Chirac warns of 'catastrophe' of world 'choked' by US values

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Of course you can want it. Obviously you haven't been afflicted by this, otherwise you wouldn't think there was a problem (and there wouldn't be). So that's clearly not the case.

You don't have any better argument? There are different levels of accessibility to culture, and as they get more complex, more refined, more elegant shall I say, they receive less exposure. As someone who studies philosophy, studied cinema previously and is deeply interested in artistic matters, I read specialized magazines that are obviously read by less than 1% of the population and don't have any money at all to promote their own views (which aren't, anyway, designated to be marketable in the first place).

So tell me, how do you know that you don't want so see German films from the 30s? And in the case you've really seen them and made an informed opinion of them, then how do you know that average Joe, who has been raised within a certain cultural framework intended at forming his beliefs before he even knows how to talk, doesn't?

In addition, by your logic the government must fund exposure to each and every conceivable form of culture possible, so that everyone has a full range to choose from. That's just stupid. If you really want to look for something else, there's plenty of stuff on the web, or you can even use your own money - imagine that, not being able to use someone else's money - to go and find it.

Stop being an ass. I'm not saying anything as "cartesian" as what you're accusing me of, as if I thought that each and every culture should receive a certain % of exposure decided by bureaucrats.. Simply, some market regulations combined with subsidies to artistic creation should do the trick to promote free artistry. That would be like, subsidizing different museums, funding art schools so that it doesn't cost 30,000$ a year to become an actor or a musician, tax credits to movie productions, etc. You do realize that restaurating an old painting or importing an African statue requires some expertise and money, don't you? What's wrong with the government contributing to such endeavours if it benefits society in a way that the market won't?

In most civilized countries they're doing it already, and my expose so far has been about continuing and enhancing these practices.

It's like complaining that there aren't any good games in a particular genre because no one buys that type of game, and then demanding that the government fund development of that type of game and restrict the development of other types.

Yeah, sure... that sophism is as big as a mammoth, shall we really need to debunk it?

The problem isn't a monopoly, the problem is no one cares about your stupid culture!

Are your legendary debating skills coming out again! So when AT&T was having a monopoly, the problem wasn't a monopoly but the fact that no one cared about other phone companies! I guess it's the same for M$ Windows?

Interestingly enough, you don't care about, say, Quebecois culture. Not that it's the most interesting in the world (a personal opinion) but like anything it's got worthy stuff. So next time you call it stupid can you name a single author from Quebec, and if you do, then explain how your knowledge of the works of a few, if not none, of our artists allows you to call a culture stupid?

They're all happy to adopt ours! It's not our fault your own people don't like your culture as much as they like ours, it's yours. Why the hell should the government prop up anything that is failing for the sole reason that no one wants what it's selling?

The problem is that the market is gobbling up areas of society that traditionnally haven't, and arguably shouldn't be deemed as consumable goods. In fact, your failure to acknowledge the coercive market forces in influencing cultural behaviors of the masses is ridiculous. When was the last time that AOL-Time Warner, who has not produced LoTR and has no interest in selling it, therefore decided to dedicate the cover of the Times to say Andrej Zulawsky, you know the famous Polish director, instead of giving it to LoTR?

An interesting case can be made when comparing France and America. The general intellectual level of French culture, in movies, litterature, theater, etc, is noticeably higher than that of America. Ever heard about the stereotype of boring French films?
The fact is that intelligent culture tends to make smart people. Idiots tend to believe that intelligent stuff is boring.

To answer your question plainly, the government has many interests in influencing free thinking and culture positively, because these are things that the market does not favor. Actually, they are at the exact opposite of the interests of a huge corporation, which is money.

You definitely overestimate the choice that average Joe gets in the cultural market. Something I can tell you from firsthand experience is that mainly anybody studying artistic topics in art school doesn't terribly like the way pop culture works, but later fall for it because it's their bread and butter. They have no real choice because they're facing powerful multi-billionaires foes. Student films are what they are, audacious and provocative, because they don't face financial constraints of bigger and badder productions. Give those people money and time to educate people, to push their talent to its limit, and you'll probably witness a change in what makes the bulk of culture.

You really convey a very naive view of the world, as if someone with the right amount of money and influence cannot decide what the consumers are going to want. I can point you towards very interesting essays on this topic.

[Ted Striker]

I can point you towards very interesting essays on this topic.

I'd like to read them.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Spiffor

False.

This argument lies on a common misconception, that I read often in cultural threads.

You assume that any product that has a potential for success will be sold, and thus meet the success it deserves. This assumption lies on an absolute trust in the market, that always both knows and acknowledges a potential success.

This is wrong. The people who decide what product is sold, they are human like you and me, they are prone to make mistakes, they are prone to conservative -a.k.a only sell "products that work".

There is a particularly telling example of a success that has been hindered by the decisionmakers' conservatism: French music on the domestic market. In the 90's, the radio stations destined to youth aired almost only American (and a bit of English) music. Then came the quota laws, that forced radio stations to air 40% of French music, including 20% of young artists.
French music sold extremely well in stores shortly after that. Some excellent bands arose and became famous. It was a complete renewal of French rock for instance, and a blossom of French rap. I like to tell it was like a "rain in the desert".

How come the customers bought so much a music that was supposed to suck, given that radio stations didn't air them?

Same works for movies. Crouching Tiger is one of the few non-American movies that had such international success. But many movies didn't manage it, because of crappy domestic marketing based on false assumptions by the decisionmakers.

Spiffor, I admire your legendary patience in showing facts that I don't have the willingness to.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


I'd like to read them.

Che suggested something, you can try it.

Umberto Eco wrote stuff about this, Roland Barthes too.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


So I'm supposed to take seriously your assertion that he is wrong, based only on an ad hominem against him?

Riiight. I'll stick with the actual historical scholar.

Classic double-talk: You complain that I'm attacking the man instead of the argument and then you say his argument is right because he is a great man.

You've got the makings to be a good Republican.

[Saras]

French rock

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3569581.stm

[Sandman]

I would assume poor grammar, which is different from vocabulary, quite so, was not characteristic of Shakespeare

It ain't not poor grammar. It's acceptable in polite Southern society.

According to thee, the seventeenth century English used words like 'ain't' like Southerners. Why do the Southerners not use other seventeenth century words? Why aren't words like 'thee', 'shalt' and 'knave' used by Southerners?

Furthermore, why don't recordings of English accents from one hundred years ago sound more like Southerners?

Oh, and why are the Pitcairn islanders described as speaking in an 'Olde English' accent (plus their Polynesian/English hybrid) even though they colonised the island in 1790, only a century after England was supposed to have been speaking like Southerners? There's no mention anywhere that their archaic dialect of English sounds 'Southern'.

[The Mad Monk]

Um...thee and shalt were already antiquated then, unless you were a Quaker.

Not sure about knave...

[Whaleboy]

France

[Dinner]

I'm going to be lynched but I like French culture...

Some subsidizing of culture can be good as long as it doesn't become the norm. Market forces have to dominate otherwise you end up in a situation where even with the subsidies no one wants to see the movie. Can anyone remember French movies in the 1980's? They were massively subsidized but all of the money went to the same tired old directers who kept producing highly "artistic" (read: boring) movies with the same plot line. That meant that even with subsidies the French film industry was in the toilet.

Similar situations occured with the NAtional Endowment for the Arts and National Public Radio in America. Before Congress required these organizations to raise some of their own money, instead of simply spunging off of the government, they produced crap which no one really cared about. Now most of their out put is entertaining and useful because they are subject to market forces and if a program or show sucks then it gets cut.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


DAVOUT said that American English is a degenerate form.

I was just teasing

If I wanted to bash the US, I would mentioned areas where degeneracy is closing fast the ultimate phase.

[DanS]

I agree with Oerdin about this. A jolt inserted into the system can be good -- a catalyst that helps artists find an audience. I have no problem with that and we do that all the time in the US in other industries. (By the way, I do wonder whether these subsidized artists aren't just doing a "me-too" on the art coming in from outside.) However, continued subsidization enourages artists to do art without an audience.

When Spiffor mentions all of the good things that subsidization has brought initially, I say that's great, as far as it goes. But over time, I expect this protection from competition to be stifling to good, vibrant art.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DanS
However, continued subsidization enourages artists to do art without an audience.

What's wrong with this? Who cares if a genius is only read by 14 persons?

The fact is that relatively little money invested in culture can yield great benefits. IIRC in Canada the total amount of public money going to culture amounts to something like 0,1% of the GDP. I don't see this as unreasonable and abusive.

When Spiffor mentions all of the good things that subsidization has brought initially, I say that's great, as far as it goes. But over time, I expect this protection from competition to be stifling to good, vibrant art.

How can uniformization result in "good, vibrant art"? Does American music really need a 85% market share to shine? How would the French in general not benefit in a wide range of choices, even unpopular ones?

[Fake Boris]

Also I would like to add that all those people who talked about cuisine in this thread are way off-track. Cuisine belongs to a wholly different debate.

[DanS]

What's wrong with this? Who cares if a genius is only read by 14 persons?

I have nothing wrong with a genius plying his work with only a 14 person audience. However, he can do so on somebody else's dime, not mine.

The fact is that relatively little money invested in culture can yield great benefits. IIRC in Canada the total amount of public money going to culture amounts to something like 0,1% of the GDP. I don't see this as unreasonable and abusive.

The amount isn't the problem, although I note that this would equal $11 billion in the US. Rather, it's the principle involved.