Are European Art Music Genres Inherently Bourgeoisie Art (especially opera)

[DavidX]

1) Currently/Throughout History

Currently the opera market occupies a place in the economy that is obscene. Large government handouts (compared to other sectors of the arts in proportion to popularity) A business model that caters to elitism, wealth, (tickets that cost a month's salary) status, (Divas, Conoisseurs) it seems to have no reedeming qualities other than that it once was a universal and popular art and entertainment in Western Europe. A pit musician is often more than not just working at a desk job, a thankless, intense and taxing task of plodding out harmonic support for singers. with operas at obscene lengths such as wagner's ring cycle, there are many jobs that are "menial labor" that are much more personally rewarding than a pit job, and most musicians in that position see it as their nine-to-five while they persue other interests in music, (chamber groups, touring, teaching, composing, etc.)

The relevance of the artistic material too in today's world is questionable. My view of opera is similar to brian clegg's here, so you can see where i'm coming from personally - (google Brian Clegg, Why I hate opera)

My hate for opera is inversely correlational for my love of most other large scale genres of music - symphony, band, chamber groups.

Alot of these things apply to these genres as well, and as time goes on, with culture going in the direction it is, these characteristics will only dramatically intensify.

I would, very easily, (and I will soon) argue against the idea that you can have inherently "working class" (punk, metal, alternative electronica, early jazz) and inherently "borgiousie" (pop, rock, late jazz) art forms, but my problem is that Opera is mostly irreconcilable with that position. it is totally irredeemable. I have yet to meet an opera singer with a soul. the one opera singer i can talk to, is a brilliant disillusioned man who took his degree in opera and went into law.

wondering if anyone has similar sentiments, and can show what i believe to be more substantially true than it already is. I don't want any reason to be polite to these people any more.

[Cencus]

Opera in the west has become a very exclusive stuck up it's own arse load of pretencious [insert suitable expletive here], but that can happen to any art form to a degree.

The problem opera has I think is the costs in staging shows. You need a load of very specialised [read expensive] performers, a shedload of rehersal time which given the numbers needed cannot be done in somebodies garage, a venue with suitable accoustics, and I expect a shedload of other costs.

There is no reason in a socialist society that opera and ballet cannot be redeemed away from it's current position of exclusivity. No art form is beyond redemtion except RnB:p

[Fawkes]

No, no music or art genre is inherently bourgeois. The manner in which certain genres are presented may be conducive to a bourgeois audience, but that is not indicative of the art form itself. If opera is irreconcilable in its "bourgeoiness", yet no other genre is, how would you explain a major rock band like U2 that encompasses all of the characteristics you mentioned excepting maybe the government hand-outs part?

[Sam_b]

Large government handouts (compared to other sectors of the arts in proportion to popularity)

Terrible generalisation, and I think you make this without any idea of what these 'other sectors' are, and how they are funded either. There were 'very latge government handouts' inthe former Eastern Bloc for the creation and production of cinema which pushed artistic boundaries. The UK film council has money avaialble to push independent British film, for example. Is this a bad thing? is funding culture a bad thing? Just because there may be a differentiation in access does not mean that it is bad in theory.

Most often 'high art' has been regarded as such because of lack of access to it by working class people. The question is not condemning art but to allow the possibility of open access and participation.


(tickets that cost a month's salary)

I think you're exaggerating, but also missing the role of opera in different cultural and national contexts. The Prague Opera costs as little as $5 a ticket.


it seems to have no reedeming qualities

Art is subjective, this argument is not.


The relevance of the artistic material too in today's world is questionable

Why does a certain art form have to fit in to your ideas of relevance and contemporalism? Apparently chamber groups are fine because you 'love' them; yet they also have an ancient and misunderstood history.


I have yet to meet an opera singer with a soul

I think this is one of the best lines here that sums up how your position is completely ridiculous.

[Kotze]

People with avatars from a show that looks more sterile than The Simpsons are not qualified to talk about art :P

There are certainly artforms that are more bourgeois than others, just like there are sports that are more and less bourgeois. The key is barriers to entry. How many proles play polo?

A simple economic argument can be made when it comes to whether to provide subsidies for film, text, audio, software. One thing working markets require is that there is a clear-cut distinction between those who benefit from something and those who don't, so only those who want the benefits pay, and only those who pay get them. Given how prevalent copying without paying is and how insanely expensive it would be for society to thoroughly curb that, the alternative is that the stuff is paid for by the public and the widespread copying is made legal. This also makes it easier for the hobby enthusiasts who want to do translations, update software, remix music etc.

Being physically present at a concert or in a theatre is something else entirely, the slots are limited and who has access can be easily regulated, so above argument for subsidies doesn't apply here. The idea of giving any subsidies to such ventures without filming strikes me as absurd, talk about artificial scarcity.

There is a general argument when it comes to subsidies and price controls for certain stuff, that poor people should be able to afford this or that. But this is a very clumsy way to do it. When the water is running and the basin is full and the water is about to hit the ground and trickle down the stairs, putting washrags everywhere is better than doing nothing, but I turn of the tap. When poor people can't afford stuff they should be able to afford, subsidies and price controls can help (and they also help the better-off who don't need them), but it's more to the point to reduce income differentials.

My wish for the future: The financing of film, text, audio, software will be done by the public, project pitches will be made to juries sampled from society (society as a whole as well as specific subsets, like youth) and these juries (with former winners taking an advisory role) will decide which projects to finance. The voting will be proportional, which means that minorities will get to finance some projects, too.

[Sam_b]

My wish for the future: The financing of film, text, audio, software will be done by the public, project pitches will be made to juries sampled from society (society as a whole as well as specific subsets, like youth) and these juries (with former winners taking an advisory role) will decide which projects to finance.

Art is not a competition. This is absurd.

[Il Medico]

Opera isn't inherently bourgeois. Nor Ballet. Nor is any form of art. The entire fucking idea is stupid.

[Kotze]

Art is not a competition. This is absurd.You can do within your own means what you want. If you want to draw Richard Nixon having sex with Elvis and an octupus, you can do this. If you want funding, expect some strings attached.

I know it's not widely known on RevLeft, but to know something is good or bad requires that you make a comparison of that thing with at least one other thing, otherwise you can't know whether it's good or bad, or absurd. Let's spell out the alternative for the allocation of limited funds to the arts: If there are fewer funds than what people want for their projects and allocation is not decided by a competition, the other way to do this is lottery.

Sorry for your project, but I think I'm going with KKKompeti$hn. :rolleyes:

Think before you write.

[Aeval]

This thread literally makes me cringe.

I'm sure the pit musicians are just doing it as a boring job that they don't really care about, just like I'm sure that most musicians working in popular theatre in the Westend aren't that excited about playing the music from Grease for months at a time.

There is absolutely no reason you couldn't make the content of an opera more relevant - an opera is simply a theatrical presentation in which a dramatic performance is set to music, the structural difference between it and a musical being that musicals switch between songs and normal speech, operas do not. If you don't like opera then fine, generally speaking neither do I, but who are you to decide that another person's favourite type of music needs to be eradicated? "Inherently bourgeois art" - utter nonsense.


I have yet to meet an opera singer with a soul [...] I don't want any reason to be polite to these people any more.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Seriously, grow up.

[Sam_b]

I know it's not widely known on RevLeft, but to know something is good or bad requires that you make a comparison of that thing with at least one other thing, otherwise you can't know whether it's good or bad, or absurd. Let's spell out the alternative for the allocation of limited funds to the arts: If there are fewer funds than what people want for their projects and allocation is not decided by a competition, the other way to do this is lottery.

Congratulations on missing the entire point. What you are know going on to is defining art within a mass context as being 'good' and 'bad', and highlighting 'winners' and 'losers' in a competition which is judged by mass appeal. In other words, you are advocating a system which inherently punishes diversity of the arts and one which solely bases itself on merit.

I know what art is 'good' and 'bad': I make that judgement myself, just like anyone else. What I regard as 'good' doesn't a) inherently mean you agree and b) doesn't concretely make it so. The idea of having a panel to discuss validity not only presumes that you advocate state control of funding and ideas, but reduces art to a very low denominator. You suggest a lottery is somehow worse than this.



Sorry for your project, but I think I'm going with KKKompeti$hn.

Using this sort of language to try and set the tone and discredit the opposing argument really is clutching at straws, and suggests that you feel inadequate about your own ability to put the point across.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Quote:

Way back in the 'sixties William Schuman, president of Juilliard [school of classical music] coolly reminded the Rockefellers [patrons and developers of Lincoln Center, the cultural megaplex in NYC] that Lincoln Center was not simply a bottomless money-pit, that was its actual purpose. It wasn't about art or the money, it was about creating an insatiable field for speculation in real estate, in services, in ideological control and manipulation. Now the monster's out of the box... - Paul Werner, Museum, Inc. Inside the Global Art World, p. 72.

[Fawkes]

Quote:

Care to expound on what you're getting at?

[Hit The North]

I know what art is 'good' and 'bad': I make that judgement myself, just like anyone else.

Well, you and your culture make that judgement.


Originally posted by Il Medico
Opera isn't inherently bourgeois. Nor Ballet. Nor is any form of art. The entire fucking idea is stupid.

Not such a fucking stupid idea, if you think about.

Opera emerged as a distinctive art form as part of the emergence of bourgeois culture in first Southern and then Northern Europe, dependent upon the technological innovation that it inspired. Without orchestras, without innovation in vocalisation, without the innovations in architectural construction, without the existence of an urbanised public, without the organisation of capital, the opera would be impossible. It is inextricably a part of bourgeois civilisation.

In terms of its social function, opera has variously performed a revolutionary role and a reactionary role, just like the bourgeoisie. In the 18th and 19th Centuries it is a voice of national-bourgeois struggles for national unification (Mozart and later Wagner for Germany; Verdi for Italy). Progresively, its subject matter becomes more secular - itself, a bourgeois reaction against the limits imposed on cultural expression by the Church.

None of this is to claim that opera can only concern itself with the bourgeoisie or be appreciated by the bourgeoisie. Late nineteenth century Italian opera was a genuinely popular entertainment. In 18th century Austria, the official opera, sanctioned by the remnant of feudal power, was shadowed by an alternative people's opera, performed in music halls to ragged audiences, a more fantastical and bawdy version of its bourgeois cousin. But these audiences were themselves products of bourgeois civilization.

It's important that we recognise the historical and material nature of all cultural forms. They don't exist in pure abstractions, belonging to no one, in some ether.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Care to expound on what you're getting at?
Oh, right, you're an anarchist. Then again, as the Marxist art critic Max Raphael put it, most lefties (anarchist or Marxist or whatever) are Proudhonians when it comes to culture: double-entry book-keeping, with the economics on one side and the culture on the other, and when someone tries to bring the two together as Werner does these guys get ootsy all over.

[Hit The North]

Art is not a competition. This is absurd.

Prime example in support of your thesis:

http://routenote.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/simon_cowell.jpg

[Kotze]

In other words, you are advocating a system which inherently punishes diversity of the arts [I said proportional funding, but go on] and one which solely bases itself on merit. (...) The idea of having a panel to discuss validity not only presumes that you advocate state control of funding and ideas, but reduces art to a very low denominator.I like how you manage to slur me as being an elitist control freak (merit, "state control of (...) ideas") and at the same time you piss on ordinary people ("very low denominator").

I said two things:
a) getting rid of restrictions on copying and remixing
b) proportional funding

I am against interfering with what you do with art as a hobby, as I've said several times I'm against the current legal restrictions on copying and remixing. But when you want people to pay for what you do, they have demands. Simple as that.
Using this sort of language to try and set the tone and discredit the opposing argument really is clutching at straws, and suggests that you feel inadequate about your own ability to put the point across.As I said in the post you quoted, judging something as good or bad or absurd requires that you make a comparison with at least one other thing. My point was that you haven't described something and compared my proposal with it. You didn't make a comparison, so your "opposing argument" was no more than an empty assertion ("absurd").

I ask anybody who disagrees with my proposal to describe a better way of doing it.

[Sam_b]

like how you manage to slur me as being an elitist control freak (merit, "state control of (...) ideas") and at the same time you piss on ordinary people ("very low denominator").


I never mentioned working class people at all. What you said was "juries sampled from society". Now, seeing as this current "society" marginalises and isolates the working class; and presuming that we're talking about funding in a current society (seeing as there really wouldn't be so much of these problems in a revolutionary society) I can only gleam that you yourself are advocating a proposal which marginalises the class.

Now, what do I mean by "low common denominator"? In current society, I of course refer to an artistic production (for example) which will generate a return in capital.

I have not once mentioned the words 'elitist' or 'control freak'. You are making up insults that you wished me to say so it would make your argument easier.


I am against interfering with what you do with art as a hobby, as I've said several times I'm against the current legal restrictions on copying and remixing. But when you want people to pay for what you do, they have demands. Simple as that.

TBH, I'm basing a lot of my argument on cinema, for the sake that it's the area I know the most about and what I study. However, I think it travels well to other artistic forms. Films tend to cost a lot of money to make. How do 'demands' travel into cinema when there is no concrete 'art' until the end of the process? A top-down approach here, and I believe a selective jury is a top-down function, effectively straightjackets a lot of what is going on here. What I don't think you particularly understand is that when it comes to these fields, there is not this uniform idea of 'demands' as there is a lot of diversity. It's like the difference between liking Forman and Hrebejk - it is art, but caters for different tastes. In a revolutionary society, there is not and should not be such emphasis on monetary value of work.


As I said in the post you quoted, judging something as good or bad or absurd requires that you make a comparison with at least one other thing. My point was that you haven't described something and compared my proposal with it. You didn't make a comparison, so your "opposing argument" was no more than an empty assertion ("absurd").

Art and value is not something that needs to be compared for it to be worthwhile.

[Kotze]

I never mentioned working class people at all. What you said was "juries sampled from society". Now, seeing as this current "society" marginalises and isolates the working class...When I say sampling from society I (like some others here) refer to taking a representative sample, something which I frequently talk about (eg. here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/my-question-why-t140622/index.html?p=1842060#post1842060), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-t140912/index.html?p=1848837#post1848837), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/voting-ratings-t143429/index.html?p=1899696#post1899696), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/one-party-vs-t144336/index.html?p=1914497#post1914497), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/value-electing-certain-t144804/index.html?p=1981923#post1981923)). There are more topics on this board than Chitchat and Music, you know.
I can only gleam that you yourself are advocating a proposal which marginalises the class.No, see above. The working class is big, hence the working class is a big part of such a sample.
Films tend to cost a lot of money to make. How do 'demands' travel into cinema when there is no concrete 'art' until the end of the process?When someone pitches an idea, whether it's for a movie or software, it usually helps that person to already have some accomplishments in the field. So if a movie-development jury finds your pitch a bit vague, it might still be convinced of your abilities if you show them a good short you made on a shoe-string budget.
What I don't think you particularly understand is that when it comes to these fields, there is not this uniform idea of 'demands' as there is a lot of diversity.That's like saying a planned economy can't possibly produce clothes because there are thin and fat people. That's why I mentioned proportional funding.

I repeat: I ask anybody who disagrees with my proposal to describe a better way of doing it.

[Sam_b]

When I say sampling from society I (like some others here) refer to taking a representative sample, something which I frequently talk about (eg. here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/my-question-why-t140622/index.html?p=1842060#post1842060), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-t140912/index.html?p=1848837#post1848837), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/voting-ratings-t143429/index.html?p=1899696#post1899696), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/one-party-vs-t144336/index.html?p=1914497#post1914497), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/value-electing-certain-t144804/index.html?p=1981923#post1981923)). There are more topics on this board than Chitchat and Music, you know.

This is simplistic, and assumes that effective representation can be made within the current political and economic boundries of society. You frequently talk about it, yes, so you'll notice users like greymouser posting and showing the shortcomings of what you have been saying. When it comes to artistic preference there can be no 'representative sample' anyway.

You can also can your patrionising attitude, seeing as i've been here for a lot longer than you have. You don't have to tell me there are more forums as I, well, have kinda posted in all of them.


No, see above. The working class is big, hence the working class is a big part of such a sample.

No, see above.


When someone pitches an idea, whether it's for a movie or software, it usually helps that person to already have some accomplishments in the field. So if a movie-development jury finds your pitch a bit vague, it might still be convinced of your abilities if you show them a good short you made on a shoe-string budget.

I don't have to explain that this is inherently elitist. You're now making excuses based on a concept that doesn't exist now, ie you're super-proportional wonder jury. You may be interested to know that one of the main criticisms of the committee on funding Estonian cinema has been criticised by both artists and academics in cinema for having this pretty incestuous attitude to funding; where those who have previously made films being given funding over new endevours.

Also, most movies aren't particularly 'pitched'.


That's like saying a planned economy can't possibly produce clothes because there are thin and fat people. That's why I mentioned proportional funding.


That's a really, really far-fetched rationale. Do you believe artistic taste can fit into the boundries of clothes-sizing, or do you think that no unique ideas come out of various personal appraisal?

Art can not, and will not, be decided on merit by a small group of appointed 'representatives' of the class.

[Kotze]

your patrionising attitudeGiven your blather my patronising attitude is more than justified. Critique requires comparing, you don't make a comparison, so all you have done here is just empty babbling.
You frequently talk about [sampling], yes, so you'll notice users like greymouser posting and showing the shortcomings of what you have been saying. (...) You're now making excuses based on a concept that doesn't exist now, ie you're super-proportional wonder jury.I am perfectly aware of the shortcomings of sampling, as should be especially clear from that talk with graymouser.
Random sampling is proportional, though it gets more fuzzy the smaller the sample is. Even with a small board filled with people like this it is a very proportional process when you look at its membership over several iterations. So if majority decisions of a small board selected like this are of the type that they don't make decisions that you can't undo (like binding long-term contracts), fuzziness is less of an issue; though when we look closely at the details, we always spot some unundoable consequences.For representative fuzziness to be a problem it must both be true that the sample size is small and that the decisions are of the one-off type, otherwise you either have instant proportionality or proportionality over time. So small sample size would be a problem for issues like modifying a constitution in 20-year intervals — not for financing movies, where the argument of proportionality over time applies.

Even when you don't look at the overall composition of such a body over time, but just a random sample of 100 at a particular moment, it's probably more representative of the working class than any western elected national parliament, and also more representative of the working class than the highest organs of most self-styled socialist parties.

I repeat, again: I ask anybody who disagrees with my proposal to describe a better way of doing it. I ask you, and those who thanked your "argument" (Fawkes, Il Medico, Bob The Builder) to either mention an alternative and why it's better — you know, something called making a comparison in intellectual circles — or to STFU.

PS
Family Guy sucks. It lacks something called facial expressions. Sounds like an intriguing concept? Consult The Ren & Stimpy Show.

[Sam_b]

Critique requires comparing, you don't make a comparison, so all you have done here is just empty babbling.

Critique does not necessarily require a comparison. Critiquing is not solely about comparing one work to another on merit.

I swear your reponses are getting shorter due to a lack of argument here. This discussion is not about whether or not there's a better solution than your one, this is not the point and you've totally missed it. I'm not interested in talking about a sample that will be inherently biased and unrepresentive in the space of a non-revolutionary society here. I've already shown how your theory is only really applying to the current structures here. Telling people to 'STFU' because they don't like your idea does not necessarily mean that they have an alternative. But I think you're getting emotionally attached and irate at what is an internet discussion, and believe you're getting discredited. This might be why you're throwing insults around.


Family Guy sucks. It lacks something called facial expressions. Sounds like an intriguing concept? Consult The Ren & Stimpy Show.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a270/Columbialina/peter.jpg


Oh no! I'm truly shocked at your detraction from the argument! But thanks for proving my point here with regards to diversity of opinion. Doesn't make it more or less valid, does it now?

[Sam_b]

As an interesting side note: Seth MacFarlane is a graduate from the Rhode Island School of Design, one of the most prestigeous art schools.

[Kotze]

I swear your reponses are getting shorter due to a lack of argument here.What can I do, there is not much meat to your "opposing argument"...
I'm not interested in talking about a sample that will be inherently biased and unrepresentiveBiased and unrepresentative in comparison to what? :rolleyes:

[Sam_b]

What can I do, there is not much meat to your "opposing argument"...


What I don't think you particularly understand is that when it comes to these fields, there is not this uniform idea of 'demands' as there is a lot of diversity. It's like the difference between liking Forman and Hrebejk - it is art, but caters for different tastes. In a revolutionary society, there is not and should not be such emphasis on monetary value of work.


Not dealt with.


Art and value is not something that needs to be compared for it to be worthwhile.

Not dealt with.


You may be interested to know that one of the main criticisms of the committee on funding Estonian cinema has been criticised by both artists and academics in cinema for having this pretty incestuous attitude to funding; where those who have previously made films being given funding over new endevours.

Also, most movies aren't particularly 'pitched'.

Not dealt with.


o you believe artistic taste can fit into the boundries of clothes-sizing, or do you think that no unique ideas come out of various personal appraisal?

Not dealt with.


Critique does not necessarily require a comparison. Critiquing is not solely about comparing one work to another on merit.


Not dealt with.

Why do you feel the need to accuse people who disagree with your idea with saying slurs which they didn't, or tell people who thank posts to 'STFU', or use rolling-eyes smileys, by the way?

[Fawkes]

My wish for the future: The financing of film, text, audio, software will be done by the public, project pitches will be made to juries sampled from society (society as a whole as well as specific subsets, like youth) and these juries (with former winners taking an advisory role) will decide which projects to finance. The voting will be proportional, which means that minorities will get to finance some projects, too.

How the hell do you expect people to make decisions on who resources should be allocated to based off of a pitch they wrote about what they're trying to do? There is no way to accurately project what a film is going to look like or an album is going to sound like through words, no matter how long your pitch may be. Imagine if Stanley Kubrick had to make a pitch to some committee about the artistic merit of The Shining considering that it's a film whose genius relies largely on cinematography and camera techniques and acting, things which can in no way be expressed through a verbal or written pitch. In other words, only existing techniques could be hoped to at least somewhat be expressed verbally, thereby discouraging innovative and new art forms and lending preferential treatment to existing ones.

Obviously, I'm not even gonna bother addressing what Sam_b already did about the impossibility in the current political system to have an accurately representative jury.



Oh, right, you're an anarchist. Then again, as the Marxist art critic Max Raphael put it, most lefties (anarchist or Marxist or whatever) are Proudhonians when it comes to culture: double-entry book-keeping, with the economics on one side and the culture on the other, and when someone tries to bring the two together as Werner does these guys get ootsy all over.
I actually misread the original quote, but I don't really see what me being an anarchist has to do with it in any way.

[Manic Impressive]

Does anyone in this thread actually like Opera? Because I love it, it's kind of a secret love and I don't really know much about it. But watch these and tell me Opera is not beautiful.


(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7-Qa92Rzbk)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7-Qa92Rzbk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfp9gAmYk9w)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp7rZEKClk4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp7rZEKClk4)

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A3zetSuYRg)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A3zetSuYRg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfp9gAmYk9w)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfp9gAmYk9w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfp9gAmYk9w)

if a tear doesn't come to your eye by the end of nessun dorma you may be dead inside.

I think beautiful things should have time and resources allocated to them regardless of their popularity.

[Manic Impressive]

Just checked ticket prices and in London they range from £18 - £200 hardly a months wages.

[Kotze]

What I don't think you particularly understand is that when it comes to these fields, there is not this uniform idea of 'demands' as there is a lot of diversity. It's like the difference between liking Forman and Hrebejk - it is art, but caters for different tastes.There is also difference in tastes when it comes to clothes, toys, furniture, food...


In a revolutionary society, there is not and should not be such emphasis on monetary value of work. Not dealt with
I am against interfering with what you do with art as a hobby, as I've said several times I'm against the current legal restrictions on copying and remixing. But when you want people to pay for what you do, they have demands. Simple as that.Art projects are not different from other projects in that regard.
Art and value is not something that needs to be compared for it to be worthwhile. Not dealt with.When you ask people to fund your project and there are more project ideas than can be realized with the funds, you can bet your puppy ass that people will make comparisons and judgements. There is no way around this (though lifting copying and modification restrictions will strongly reduce the need for funding in the first place). Art projects are not different from other projects in that regard. I propose a way to do this more democratically.
You may be interested to know that one of the main criticisms of the committee on funding Estonian cinema has been criticised by both artists and academics in cinema for having this pretty incestuous attitude to funding; where those who have previously made films being given funding over new endevours.Giving funds primarily to those with experience is sensible whenever quality is found to positively correlate with it, though an exception has to be made for training newcomers to have them ready when those getting too old have to be replaced. Art projects are not different from other projects in that regard.
Do you believe artistic taste can fit into the boundries of clothes-sizingHave you ever heard of genres? Btw. I think you really underappreciate the kind of work that goes into designing clothes.
Critique does not necessarily require a comparison.You are simply wrong about that. I'm quite astonished that you don't get it. Not all comparisons are completely explicit. When someone's entire review is, "This FPS sucks, bro *BURP*", it is still clear for anybody who pays a bit of attention that there is a comparison involved: There is a reference to the quality this person expects nowadays in the genre the game belongs to (first-person shooter).


Imagine if Stanley Kubrick had to make a pitch to some committee about the artistic merit of The Shining considering that it's a film whose genius relies largely on cinematography and camera techniques and acting, things which can in no way be expressed through a verbal or written pitch.Terrible example for your argument, given the fame he already had at that point. :closedeyes: But let's disregard that for the sake of the argument. Pitches also involve storyboards with sketched scenes. The pitch for The Matrix is legendary, just picture after picture after picture. I'm sure Kubrick would have come up with a visually stunning short to give people a glimpse of his vision. The Shining also involves a nice twist, playing with the expectations of those in the audience who have read the book, I'm sure you can explain such a thing to a jury with words and I'm sure that the hypothetical film-funding jury for The Shining would have loved this bit.
Obviously, I'm not even gonna bother addressing what Sam_b already did about the impossibility in the current political system to have an accurately representative jury.People, make a comparison when you say things like that, please. The point is not whether something is perfect, it's whether something is good or bad in comparison to something else. I claim randomly selected juries will have more working-class people on board and make decisions that better reflect a working-class view than what we have now in film funding. I think that's a pretty sure bet.

We are going back to the original topic now. The way Sam_b and others put art on a pedestal strikes me as very bourgeois: There are these enlightened individuals who make art, you know man, ART, and these individual individuals are just sooo individually special you sheeples don't understand, so don't put them into the stalinist straighjacket of classification schemes blahblahblahdeblah. Now give me money and don't ask for what.


Does anyone in this thread actually like Opera? (...) I think beautiful things should have time and resources allocated to them regardless of their popularity.I think beautiful things should be shared. The second clip is not available where I live due to copyright claims...

[Kotze]

Some time ago I read an article about how stiff classical music is today and how it wasn't always like that and how actors and musicians used to interact with the audience and how orchestras didn't have conductors back then and how that change is part of some grand antidemocratic conspiracy of sorts.

Anybody remember that?

[Sam_b]

There is also difference in tastes when it comes to clothes, toys, furniture, food...

Do you also support committees for the distribution of food and clothes based on a 'representative' fashion sense?

Regardless, this glances over the point i'm making. There is variety and you say so yourself. Why, then should a committee decide what the majority cultural taste is? This completely negates specialised pieces.


Art projects are not different from other projects in that regard.

You haven't answered the question. The question is why you are focusing on money, as I am not interested or arguing, as i've said before, about a non-revolutionary society here.


When you ask people to fund your project and there are more project ideas than can be realized with the funds, you can bet your puppy ass that people will make comparisons and judgements. There is no way around this (though lifting copying and modification restrictions will strongly reduce the need for funding in the first place). Art projects are not different from other projects in that regard. I propose a way to do this more democratically.

I'm not denying that people will make comparisons and judgements though. I'm merely saying that they are not necessary and integral to all critiques. I don't think you can compare art to 'other projects' such as design and manufacture either.


Giving funds primarily to those with experience is sensible whenever quality is found to positively correlate with it, though an exception has to be made for training newcomers to have them ready when those getting too old have to be replaced. Art projects are not different from other projects in that regard.

If you see established art as a safe option, perhaps. But this is what we were discussing with regards to the OP: Opera isn't inherently bourgeois, but there has to be a question about open accessibility to the arts. I don't think this answers it.


Have you ever heard of genres? Btw. I think you really underappreciate the kind of work that goes into designing clothes.

I used to work in fashion. Are you now suggesting, by the way, that art has to fit a genre?


You are simply wrong about that. I'm quite astonished that you don't get it. Not all comparisons are completely explicit. When someone's entire review is, "This FPS sucks, bro *BURP*", it is still clear for anybody who pays a bit of attention that there is a comparison involved: There is a reference to the quality this person expects nowadays in the genre the game belongs to (first-person shooter).

I'll happily copy you extracts from my dissertation after its due date, which talks a lot about Forman's use of camerawork to generate a realism which grounds its films. Wasn't particularly done before. What you're now going on is comparison in a pretty sketchy way, ie an assertion that "X is racist" based on an example of something that is not racist. If so, yes I agree, but I thought that was completely obvious and we were talking about concrete pieces here.


Pitches also involve storyboards with sketched scenes. The pitch for The Matrix is legendary, just picture after picture after picture. I'm sure Kubrick would have come up with a visually stunning short to give people a glimpse of his vision. The Shining also involves a nice twist, playing with the expectations of those in the audience who have read the book, I'm sure you can explain such a thing to a jury with words and I'm sure that the hypothetical film-funding jury for The Shining would have loved this bit.

This smacks of support for an idea that previously was in use for films during Socialist Realism in the People's Republic of Poland.


People, make a comparison when you say things like that, please. The point is not whether something is perfect, it's whether something is good or bad in comparison to something else. I claim randomly selected juries will have more working-class people on board and make decisions that better reflect a working-class view than what we have now in film funding. I think that's a pretty sure bet.

Why does something have to be 'good' or 'bad'?


he way Sam_b and others put art on a pedestal strikes me as very bourgeois

I don't think it is particularly bourgeois to call for free and open opportunity when it comes to art. I'm not putting art on a pedestal here, and it's telling that you have had to make up a faux-quote example rather than quote anything I was actually saying with this regard. It is aknowledging that the idea of mass art can be worthwhile, but also very stifling and alienatory. I am against such liberal ideas as ones that are proposed from the top-down on art, such as a 'representative jury' which cannot exist in the current socio-political context.


There are these enlightened individuals who make art, you know man, ART, and these individual individuals are just sooo individually special you sheeples don't understand, so don't put them into the stalinist straighjacket of classification schemes blahblahblahdeblah. Now give me money and don't ask for what.


Why do you feel the need to accuse people who disagree with your idea with saying slurs which they didn't, or tell people who thank posts to 'STFU', or use rolling-eyes smileys, by the way?

[Dimentio]

1) Currently/Throughout History

Currently the opera market occupies a place in the economy that is obscene. Large government handouts (compared to other sectors of the arts in proportion to popularity) A business model that caters to elitism, wealth, (tickets that cost a month's salary) status, (Divas, Conoisseurs) it seems to have no reedeming qualities other than that it once was a universal and popular art and entertainment in Western Europe. A pit musician is often more than not just working at a desk job, a thankless, intense and taxing task of plodding out harmonic support for singers. with operas at obscene lengths such as wagner's ring cycle, there are many jobs that are "menial labor" that are much more personally rewarding than a pit job, and most musicians in that position see it as their nine-to-five while they persue other interests in music, (chamber groups, touring, teaching, composing, etc.)

The relevance of the artistic material too in today's world is questionable. My view of opera is similar to brian clegg's here, so you can see where i'm coming from personally - (google Brian Clegg, Why I hate opera)

My hate for opera is inversely correlational for my love of most other large scale genres of music - symphony, band, chamber groups.

Alot of these things apply to these genres as well, and as time goes on, with culture going in the direction it is, these characteristics will only dramatically intensify.

I would, very easily, (and I will soon) argue against the idea that you can have inherently "working class" (punk, metal, alternative electronica, early jazz) and inherently "borgiousie" (pop, rock, late jazz) art forms, but my problem is that Opera is mostly irreconcilable with that position. it is totally irredeemable. I have yet to meet an opera singer with a soul. the one opera singer i can talk to, is a brilliant disillusioned man who took his degree in opera and went into law.

wondering if anyone has similar sentiments, and can show what i believe to be more substantially true than it already is. I don't want any reason to be polite to these people any more.

Opera in general is sounding like if you are torturing cats in an amplifier. There are some good pieces out there though.

qtivSTZrezc

When it comes to what classical European music I like the most, I enjoy Gregorian music and medieval folk music.

3QWS1xUkUaA

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I actually misread the original quote, but I don't really see what me being an anarchist has to do with it in any way.

Eh - because you guys - all of you, are dealing with this question from the inside, viz. as folks who have an economic stake in the culture industry (all to the good), but you're not bringing a broader consistent theoretical view to it, as Marxists occasionally try to do.

Somehow, a question about Opera in general turned into the all-important issue of funding, which unfortunately became your priority. It's important to art workers, but it doesn't answer the question, what does funding (the economic structure of the arts) do? How does it function in the here-and-now, and specifically, in the production of real operas, now and then? Opera's not my specialty, but I happened to have worked backstage on operas, and I know the field pretty well, and as I indicated, both Museum, Inc. and The Red Museum talk a great deal about opera as an institution and how, as an institution it serves the needs of global capital.

Now, for instance, would you guys care to discuss the differences in form, in financing, in political outlook, etc. between Charpentier's Louise at the Opera Comique in 1900, vs. Berg's Wozzeck at the Met in 2011? 'Cause I've got tickets for the latter.

[Kotze]

As for your Family Guy pic, Sam_b:

What is that supposed to signify, is he screaming or in stasis, is he in psychological shock or in physical pain? Where is the tongue, the uvula, where is the sweat, the veins in the eyes, oh and really great work on the irides and pupils.

You might as well praise He-Man.

You know what, since you know so much about animation, why don't you go over to Cartoon Brew (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/) and tell some actual animators how much you like the art of Family Guy? :)


Do you also support committees for the distribution of food and clothes based on a 'representative' fashion sense?

Regardless, this glances over the point i'm making. There is variety and you say so yourself. Why, then should a committee decide what the majority cultural taste is?You have no point. It's interesting that after writing 8 "replies" to me, you still haven't completely digested the simple points in my initial post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/european-art-music-t148242/index.html?p=1992658#post1992658):

I refer to film, text, audio, software — stuff where the first unit is expensive, after that there is no technical reason copies can't be made at 0 cost. This does not apply to food and clothes.

I said that the funding allocation mechanism should be proportional.
The question is why you are focusing on money, as I am not interested or arguing, as i've said before, about a non-revolutionary society here.Ohoo, are you trying to make a comparison, non-revolutionary society vs revolutionary society, I'm so proud of you. The argument is still shit though, because a revolution won't end all scarcity. In the arts there is some artificial scarcity due to copyright restrictions. This was already addressed in my initial post.

[Hit The North]

^^^ Fucking hell, Kotze, have you always been this tiresome?

[Kotze]

At last, I have outsambeed Sam_b.

What a disgusting feeling. :crying:

[Sam_b]

What is that supposed to signify, is he screaming or in stasis, is he in psychological shock or in physical pain? Where is the tongue, the uvula, where is the sweat, the veins in the eyes, oh and really great work on the irides and pupils.


Context.


You know what, since you know so much about animation, why don't you go over to Cartoon Brew (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cartoonbrew.com/) and tell some actual animators how much you like the art of Family Guy?

Please quote where I described Family Guy as art.


I refer to film, text, audio, software — stuff where the first unit is expensive, after that there is no technical reason copies can't be made at 0 cost

Thats because I'm erring on the side of agreement. But again, why this fixation with money?


I said that the funding allocation mechanism should be proportional

To which I replied that proportionality is impossible in the current society.


The argument is still shit though

It's telling that this has to be your resort, as if selective argumentation and accusing people of saying things they haven't weren't enough.

You can answer the rest of my last post, if you like. I'm looking forwar dto the next cargo from the insult train, which will no doubt emphasise your reasonable approach.


At last, I have outsambeed Sam_b.


Yet somehow, a lot of people still appreciate and agree with my posts.

[Kotze]

The argument is still shit though, because a revolution won't end all scarcity.
It's telling that this has to be your resortYou know what I find telling? That you somehow forgot to quote that part that I set in bold here.
But again, why this fixation with money?You might as well ask a cancer researcher why he likes cancer so much. Curbing a problem requires paying attention to it. To reduce scarcity, the very first thing one must do is acknowledge it. The points I made in my initial post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/european-art-music-t148242/index.html?p=1992658#post1992658) are straightforward. I suggest you read that post again. I made a very simple point there about how to reduce scarcity, among other things. I invite anybody with different ideas about funding to voice them. If you prefer financing via today's copyright system or something inbetween like shorter copyright and some democratic proportional funding, say so. If you think that in the future funding will be unnecessary as there will be enough done by volunteers, say so.

[Sam_b]

That you somehow forgot to quote that part that I set in bold here.

Because this wasn't what I was getting on about. I was highlighting how you have throughout this argument you have relied on flames and falsities to try and get your point across; which I think is an indication of someone who is getting desperate and has no emotional control over an argument whatsoever.


You might as well ask a cancer researcher why he likes cancer so much

I imagine cancer would still exist in a revolutionary society.


To reduce scarcity, the very first thing one must do is acknowledge it.

I can only assume that this scarcity is monetary, which isn't true in a current society and non-existant in a revolutionary one.


I invite anybody with different ideas about funding to voice them

You're not inviting anyone. In fact, a couple of posts back you said to either come up with an alternative or 'STFU'.


If you prefer financing via today's copyright system or something inbetween like shorter copyright and some democratic proportional funding, say so. If you think that in the future funding will be unnecessary as there will be enough done by volunteers, say so.

You're making this black and white when it isn't. Nobody here has voiced support for the current way in which these affairs are handled, and I doubt they do.

[Kotze]

you have throughout this argument you have relied on flames and falsities to try and get your point across; which I think is an indication of someone who is getting desperate
you advocate state control of (...) ideas
(...)
you yourself are advocating a proposal which marginalises the class.
(...)
I have not once mentioned the words 'elitist' or 'control freak'. You are making up insults
(...)
this is inherently elitist.:rolleyes:
I imagine cancer would still exist in a revolutionary society.That was the point — just like with scarcity, even if one can't get rid of it, one should still try to curb it. Curbing it requires focussing on it.
I can only assume that this scarcity is monetary, which isn't true in a current society and non-existant in a revolutionary one.Before you go on with that scarcity thing, please make sure that we are on the same page here, because this reminds me of some claims about that word thrown around on this board by others. In economics, scarcity doesn't just refer to ultra-rare stuff, it has a very broad meaning.

If you do actually believe that a sort of rationing system via labour vouchers won't be needed in a society that is only socially and culturally but not technically vastly different, then I strongly disagree, for the same reasons I disagree with others about that. If you do mean something else, then say what you mean, so far I've found your statements here have been very fuzzy.


If you prefer financing via today's copyright system or something inbetween like shorter copyright and some democratic proportional funding, say so. If you think that in the future funding will be unnecessary as there will be enough done by volunteers, say so.
You're making this black and white when it isn't.Black and white, hmm? In the quote you reply to I mention the status quo, something that is half-way between the status quo and my proposal, and yet another option.

You are trying to get me to always make the same eyerolling expression, aren't you?

You have posted so much, yet said so little. I still don't know whether you think my proposal is better or worse or equally crappy than the status quo, for instance.

I for one believe that doing things like challenging copyright is not something to be postponed until some far-off future date, but that this can bring improvements in the present and that this can be part of what will help the new society come into being, since copyright and media concentration are intimately connected issues.

[Sam_b]

:rolleyes:

The most of which you haven't tackled heads on. Is this better or worse than attributing quotes to people when they haven't said them?


That was the point — just like with scarcity, even if one can't get rid of it, one should still try to curb it. Curbing it requires focussing on it.

What scarcity?


If you do actually believe that a sort of rationing system via labour vouchers won't be needed in a society that is only socially and culturally but not technically vastly different, then I strongly disagree, for the same reasons I disagree with others about that. If you do mean something else, then say what you mean, so far I've found your statements here have been very fuzzy.


As, I think, have yours; but we need to be more specific here. What do we actually mean by labour vouchers here? I'm not talking about a revolutionary society within the bounds of an isolated state structure, for instance - which would be where a lot of this so-called 'scarcity' would originate.



You are trying to get me to always make the same eyerolling expression, aren't you?

I think you'll find you're doing that yourself.


I for one believe that doing things like challenging copyright is not something to be postponed until some far-off future date, but that this can bring improvements in the present and that this can be part of what will help the new society come into being, since copyright and media concentration are intimately connected issues.

I agree. Whats this got to do with my quote? I have said on several occasions i'm not discussing this within the bounds of current society, and thus the 'staus quo' or 'half way' proposal do not matter for anything. I've never disagreed with what you have been saying about copyight, otherwise I would have brung them up.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

NOXe0RfMHvo
zjrfAfbt72Y
BG-ukxyr5Ug

[KC]

WTF is going on with this thread anyways? I can't seem to make heads or tails of it.

[Minima]

Hello!

Since the creation of this thread, y'all have gone on to discuss fascinating things like family guy and the subjectivity of value in art. A moderator has even posted three videos of nothing but warhammer soundtracks and little explanation, contributing much to the discussion of the above topics...

I would like to redefine my original thesis, with the experience of half a year of working in opera (shoot me already), and having read all your posts to date.

I would firstly discard my thesis that opera is an inherently "unredeemable" genre, as a ridiculous notion, which was convincingly argued by my comrades,
As for facts, I now have real ones.

And as to the timeliness of the issue, which is also pertinent. (As you know, Harper won an majority conservative election in Canada. he is carrying out art cuts in the name of a dubiously constructed populism, with the argument that the arts are not integral to the lives of ordinary Canadians. This is not dissimilar to what is happening in Sweden, in England, in the states, with many symphonies dissolving, etc.)

My immediate question would be, from the perspective of within this industry, "is this permissible?" and "should we bother fighting it" holding also the context, given the knowledge, the struggles, and concerns of the revleft today. Is there any room for a defence of art in the the enormous struggle against capitalism- specifically opera, in it's current state, as it exists, today? (we cannot make demands for the future of opera we can only fight for "really existing opera")

(here is not fact but experience, and only subjective, i know)
I and my friends have experienced the opera world, not from the starry eyed idealism of those on the outside, but those who work day to day lives within the world of opera. The professional culture is stifling, the careerist instinct rules. When D. said that he had never met a opera singer with a soul, he had probably meant that he had never met an opera singer with an single "idea" in their heads. it is so often that we meet people in which their interest in music and passion is only mercenary to their careerism. And it is arguable that this is integral part of opera culture, of divas, of theater boxes, of perfume, status and "high culture." Indeed a disproportionate amount 19/20th century people went to show their society rather than any real genuine interest in music. (this is well documented in any musicological writing on the subject, I would recommend starting with the monumental work by taruskin, the Oxford history..) To put up with all of this shit for art, that would be worth it indeed. But what art? Opera as art? I surely would not do that for opera!

My basic formulation against opera aesthetically that the "stuff of music" is not really the same as the "stuff of opera" in that the majority of composers who composed for opera whom are popular today, Bizet, Verdi, Donzetti, Puccinni, Massenet, Verdi, Rossini, Wagner only composed music for opera, and did not for other genres (symphony, quartet, concertos, sonatas) and composers who wrote in these genres, generally did not have a successful output as opera with the few obvious exceptions -Strauss, Tchaikovsky, (and they are both often deemed superficial) The stuff of opera is something else! - what is it drama? ... anyone who has been to "decent" opera and "decent" theater both and compared can immediately confirm for you the horrible hammy acting and tired and forced drama which I feel so dominates opera. So what the hell is the "stuff of opera" if it is not the stuff of music nor drama? and I am so convinced that more often then not the "stuff of opera" just happens to be.... money

That opera today itself is irremediable is rhetoric for sure, but it does get alot of sympathy from me. Today opera is a museum culture, of works generally a hundred or more years old. Opera, as the institution that constitute it today, are staunchly conservative. It's audience is conservative and rich (or at least have a very substantial access to leisure. It's bourgeois radicalism was once (to monarchists) transgressive and shocking and new. It is incredibly far from ideas like "universality (think Beethoven)" and "universal humanity" of other music, not that we radicals like those terms much anyway. That it is impractical to reclaim the "great works" in the name of left politics, and if not politics, "new art" however, is testament to their inherent rootedness in bourgeois ideology. Capitalists like Harper no longer need opera, they have hockey, (mass televised sport- another bourgeois institution for sure!) and it frightens me to see that quasi-mystical reverence for art with a capital "A" so popular amongst revleft, and I will fight it the best I can. (We should not throw out the baby and the bath water together. As the baby is the agent soiling the water in the first place, we should throw out the baby instead!)

these are my rough sentiments and I seek to confirm or defeat through confrontation with ideas with a nature of a sustained engagement with these matters rather than rhetorical gestures, or equally general and rather subjective sentiments.