To be "cultured"

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I think its primarily an age/generational issue more than a class issue.

I don't think age is the main element, but it does enter in the equation.

The archetype of the "upper class" as I used is someone with high formal education, high income (no need for being uber-rich), male, middle aged, and who grew up in a highly cultured and affluent environment.

(the latter is very important to understand the feeling of superiority is subtle and ingrained, not blatant.)

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ozzy,

You really have a burr up your butt about this whole "ageism" thing.

It works two ways. Kids, particularly in the immediate pre-teen and teen years, have a strong tendency towards arrogance - a "I know everything, you're an idiot" mindset. I know this because I and my friends all had it at the age, to varying degrees. How could our parents be SO dumb, out of style, etc?

The natural adult reaction to that is mild scoffing. Which seems to really get at you.

-Arrian

Two things. First they are exaggerating/overcompensating for being labeled and treated as idiots who know absolutely nothing.

Second, this is exactly the attitude their parents and adults around them adopt, so they learn from it and copy it. The difference is when you have that attitude when you're young you are arrogant (correct) but when you have the same attitude when you're older then you are normal (incorrect).

Lord knows my parents have that attitude, and many other people I know.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We're talking about things like music and literature, which are unabashedly subjective, so it's not based on intellect.

But they aren't unabashedly subjective. There are some music which is considered 'better' by an internal objective measurment of music. For example, Norah Jones is better than William Hung (the American Idol contestant who has a contract because he is sooo bad). There are some objective measures put into place within the music universe. People can say that the Rolling Stones were good, but Vanilla Ice was crap based on those standards.

After all, why do critics have jobs? Because people value their opinions and believe they have a good handle on what is good or bad music. They have an objective faith in them.

You've said it yourself, it's based on popularity. The "cultured" people like what's popular (seeing as they have survived filtering down through history ).

So you would consider Classical Music of, say, Mozart to be 'popular' today?

Things which have filtered down through history may not, and a lot times are not, the popular thing. They may have been the popular thing at one point in time (or not), but are filtered down because of the objective measures of the world of music. People who weren't ever popular find life in history's filter because it is realized how technically proficient or just how good they really were later on, when standards may have shifted.

If the "cultured" people were as smart as they say they are, they'd know that bringing down others for being "non-cultured" because they don't share the same interests is stupid...

Why? As Spiffor said:

The main difference when it comes to the upper class' "culture", is that the upper class is very efficient at forcing its values to the other subcultures.

It's actually pretty damned smart, I'd say.

[Arrian]

Then your parents need to grow up a bit. It's generally something that subsides with age (but may come back with a vengence in old age. See: father, mine).

Once you've been around long enough and done a few stupid things that make you realize you aren't always right, the arrogance fades.

I understand that the childish attitude is a natural developmental thing: for years you grow up doing what your parents tell you - and they appear godlike to you. As you get a bit older, you realize they are not gods, but fallible people, and this realization can result in a swing from reverence of ones parents all the way over to scorn. In most cases, the pendulum swings back again and settles down somewhere in the middle.

-Arrian

p.s. Until a child has gotten some education and some experience, they usually really DON'T know much of anything. It's important not to harp on that, but at the same time, it's pretty laughable when a young kid professes to know everything there is to know (which is a common thing).

[OzzyKP]

Spiffor, class does play a factor, and surely your archetype has far more of that mindset that other sections of society, but I think the phenomena is driven by age/generational issues.

For example, the definition of high culture changes every couple years. If there was an insular upper class meeting your qualifications that passed on their "superior" culture, then that definition of culture wouldn't really change. But it has, so there must be other forces at work.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But they aren't unabashedly subjective. There are some music which is considered 'better' by an internal objective measurment of music. For example, Norah Jones is better than William Hung (the American Idol contestant who has a contract because he is sooo bad).

I can't stand listening to either.

There are some objective measures put into place within the music universe. People can say that the Rolling Stones were good, but Vanilla Ice was crap based on those standards.

No, no, no. You simply cannot have "objective" measures in an art. There may be generally accepted subjective standards, but those still are not objective. You cannot objectively say if any form of art is good or bad, which means intellect has no part in it.

After all, why do critics have jobs? Because people value their opinions and believe they have a good handle on what is good or bad music. They have an objective faith in them.

People who have "objective faith" in critics are so stupid, that I wouldn't know where to begin with them.

So you would consider Classical Music of, say, Mozart to be 'popular' today?

Mozart was popular then, and certainly is popular today. Everyone knows who Mozart is, which is why it's particularly easy to act elitist, snobbish, and therefore "cultured' if you claim to listen to Mozart.

Why? As Spiffor said:

The main difference when it comes to the upper class' "culture", is that the upper class is very efficient at forcing its values to the other subcultures.

It's actually pretty damned smart, I'd say.

?
It's "smart" because the upperclass tries to force its values to others? That's very interesting logic...

[Arrian]

One more thing:

My parents did *not* have a "I know everything" attitude when I was growing up. Not at all. My dad was great for random historical facts/anecdotes, but that's another matter.

Anyway, I definitely had my arrogant know-it-all period, and so far as I can tell this was not a reaction to my parents attitude.

A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing Add in the hormonal stuff that's going on, and the social pressure of being a pre-teen or teen, and it makes for a pretty annoying mix. I see the same thing (but worse) in one of my nephews. His parents aren't arrogant at all, but he's been a REAL ***** to them for the last couple of years nonetheless. Mostly, IMO, because of inconsistent discipline. My parents were not harsh at all, but they generally meant what they said. That's key.

-Arrian

[Zero]

Musical talent, music as a pleaseant tune, music as a form of art.....

William hung is a terrible musician in ways that his songs are defintely not what humans would consider a pleasant tune. But if we are talking in music as a form of art, actually hes one of the best.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
It's "smart" because the upperclass tries to force its values to others? That's very interesting logic...

Nope. Because they manage to force their values. It's not like the other set of values don't try to force their prejudices on others.

But I don't think it's smart. I rather think it's due to how easy they have it thanks to their environment and upbringing.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Arrian
Then your parents need to grow up a bit. It's generally something that subsides with age (but may come back with a vengence in old age. See: father, mine).

This bit is interesting. How old are you Arrian? Not to take this into the personal realm, but if you are middle ageish and you see kids as arrogant know-it alls, and the elderly as arrogant know-it alls, do you find it convenient the one age group you give a pass to is your own?

I imagine it is a common trait of all people to see themselves and their peers in possession of some superior form of knowledge. That's what factors into this whole debate. Seniors think they know more, mid-age folks think they know more, and youth think they know more. Usually this stems from ignorance of the other groups, and that exists for all three.

The difference is that the mid-age folks are the ones who hold power in society, so they can shape and control the other two groups. (or more likely shape and control youth, and just ignore seniors)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Nope. Because they manage to force their values. It's not like the other set of values don't try to force their prejudices on others.

But I don't think it's smart. I rather think it's due to how easy they have it thanks to their environment and upbringing.

I wouldn't consider them smart either, especially when you realize that the reason that they have those values they're forcing on others is because it was forced onto them.

Some of us have more independent minds.

[Arrian]

I don't see that the "upperclass" has had much success enforcing its view of culture on the "lowerclass" or whatever. Do people in the inner city like Mozart? Mostly no, they like rap/R&B/salsa. Why? Probably because they feel it's "theirs."

-Arrian

[Asher]

Originally posted by Zero
Musical talent, music as a pleaseant tune, music as a form of art.....

William hung is a terrible musician in ways that his songs are defintely not what humans would consider a pleasant tune. But if we are talking in music as a form of art, actually hes one of the best.

See Imran?

There simply is no objective "good" or "bad" in music.

If there was, arts would be less of a joke to study in school.

[Zero]

well theres a difference bwteen i know everything and I know this is wrong. I know everything attitude is very annoying no matter what, but when someone is saying i know this is wrong, you should listen to them to see why they are saying it is so...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can't stand listening to either.

Not the point. The point is that Norah Jones is considered better because of objective measurements in music.

You simply cannot have "objective" measures in an art. There may be generally accepted subjective standards, but those still are not objective. You cannot objectively say if any form of art is good or bad, which means intellect has no part in it.

Generally accepted subjective standards tend to turn into, for all intents and purposes, objective standards, especially after a few generations. And how does intellect not play a role in subjectivity? In order to argue your case, that your subjective notion is better than B's subjective notion, you have to have intellect

People who have "objective faith" in critics are so stupid, that I wouldn't know where to begin with them.

Is that your subjective view about people's views on art?

Obviously critics have a job for a reason. People believe they can tell them what the standards are and if this work matches them.

Mozart was popular then, and certainly is popular today. Everyone knows who Mozart is, which is why it's particularly easy to act elitist, snobbish, and therefore "cultured' if you claim to listen to Mozart.

Just because everyone knows him doesn't mean he is popular. How many people listen to Mozart compared to the popular acts of today? I'm sure he sells much less than a million records in the US per year.

It's "smart" because the upperclass tries to force its values to others? That's very interesting logic...

It's smart because the upperclass succeeds in forcing its values through its methods. Logic is an art which happens to be lost on you.