On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 Greypins@a... wrote:
> i couldn't care any less what you say about the beatles or, anyone else. > the point you seem to be making, that i disagree with, is that there is > something inherently better about some arts over others. you seem to have > bought into some elitest notion that there can be a hierarchy of tastes
What is elitist (please note correct spelling) about the notion that one can apply standards to determine whether one work of art is better than another, one genre of art is more sophisticated, beautiful, and affecting (and thus, "better") than another - at least to the person setting those standards and defining that "hierarchy of tastes".
Of course, the folks who volunteer to appear on the Jerry Springer Show would probably not, for the most part, use the same standards or judge based on the same hierarchy of tastes. But there is certainly nothing inherently elitist (or inherently anything else) in admitting that such standards and hierarchies do exist, no matter that they are subjective rather than objective. All critical faculties are, by definition, subjective. Indeed, objective reality may exist, but it is beyond the human cognitive capacity to perceive it. Indeed, total objectivity is completely outside realm of human experience. Our perceptions - sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch - are all unique; yes, they may be extremely similar to the perceptions of others (thus, the collective ability of a society to recognize red traffic lights vs. green ones). But there are minute differences in exactly how each set of eyes perceives that color red or green. And because of that, the objective existence of "green" is impossible to prove; only the subjective existence of "the green I see" and "the color most people recognize to be green". Given this inability of humans to recognize the purely objective existence of anything, it is also impossible for humans to observe the world with pure objectivity. Given that, everything we see or hear is "processed" through a qualitative (subjective) filter in our brains, and in many cases, that filter associates either a positive or negative sensation with the stimulus being filtered. The fact that some "positives" are stronger than others, some "negatives" are stronger than others is, in fact, what creates this "elitist hierarchy of tastes" you decry. But that hierarchy of tastes is NOT elitist; it's just a fact of life. The fact that you feel threatened by the existence of such a hierarchy, and as a result of that insecurity choose to label it "elitist", is not an accurate indicator that it *is* elitist - only that you need to get over the fact that some people don't share your particular hierarchy of tastes.
Of course, the fact that human language can be binary in a world that isn't doesn't help. But I'd rather have someone express themselves clearly and succinctly as in: "Opera is better than rap" than to constantly assail me with excess "qualifiers" and "apologetics" - i.e., "In my humble opinion opera, to me, appears to be better than rap". Who the hell wants to know a person who is so wishy-washy that they express all of their opinons like that? Not me!
Karen Mercedes http://www.radix.net/~dalila/index.html *************************************** What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
|