promethea.incorporated

exsecant:

bluesette:

thathopeyetlives:

bluesette:

maxiesatanofficial:

I have… mixed feelings about this article? For one, it denigrates both (admittedly masturbatory) avant-garde works and popular works in favor of a very narrow view of High Art, which I’m not fond of; there is also, perhaps unintentionally, a tone of nostalgia and longing for kings and robber barons, their “better taste” justifying their equally terrible (if not worse!) political/economic actions.

It’s an interesting topic but the actual execution feels very poor + simplistic.

Yeah this article takes a bunch of interesting topics and does just about the least interesting thing it could with them.

The trend among the super rich to seek out populist cultural experiences is important, but not in the way that the author thinks it is. The fact that dictators listen to the same pop stars as their citizens but can also afford glamorous private concerts with those stars says something about the way displays of power work in the modern age. There’s a reason they’re not building opera halls, and it’s not just a matter of taste.

That… doesn’t seem quite right. 

(I remember opera in recent times as being popular with Literally Everybody Who Can Perform The Upper Class Identity Temporarily, which can be anywhere from the top 10% to top 50% of the population, and individual songs or light opera, and burlesque that grew up in parody of it, being even more widely popular)

There would seem to be three or four broad categories: Modern Popular, Traditional, Modern Intellectual, and the Anti-Art offshoot of Modern Intellectual. 

Modern Popular is usually opposed to Traditional on the basis of modern snobbery, but from my (Reactionary Reconstructionist) point of view Modern Popular is actually pretty close to Traditional, at least when the totally unmoored wierd shit category is removed. 

Also a lot of people forget that the lower-class forms of Traditional ever existed. 

A fucking ugly yacht painted in dazzle camoflauge is opposed to both Traditional and to Modern Popular. 

Maybe it’s because I’m feeling pretty sick right now but I’m not really clear how this disagrees with my post. I meant that having your name attached to an opera used to be an effective way of showing you’re a big deal, but these days having Beyonce play at your wedding works much better. The article attributing everything to personal taste is missing the meaty stuff. Not my best phrasing up there though.

Edit: okay just reread and I can totally see how my post came across. I didn’t mean to imply that opera was never popular.

Excuse my amateur history and sociology here, but isn’t that just a facet of the decreasing popularity of patronage* systems in general? Rich people used to show off their wealth by sponsoring artists and musicians long-term, but now it’s more fashionable to shop around and to know what you’re getting before you buy it.

This seems like a result of consumerism (I guess this is the best word available for the not-capitalism-but-associated-with-it thing that academics call capitalism or neoliberalism sometimes?) and larger urban centers. There are far more works of art and entertainment available, so why would you sponsor a single artist or musician for years when there are hundreds of equally deserving creators out there? Especially since it’s become much higher-status to be seen as a buyer and consumer.

*Patreon is a really far cry from Maecenas and Vergil for reasons I won’t go into because I’m tired and should probably be writing proofs not shitty history speculation. Mostly just the degree of commitment and the level of showing off involved. Also, not to be confused with the Roman patronage system that was actually called a patronage system–that was more like a hierarchical kin network without the blood relations, and had nothing to do with art.

Put bluntly, the upper class just aren’t as classy as they used to be.

So too has public funding for high art taken a beating. While Americans might yearn for the sort of well-funded public arts programs they imagine Europeans prioritize, the reality is much bleaker. Despite Europe’s zealous emphasis on promoting a rich culture for a united continent, the European Union is constantly hacking away at centuries-old institutions in the name of belt-tightening.

I am quite irritated at these “old Art is dying because nobody wants to pay for it” thinkpieces.

Austerity is hurting opera? Why should I care, austerity is hurting people too and people are far more important than opera. 

The state isn’t funding enough High Art?

Let the people choose the art they want to have, and if they are Wrong, anyone is free to try to do differently. Every euro in public funding for the arts is an euro not in the pockets of basic income recipients, and the stuff we europeans use the art money on is pretty bullshit. The government has no place deciding what art is worthy of support and what isn’t.