Vocalist.org archive


From:  Karen Mercedes <dalila@R...>
Date:  Tue Jan 8, 2002  9:16 pm
Subject:  Re: [vocalist] Celebrity and Mortality

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





  Replies Name/Email Yahoo! ID Date  
16299 Re: Celebrity and Mortalitytidwellchristy   Tue  1/8/2002  
16307 Re: Celebrity and MortalityKaren Mercedes   Wed  1/9/2002  
16303 Re: Celebrity and MortalityDré de Man   Tue  1/8/2002  
16306 Re: Celebrity and Mortalitytidwellchristy   Wed  1/9/2002  
16326 I got the copiesTrevor Allen   Wed  1/9/2002  

emusic.com