you're clever and persistent no matter what, but a blue-blooded elite you have to be born into, just like a white-skinned elite.
By "genetics", I invoke the Rights of Talent. It's not hereditary and certainly not racial, since talented people appear at a highly (if not completely) uniform rate across all races and ethnicities.
Fact: the talented thinkers-- the people who can see the big picture, who are capable of philosophical thought, and who have a strong sense of morality and compassion-- belong on top of society. This is the Right of Talent. Control rightfully belongs to such people, and not the scumbag gangsters who rise to the top in a poorly-managed, entropy-driven system such as ours.
The hereditary elitism you describe is one where a parasitic elite uses the trappings of culture but ignores the spirit of culture. Hereditary aristocracy is a horrible system-- and what our supposed market society actually is in practice (large corporations and clubby boardrooms exist to ensure the absence of meritocracy).
What we need is a true "meritocracy" (I'm scared to use that word, seeing how badly it has been abused) where knowledge and thought determine who rises to power, rather than political and economic machinations.
All very interesting. How do you propose such an elite be selected? Keep in mind you need a natural process rather than any formal institution making these decisions, since the institution itself would simply become an elite.
The nice thing about a merchant elite is that they can arise through some sort of market system, with no one group or institution holding a monopoly on kingmaking. If you want to establish a philosopher elite you have to establish some sort of analog to that--and probably destroy the market in the process, especially if you're interested in allocating the nicer apartments to the philosopher elite.
(There is of course a political elite as well, which is partially chosen by political institutions and partially evolving through the democratic process. Perhaps the political system could establish a philosopher elite. How do you propose it do so? Democracy obviously won't work.)
Great points, and I have to admit that I don't have all the answers. I see where we need to go, but not necessarily the path there.
I think political democracy is necessary, but politics shouldn't be the core of society. We want a society that's politically democratic and has a mostly market-driven economy, but in which scholarship, creativity, and culture are revered above all. Right now, the salesmen and bean-counters dominate. I'm not saying that business leaders shouldn't have a place at the table-- the talented ones are very valuable-- but they shouldn't have control of all the seats. Right now, they (and, worse yet, their unproven and entitled progeny) do: they own our politicians and dictate our culture, and they control invitations to the parties and clubs (including, per our interest, venture capital) that are essential if you want to get anywhere in society (save a 1:100000 home-run success).
As for bringing society to a morally acceptable state, it's not easy. You have to change peoples' values on a fundamental level. In the US, people accept it as "natural" that the narcissistic social bullies belong on top and the smart people ("nerds") are to be beaten up, and that the social bullies are destined to be running large companies, and that this is somehow okay. It's not, and just as easily as we wound up in this anti-intellectual arrangement, we can work a way out of it and build a society that is the opposite. With the internet and rising importance of technology, there's no better time to do so.
I think your ideas are incoherent at best if you expect, f.ex., economic investment to be driven by some sort of elite class of philosopher-kings rather than the people who actually manage to earn that money in the market. Venture capital is a means to enter the higher echelons of the merchant class, and you want the merchant class to be disenfranchised therefrom?
I'd also like to point out that, to whatever extent these philosopher-kings exist, they already have some degree power to drive political policy, but this power is strictly limited by the vulgarity inherent in a democratic system. By which I mean obviously beneficial policies which the intellectual elite already agree on are often politically infeasible due to public opinion.
I don't know what, in concrete terms, you want this intellectual elite to be on top. It can't be in terms of political power or wealth, because by definition those are controlled by the very political and economic classes you'd like to leave to their own devices. And I don't know any other substantive way in which they can even be an elite--living in nicer apartments, as you mentioned earlier, is a prize hardly worth even mentioning.
Let me express it better: I think we need a mercantile and political infrastructure-- such "classes", if you will. However, I think the ultimate power should be held by a scholarly class, which should generally use it lightly so long as society remains in a morally acceptable state.
Right now, for example, if an entrepreneur makes a deal with a VC, the founders pay the VC's legal fees. This is a domination ritual designed to humiliate the founders, of a "lesser caste" than the business high priests. This is wrong. The founders, being the creative force, should be setting most of the terms. This world of the "Golden Rule"-- those with the gold make the rules-- needs to shot to pieces and rebuilt in another form, where those with talent and creativity make the rules.
Ultimately, power should be held only by a scholarly set of people who are aware of (and intellectually competent enough to defend against) power's inherent tendency toward abuse and evil.
I've seen this viewpoint before, but it doesn't seem right at all - people drastically underestimate how amazing some of the America's cultural achievements are in a very short time.
The United States has got a pretty impressive literature tradition in less than 250 years. It doesn't stack up with, say, England's, but they've had a lot longer to build theirs... Our industrial design is out of the-world-good, one of the best of all time. Movies, of course. I'm not sure, but the best video games might wind up being studied and looked at as high art later - not sure which, I get the feeling the Planescape: Torment is incredibly high art, very philosophically deep and makes you think on some really interesting questions but who knows if that'll stick around, and who knows what else will.
Comic books and graphic novels have been criminally underrated as art until very recently, and I didn't even like comics that much as a kid. I only got into it when a friend of mine gave me some Frank Miller stuff, and I don't like all of it, but the good stuff is pretty amazing.
We've had some pretty amazing cartoons, animation, and amazing drawing and rendering in those mediums, ranging from Walt Disney's time to Pixar and so on. I'm in China right now and I was watching some Mickey Mouse dubbed into Chinese, and it's amazing how accessible it was. There was one cartoon with Daffy Duck going hunting and they analogized it to the trench warfare in WWI - amazing how it mixes deep themes about violence, animals, the barbaric nature of man trying to conquer and get trophies with some comic humor and pretty scenery that keeps kids interested. I don't even agree with that particular cartoon's political stance, but it's impressive that the visuals alone could tell a rather complete story without me understanding the language.
By the way, on a personal note, do you mind if I ask if you're an American? I see lots of comments on American culture from you, and I can't tell if you're from the States or Europe or elsewhere. I'm an American myself, grew up on the East Coast and in the middle of the country, have since lived, worked, and/or traveled through 30-40 countries or so.
I know some Europeans pooh-pooh American culture because we don't have as much classical high art in painting, etc, as Europeans do. But damn man, it's been 250 years, we've done some bloody marvelous things in that time. And I'm not even talking about talking about the technology necessarily - American movies, literature, animation in both cartoons and feature films, American architecture, American design and industrial design, American innovations in music... America's done some cool stuff in not very long. It's currently considered "pop culture", but all high art starts out that way. Some of the most celebrated European artists were lambasted or ignored for deviating from the classical Academy style of painting. From England, The Beatles were considered pop culture, and are now evolving to be considered high art.
Likewise, if you like at the IMDB Top 250[1], I'd bet many of those films are studied and debated and talked about for quite a long time, and the bulk of them are American.
[1]http://www.imdb.com/chart/top