The control of art's availability and style by the money of the upper class can't be classified as "benevolent". Good talk otherwise.
@fourscoreand9884
3 жыл бұрын
Of course it is benevolent. The whole conversation was remarkably consistent.
@johnmclaughlin9971 Жыл бұрын
Photography not art? Mmmm. I take this as a slip of the tongue. Also, this idea that art should not be graded from the supposed good to the supposed bad... I think this is probably wise in today's society simply because it neatly side-steps controversy, and look what happens to people who court that... but if Macbeth is as good as EastEnders then why teach Shakespeare at all? And why not Mills and Boon novels instead of Dickens or Conrad? And if education can turn people on to certain texts, then the reverse is true too: lack of education and ignorance leads people to venerate other texts which generally more educated people think of as rubbish and would never read for pleasure, or for any other reason, save for being paid to eviscerate it in some rarified critical journal or other. So if all texts are of the same worth comparatively, why bother teaching anyone at all? Aren't we just passing on our own prejudices? In fact, as Professor Carey seems to suggest, a increased appreciation of art or literature leads to a greater sense of alienation from those who haven't yet been taught to appreciate it the way they have. Odd why someone would spend so much time educating people about the worth of Milton and Donne and yet not profess to value it above Pam Ayres (actually, a poet i quite like in a stupid way) or some doggerel scratched in the back of a lavatory door. Or perhaps I'm going too far. I sometimes do. Maybe the truth is Professor Carey does value Milton above Pam Ayres, but views it as a subjective choice and so, as a reasonable person, is tolerant of Pam-Ayres-lovers. That said, I rather think, had he met him, Oscar Wilde would've kicked Professor Carey in the nuts. Consider this: 'There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.' I myself wouldn't kick Professor Carey in the nuts, because you have to have nuts for them to be kicked into. Actually, I take that back, and grovelingly refer the good professor to a point he made himself in the Unexpected Professor (a great read) in which he confesses that the joy in writing a great line is often over-shadowed later by the raw fact that you might have upset someone. And actually I don't like doing that. But it is slightly annoying in this anodyne age to find we are entering into a void, where the only remaining sensible opinion is to blithely profess to have none. If some books are well written and some badly written, it follows there are, indeed, bad books and good ones. From a grammatical standpoint alone that is evidently true. Is a dull book a bad book? Yes, I think it is. Are there any dull books in existence that the collective subjective responses of the world generally agree are dull? Undoubtedly. Has anyone in the world actually finished Finnegan's Wake? No. Please tell me, no. And if so, guess who's first against the wall when the revolution comes? That person, or perhaps Professor Carey? I think that person. Professor Carey writes good books. Really good books. As opposed to crap ones: the ones nobody ever finishes, or that the library copy never has any stamps in. And Professor Carey, remember, is a self-confessed adjudicator for various literary competitions around the world. He is on record as preferring one book over another, or at least pretends to for money. Cannot blame him for a certain lack of principle. There are hard times ahead for all of us I fear.
@kelman7274 жыл бұрын
I don’t agree with Clive at all about art and the conclusions he draws about elites. Or their perceived necessity. Surprised they didn’t discuss literature more.
Пікірлер: 5
thank you for this.
The control of art's availability and style by the money of the upper class can't be classified as "benevolent". Good talk otherwise.
@fourscoreand9884
3 жыл бұрын
Of course it is benevolent. The whole conversation was remarkably consistent.
Photography not art? Mmmm. I take this as a slip of the tongue. Also, this idea that art should not be graded from the supposed good to the supposed bad... I think this is probably wise in today's society simply because it neatly side-steps controversy, and look what happens to people who court that... but if Macbeth is as good as EastEnders then why teach Shakespeare at all? And why not Mills and Boon novels instead of Dickens or Conrad? And if education can turn people on to certain texts, then the reverse is true too: lack of education and ignorance leads people to venerate other texts which generally more educated people think of as rubbish and would never read for pleasure, or for any other reason, save for being paid to eviscerate it in some rarified critical journal or other. So if all texts are of the same worth comparatively, why bother teaching anyone at all? Aren't we just passing on our own prejudices? In fact, as Professor Carey seems to suggest, a increased appreciation of art or literature leads to a greater sense of alienation from those who haven't yet been taught to appreciate it the way they have. Odd why someone would spend so much time educating people about the worth of Milton and Donne and yet not profess to value it above Pam Ayres (actually, a poet i quite like in a stupid way) or some doggerel scratched in the back of a lavatory door. Or perhaps I'm going too far. I sometimes do. Maybe the truth is Professor Carey does value Milton above Pam Ayres, but views it as a subjective choice and so, as a reasonable person, is tolerant of Pam-Ayres-lovers. That said, I rather think, had he met him, Oscar Wilde would've kicked Professor Carey in the nuts. Consider this: 'There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.' I myself wouldn't kick Professor Carey in the nuts, because you have to have nuts for them to be kicked into. Actually, I take that back, and grovelingly refer the good professor to a point he made himself in the Unexpected Professor (a great read) in which he confesses that the joy in writing a great line is often over-shadowed later by the raw fact that you might have upset someone. And actually I don't like doing that. But it is slightly annoying in this anodyne age to find we are entering into a void, where the only remaining sensible opinion is to blithely profess to have none. If some books are well written and some badly written, it follows there are, indeed, bad books and good ones. From a grammatical standpoint alone that is evidently true. Is a dull book a bad book? Yes, I think it is. Are there any dull books in existence that the collective subjective responses of the world generally agree are dull? Undoubtedly. Has anyone in the world actually finished Finnegan's Wake? No. Please tell me, no. And if so, guess who's first against the wall when the revolution comes? That person, or perhaps Professor Carey? I think that person. Professor Carey writes good books. Really good books. As opposed to crap ones: the ones nobody ever finishes, or that the library copy never has any stamps in. And Professor Carey, remember, is a self-confessed adjudicator for various literary competitions around the world. He is on record as preferring one book over another, or at least pretends to for money. Cannot blame him for a certain lack of principle. There are hard times ahead for all of us I fear.
I don’t agree with Clive at all about art and the conclusions he draws about elites. Or their perceived necessity. Surprised they didn’t discuss literature more.