Does mainstream = bad?

[Nicodemus]

That's interesting that men are more inclined to read non-fiction than women. Very interesting!

Men need knowledge of the real world in order to hunt animals and collect crops. Women watch shadows on cave walls and make up stories to entertain children. Uga-uga.

 

[jimrckhnd]

Intellectualism can become pretentious after a certain point. A person can like both. I wonder sometimes if NTs are just naturally more inclined to read academic stuff.

I read very little non-fiction - almost none. Which does not mean I don't enjoy lighter reading - I'm a big fan of good travel writing.

 

[Viridian]

Distaste for the banal comes from growing accustomed to the exquisite. Reading only complex literature, you are easily bored with the simple and obvious patterns of pulp fiction, but it also spoils the fun you might otherwise have drawn from it.

I don't dislike mainstream stuff, I just feel kinda guilty about liking it.

If you really think it important, you can train your brain into preferring Stockhausen to Ace of Base. Of course, that alone would not make you any more intellectual.

What I meant is that, by being in an university whose staff emphasizes critical thinking and subversion of the status quo, I'm already in a league of sorts, so I need to meet their standards... Otherwise, I kinda feel like I'd be considered naive or even reactionary...

Does that make any sense to you? Am I making too much of a big deal out of this?

 

[Nicodemus]

I don't dislike mainstream stuff, I just feel kinda guilty about liking it.

I got that.

What I meant is that, by being in an university whose staff emphasizes critical thinking and subversion of the status quo, I'm already in a league of sorts, so I need to meet their standards... Otherwise, I kinda feel like I'd be considered naive or even reactionary...

Does that make any sense to you? Am I making too much of a big deal out of this?

Personally, I think you try to fit in the wrong way - one might call it Fe fail. If I met you and learned about your taste in mainstream art, I would probably consider you inexperienced in art. That does not make you a naive or reactionary person, though.

The problem is not so much your taste as the shame you feel about it.

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeZvRRhLw5M"]Mainstream wisdom[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Viridian]

I got that.


Personally, I think you try to fit in the wrong way - one might call it Fe fail. If I met you and learned about your taste in mainstream art, I would probably consider you inexperienced in art. That does not make you a naive or reactionary person, though.

The problem is not so much your taste as the shame you feel about it.

You are very kind, Nic. The problem goes a bit beyond "fitting in", though; however, since I'm afraid of making this thread a little too personal for this subforum, I'll only elaborate if you (or anyone else) want(s) me to, 'kay?

 

[Vasilisa]

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.)

I want to enjoy what I enjoy. But I feel so ashamed...

As an extremely wise scientist specializing in hydrogeology (a very underground discipline) was fond of quoting Heraclitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BC so old school) to me:

you never step into the same river twice.​

I encourage you to read this very relevant thread:

Guilty Pleasures... or just Pleasures?, one small excerpt:

But beware: the opinion of the tribe is always evolving. Yes, my friend -- you have to be ready to adapt to new trends. For example, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Nirvana, and Radiohead have released records that received horrible reviews. However, the same publications that dismissed these releases have now declared these former duds to be among the most timeless records that rock and roll has to offer.​

Have you ever seen those blind wine tasting parties? The tasters are poured wines from assorted bottles, all of which are concealed. Then each gets to personally rate the wines without regard to vintage or price or perceived superiority. Its supposedly the truest way to get a sense of what one really enjoys.

Do you think I need to make another thread focused less on aesthetics and more on whether consuming mainstream stuff is detrimental to the advancement of society or whatnot?

You are not the music you buy, the brands you are loyal to, the decorations you put on yourself. Its what culture has been selling us for quite a while now. There are interesting theories about conspicuous consumption especially in regard to social media and the underground coolness factor.
from The Big Think

Coolness makes people buy things they don't need, merely as a way to signal their evolutionary fitness. If that's the case, what is the new source of conspicuous Web consumption? It's not marketing, since, let's face it, the cooler a service is, the fewer people know about it. Facebook was cool at 100 thousand, but is it still cool at 100 million?

I would argue that the new source of conspicuous Web consumption is the cult of the celebrity, which has finally migrated from the world of traditional media to the world of digital media. With its global scale and reach, the Internet has created the illusion that celebrity is easier to attain than ever before, with only the click of a mouse.​

from n+1

In social media, where everyone can employ design ideology, the persistent messages of advertising—that magical self-transformation through purchases is possible, that one’s inner truth can be expressed through the manipulation of well-worked surfaces—become practical rather than insulting. Not only do the methods and associative logic of advertising become more concretely useful, but its governing ideology no longer seems conformist but radically individualistic. Social media encourage us to appropriate whatever we want and claim it as our own without feeling derivative or slavishly imitative. On Facebook, if I link to, say, a YouTube video of Bob Dylan singing “I Threw It All Away” on the Johnny Cash Show in 1969, I am saying something particular about myself, not merely consuming the performance. I am declaring that video clip to be essentially equivalent to an update I may have written about a trip to Philadelphia or to pictures of me at a party that someone might have tagged. It is all bricolage for personal identity building. ​

I don't have the answers, but its interesting to watch and ponder, an interesting time to be alive. And in these days of social media saturation I think it can show some courage to be honest and like what you like.

i love pop music.

I remember Sophie B. Hawkins saying, "good pop music makes the fucking world go 'round" and I'm inclined to agree. In keeping with posting 90s pop vids, here is hers reaching the 5th spot on the US Billboard Hot 100 in 1992:
[YOUTUBE="Lt6r-k9Bk6o"]Free your mind and you won't feel ashamed[/YOUTUBE]

Distaste for the banal comes from growing accustomed to the exquisite. Reading only complex literature, you are easily bored with the simple and obvious patterns of pulp fiction, but it also spoils the fun you might otherwise have drawn from it.

Middlebrow is not the solution!

Perhaps it sounds contradictory, but I, too, believe and practice offsetting and training away from a taste for the more trashy cultural amusement offerings by engaging in what I find has been elevating throughout time, which is often challenging, but enriching and gratifying in the long run. I feel the same way about when I consume a fast food meal versus when I make my own homemade meals from scratch. Fun isn't the same as happiness. But both have their place.

I am elegance.

I am karma.

Oooh, its a refreshing new spin on this thread (formerly cool, but now decidedly mainstream).

Men need knowledge of the real world in order to hunt animals and collect crops. Women watch shadows on cave walls and make up stories to entertain children. Uga-uga.

The shadows inspired them to make a singing magic while those men were asleep

 

[Viridian]

I appreciate the help, [MENTION=9273]Vasilisa[/MENTION]... However, I didn't mean I buy things to form an identity, what I'm worried about is that I am being an accomplice to... something by buying stuff I like.

It's just that... every time I have a class on sociology-related subjects, I can't help but see it as an ethical issue: "Are you going to be part of the generation that killed art and originality, the generation that undid centuries of exploration of the human spirit, the generation of people who watch YouTube videos and don't read Kant, Marx, or Foucault, the generation of acritical, intellectually slothful sheep that do not see the subtext in the great works, that do not analyze what they consume? Is that what yu want to be, Viridian?"

I don't want to be a part of the decay of civilization into hedonism or something, but I also don't think I'm that much of a critical thinker - and, frankly, I'm not sure I want to be. If I'd rather read Terry Pratchett than Umberto Eco, does that mean I'm part of the problem?

 

[Thalassa]

Do you really think less people read Marx now? I'm going to have to disagree. I'm not sure that people were too busy analyzing Elvis in the 50's or flapper dresses in the 20's, unless they were inclined toward that kind of thinking to begin with. And by inclined toward that kind of thinking, no I don't mean being an N.

The only issue that I see as being extremely relevant is that about 100 years ago, people had amazing vocabularies. Zelda Fitzgerald never went to college, F. Scott Fitzgerald flunked and dropped out of Harvard Law school, Henry Miller survived maybe one semester of college, and Dorothy Parker even dropped out of high school...and they're considered some of the best writers of the 20th century. They all also thought critically to some degree about society. Both Fitzgeralds were SPs, as was Henry Miller, so it's not because they were Ns...people read more back in the day. There was no television so people read all of the time.

That's the only gripe I have about modern life.

And no I don't think reading Terry Pratchett means you're not a critical thinker. You seem to be suffering from an extreme excess of Fe guilt, in my opinion.

 

[Thalassa]

OH, btw, F. Scott Fitzgerald was considered wildly popular fiction in his time, Zelda wrote magazine articles, and parents were aprehensive about the Fitzgeralds and the whole flapper movement; a couple of Henry Miller's books were banned in all English speaking countries for 22 years...and their work is now taught at high schools and universities.

I wonder too, aside from reading more, if it was the pace of life that allowed people to think more and be creative. Life was at a slower pace, not only was there no TV, but people simply had more leisure time unless they were very low working class. People sat on front porches, et al. I think this led to some good writing and creative thoughts, and I don't think it's a mistake that many intellectuals limit their television consumption, among other things.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

I remember Sophie B. Hawkins saying, "good pop music makes the fucking world go 'round" and I'm inclined to agree. In keeping with posting 90s pop vids, here is hers reaching the 5th spot on the US Billboard Hot 100 in 1992:
[YOUTUBE="Lt6r-k9Bk6o"]Free your mind and you won't feel ashamed[/YOUTUBE]

Excellent point for Sophie B Hawkins.

Plus she's 6w7 Sx/So and libertarian just like me, so she's necessarly awesome.

 

[Vasilisa]

what I'm worried about is that I am being an accomplice to... something by buying stuff I like.

It's just that... every time I have a class on sociology-related subjects, I can't help but see it as an ethical issue: "Are you going to be part of the generation that killed art and originality, the generation that undid centuries of exploration of the human spirit, the generation of people who watch YouTube videos and don't read Kant, Marx, or Foucault, the generation of acritical, intellectually slothful sheep that do not see the subtext in the great works, that do not analyze what they consume? Is that what yu want to be, Viridian?"

I don't want to be a part of the decay of civilization into hedonism or something, but I also don't think I'm that much of a critical thinker - and, frankly, I'm not sure I want to be. If I'd rather read Terry Pratchett than Umberto Eco, does that mean I'm part of the problem?

Who is laying this on you? Is it coming from within or without? In academia (anywhere actually), there can be snobs who like to strike an intellectual elitist pose and reassure themselves that they are holier than thou and that any decline is due to kids today with their hair and their clothes, etc etc.. But you needn't be so alarmed, because as far as I know cultural critics have always been, and will always be, concerned about the way youth shape things to come. Your earnestness reminds me of a comedian telling about how in childhood he took the old Smokey Bear (US Forest Service Mascot) admonishment literally.

He claimed he felt motivated to head to the forest every night with a bucket of water. I'm not saying this to make fun of you, I remember being young and getting srs authority-indoctrinated-guilt-trips laid on me about whatever cause was in vogue at the time, and worrying very much if I was doing my part.

Mark Twain said a classic is something everybody wants to have read, but nobody wants to read. I think Viridian is the best judge of Viridian's taste. Follow your bliss. At the same time, if you want to try something I do: challenge yourself to keep engaging in some of the higher cultural stuff. Not exclusively, and not in the realms that you really dislike, but just as an occassional mind expanding exercise or as an antidote if you've spent an entire weekend on a bad reality-tv binge. The more exposure to different forms of art and ideas you allow yourself, the more chances are that you will find something that speaks to you, and sparks your interest to delve deeper. Consider for yourself what you find beautiful and uplifting and timeless. Don't take what intellectuals say as gospel. With belief in the value of what you find good, an open mind, and awareness I don't think there is much chance of you turning into a "slothful sheep". And please don't stress that the decline of civilization rests in your hands.

Plus she's 6w7 Sx/So and libertarian just like me, so she's necessarly awesome.

Oh wow. She also considers herself omnisexual, as far as I know.

 

[Viridian]

Do you really think less people read Marx now? I'm going to have to disagree. I'm not sure that people were too busy analyzing Elvis in the 50's or flapper dresses in the 20's, unless they were inclined toward that kind of thinking to begin with. And by inclined toward that kind of thinking, no I don't mean being an N.

The only issue that I see as being extremely relevant is that about 100 years ago, people had amazing vocabularies. Zelda Fitzgerald never went to college, F. Scott Fitzgerald flunked and dropped out of Harvard Law school, Henry Miller survived maybe one semester of college, and Dorothy Parker even dropped out of high school...and they're considered some of the best writers of the 20th century. They all also thought critically to some degree about society. Both Fitzgeralds were SPs, as was Henry Miller, so it's not because they were Ns...people read more back in the day. There was no television so people read all of the time.

That's the only gripe I have about modern life.

You make good points... I never quite know whether those sociological analyses are supposed to be detached descriptions of cultural trends or normative criticisms of modern culture.

I also remember a text by a French author called Gilles Lipovetsky that claimed Andy Warhol was the official "killer" of art itself, since he himself said his art was "commercial", thus unifying the previously distinct domains of art and industry. What do you make of that?

And no I don't think reading Terry Pratchett means you're not a critical thinker. You seem to be suffering from an extreme excess of Fe guilt, in my opinion.

Thank you for your kindness, Marm, you're very sweet. Though I dare say I'm not really as much of a critical thinker as my peers, despite having been "the smart kid" for a good portion of my early education.

One of my teachers used to say, "If a journalist isn't subversive, he's a dumbass" (or words to that effect). It kind of cemented my belief that I was not as revolutionary as my good colleagues.

 

[Viridian]

Who is laying this on you? Is it coming from within or without? In academia (anywhere actually), there can be snobs who like to strike an intellectual elitist pose and reassure themselves that they are holier than thou and that any decline is due to kids today with their hair and their clothes, etc etc.. But you needn't be so alarmed, because as far as I know cultural critics have always been, and will always be, concerned about the way youth shape things to come. Your earnestness reminds me of a comedian telling about how in childhood he took the old Smokey Bear (US Forest Service Mascot) admonishment literally.

He claimed he felt motivated to head to the forest every night with a bucket of water. I'm not saying this to make fun of you, I remember being young and getting srs authority-indoctrinated-guilt-trips laid on me about whatever cause was in vogue at the time, and worrying very much if I was doing my part.

Mark Twain said a classic is something everybody wants to have read, but nobody wants to read. I think Viridian is the best judge of Viridian's taste. Follow your bliss. At the same time, if you want to try something I do: challenge yourself to keep engaging in some of the higher cultural stuff. Not exclusively, and not in the realms that you really dislike, but just as an occassional mind expanding exercise or as an antidote if you've spent an entire weekend on a bad reality-tv binge. The more exposure to different forms of art and ideas you allow yourself, the more chances are that you will find something that speaks to you, and sparks your interest to delve deeper. Consider for yourself what you find beautiful and uplifting and timeless. Don't take what intellectuals say as gospel. With belief in the value of what you find good, an open mind, and awareness I don't think there is much chance of you turning into a "slothful sheep". And please don't stress that the decline of civilization rests in your hands.

They're not actually "snobbish" in the traditional sense - they very much value subversion and innovation, they just kinda hate the culture industry for "pandering to the lowest common denominator", so to speak. But I understand. I mean, a few years ago, I thought the "high culture/low culture" distiction was bull, but I don't know what to think anymore - about a lot of things.

What would you consider "higher cultural stuff"? Do Rashomon or A Clockwork Orange (book) count?

And no, I don't consider myself the savior of mankind. I just don't want to be one of those "irresponsible youngsters" people always talk about (not that you guys or my peers are, mind you) nor do I want to be "part of the problem".

And, once again, thank you, Vas.

 

[Thalassa]

You make good points... I never quite know whether those sociological analyses are supposed to be detached descriptions of cultural trends or normative criticisms of modern culture.

I also remember a text by a French author called Gilles Lipovetsky that claimed Andy Warhol was the official "killer" of art itself, since he himself said his art was "commercial", thus unifying the previously distinct domains of art and industry. What do you make of that?

No, Andy Warhol did absolutely NOT kill art. Andy Warhol's entire existence was art. He lived art. His life is almost more interesting than his visual art. Bubble gum pop existed before Andy Warhol. The first do-wop bands and girl groups and boy groups existed before Warhol. This was NOT Warhol's fault...he simply reported what he saw. Andy Warhol was potentially a genius, and he did take a bit from the Beat poets/writers/musicians in his observation that commercialism and industry had become American culture. What Andy Warhol said was simply true. He called his studio The Factory in order to reflect Industrial America. He also predicted that in the future everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes. Whether he saw what was coming or people listened to him and made it possible is up for debate, but it is also now true.

Andy Warhol fucking rules. He wasn't a very nice man, but he was a very smart one.

 

[Orangey]

I don't dislike mainstream stuff, I just feel kinda guilty about liking it.



What I meant is that, by being in an university whose staff emphasizes critical thinking and subversion of the status quo, I'm already in a league of sorts, so I need to meet their standards... Otherwise, I kinda feel like I'd be considered naive or even reactionary...

Does that make any sense to you? Am I making too much of a big deal out of this?

You see, the rather large flaw of the Frankfurt School is that their criticism is all-encompassing and suggests no light at the end of the tunnel, if you will. Everything produced and consumed within the culture industry is complicit in the reproduction of capitalistic ideology, so it really matters little what you personally choose to consume. Going to see Tout Va Bien at the local art theater makes no more of a difference than seeing Transformers 3 at the AMC in the mall.

I'm personally not very sanguine about the idea of social transformation via the avant garde or "indy." Sneering at "low" or pop culture is simply reactionary thinking.

 

[Elfboy]

generally my tastes run more towards baroque and 19th century romantic works, but I gotta admit, Bad Romance is a good ass song!

 

[Orangey]

They're not actually "snobbish" in the traditional sense - they very much value subversion and innovation, they just kinda hate the culture industry for "pandering to the lowest common denominator", so to speak. But I understand. I mean, a few years ago, I thought the "high culture/low culture" distiction was bull, but I don't know what to think anymore - about a lot of things.

What would you consider "higher cultural stuff"? Do Rashomon or A Clockwork Orange (book) count?

Taking one's taste and effectively replacing "I think this is bad" with "this is complicit in the culture industry" is a misappropriation of the theory.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I don't see why mainstream is 'bad'. I see it as a preference... There is as great a need for simplicity as there is for complexity. Believe in what you will, or believe in what will accomplish your dream, or ideal state of being and ignore those who disagree. It's always a search for contentment. As long as what you believe in allows you to (survive/pass genetic make-up) evolution says "You win."

 

[Viridian]

You see, the rather large flaw of the Frankfurt School is that their criticism is all-encompassing and suggests no light at the end of the tunnel, if you will. Everything produced and consumed within the culture industry is complicit in the reproduction of capitalistic ideology, so it really matters little what you personally choose to consume. Going to see Tout Va Bien at the local art theater makes no more of a difference than seeing Transformers 3 at the AMC in the mall.

I'm personally not very sanguine about the idea of social transformation via the avant garde or "indy." Sneering at "low" or pop culture is simply reactionary thinking.

That is something I thought about as well... I feel like saying, "Then what? What do we do?", but I'm lousy at debate.

In any case, your feedback is very sensible. Thanks, Orangey!

 

[Thalassa]

generally my tastes run more towards baroque and 19th century romantic works, but I gotta admit, Bad Romance is a good ass song!

18th and 19th century romantic literature was considered scandalous, a fluff-headed waste of time, or both often in its prime...Wuthering Heights was deemed immoral when it was first published, and people presumed Jane Eyre to be the more "mature" work of the Bronte sisters until the 20th century when academics began to acknowledge its complexity and depth, and now there are divided camps on which one really is the better book amongst scholars.