The Intellectuals and the Mases

or: does murdoch's ownership of harpercollins mark a decline in the nation's ability to spell?

New answers for a KEY book.

oh god, not a Mase thread!?

what vaguely ticks me off abt the argt as formulated so far is that the self-defined "anti-conformists" are allowed to argue that eg cultural conformism and political conformism lead to one another, whereas the "anti-elitists" are apparently NOT entitled to argue that eg aesthetic elitism and political elitism are of a piece.

(Well, Carey DOES argue this, but he is such a fckn intellectual lightweight heh)

i think Andrew L makes the most apposite point on the "home truths" thread, by a country mile

hey my editor just asked me if i knew what BARBIE'S full name is: i didn't (i do now)

Mark is parodying a style of argument? (and wasn't that a question in one of Ptee's SOArSe quiz?)

It was indeed a question in my quiz - which I don't think anyone got right (but I could be wrong - often am).

i dont do well in binaries, a very masculine way of looking at things maybe?

but yes, self prcolaimed anti-conformists try and control the argument by defining what conformism is, and then define themselves in relation to what they defined as conformism and conservatism. how do they get to set the framework, the battleground. i don't see myself in either of these arbitrary camps. momus and suzy it seems see me as cannon fodder, rather contemptuously i might add. but how did they get to choose?

in the 60s, 'counter-culture' was necessary to reinforce mainstream culture, it was merely another facet of it. it was not oppositional. capitalism needs opposition to affirm its validity. why do you think capitalist societies seem so unassailable?

momus is a conservative, obviously, reinforcing the status quo. but my favourite bit is when people say "the masses they are spoon fed automatons, mere cannon fodder, mere 'consumers'" and then expect these 'automatons' to listen to their self-proclaimed 'superior wisdom'. so, how do you persuade someone without sneering at them?

pika pika!

exactly what Gareth, and Mr Hopkins on the "home truths" thread said. i often get the feeling from Suzy that she'd dismiss me as "cannon fodder" without even knowing me (we've met about twice i think) - just because i don't necessarily subscribe to HER values - i don't like a lot of modern art, for example. she's interpreted this fact in the past as meaning that i haven't thought about it at all, and then when i pointed out that i had, in fact, thought about it AND came up with an answer for her she ignored the answer and made out that i was just WRONG anyhow. i dont usually see the point in getting involved in arguments with Suzy, Doomie or Momus as they're all so involved in their own world view that they seem to think they can afford to ignore or dismiss the views and lifestyles of others. i think they're all intelligent and interesting people and i often enjoy reading what they've said even if it does often reduce me to a mass of quivering rage (actually Suzy and i do agree on a lot of things, i'm probably being v unfair in picking her out as an example of what i'm talking about, but since i've had more contact with her than with momus or doomie it just seemed easier), but disagreeing with them's just more trouble than it's worth. so i'm just getting on with my mildly eccentric and quiet life secure in the knowledge that i am strange and different and wonderful. i just don't have to shout about it.

i am picking unfairly on Suzy and i feel bad about it now, i get on much better with her than i do with doomie or momus, who probably don't even know who i am anyhow. sorry Suzy...

No, that's OK, Katie. I know I'm very judgemental about things which seem superficial; I almost never realise until it's too late how intimidating this can be. But I'm also *always* the person who winds up looking after the person in a group who's drunk themself psycho, or the fool who rushes in to stop an underdog from getting bullied.

I think what I was irked about is the idea of 'normalcy' and started out by saying there's no such thing. People always use the word 'normal' to try to regulate the behaviour of others, to conscript them into a national service that won't allow registration as a conscientious objector. I've always been well left of centre and I've had to take a few lumps as a result and when I'm really down, think, 'well I tried to be 'normal' but nobody was having it.'

Having spent most of my time in London as a consumer journalist (what the critic of popular culture invariably becomes in a society that only pays lip service to criticism as a value) I come by my opinions honestly; I'm painfully aware that the owners of companies can barely conceal their disdain for the people they produce goods for (Katie, you're pretty passionate about food issues and you'd agree with me that 95 per cent of the food produced is not good for you or the planet-type DRECK) and this lackadaisical attitude trickles right down throughout a complacent, comfort-oriented society. I think many people are ground down and bullied into accepting the way modern life is played out, though often in subtle ways. People aren't really encouraged, after a certain point in their lives, to think outside their basic needs, and this makes me really exasperated.

John Carey's book really infuriated me when it came out, mainly because he was trying to demolish the reputations of people like Eliot and Brecht however he could do it. Eliot was a crowd-hating elitist, apparently, and Brecht stole his ideas from the women he worked with. I mean, it was whatever mud would stick, wasn't it? And never mind that collaborative work was an essential part of Brecht's project.

Re: Mark's point. I'm prepared to let the anti-elitists argue that cultural and political elitism might shade into each other (Bowie's fascist salute and all that, Nietzsche's apparent usefulness to the Nazis) as long as you understand that I am not, in the end, saying 'exterminate the brutes'. I am saying: 'I'd love to turn you on'. I want to save people from the suburbs and from the Fox network, one soul at a time. I can't speak for Suzy, though.

i dont do well in binaries, a very masculine way of looking at things maybe?

How men think is how you think, Gareth. You're one. Binaries are how computers think. They're also how you play Pong. You need two sides of the screen, with a paddle at each end. They're useful to get the game going, but there's usually a messy pitch invasion before long. And that's when things get interesting.

momus and suzy it seems see me as cannon fodder

I was talking about bandwidth and attention span, and how they're limited resources, and whether we should give them to artists or the folks next door. Knowing, you see, that the whole concept of an artist being special is problematic in our culture, and puts a bee in people's bonnet. (It wasn't problematic for my great grandpa when he won the Bardic Crown at the Mod festival of Gaelic poetry, and it probably isn't to people who consult shamen in Africa). Suzy brought up 'canon fodder'. But I think she meant it was a shame that people colluded so readily in their own befuddlement, their own instrumentalisation.

my favourite bit is when people say "the masses they are spoon fed automatons, mere cannon fodder, mere 'consumers'" and then expect these 'automatons' to listen to their self-proclaimed 'superior wisdom'. so, how do you persuade someone without sneering at them?

You're right, you can't stick people towards their own inner greatness, you have to carrot them. You simply make available a vision of a better life than the one presented on the high street. Either create that world yourself, or signpost the worlds created by others. And all the people I was calling my 'elders and betters' on t'other thread did this for me.

it seems to me, though, that it's not as simple as the "lackadaisical attitudes" trickling down through society (though you're totally OTM about the outrageous attitudes that these companies have towards the people they cater for). given that products and services are systematically aimed at a certain age (ie. as young as possible) and a certain demographic (ie. poor) of people, i think that for many the option of comfort and comvenience is very hard to pass up. you and i can sit here with our (presumably) quite well-paid jobs, able to afford books about issues, the time to read them and the money to go out and buy organic fruit and soya chunks accordingly, but i should imagine that for a lot of people the cheapness and convenience that they see - and have been forced to see - in products like McDonalds - is almost impossible to pass up, especially when you consider that these large companies also have the power to actively discourage and prevent any form of education away from their products. it's not always a question of merely being lazy or complacent (though that is part of it). i'm unwilling to toss remarks like "cannon fodder" around until i'm satisfied that the people to whom you refer have actually stared education in the face and turned away. it's as much the fault of the people who hold the power - the minority - and their unwillingness to sacrifice their own profits for the education and health of the great unwashed, as it is of the majority.

I want to save people from the suburbs and from the Fox network, one soul at a time

Momus, that's lovely and i applaud you for it. now try it with more kindness and fewer insults please.

You don't encourage people by calling them 'cannon fodder'.

Also, equating the health benefits or otherwise of various diets with the 'benefits' or otherwise of different modes of cultural consumption is dodgy thinking at best.

eating french cheese = thinking french theory

are you talking to me Tim? i only used McD as an example cos i've just read Fast Food Nation. i could have said practically anyone... i think we'd all agree that NOT having to work your guts out in a sweat shop or risk amputation on a meatpacking line is also a health benefit, no?

There's tons of strangeness and tons of creativity in the suburbs, Momus. Why is your definition of difference so narrow?

Sorry Katie, I was talking to Suzy. Nobody should be forced to work in demeaning or dangerous circumstances. Nobody should be forced through poverty or whatever into having a dreadful diet.

What I was trying to get at was that the effect of a bad diet - physical damage - is clear, and does not map onto the effect of consuming culture dismissed as 'mainstream' (or just rubish) by our cultural critics.

yes my point was re "anti-elitists vs anti-conformists" is actually NOT that anti-elitists shd be allowed to arrive at "Momus — Do You Like Hitler?" as the knock-out blow (yes i know it was a joke), but that "anti-conformists" should be sometimes a little vaguely aware that full-on anti-conformism in one part of yr life often produces extreme reactionary conformism in others. ie neither of these sides are monolithic seamless blocs, and treating them as if they are (viz the silly "hi-lo" debate) just delivers half-baked goofiness a la J.Carey.

Of course the "conformist" bloc, being vastly much bigger, and perhaps by definition more given to socially approved pre-manufactured public EXPRESSION of its identity, its likes and its dislikes, is actually (behind closed doors) much more varied and weirder than the "bohemian" bloc.

it's a continuum = godwin's second law

where is n.?

You've been watching too much David Lynch, Tim. If only it were really as wonderfully strange as 'Blue Velvet' none of us would ever leave (though we'd probably be killed sooner or later by a backwards-speaking dwarf in a red plush room behind a shoe store). But why do you think every creative person gets the hell out as soon as they can? Including David Lynch. Even to romanticize the suburbs, you have to get out of the suburbs.

Only last night, I was fortunate enough to be invited to the suburban home of the most creative person I know.

Quick question to Momus before I go back to lurking: does creative person = artist in what you've been saying?

every creative person in the standard-issue list of officially approved institutionally rubberstamped creative "professions": eg creative cooks and gardeners need nevah leave the suburbs (or wherever they are)

momus can you cook?

tim you were at momus's last night?

can he cook?

they're not wonderfully strange momus, they're psychotically strange. i don't know if its because you're an older generation, or lived in a nicer place or what, but when i was growing up, drugs, crime, poverty was what you saw, horrible estates you didn't want to walk through, classmates ODing, yea, not everyone but enough you know. you're view of britain is pretty cozy and smug. do you actually think it is like Home Truths then?!!!

I like the suburbs, it's easier to shock people here.

(for the purposes of this joke japan = the suburbs)

(eg joke = actual real life)

Yes, at his suburban home (as opposed to his urban pied-a-terre, his country seat or his secret underwater hq).

What about his flying aero-car?

You could have used the Bachelard's Souper Noodles gag here too.

Not only cooks and gardeners, but engineers and craftspeople, teachers and academics as well. The suburbs are full of them, and they're all as potentially creative as yr standard issue bohemian artist type.

We've had this suburb argument before, haven't we? I see Momus hasn't got beyond the Monty-Python-chartered-accountant-suburb-dweller stereotype...

The internet makes it much less necessary for a creative person to leave the suburbs to pursue her vision.

I was romanticizing the suburbs long, long, long before I left them. THE BAY SHORE SOUND IS NOW!

Well, the problem with this argument, Ricky, is that ultimately you agree with the producers of Home Truths that everyone is simply oozing with talent and worthy of being up there with Shakespeare and Erik Satie. In fact they have a huge advantage over Shakespeare and Satie, which is their approachability. No jacket required, no interpreter necessary.

Madge Jenkins makes a lot more sense, and is a lot more soothing, than 'Othello' or 'Vexations'. But Madge Jenkins cannot create a parallel universe of imagination as the Bard and Satie can. Or do you think she can? Or do you think the creation of other worlds, the worlds we call art, is simply over-rated?

(0r, to reverse the genders, it's like saying that Bob Black and his bad back is as much worth listening to as Bjork and Laurie Anderson.)

Madge Jenkins can probably cook a whole lot better than you, Momus. oh i forgot, cooking isn't "creative", only YOUR definition of "art" is.

"ultimately" in that sentence = precise equivalent of "Momus — Do You Like Hitler?"

Which is more over-rated the ability to create imaginary worlds or the ability to create people? Let's have a top ten of things we should rate.

Not only cooks and gardeners, but engineers and craftspeople, teachers and academics as well. The suburbs are full of them, and they're all as potentially creative as yr standard issue bohemian artist type.

I like the suburbs. It's easier to shock people here.

One of these pro-suburb arguments must be false. The suburbs are either 'square' (hence easy to shock) or 'creative' (hence wild and crazy).

again, Momus, why does "creative" have to equal "wild and crazy"? can there not be such a thing as understated creativity that does not have to CONSTANTLY shout about its presence?

**The suburbs are either 'square' (hence easy to shock) or 'creative' (hence wild and crazy)**

Why not a mix of both?

"One of these pro-suburb arguments must be false. The suburbs are either 'square' (hence easy to shock) or 'creative' (hence wild and crazy)."

Haha once more we reduced to the founding problem of momus-logic. Whence these two "hences"? (Which even he doesn't believe for a second...)

Cor, is Momus is accusing me of being a philistine?

My first instinct-spasm was to say, that's the most suburban statement i've EVER HEARD EVER momus!! Then I spotted his cunning plan...

Making interesting art != being an 'interesting' person, surely?

wait, wait, wait, hold up! surely you can't mean. that there are more than just 2 types of people in the world!!!! incredible! next you'll be saying dichotomies simplify and that the world isn't just jets and sharks! and here was me thinking you were either mr currie or mr acacia avenue!

OPE N THE GATE !

It's true, Gareth! There's also Mr Ben, who leaves Acacia Avenue, goes into the magical room of cultural access, and visits multiple other worlds, Momus-style. Unfortunately, his eye-opening experiences remain mere escapism, failing to change his life or even persuade him to leave off the bowler hat, and he returns to his mundane life, ideological blinkers reinforced by the flimsy but ultimately empty promise of otherness provided by the mass entertainment of the so-called 'magic shop'.

please watch it with yr usage of the word 'jap' and may you be typing shorthand and not racist

soz, i should be less lazy

I think Peel wouldn't see a schism between Ivor Cutler etc and Bob Black because he's celebrating the extraordinary and eccentric (in ordinary life, and christ how I hate that phrase) and would see them as bedfellows rather than as rival factions.

And when Peel does the voice-over for adverts? Is he celebrating the ordinary and eccentric then too?

(ie why must there be an 'artistic' decision behind Home Truths rather than an 'I've got a load of mouths to feed' decision?)

I assume Momus's Pizza Hut music may have also been a mouth to feed argument too. (And by mouthto feed we are not suggesting that John Peel's Radio 1 gig doesn't pay alright, and home truths and the adverts - but hey - we all want a bit more money right? He's got kids he's putting through universities and a pig to feed. Momus has to buy his airfair to Sao Paulo.)

exactly Pete, which is why Momus's attempts to disguise his PROSTITUTION to Pizza Hut as Avant Garde Art of the highest order rankle. if he'd just said "oh, i need some cash" then fine whatever, but to do this and THEN criticise people who perhaps work for Pizza Hut as their main source of income is cheeky at best, utterly despicable at worst.

Didn't Laurie Anderson just spend some time working at a Manhattan McDonald's? She said she was expecting everyone to be beaten-down go-nowhere types but was surprised at how generally cheery and friendly everyone was, said it was a real eye-opener. Dunno, Momus, but you might want to consider a similar move...

'We were quoted out of context, it was great...' Or misquoted totally, and it wasn't. exactly Pete, which is why Momus's attempts to disguise his PROSTITUTION to Pizza Hut as Avant Garde Art of the highest order rankle. if he'd just said "oh, i need some cash" then fine whatever, but to do this and THEN criticise people who perhaps work for Pizza Hut as their main source of income is cheeky at best, utterly despicable at worst.

Now unless I'm just another of Doomie's aliases, I *never* said making Pizza Hut commercials was avant garde art of any order. I said it was either my lowest point yet or a cunning way of paying for the promotion of young bands on my label. I mean that quite literally. It costs $3900 to get copies of the forthcoming albums by The Gongs and Super Madrigal Brothers to the US press and college radio. I am whoring myself to fast food I loathe to pay for getting these records heard. It's not in the least bit avant garde. Don't claim I'm claiming things I never claimed to claim!

Also, when did I attack anybody who works for Pizza Hut for a wage? My whole argument here has been 'I'd love to turn you on'. Yes, as Pete and others correctly say, I want, at this stage in my life, to be a curator (run a label) and a disseminator (journalist and essayist) of things I think are stimulating yet underappreciated. As well as continuing my career as a creator. And I do stand by my old-fashioned argument that creators should be people of exceptional talent, who stand out for things like the originality of their vision of life, their mastery of form, their ability to make unexpected associations, and so on.

I continue to be attacked for talking about talent. Meanwhile, although someone is reprimanded for using the completely inoffensive word 'Jap'. someone else says 'Japanese books feature 'creators spaces' because Japanese people are all the same' and raises not one whisper of protest. Outrageous! What if this poster had said, instead, 'Japanese books feature 'creators spaces' because Japanese people are more creative than we are.' There would have been uproar. That's unsayable, but saying they're 'all the same' is not.

This is where the idea of equality and the idea of talent must take leave of each other. Very few people, when they see they must make a choice, are willing to give talent priority over equality. They'll choose equality every time, even when it leads them to agree with the horrible statement that 'Japanese people are all the same'. Thus equality becomes equivalence, and talent becomes taboo.

"talent" is pointless to talk about because you either have it or you don't. (© David Mamet) in that sense it's somewhat like the word "money" and in both cases they can influence how successful someone is... but still at the bottom of it you have to get off your ass and promote yourself. the people who do this best end up being our celebrities, and the people who do this worst yet remain convinced of their own supernaturally-endowed genius become our bitter also-rans. i keep pretending that this exaggerated fork in the road is much further ahead for me than it actually is...

I agree with the core of what you're saying, Momus. I think my issue is that by using yourself as the main example in your arguments, you are giving off a vibe that says "I think I'm the most talented person in the world." This may or may not be true and it may or may not be an intended consequence of your argument style, but I'm sufficiently self-absorbed that my initial reaction is to attempt to find ways to poke holes in your arguments (which is stupid, because as I said, I think I agree with the core of them, at least as presented in your most recent post).

"equality" is pointless to talk about because you either have it or you don't. (© Karl Marx) in that sense it's somewhat like the word "money" and in both cases they can influence how successful someone is... but still at the bottom of it you have to get off your ass and make yourself no better or worse than anyone else. the people who do this best end up being our celebrities, and the people who do this worst yet remain convinced of their own supernaturally-endowed ordinariness become our bitter also-rans. i keep pretending that this exaggerated fork in the road is much further ahead for me than it actually is...

Actually Nitsuh is saying something a good deal more interesting than that Momus, but as pointed out too many times now, careful reading is not exactly your strong point. I think your argt up-thread about yr label as a kind of equivalent to 70s pro-gay activism is a nice idea, though this is possibly mainly because it backs my argument up much more than it does yours, without losing sight of the basic generosity and idealism at the heart of your project.

Momus you certainly have a talent for bending my head back on itself. :) I just wonder where it's all going; I hope not into some Harrison Bergeron territory... I hate that book.

(c) Also Momus should perhaps keep in mind that possibly the Japanese are so much more interested in "creators" as personalities because THE JAPANESE ARE ALL ALIKE: as economically and ethnically homogenous as any nation you're likely to find. Clearly such a population is bound to be more enthralled by the artist as a "special" individual being (and a creator of differences).

So because we have black people and Asians in Britain, we need artists less? This argument seems totally ludicrous. But parse me out the interesting meanings I'm missing, please, Mark. To me this passage just illustrates the absurd twists in logic people are prepared to execute in order to wriggle away from talk of 'talent' and 'creativity', with their apparent implications of elitism (though I've still to have it explained to me how you can have an elite without power).

Apparently people are doing this because they think I'll get big-headed if they talk about talent. This genuinely amazes me. I was never big-headed enough to assume that talking about talent meant talking about me. I gave you the list on the other thread of the artists I'd referenced, and it was as long as your arm. It got one exclamation of 'Brian Dewan is great, he wrote that song about R2D2' and a grunt from Mark that 'Cutler is OK, but basically he's Home Truths circa 1955'. Is being so recklessly disparaging to artists really a mark of humility, Mark? Or is it perhaps a sign of rampant egomania?

Momus: the analogy to a gay activist half makes sense -- update it to a comfortable lifestyle mag like the advocate circa late 90s and you're more OTM. Remembah -- the 1970s were stonewall.

And along those lines -- exasperating as you may be sometimes, nobody wants to kill you for your musical taste. Gay people, even today, don't have that luxury.

Trace: I just wonder where it's all going; I hope not into some Harrison Bergeron territory... I hate that book.

Thanks, didn't know about that Vonnegut, must investigate further. 'It was 2081 and everyone was finally equal...'

I worry that I may be getting into Allan Bloom territory myself. Some days I wake up Mr Superflat, Takashi Murakami (which means, since all Japanese are the same, that I also wake up Devon Aoki, which is nice), but this week I seem to be Allan Bloom.

Now go and read what I actually said about Peel and Cutler properly. Take your time. Bear in mind that a term you have casually adopted as damning — ooh, "suburban", say — may not in fact be being used in a disparaging way. Creativity is all about "unexpected associations"... Yes yes this sounds like half-baked ad-copy, but actually sometimes it really does mean something.

Okay, and while I'm doing that (and also sleeping, since it's late here in Tokyo, and also going through ILM to see what definitions of talent people are using there when they discuss why one artist is better than another, which I intend to do) I'd like you to point out what was so very subtle and interesting in Nitsuh's post about Japanese all being the same. Would you do that for me?

Doc - like many others, I have been 100% enthusiastic about your sensible comments - except the one about the postman.

PS / no Brecht in John Carey, far as I can remember: the book that took poor BB to task was THE LIFE AND LIES OF BB, by John FUEGI. I have never read it cos I don't want my alienation effects shattered.

PS / Like everyone else I love Eliot / Wilde / Brecht / Hopkins (T) / not Nietzsche / cos I encountered them in (the) suburbs; not to mention the other missing term here which is (the) provinces (blah)

Reason why attacks on suburbia are total non-starters: everyone lives in suburbia, except

a) the estimable Robin C

b) bankers

- therefore 95% of creativity is suburban (other 5% = Robin C?)

Other possible exception = people who live in eg the *centre* of Leeds or Norwich, rather than EIGHT MINUTES' WALK AWAY

i didn't say "subtle" and nitsuh didn't say "the same": however => he took a silly generalisation (momus's) about social and cultural conformity (generalisation = they are identical) and turned it on its head — viz arguing that the more socially conformist a culture is, the higher the regard is pays cultural non-conformity

as a generalisation it is surely no less silly than any one-word summary of a nation ("ze french zey are masters of ze art of luhve"), but the idea it introduces is interesting, because it twists the unexamined bought-by-the-yard commonplace at the root of the original into a more provocative and suggestive shape...

even if the unexamined commonplace proves correct in the end, its content is better served by being questioned and thought about than just blandly bandied around

(i'm going to swear off ironically patronising as a mark s mode, after the hopeless attempt in my last post: i have no talent for it and i don't enjoy rereading it — back to safe ground, and semi-transparent fake humility, i think)

Actually Devon Aoki is a good ol' American girl with Japanese, German and English and Irish family. But anyways.

For the sake of the record, I'd like to point out that what I was saying (and I thought reasonably clearly, for me anyway) was that the Japanese are mostly sociologically "alike," an opinion it would take some hardcore data sets to get me to revise: the sloppiness up there was due to my figuring you'd all know what I meant by this, not my thinking that the Japanese are all genuinely the same. Anyway: in terms of the Big Two Differences -- class and race -- Japan is pretty strikingly homogenous compared to similarly developed nations, with the possible exceptions of the Scandinavian nations. Surely this lack of any imposed sociological Differences is going to incline a population -- especially one as urban and condensed as, say, Tokyo's -- to create Differences, to create elective cultural cadres to keep them from feeling like exactly the sorts of interchangeable drones some people on these threads are bashing. (Momus, I see this as a good thing, and by your arguments here and elsewhere, I'd think you would too.) Elective cultural subgroups, in our world and with our media, tend to be based on exactly the sorts of things Momus is arguing for here: creative personalities who can collectively organize really compelling ways of looking at the world.

But Momus what I think you need to remember here is that throughout human history and through most of today's human population, people haven't developed their identities or their thinking based on their media consumption: their senses of who they are and what they're "for" have had more to do with concrete physical and emotional activities like feeding families and digging wells and fighting wars, and their cultural affiliations have boiled down to loyalty to whatever traditions were first taught to them (cf religion). We'd like to think that comfortable middle-class westerners who consume loads and loads of media would sort of break out of that traditional sense of identity-formation and start being selective and critical about what they're consuming -- I completely agree with you in this sense -- but the fact is while the Japanese seem to have gotten really far down this path, the bulk of middle-class post-industrial people still think about media and culture as only mildly-relevant tangents to the bulk of their "real lives," which consist of emotions about births and illnesses and weddings and jealousy and feeling angry at people and feeling good about people and getting drunk and driving fast. You're asking people to be savvy about something that is a major part of their lives; the problem isn't that they bull-headedly refuse to be savvy about it, but that they don't really consider it a major part of their lives yet.

Yesterday one of my friends served as a pallbearer at the funeral of one of his wife's relatives. Standing in front of the grave, he suddenly realized he'd never actually been to a burial before: he described the experience as "surreal." This is those of us who are worried about culture and being informed about it and appreciating new ways into it. But for the people you're railing at, the burial is the reality, and what's playing on the radio afterward is just a meaningless footnote.

You're asking people to recognize a truth: that the world has reached a point where "important things" happen in broad sweeps, and you have to be critical and attuned to small developments to engage with those things. But for most people, their own lives are big enough.

Wow, I like Mark's take on my comment much better than mine.

(Other thing to consider: on the other thread, Momus, you just made a joke about something "really creative ... a little difficult ... not for most." That last part gets me: if you set up a line of thinking where material that is "not for most" is prized, you have to be content with "most" people not caring for it. Besides which if they did start caring for it, wouldn't you just raise the bar so you could congratulate whoever was winning the race by staying "not for most?")

Point Momus making with "not for most" is (my take) that this statement by him is not a statement by him but the kind of statement you're likely to hear. I.e. it is the norm for it to be thought that something creative & difficult is not for most (i.e. not for the majority). Momus cruelly jibing that by appropriating it ironically. Thus saying, this is the wrong thing to say. Until this is recognised as being wrong (i.e. that difficult things aren't for a select elite but for all AND should be enjoyed by all) then we're gonna have Home Truths. Way I read it, Momus, soz if I've misrepresented ya.

elizabethan conformism = also the age of shakespeare

Get to bed you. [insert friendly smiley face here].

*Momus: Apparently people are doing this because they think I'll get big-headed if they talk about talent. This genuinely amazes me. I was never big-headed enough to assume that talking about talent meant talking about me*

Personally, what exasperates me is not that this is 'your' talent in debate but your definition of exceptional talent existing in the creative alternative worlds of the 60's and Japan. Perhaps this is merely your 2 favourites of a list of many. Personally, I think the Native cultures of Canada and America are a lot less conformist. While Japan is a wild, experimental world of CreatorSpace and Indoor Skidomes, a world I have never known, it still offers all the creature comforts, shopping and luxuries 24 hours a day. How many of us could have our exceptional creative, life and poetry so deeply entrenched with the land that it is The Exceptional, not merely a place to build things on? For me, that is a truly radical other possible world. While I realize not many people live in rural areas anymore, isn't nature in its varying degrees of beauty and sublimity, one of the most impressives sources for creativity?

I should hasten to add that part of this exasperation stems from a feminist bias and part of the appeal with Native culture is how many tribes (such as the Navajos) are matriarchal. A lot of my potential to be the creative and exceptional Artiste role in the 60s would have steered me towards the role of secretary. Obviously, Ancient Greece is held up as the original blueprint for the arts but that wouldn't have helped ME explore my creativity had I been alive then. Unfortunately, I do not know much on the state of women's rights in Japan (apart from the tabloidish cult of the schoolgirl) so I cannot comment on the creative/exceptional relationship balance for women there. Actually, I think this is the similar frustration that Momus experiences while in pink shirt and despite wanting to 'turn on' the steel workers, they won't even bother to ask him about his sampler. Such a happy family here!

if i could choose between intellectualism and mase, i would choose mase. but i don't know if i'm lying.

I hope i dont regret this...

Momus, if you think the word 'jap' is completely unoffensive i would consider talking it over with, oh say, a Japanese American who was put in a prison camp during WWII.

Or alternately, maybe you could try calling all of the Japanese folks you meet tomorrow "Jap" and catalog their reactions

Thank you a-33 for your timely acknowledgement of the importance of not introducing racial slurs into the argument (even unintentionally). Notice also that in my remark I was hopeful that it was just lazy typing, which (of course) was the case. IMO, this was an idiotic thing for you to harp on, Momus. You were correct to identify 'all Japanese are the same' as an offensive statement.

that is all, thanks for hearing me out

Christ, since this is a big thread let's just look at this "offensive statement" once more: "THE JAPANESE ARE ALL ALIKE: as economically and ethnically homogenous as any nation you're likely to find."

Does the latter part of that statement not make clear that I mean this is a purely statistical way? (Does the capping of the first part not make clear that I was reducing that argument for rhetorical effect?)

(Those aren't meant to sound like bitchy rhetorical questions, either [thought they do]: I just want to make sure that statement isn't being mischaracterized.]

see, i regret it, fuck. Nitsuh, i aint mad at ya. I understand what you were trying to say. And my last post was not really intended to give you a hard time for your comment, but to reassert my opinion re: being careful of racist terms. I included the line about yr post mainly to cover my ass w/ Momus so he wouldn't jump back into comparing the two 'offensive' remarks.

That said, to be honest, when i first read yr 'all alike' post, those words did jump off the screen in much the same way as 'jap' did. I understand yr intentions, I just feel that in racial areas extra caution is prudent. I am probably over-senstive in this area.

I won't go into what I think of momus' japan-fetishization here. Rather, I'll point out that I rilly do think that all this talk of consumption is the problem. Because the real problem is that ppl aren't all creators. Creative capacity is kept in check by concrete circumstance, and not allowed to develop.

Ppl don't lead better lives by reading better things but by *writing* better things. consumption matches lifestyle, but creation transcends and reshapes it. Does this mean that everyone will produce good art that everyone should see? Hells, no. Or even that everyone should be an artist? no again. But everyone should have the opportunity to exercise their creative capacity somehow.

& Clearly cooking is not on the same level as "hi-art" though the same effort, thought, and creative capacity may be put into it. To hold cooking up is the same as saying "oh look, you cook and clean -- this is as good as being a musician or a novelist -- so there's no reason to ever want to change your social position to anything other than your current one of a housewife"

In summary: Momus wrong b/c he thinks that consumption is key while in reality production is key. Other foax wrong because cooking != painting (and kitsch painting also != art-painting, and the difference is not ability but world-experience and scope of worldview -- determined by social situation).

― Sterling Clover, Thursday, 18 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

b-bt wot abt pasta pictures?

Are pasta pictures made of spaghetti like Etch-A-Sketch drawings?

What is Barbie's full name?

I remember seeing a jar of pasta alphabet as ART in the Anthony D'Offay gallery and it was BRILL. It was called The Entire Universe Explained but I do not think it had a pasta != chiz chiz.

You know I really did want to have a quick discussion of the book. It's a good book, v mischievous and annoying in many places, but still v good. can't beat a bit of icon bashing.

Can we eat it?

Kerplunk!

This thread is GREBT!! Im gonna open a bottle of wine and read it.

"Mases!?" Fool! Don't you know there can be only one?
http://members.aol.com/dubplatestyle/mase.jpg