Classical Music Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
I happen to agree with Robert Florczak's remarks on the deterioration of modern art and the incredible stupidity of much of what hangs on the walls of museums. I also happen to disagree strongly with the politics of PragerU. I can assure you that many, many other people hold such (to you) anomalous positions.
This is what I don't get. If every time we quoted a source or referred someone to a good argument made by someone else, we had to confirm we agreed with every single idea or viewpoint that source or someone else had ever been a proponent of, no one would quote anyone or refer to any sources.

Although I'm of a more right-wing bend, I still think most of the PragerU videos are vaguely factual garbage; however, I too happen to largely agree with this one video.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
I would like to add that there is a large difference in wishing no government funding for certain art, and wishing that certain art be censored or banned by the government. I can see why Christians would not want their money that they paid the government going to creating a piece of artwork that had little to no purpose other than denigrating and insulting Christianity.

In the same token, the "artist" should be allowed to make such "art" (or any such "art" he likes); just with private funding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
Maybe I'm just old and feel as if I've seen it all, but it seems to me that in a postmodern (or is it post-postmodern now?) age, shock is more or less passe. Epater le bourgeoisie is old-fashioned Modernism, and we're decades past that. Music was never the best medium for it anyway; there's no musical equivalent of "P*ss Christ" - or, if there is, no one wants to fund performances of it, or it gets one performance and disappears, and few people know about it or care. Even visual artists who commit shocking acts - that vaginal knitting woman, for example - will generate a few irate letters to the editor and then a gigantic "ho hum, isn't that stupid, what'll they think of next." To be shocked by modern art now you'd have to have spent your life trapped in a West Virginia hollow without electricity or postal services.
I honestly think it would be very easy to shock general society with modern art, but no modern artists are willing to do it.

As far as I can tell, for possibly the first time in history, it is, in general, progressive views that control modern moral propriety. People are tut-tutted not for defying the social codes of the conservatives, but rather the progressives. As such, if you want to shock the moral fabric of society you have to insult, demean, belittle, or otherwise attack the values of progressives. The problem, therefore, is not that we have become immunised against shock, but that the artist themselves, as progressives, hold the moral beliefs that one would have to violate in order to shock.

Another statue of the dark lord drinking the blood of Jesus or a woman flaunting her body in a statement about "feminism" does nothing to disrupt the moral fabric of society precisely because it is not against the moral fabric of society and not because this moral fabric has lost its capacity for shock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
I guess something similar happened at the end of the Roman Empire. The Romans accepted Christianty, which was a religion of a conquered people and they didn't protect themselves in the Migration period afterwards.
I agree. I also thought of the French Revolution after posting. My comments were too absolute, but it is historically highly unusual.

Today the bourgeosie seems to have lost any values. They don't stand up for conservative values anymore or only if it is hidden behind populism. They are not progressive either but they don't oppose it anymore.
I disagree. The current bourgeoisie are very concerned with being seen as being progressive. This might not constitute legitimate belief, but I don't think that's too relevant.

The loss of artistical values like tonality was probably an indicator for the loss of social values later. Progressivism had just an easier game on a cerebral field without practical implications like art. Overall I think this progressivism is an effect of prosperity. With affluence people get more or less stupid ideas. In povetry things are rather inevitably aligned to working principals.
Commenting too much here would be delving too far away from being germane to classical music but I will say that progressives and conservatives alike have had their fair share of stupid ideas throughout history, but there is a survivorship bias with regards to good progressive ideas (new bad ideas are generally rejected but old bad ideas often stay past their expiry date) that make people forget this.

I think only reactionary statements can shock today, but not if it is art. The thing is if it is labeled as art people will put it into that category and wont care anymore, because it is a category they don't understand anymore anyway because of what the modernists did with it. Art was abused for shocking for too long, so it lost its ability to shock.
I'm pretty sure it could shock even if it is labelled as art.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top