― Nutty Nigel (Nutty Nigel), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:03 (twenty-two years ago)
― Nutty Nigel (Nutty Nigel), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:05 (twenty-two years ago)
― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:06 (twenty-two years ago)
― Silly Sailor (Andrew Thames), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:08 (twenty-two years ago)
― Nutty Nigel (Nutty Nigel), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:11 (twenty-two years ago)
― Markelby (Mark C), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:24 (twenty-two years ago)
― Silly Sailor (Andrew Thames), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:25 (twenty-two years ago)
― mullygrubber (gaz), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:25 (twenty-two years ago)
― gaol clichy (clichy), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:25 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ste (Fuzzy), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:26 (twenty-two years ago)
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:26 (twenty-two years ago)
― Silly Sailor (Andrew Thames), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:27 (twenty-two years ago)
― gaol clichy (clichy), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:28 (twenty-two years ago)
― chris (chris), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:29 (twenty-two years ago)
― Silly Sailor (Andrew Thames), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:29 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ste (Fuzzy), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:33 (twenty-two years ago)
― gaol clichy (clichy), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:33 (twenty-two years ago)
― Silly Sailor (Andrew Thames), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:37 (twenty-two years ago)
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:37 (twenty-two years ago)
― Markelby (Mark C), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:37 (twenty-two years ago)
― gaol clichy (clichy), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:39 (twenty-two years ago)
― gaol clichy (clichy), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:44 (twenty-two years ago)
― Silly Sailor (Andrew Thames), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:46 (twenty-two years ago)
― RTG (RTG), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:49 (twenty-two years ago)
Moderator, please delete me ILE.
― Markelby (Mark C), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:51 (twenty-two years ago)
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:51 (twenty-two years ago)
― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:53 (twenty-two years ago)
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 13 February 2004 12:58 (twenty-two years ago)
― Jimmy the Saints, Friday, 13 February 2004 12:59 (twenty-two years ago)
Jesus, is it me or is today really head-in-the-oven stuff?
― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 13 February 2004 13:00 (twenty-two years ago)
― Markelby (Mark C), Friday, 13 February 2004 13:03 (twenty-two years ago)
― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 13 February 2004 13:15 (twenty-two years ago)
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 13 February 2004 13:34 (twenty-two years ago)
― gaol clichy (clichy), Friday, 13 February 2004 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)
― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Friday, 13 February 2004 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)
Baby Jesus was a baby! Of course he cried.
― Pete (Pete), Friday, 13 February 2004 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 13 February 2004 14:04 (twenty-two years ago)
― Kingfish Beatbox Botox Funktion (Kingfish), Friday, 13 February 2004 14:25 (twenty-two years ago)
― chris (chris), Friday, 13 February 2004 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 13 February 2004 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)
― Vicky (Vicky), Friday, 13 February 2004 14:28 (twenty-two years ago)
― stevem (blueski), Friday, 13 February 2004 14:42 (twenty-two years ago)
Imitations? I've figured out that Nutty Nigel is really my dad!
― Kerry (dymaxia), Friday, 13 February 2004 14:49 (twenty-two years ago)
― j.lu (j.lu), Friday, 13 February 2004 15:15 (twenty-two years ago)
― stevem (blueski), Friday, 13 February 2004 15:22 (twenty-two years ago)
― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:03 (nineteen years ago)
― vita susicivus (blueski), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:06 (nineteen years ago)
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:06 (nineteen years ago)
― Hell Hath No Furry (DJ Mencap), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:08 (nineteen years ago)
― jimbo (electricsound), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:09 (nineteen years ago)
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:10 (nineteen years ago)
― acrobat (elwisty), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:10 (nineteen years ago)
― Michael Philip Philip Philip Philip Annoyman (Ferg), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:11 (nineteen years ago)
― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:12 (nineteen years ago)
― Johnney B English (stigoftdump), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:12 (nineteen years ago)
I've seen an interview he did with Uwe Boll.
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:12 (nineteen years ago)
xpost
― acrobat (elwisty), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:13 (nineteen years ago)
― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:13 (nineteen years ago)
― vita susicivus (blueski), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:13 (nineteen years ago)
1. The Raven (2006) (V) .... Priest #2
― PRKLTR (flezaffe), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:14 (nineteen years ago)
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:15 (nineteen years ago)
(the magazines look better frankly)
― Hell Hath No Furry (DJ Mencap), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:15 (nineteen years ago)
All music critic ILxors to thread.
― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:16 (nineteen years ago)
― PRKLTR (flezaffe), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:17 (nineteen years ago)
ok his book does look quite rubbish
― acrobat (elwisty), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:17 (nineteen years ago)
― vita susicivus (blueski), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:17 (nineteen years ago)
haha!
― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:22 (nineteen years ago)
Errrrrrrrrrr, I think that was pretty much the whole point
― Tom D. (Dada), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:23 (nineteen years ago)
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:24 (nineteen years ago)
― Tom D. (Dada), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:26 (nineteen years ago)
― jimbo (electricsound), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:26 (nineteen years ago)
― Tom D. (Dada), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:27 (nineteen years ago)
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:28 (nineteen years ago)
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:29 (nineteen years ago)
― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:30 (nineteen years ago)
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:31 (nineteen years ago)
"'ere, missus, I says I wouldn't normally let her stick her finger in my anus, but I was wearing my PVC apron so it seemed a good idea. I said it seemed a good idea!"
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:32 (nineteen years ago)
― Tom D. (Dada), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:32 (nineteen years ago)
3.0/10 (11 votes)
― onimo (onimo), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:37 (nineteen years ago)
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:38 (nineteen years ago)
poll!
― 597, Saturday, 16 June 2007 13:43 (eighteen years ago)
calum got to interview bruce campbell, the bastard
― TOMBOT, Saturday, 16 June 2007 17:57 (eighteen years ago)
Cultural elite does not exist, academics claim By Andy McSmith Published: 20 December 2007 The "cultural elite" brought up on opera and the higher arts, which supposedly turns up its nose at anything as vulgar as a pop song or mainstream television, does not exist, according to research published by Oxford University academics.
Researchers have used data from the UK and six other countries to test a theory that people born to posh families absorb only "high culture" while "popular" or "mass" culture is strictly for those from ordinary to humble beginnings.
They found that in truth Billy Elliott – the fictional working-class boy from a northern mining village with a passion for ballet – is not the social freak he might seem to be. Equally, someone with an impressive ancestry and blue blood coursing through his veins is not necessarily any more cultured than the rest of us.
"We find little evidence for the existence of a cultural elite who would consume 'high' culture while shunning more 'popular' cultural forms," the two Oxford academics said, when their results were published yesterday. "There are certain individuals who fit this description, but they are too few in number to figure in any survey-based analysis."
Tak Wing Chan, from Oxford's sociology department, and John Goldthorpe, of Nuffield College, Oxford, have spent years trying to analyse whether "social status" still exists in Britain, and how it operates.
For this exercise, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, they divided people into four groups – univores, who only like popular culture; omnivores, who like everything from opera to soap opera; paucivores, who absorb very little culture; and inactives, who absorb practically none.
People's education, income and social class were all taken into account but this study, unlike others of its kind, clearly differentiated between "class" and "status". An out-of-work aristocrat has class, without status, while there are bright, ambitious people from poor backgrounds who have "status" but not "class".
In previous studies they have concluded that status is now determined more by the work someone does than by their birth or their wealth. Office workers consider that they have a higher status than manual workers; among office workers, professionals think themselves a cut above works managers, and so on.
The newspaper a person chooses, and the forms of entertainment that person enjoys are all tied up with ideas about social status. That does not mean that professionals in elite jobs restrict themselves to "elite" arts, but it does mean that the opera houses and specialist art galleries are likely to be filled with people who have "status".
Class, as opposed to status, does not seem to have much effect on cultural tastes. "A substantial minority of members of the most advantaged social groups are univores or inactives," the researchers found.
Doctor Chan said: "Our work shows it's education and social status, not social class that predict cultural consumption in the UK, and broadly comparable results were obtained from other countries in our project too."
Data from the UK, Chile, France, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands and the US was analysed by 13 researchers during the study.
Which are you?
Univores
If you will go to the cinema, but not the theatre, you are a consumer of popular culture only. Two thirds of the population are in this category.
Omnivores
Will try anything on offer. Most have jobs that give them confidence, but could be from any social background.
Paucivores
People who consume a 'limited' range of cultural activities. Enjoy some form of music, film or television but not art galleries.
Inactives
These people access nothing at all – people who would never go into an art gallery or stop to examine a sculpture.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 20 December 2007 10:54 (eighteen years ago)
People's education, income and social class were all taken into account but this study, unlike others of its kind, clearly differentiated between "class" and "status".
NICE SAVE
Nutty Nigel, paucivore.
― The blue-green world is drenched with horse gore, Thursday, 20 December 2007 10:56 (eighteen years ago)
I'm shock to find out that some posh people are a bit thick.
― The blue-green world is drenched with horse gore, Thursday, 20 December 2007 10:57 (eighteen years ago)
Thought this was gonna be bumped with a Tracer Hand zing
― Dom Passantino, Thursday, 20 December 2007 11:45 (eighteen years ago)
paucivore == consumes more dead oppossums than art
― Aimless, Thursday, 20 December 2007 18:11 (eighteen years ago)
haha, my own memory of academia (i.e., the english/comp. lit. department at a state university) is that those "cultural elites" take popular culture WAY more seriously than the proles do.
― Eisbaer, Thursday, 20 December 2007 18:16 (eighteen years ago)
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/attack.jpg
― gabbneb, Thursday, 20 December 2007 18:16 (eighteen years ago)
"A substantial minority of members of the most advantaged social groups are univores or inactives," the researchers found.
YOU DON'T SAY
― gabbneb, Thursday, 20 December 2007 18:17 (eighteen years ago)
those "cultural elites" take popular culture WAY more seriously than the proles do.
-- Eisbaer, Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:16 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
WELCOME TO OLD ILX
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 20 December 2007 18:20 (eighteen years ago)
Joyce takes the piss out of this in Ulysses, I'm pretty sure the noble tradition of gatekeeping folk culture goes a good way further back than that.
― The blue-green world is drenched with horse gore, Thursday, 20 December 2007 18:22 (eighteen years ago)
cultural elites deny existence of cultural elites
― latebloomer, Thursday, 20 December 2007 18:25 (eighteen years ago)
it's a conspiracy
I AM A CULTURAL ELITE; I HAVE BETTER TASTE THAN YOU.
― gabbneb, Thursday, 20 December 2007 18:57 (eighteen years ago)
calum and louis came along in the wrong order
― blueski, Thursday, 20 December 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)
Born too late.
― Nicole, Thursday, 20 December 2007 19:20 (eighteen years ago)
lol at marcello gone too far
― roxymuzak, Thursday, 20 December 2007 20:31 (eighteen years ago)
RIP
― Dom Passantino, Thursday, 20 December 2007 22:26 (eighteen years ago)
You do realise that when LJ is elected as an MEP for UKIP in three years time we're gonna be having exactly the same thread revivals?
-- Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:15 (10 months ago) Bookmark Link
zing
just been reading a load of avant-garde poetry and jeff nuttall invective in the british library, no better way to feel incredibly left-wing
― Just got offed, Thursday, 20 December 2007 22:27 (eighteen years ago)