cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (10/03/86)
> Today we have popular entertainment that seems to wallow deliberately in > banality, stupidity, and bad taste. Does the Sixteenth century have > anything to compare to Ozzy Ozborne or daytime television? No. The idea > of art which deliberately glorifies mediocrity and imbecility is *our* > invention. *They* had beautiful polyphonic music, brilliant painting, > wonderful poetry. I would not get too exited. Their stuff (esp. beutiful polyphonic music) was created on the order and for consumption of, say, 0.5% of the population. The rest were too busy trying to feed themselves to feel deprived. > *We* have Auschwitz, Hiroshima, and Joseph Stalin. I > suspect that the next millennium will be filled with people who will > shudder at the thought of anyone living in such a revolting and barbaric > century as this one. The leading ideology of our age is much more enlightened. "Unalienable rights" and such. Luther was an incredible antisemite - how's that for a spiritual leager, Bacon was a proponent of war - it is for states what exercise is for humans, you know. As for next millennium - who knows what atrocities they can come up with... Mike Cherepov
rha@bunker.UUCP (Robert H. Averack) (10/04/86)
In article <755@ihlpf.UUCP> cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) writes: > >The leading ideology of our age is much more enlightened. "Unalienable >rights" and such. Luther was an incredible antisemite - how's that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >for a spiritual leager, Bacon was a proponent of war - it is for states >what exercise is for humans, you know. As for next millennium - who knows what >atrocities they can come up with... > Mike Cherepov Wow! Are you sure about what you said about Martin Luther? If so, please follow-up with some evidence. As a Jew married to a Methodist, I see this assertion as being quite inflammatory. However, if you can substantiate this, Mike, please do so. -- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (Bob Averack @ Bunker Ramo/Olivetti) {decvax!, ittatc!, philabs!} ! ! ! ! ## "Okay, you workstations, start USENET: bunker!rha ! ! #oo# singing....." UUCP: bunker!/usr/spool ! ! ###### /uucppublic/rha ! ! ##\/## "This LAN is your LAN, OFFLINE: 35 Nutmeg Dr. ! ! ###### this LAN is my LAN..." Trumbull, CT 06611 ! ! L L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
upstill@pixar.UUCP (Steve Upstill) (10/07/86)
About the relative vulgarity of the Middle Ages vs. nowadays. I get pretty antsy when I hear such facile generalizations. First of all, when comparing culture, are you talking maximum or mean? The point is well taken that the Medieval audience for painting and music was firmly bourgeois. Probably the common folk would have loved TV if they had had it. The immediate dismissal of modern popular culture also makes me suspicious of lurking elitism. Bourgeois disapproval does not mean that it really is trash (remembering, of course, that 90% of everything is trash). The best example of this I can think of is that Shakespeare was considered vulgar (i.e. of the common folk) entertainment in its time. His plays were carefully constructed for popularity, and have you ever looked at the design of the Globe Theater? The wealthy were sealed in their boxes around the perimeter, with the flat area around the stage an unseated free-for-all of hecklers, vendors and general merry-makers. How unruly! How uncultured! The point is not that "the people" were more sophisticated then, but that "popular culture" was dismissed by the elite (if memory serves, Shakespeare had no patrons, and depended on commercial success to eat) just because it was enjoyed by people who couldn't possibly know the time of day. Steve Upstill