From: steve_brookS_TIRED_LEFTY@HOTMAIL.COM   
      
   "Tom Mason"  wrote in message   
   news:1ae6ec98.0404260339.7c08c821@posting.google.com...   
   > This from Robbie's journal   
   >   
   > >This philosophy legislates for slovenly thinking (perfectly   
   > acceptable in the mass >who have a right to like what they like, but   
   > laughable in a critic or anyone who >wishes to discuss anything   
   > seriously) at one end, and the licensing of the >deconstructive pseudo   
   > intellectual at the other: S Club Seven are as good as >Mozart if   
   > *you* think so and Coronation Street is better than King Lear and   
   > >Friends is greater than either. It is a road to crapville,   
   >   
   > it is also absolutely false. You can quite reasonably *prefer* S club   
   > to Mozart, but you're on very shaky ground if you want to start saying   
   > that it's better (always assuming that the two are comparable at all).   
      
   You also, if you're someone who is a critic or wishes to be taken in anyway   
   seriously, going to have build a case for liking something like S Club 7 (a   
   vapid, packaged singing troupe; for our American readers information) or   
   otherwise say they're shit; I like 'em; there it is. There are loads of   
   rubbishy things I like and I know they're rubbish, some of which are   
   indefensible and some are not. Actually, now I come to think about it, there   
   isn't a lot of indefensible rubbish I like!   
     Whatever, this was the problem and it started around Tarantino and was   
   basically Simmo's ire at my veiw not allowing him to like the shitty   
   Tarantino product without being able to justify it, and his being a critic   
   made my demands reasonable. Sorry, once you're there, you can fuck off out   
   of my teepee because you've given into a strong prevailing wind of today,   
   which is dumbing down and a specious, so-big-and-clever idea of equivalency   
   and the leper's bell of the politically correct gauleiter: 'relevancy'   
    . Underneath all that is the usual nihilism and laziness and not a little   
   social engineering: how if we dick around with the semantic givens we can   
   change society by promoting mediocrities; see Brit Art, among other things,   
   for a demonstration of this, in fact look at most publicly funded arts   
   projects, see also the growing trend against the artist as individual   
   talented git in academia. One of the big battles was the is Bob Dylan better   
   than Keats debates that took hold of Planet Muesli. The answer is so simple   
   I dunno why they ever bothered having it. In terms of entertaining people   
   and giving pleasure it maybe that Dylan wins. I had the loser, wannabe pop   
   star Pennington, in my play Virginia Plain say at one point that 'in terms   
   of sheer making people feel different about themselves for while, then The   
   Beatles and The Stones are more important than Picasso, Stravinsky and James   
   Joyce, all rolled into one.' I still think that's true; but I wouldn't   
   extend it to say, Shakespeare, Bach and Rembrandt, know what I mean?   
      
   >   
   > Cf. David Hume 'Of The Standard of Taste'  Hume argues, I believe   
   > successfully, that there are cases of absolutely indubitable   
   > differences in both beauty and artistic merit - for example, as   
   > between the works of Jeffrey Archer and James Joyce, or Rembrandt and   
   > Rolf Harris - that represent overwhelming evidence in support of the   
   > idea that there are, and must be, aesthetic judgements which are   
   > wholly right, and others which are wholly wrong.   
      
   I agree but that is not fashionable. Academia and many other axe-grinders   
   are looking at every way they can to dance of the grave of the western canon   
   and 'free the people from a patriarchy' aka it's ok to be stupid and   
   tasteless!! What is taste MAAAAAN just a bourgeoise construction! Etcetra et   
   fucking cetera. Trouble is, after all this time doing that, people still go   
   out and buy Jack Vetriano prints....on the other hand the chattering classes   
   have been sold Sam Taylor Wood for example as an important artist.   
      
    He reckons that some   
   > differences in taste are really irreconcilable, but that many (most?)   
   > arise from differences of *perception*, and the person with the   
   > clearest perception of what is under assessment (i.e. the expert, the   
   > critic who understands exactly what they are seeing and how to   
   > articulate their views) is going to have a more worthwhile opinion.   
      
   It's got to be that way though I suppose you need the revolutionaries   
   occasionally, but they get so burned out and corrupt and glutted so quickly.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)