User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 228

  1. #11
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    In terms of aesthetic value, no, the means by which a work is produced is of little relevance. Yes, this means that the music of, say, the Jonas Brothers cannot reasonably be said to be of inferior quality just because it was made for easy consumption by white, middle-class, Christian girls in their teens (i.e., for money.) Other metrics might be used instead, but it's doubtful whether these would not amount merely to elaborate rationalizations of prejudice against "mainstream" anyway.

    In terms of political value, however, the category of "mainstream" becomes more important. That's because when something becomes "mainstream" it means that its political message has been absorbed and accounted for (and therefore nullified, "neutered," or disarmed) by the system it was intended to disrupt. Or if something was never intended to carry a disruptive political message at all (i.e., it was made for and by the "mainstream") then it inevitably reflects and (even if unintended or blindly) affirms the values, good and bad, of the "mainstream." Thus if you believed, for instance, anti-semitism to be bad, and you recognized it as something deeply embedded into the "mainstream" productions of your society, then works produced by the "mainstream," or subversive works reabsorbed by the "mainstream," would be of lesser political value to your goal of eradicating anti-semitism.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  2. #12
    Senior Member Viridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    MBTI
    IsFJ
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Okay, let's say that I get teary-eyed whenever I watch Edward Scissorhands (the book I read said Burton was a "commercial" movie director, so I assume Edward Scissorhands is "mainstream"). Does that make me a sucker? Or an enabler? Or an ISFJ (I kid, I kid! )?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    In terms of political value, however, the category of "mainstream" becomes more important. That's because when something becomes "mainstream" it means that its political message has been absorbed and accounted for (and therefore nullified, "neutered," or disarmed) by the system it was intended to disrupt. Or if something was never intended to carry a disruptive political message at all (i.e., it was made for and by the "mainstream") then it inevitably reflects and (even if unintended or blindly) affirms the values, good and bad, of the "mainstream." Thus if you believed, for instance, anti-semitism to be bad, and you recognized it as something deeply embedded into the "mainstream" productions of your society, then works produced by the "mainstream," or subversive works reabsorbed by the "mainstream," would be of lesser political value to your goal of eradicating anti-semitism.
    Re: the bolded - Do you mean to say that the "mainstream" includes every work that doesn't send a "disruptive political message", regardless of origin?

  3. #13
    Senior Member ICUP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viridian View Post
    (No, this isn't a thread about hipsters.)

    I've recently read a book on movies that described certain directors as "commercial", and I began thinking... Does everything that is popular or "mainstream" - however you might define the word - by definition un-progressive, whitewashed, "dumbed down", non-inclusive, "safe", or whatnot? Does something getting popular signal the meggido of its individuality/originality/convention-defying?
    IDK, for the most part, this society has become about commercialism and not-about intellectual pursuits for the sake of creation. I don't find much of anything being created today to be important in the grand scheme of things, although there are some artists here-and-there who will never become mainstream because their creations have no appeal there and never could. Some of these are quite great, but only great to people who notice them and understand. They don't become recognized as "best guitarist" by Time Magazine, so they must not be.
    When anything is made-for-most-anyone, sure, it's going to be dumbed-down.
    Quote Originally Posted by Viridian View Post
    And does liking "mainstream" stuff say anything about you?
    I think, however, that anyone can like mainstream things temporarily, or just "for fun", shits-n-giggles, while realizing how retarded it really is.

    I don't consider myself anti-mainstream. I don't consider myself an elitist. I just think mainstream stuff sucks, that it's made for someone who is apparently not me. I would rather be doing something else that satisfies me. Sometimes I entertain it just out of boredom, and because it's fun to be social with other people who like it. It can be fun sometimes, but it definitely does not define me in any way.
    ISTP 6w5 sx/sp
    6-8-4/6-9-4 Tritype

  4. #14
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default


  5. #15
    Senior Member Viridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    MBTI
    IsFJ
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You glasses-wearing bastards will not hijack my thread!

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viridian View Post
    (No, this isn't a thread about hipsters.)

    I've recently read a book on movies that described certain directors as "commercial", and I began thinking... Does everything that is popular or "mainstream" - however you might define the word - by definition un-progressive, whitewashed, "dumbed down", non-inclusive, "safe", or whatnot? Does something getting popular signal the meggido of its individuality/originality/convention-defying?

    And does liking "mainstream" stuff say anything about you?

    (Sorry if this is poorly articulated, I'm eager to clarify stuff if you ask.)
    Hell and no.

    The misconception here is that broadly popular movies, music, books and TV are necessarily motivated almost exclusively by commercial concerns, and that "indie" (or substitute the similar adjective of your choice) efforts are motivated almost exclusively by aesthetic concerns. This is preposterous.

    There are certainly mainstream works that are crassly created and marketed to a specific audience solely for financial rewards. Mostly garbage for children. But there are also consistently and massively popular artists who are universally recognized to have artistic and aesthetic merit, and who were popular right away instead of waiting to be recognized by history. (A short list includes Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, Tim Burton, Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, Mark Twain, William Shakespeare, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, and Led Zeppelin to name just a very few.) It's absurd to me that the work of these artists and many like them could be considered dumbed-down, impersonal, or without value because they are mainstream. Who would argue that they aren't concerned with the aesthetic and personal quality of their work? Isn't it instead possible or even likely that the market flocks to good work at least as often as the work is calibrated to pacify the market?

    Likewise, very few artists set out to lose money. Indie filmmakers, writers and musicians certainly do care about the aesthetic quality of their work. But nobody sets out to sell 100 records or play in an arthouse cinema for one week. Every artist wants their work to be seen. Rather, it's the fans of such work who romanticize the fact that it's not massively popular. It allows them to set themselves apart and imagine that they have discerning tastes possessed by only a few. The actual aesthetic quality of the work in this case is of little consequence and rather beside the point.

    There is bad work that is massively popular and good work that is largely ignored. But to generalize that something lots of people enjoy is necessarily compromised (bad) while something almost no one enjoys is necessarily vital (good) is not only obviously counterintuitive, it's also glib and facile. What's wrong with making things people like?
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  7. #17
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viridian View Post
    Okay, let's say that I get teary-eyed whenever I watch Edward Scissorhands (the book I read said Burton was a "commercial" movie director, so I assume Edward Scissorhands is "mainstream"). Does that make me a sucker? Or an enabler? Or an ISFJ (I kid, I kid! )?



    Re: the bolded - Do you mean to say that the "mainstream" includes every work that doesn't send a "disruptive political message", regardless of origin?
    No, I was referring to the fact that anything not disruptive is by definition complicit. Anything made for and by the "mainstream" is complicit, so I used it as an example. I guess I forgot to use e.g. instead of i.e.

    Consuming and enjoying these "complicit" works does not say anything about the character of the individuals who consume and enjoy them, though, nor even of the individuals who make them; that is the hipster's/pretentious twats fallacy.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  8. #18
    Senior Member jimrckhnd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    455

    Default

    It is probably useful to remember that much of what is now seen as classic arts or even works of genius were once very main stream. Think of much religious art in the middle ages and renaissance. Most of it was of course crap (but then most art probably is) but some of it has survived the test of time.
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

  9. #19
    Senior Member Viridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    MBTI
    IsFJ
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    No, I was referring to the fact that anything not disruptive is by definition complicit. Anything made for and by the "mainstream" is complicit, so I used it as an example. I guess I forgot to use e.g. instead of i.e.

    Consuming and enjoying these "complicit" works does not say anything about the character of the individuals who consume and enjoy them, though, nor even of the individuals who make them; that is the hipster's/pretentious twats fallacy.
    On a personal note: part of my reasons for making this thread is that, not too long ago, I wanted to enjoy whatever I wanted to enjoy within my means, but... as I began studying the culture industry in my university (Adorno, Benjamin, the usual), I began to worry whether or not I was making a statement by buying a certain book or renting a certain movie, whether the sheer act was Progressive or Reactionary, Empowering or Disenfranchising, Good or Evil. Sounds a bit loony, but this stuff really gets to ya, y'know? I just know I don't want to be an accomplice to oppression.

    Also, @EffEmDoubleyou, thanks for the response. I can see what you mean.

  10. #20
    Junior Member Rhath89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    28

    Default

    In terms of the artistic nature of things in question, anything that starts becoming seen or heard just because "everyone else" is doing it, is mainstream and is worth evaluating, not all things that are mainstream are bad, but a majority of it can be questionable in its artistry. A mainstream band that plays and sings songs mostly written for them by others cannot, in my mind, be considered as performing artists, but simply performers.
    So I pick one side, the other side becomes the other side. As soon as I pick one side, then I'm defined as one side. So the one side, well, they're the other side, therefore that side is not my side, so there is a difference, they must be destroyed...
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    INTP 5w4 SP/SX
    ILI
    Tritype 549

Similar Threads

  1. Does this movie intrigue fellow INXPers?
    By princesssockhead in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-18-2008, 12:57 AM
  2. Bad day - bad bad day.
    By Park in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-15-2007, 12:37 AM
  3. Does Eraserhead need a mastectomy?
    By Martoon in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-14-2007, 09:18 AM
  4. Bad Decisions
    By labyrinthine in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-11-2007, 05:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO