01-04-2012, 08:44 AM
Mark,
I do not think personal taste should be constrained. I also do not think that a few should dictate to the many. However there is also a universality to art that survives the test of time, but we are not talking just of aesthetics, per se, we are looking at cultural influences on aesthetics, as this is the topic that Ed introduced.
However it also impacts your question as Hank Williams did not arise in a cultural vacuum, and was embraced by one side, while being rejected another, both of which had to do with ideology, and little to do with aesthetics. I will try and briefly outline the cultural background against and within which both Ed's and your experiences arise, and why it is so difficult to grasp an answer.
Modernism, and an understanding of what it is, is important because it was the last mass cultural movement. It is also important to understand what motivated the people who were a part of it, as that motivation speaks to the ideology of the movement, as well as what they were rebelling against. It is important to understand that even though they are philosophically the antithesis of the conservative Christian movement in America, they were actually rebelling against the various schools of thought that had dominated Europe and England for the past century, although to some extent, in America we can trace back some of the roots of what is called liberalism to the Modernist movement, however the conservative Christian that gave rise to conservatism did not originate from the same source and ideology as that which Modernism was a rebellion against, although as time has passed that distinction has for the most part become moot. In time, however, there were clashes between these two groups; one of the most notable is the Scopes trial (Two films that explore this clash from different angles and from different time periods are "The Adventures of Baron Von Munchhausen" and "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". Munchhausen dramatizes the death of Romanticism by the Modernist, and Rocky Horror dramatizes the clash between the morality of religion and the new morality of Modernism.).
In poetry it was the later Romantic movement that the Imagist were rebelling against, in art it was less a rebellion and more of an outgrowth of impressionism. Cubism took the emphasis on light in impressionism to a more (as they saw it) fundamental level, taking the idea of light refraction and turning it into fundamental shapes. In politics it was a rebellion against capitalism, and the rise of Marxism, then later socialism. It was Darwinism’s rebellion against the Christian idea of creation, which in fact was just the latest stage of an ongoing struggle between science’s and religion's turf war in the area of the formation of the Earth and man. It was a movement away from a philosophy of facts and things, such as Kant dealt with in his "Critique of Practical Reason", and "Critique of Reason", to a philosophy where "forces" not "things" becomes the focus, such as the writings of Nietzsche, and from these philosophical underpinnings arose the idea of relational ethics, as opposed to the absolute ethics of Kant. It was a movement away from the religious into the secular (although this was a trend that had be happening since the Renaissance). It was a movement in values from absolutes to the relatives, a large portion of which was brought about by a paradigm shift in science brought about by Einstein’s theories and the formation and introduction of Quantum Mechanics. There was also the impact of the industrial revolution that saw more people living in towns and cities, a mass migration from rural to urban living. It was a movement away from nature and towards technology. Because of the advances in the printing press, as well as the advent of artificial light, the common person now had access to books, and was no longer constrained to follow the rising and setting of the sun. The transition brought with it a haughty disdain for the bucolic, and the values and morality that were part of it. It was a transition from hayseed to sophisticate, for the first times in history common man could take on the airs that had been reserved for royalty in the past. It was rebellion against the straitlaced clothes and morals of the Victorian Era. The one difference between Modernism and past cultural movements, is Modernism offered itself up as a secular replacement for religion. After all, was God not dead?
“Gabriel Vahanian, a professor of theology at Syracuse University, wrote in The Death of God (1961) that the "essentially mythological world view of Christianity has been succeeded by a scientific view of reality".”
Thus Modernism became the new religion, and it has been a pitched battle ever since. So to respond to Ed’s question I think one has some understanding of the context from which his experioence arises, and that includes some understanding of the Modernist movement and the impact it has had on society in general, and in individual’s specific beliefs.
How does this affect our discussion? As I noted in another thread, Modernism, specifically the schools of literary criticism that arose from it, have operated from the idea that they can use their particular ideology as a moral code by which to judge what is and what is not art.
"I believe it is an important distinction, one that was blurred in the last century do to such school's of literary criticism as Marxism, Darwinism, Feminism, and other's of the same type. I believe that confusion in terms of poetical criticism is still operative today. These schools had a ready made ideology they brought to the table against which to measure the poem, and discover if it matched those expectations. So they determined if the poem was good or bad in relation to the ideology specific ethics they brought to the table."
As I have said before, I do not like the bullying of the Modernist anymore than I do that of the Religionist. To my mind, art, regardless of it's form, has intrinsic worth, and the better the art the more people there are that can apprehend it. They may not be able to define what it is, but they know they are moved and awed by it. This type of art rises above the self imposed boundaries so that it has what is called a universal appeal. I do not know what that is or how to describe it, however, I do know it has nothing to do with the pronouncements of the ideologues.
Dale
I do not think personal taste should be constrained. I also do not think that a few should dictate to the many. However there is also a universality to art that survives the test of time, but we are not talking just of aesthetics, per se, we are looking at cultural influences on aesthetics, as this is the topic that Ed introduced.
However it also impacts your question as Hank Williams did not arise in a cultural vacuum, and was embraced by one side, while being rejected another, both of which had to do with ideology, and little to do with aesthetics. I will try and briefly outline the cultural background against and within which both Ed's and your experiences arise, and why it is so difficult to grasp an answer.
Modernism, and an understanding of what it is, is important because it was the last mass cultural movement. It is also important to understand what motivated the people who were a part of it, as that motivation speaks to the ideology of the movement, as well as what they were rebelling against. It is important to understand that even though they are philosophically the antithesis of the conservative Christian movement in America, they were actually rebelling against the various schools of thought that had dominated Europe and England for the past century, although to some extent, in America we can trace back some of the roots of what is called liberalism to the Modernist movement, however the conservative Christian that gave rise to conservatism did not originate from the same source and ideology as that which Modernism was a rebellion against, although as time has passed that distinction has for the most part become moot. In time, however, there were clashes between these two groups; one of the most notable is the Scopes trial (Two films that explore this clash from different angles and from different time periods are "The Adventures of Baron Von Munchhausen" and "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". Munchhausen dramatizes the death of Romanticism by the Modernist, and Rocky Horror dramatizes the clash between the morality of religion and the new morality of Modernism.).
In poetry it was the later Romantic movement that the Imagist were rebelling against, in art it was less a rebellion and more of an outgrowth of impressionism. Cubism took the emphasis on light in impressionism to a more (as they saw it) fundamental level, taking the idea of light refraction and turning it into fundamental shapes. In politics it was a rebellion against capitalism, and the rise of Marxism, then later socialism. It was Darwinism’s rebellion against the Christian idea of creation, which in fact was just the latest stage of an ongoing struggle between science’s and religion's turf war in the area of the formation of the Earth and man. It was a movement away from a philosophy of facts and things, such as Kant dealt with in his "Critique of Practical Reason", and "Critique of Reason", to a philosophy where "forces" not "things" becomes the focus, such as the writings of Nietzsche, and from these philosophical underpinnings arose the idea of relational ethics, as opposed to the absolute ethics of Kant. It was a movement away from the religious into the secular (although this was a trend that had be happening since the Renaissance). It was a movement in values from absolutes to the relatives, a large portion of which was brought about by a paradigm shift in science brought about by Einstein’s theories and the formation and introduction of Quantum Mechanics. There was also the impact of the industrial revolution that saw more people living in towns and cities, a mass migration from rural to urban living. It was a movement away from nature and towards technology. Because of the advances in the printing press, as well as the advent of artificial light, the common person now had access to books, and was no longer constrained to follow the rising and setting of the sun. The transition brought with it a haughty disdain for the bucolic, and the values and morality that were part of it. It was a transition from hayseed to sophisticate, for the first times in history common man could take on the airs that had been reserved for royalty in the past. It was rebellion against the straitlaced clothes and morals of the Victorian Era. The one difference between Modernism and past cultural movements, is Modernism offered itself up as a secular replacement for religion. After all, was God not dead?
“Gabriel Vahanian, a professor of theology at Syracuse University, wrote in The Death of God (1961) that the "essentially mythological world view of Christianity has been succeeded by a scientific view of reality".”
Thus Modernism became the new religion, and it has been a pitched battle ever since. So to respond to Ed’s question I think one has some understanding of the context from which his experioence arises, and that includes some understanding of the Modernist movement and the impact it has had on society in general, and in individual’s specific beliefs.
How does this affect our discussion? As I noted in another thread, Modernism, specifically the schools of literary criticism that arose from it, have operated from the idea that they can use their particular ideology as a moral code by which to judge what is and what is not art.
"I believe it is an important distinction, one that was blurred in the last century do to such school's of literary criticism as Marxism, Darwinism, Feminism, and other's of the same type. I believe that confusion in terms of poetical criticism is still operative today. These schools had a ready made ideology they brought to the table against which to measure the poem, and discover if it matched those expectations. So they determined if the poem was good or bad in relation to the ideology specific ethics they brought to the table."
As I have said before, I do not like the bullying of the Modernist anymore than I do that of the Religionist. To my mind, art, regardless of it's form, has intrinsic worth, and the better the art the more people there are that can apprehend it. They may not be able to define what it is, but they know they are moved and awed by it. This type of art rises above the self imposed boundaries so that it has what is called a universal appeal. I do not know what that is or how to describe it, however, I do know it has nothing to do with the pronouncements of the ideologues.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.