For anyone interested in a scathing thesis on why American Idol is so popular, and its implications for Western culture at large, I recommend a courageous read.
Here is Spengler, at his best, commenting on the symbolism of a certain Susan Boyle's victory in the British version of the singing contest. He basically warns that the West lives in a fantasy world, with real consequences in the real world where in walks China.
---
In said article, Spengler judges "pop culture" against "high culture," which really isn't a fair comparison by today's standards. Nevertheless, the balance in America does lean toward "pop" over "high" concerns even in times of crisis, whether it's AIG and Wall Street bonuses, stupid pirates or pig flu. Some believe this trait carries irrevocable consequences, especially in a self-governing democracy.
Here is Spengler's basic argument: while Americans aspire to musical mediocrity on American Idol, large numbers of Chinese are diligently learning Western classical piano. In other words, while the West is consumed with "validating its own mediocrity," the Chinese are keen on bettering themselves through the study of "high culture."
To Spengler, when a civilization has lost perspective on high culture, it is driving down Decadence Lane. When it comes to cultural aspiration, he believes the American character is firmly en route to being surpassed by its Chinese counterpart.
Analysis - Stage One
It is almost amusing how aspects of American culture completely disgust Spengler, revealed to be a Mr. David Goldman. While in some sense it is difficult to find fault in his criticism, conceit runs deep in his bolder conclusions (as I will point out).
Be that as it may, the significance of his criticism merits wider attention.
Spengler finds truths in the way a civilization manifests its own history. In China, centuries of national strife and humiliation have etched virtues of thrift and diligence into the modern Chinese with a "conviction that the world shows no mercy to mediocrity." On the other hand, the modern American has pioneered a microwavable world wherein "high culture" is edged by a "slacker's desire of reward with neither merit nor effort."
It is a fair criticism, agreeable to those disgusted by unbridled materialism and celebrity culture; or presumptuous reality shows, Wall Street alchemy, Facebook narcissism, so on and so forth.
But the Chinese may be little better off, contrary to what Spengler implies. However more thrifty or diligent they may be, a culture of strict discipline can seed a decadence of its very own. Their intensive musical studies, while more valuable than Guitar Hero, may cause bereavement of other kinds.
As a case in point, here is a story imparted to me by a good friend:
I'll never forget that I had a friend from China in middle school. I went over to his house and his sister was practicing the piano for some recital. I guess she missed a note and her parents just went ballistic on her. I remember thinking, damn she sounded all right to me. Maybe she was just screwing around or something; I've always told myself she missed a note, but she seemed hard at work on that piano.
I will leave the reader's imagination to measure the significance of this account. I dare not speculate, but would venture to say that our freedom to slack off vis-a-vis their regimented discipline both have its price.
To dismiss Spengler's observations on this basis, however, is to miss the point. While I believe he overstates the integrity of the Chinese character, his warning of decadence in the West stands on its own.
Analysis - Stage Two
Simply bettering oneself for betterment's sake seems to be an overlooked enterprise these days. The deep popularity of shows like American Idol suggests that Americans are more concerned with showmanship and microwaved celebrities. This triumph of mediocrity over high culture, Spengler argues, presents nothing higher for people to aspire to other than their own average selves.
I am sympathetic to this argument.
Consider the case of musical studies. American parents often think that joining the school band or taking private lessons will help their kids get better grades. While this holds some truth, these parents are completely missing the point.
Involvement in music isn't about getting good grades, nor for the sake of participating in "high culture." Rather it is about simply getting good at doing something (read: anything). The best activity, of course, is the kind that teaches how to better yourself. Why any parent would need other reasons for musical studies, scientific or not, is beyond my understanding.
Do we really need a reason to commit to something other than to better ourselves? It seems that we do, perhaps because Americans feel little need to better ourselves beyond who we already are.
We feel we have arrived; the American Century was unfolding before our very eyes, with the pre-9/11 world coming to order. All major wars have ended, save for the ones we begin. As the sole superpower, the world was our backyard. Wealth, prestige, influence, power, morality, these are all things Americans have harvested in abundance and come to take for granted by the 21st century.
After all, why struggle to better ourselves when we have already made it?
If the Chinese do surpass us one day, it will not be because of their incubated diligence and discipline. Rather it will be our own complacency that drives the West into decline.
(Perhaps we can find solace in the fact that China is probably headed down the same road toward a consumerist existence. After all there's nothing like materialistic complacency to wipe out the hard-learned lessons of history. This we should know.)
One thing about Spengler's dire warning is for certain: the West still has no idea what kind of trouble it's in.
May he be proved wrong. In the meantime, who will be the next American Idol? You? Yay?
The day is gone when a smile and a shoeshine will get you a shot at the American dream, but a smile and a song can still get you a chance at instant stardom.
More than ever, audiences in the West validate their own mediocrity by crowning stars-for-a-day. That is the message of [vain] hope that Susan Boyle bears to the beleaguered Anglo-Saxon world. Meanwhile, in China, 60 million children are learning music the hard way.
Here is Spengler, at his best, commenting on the symbolism of a certain Susan Boyle's victory in the British version of the singing contest. He basically warns that the West lives in a fantasy world, with real consequences in the real world where in walks China.
---
In said article, Spengler judges "pop culture" against "high culture," which really isn't a fair comparison by today's standards. Nevertheless, the balance in America does lean toward "pop" over "high" concerns even in times of crisis, whether it's AIG and Wall Street bonuses, stupid pirates or pig flu. Some believe this trait carries irrevocable consequences, especially in a self-governing democracy.
Here is Spengler's basic argument: while Americans aspire to musical mediocrity on American Idol, large numbers of Chinese are diligently learning Western classical piano. In other words, while the West is consumed with "validating its own mediocrity," the Chinese are keen on bettering themselves through the study of "high culture."
To Spengler, when a civilization has lost perspective on high culture, it is driving down Decadence Lane. When it comes to cultural aspiration, he believes the American character is firmly en route to being surpassed by its Chinese counterpart.
Analysis - Stage One
It is almost amusing how aspects of American culture completely disgust Spengler, revealed to be a Mr. David Goldman. While in some sense it is difficult to find fault in his criticism, conceit runs deep in his bolder conclusions (as I will point out).
Be that as it may, the significance of his criticism merits wider attention.
Spengler finds truths in the way a civilization manifests its own history. In China, centuries of national strife and humiliation have etched virtues of thrift and diligence into the modern Chinese with a "conviction that the world shows no mercy to mediocrity." On the other hand, the modern American has pioneered a microwavable world wherein "high culture" is edged by a "slacker's desire of reward with neither merit nor effort."
It is a fair criticism, agreeable to those disgusted by unbridled materialism and celebrity culture; or presumptuous reality shows, Wall Street alchemy, Facebook narcissism, so on and so forth.
But the Chinese may be little better off, contrary to what Spengler implies. However more thrifty or diligent they may be, a culture of strict discipline can seed a decadence of its very own. Their intensive musical studies, while more valuable than Guitar Hero, may cause bereavement of other kinds.
As a case in point, here is a story imparted to me by a good friend:
I'll never forget that I had a friend from China in middle school. I went over to his house and his sister was practicing the piano for some recital. I guess she missed a note and her parents just went ballistic on her. I remember thinking, damn she sounded all right to me. Maybe she was just screwing around or something; I've always told myself she missed a note, but she seemed hard at work on that piano.
I will leave the reader's imagination to measure the significance of this account. I dare not speculate, but would venture to say that our freedom to slack off vis-a-vis their regimented discipline both have its price.
To dismiss Spengler's observations on this basis, however, is to miss the point. While I believe he overstates the integrity of the Chinese character, his warning of decadence in the West stands on its own.
Analysis - Stage Two
Simply bettering oneself for betterment's sake seems to be an overlooked enterprise these days. The deep popularity of shows like American Idol suggests that Americans are more concerned with showmanship and microwaved celebrities. This triumph of mediocrity over high culture, Spengler argues, presents nothing higher for people to aspire to other than their own average selves.
I am sympathetic to this argument.
Consider the case of musical studies. American parents often think that joining the school band or taking private lessons will help their kids get better grades. While this holds some truth, these parents are completely missing the point.
Involvement in music isn't about getting good grades, nor for the sake of participating in "high culture." Rather it is about simply getting good at doing something (read: anything). The best activity, of course, is the kind that teaches how to better yourself. Why any parent would need other reasons for musical studies, scientific or not, is beyond my understanding.
Do we really need a reason to commit to something other than to better ourselves? It seems that we do, perhaps because Americans feel little need to better ourselves beyond who we already are.
We feel we have arrived; the American Century was unfolding before our very eyes, with the pre-9/11 world coming to order. All major wars have ended, save for the ones we begin. As the sole superpower, the world was our backyard. Wealth, prestige, influence, power, morality, these are all things Americans have harvested in abundance and come to take for granted by the 21st century.
After all, why struggle to better ourselves when we have already made it?
If the Chinese do surpass us one day, it will not be because of their incubated diligence and discipline. Rather it will be our own complacency that drives the West into decline.
(Perhaps we can find solace in the fact that China is probably headed down the same road toward a consumerist existence. After all there's nothing like materialistic complacency to wipe out the hard-learned lessons of history. This we should know.)
One thing about Spengler's dire warning is for certain: the West still has no idea what kind of trouble it's in.
If Westerners think the present recession is unpleasant, they cannot begin to imagine how the recovery will look, for it may occur entirely remote to them, on the other side of the world.
It is harder and harder to dismiss the awful thought that Americans, too, might require long experience with hard times to restore the sort of diligence that their Chinese counterparts learned at such a high price.
May he be proved wrong. In the meantime, who will be the next American Idol? You? Yay?
Logging you in...
atanas entchev · 827 weeks ago
milesian 35p · 827 weeks ago
I suppose I would qualify under Spengler's "high culture" label, though I believe he misses the point (as I argued above in Analysis - Stage Two).
Dave C · 826 weeks ago
I am always a little wary of articles like Mr Spectors. It reads a bit like he had his conclusion in mind before he wrote the article, and found easy targets like American Idol and Guitar Hero to make his point. I also wonder what proportion of Chinese have the affluence to diligently study classical music. It seems a bit unfair to take a micro example of the broader spectrum and use it to extrapolate the whole.
While I don't personally like American Idol and I think Guitar Hero is a waste of time... I'm hear to defend American Idol. Its not a show I enjoy, but my parents love it. At its heart, its a talent show. Nothing more, nothing less. I imagine its hard for you, a connoisseurs of music, to see that its flaws are its strengths. It’s unchallenging and accessible. It has familiarity (old songs that people know being sung), a human element, and audience engagement (voting). That's what people want from it, its not meant to challenge. Not everything should.
The process of becoming a connoisseur changes what you value, and as you distinguish your taste from the mainstream you inevitably become out of step with 'popular' culture. To be popular, or to be enjoyed by a wide audience, being unchallenging and accessible is a requirement. That's fact, because that's what most people want out of music is a shallow but enjoyable experience. I don't begrudge anyone for it. If you ever talk to a real gear head, you can see the same passion and understanding and awe they can have for a well built car when all most see is a means to get from A to B.
The fact is, there are far too many things to be passionate about in the world, and its an unfair expectation to feel let down or to be overly critical of people not aligning their passions with yours.
Keep in mind, technology has only really allowed for a popular culture in the recent years. I suspect there are just as many Opera lovers now as there ever were, but that number is dwarfed by a relatively new phenomena of popular culture. The loose divorce of culture from status is new, and for ages, it was just an entirely underserved audience.
Despite thinking American Idol is the wrong target, I agree with your fundamental point.
I have a real distaste of promoting mediocrity. I think there has been a destructive movement in American culture of avoiding discomfort. Its the same motivation that takes away scores from little league games and things like that. As some one who got picked last in a lot of gym classes, let me tell you, it was a valuable lesson to learn that being picked last sucks. There is a soft oppression of low expectations.
In that way, I fully agree with your point. Learning to be good at music teaches you the process of getting good at something. That's valuable regardless of where your path leads you. As you know, drawing filled that role for me (it can be track and field for others, etc). I'm disheartened when I see this re-enforced message of “good enough.” It's hard to say in what proportion average trumped quality in prior generations. I expect, like in generations past, the disposable music and art will be forgotten and only a handful of music remains on the cultural radar, creating the illusion of a better past. Regardless, I cringe whenever I see a Judd Appatow movie celebrate ANOTHER man child instead of people that actually do anything.
I think its long past time we start celebrating accomplishments again. Its time to aspire to be our best and appreciate the value of hard work and discipline and seeing goals as something worth chasing rather than a simple entitlement.
milesian 35p · 825 weeks ago
Regarding "good enough" culture: I don't really think people settle for mediocrity, or that anyone enjoys it. Rather Americans seem to have lost the ability to self-criticize, and feel entitled to respect whether they have presently earned it or not. At least, that has been my own experience grappling with mediocrity.
I'm afraid I did not do Spengler's argument full justice. I suggest you check out the article I reviewed here, and also another Spengler piece titled "China's six-to-one advantage over the US."
Personally, more than anything else, I'm disturbed by his waving the "FEAR CHINA" flag. Spengler is a shrewd one, alright.
In any case I would advise that you don't take Spengler's indictment of American Idol that personally. Being a cult-ishly themed writer, he almost certainly has his conclusion in mind before hand. Furthermore, he is a snooty extremist when it comes to music, himself being a real hardcore classical musician. Most likely he would dismiss your defense of American Idol as apologist nonsense, which is precisely the kind of conceited thinking that makes Spengler Spengler, and the reason why I read his columns extensively.
Luckily, I'm not him; I recognize what American Idol is, and I judge by its standards. Frankly I could care less if someone liked American Idol or not, but I AM concerned with what people don't care about as a result.
You suggest that, in time, the "disposable" music and art will naturally be forgotten, leaving behind only the good stuff for future generations. I wish I shared your confidence, beyond the history books that is. My belief is that the present is the cumulative sum of the past, no exceptions, such that the future is irrevocably chained to the present. While the history books may soon forget the lesser arts, culture itself is path-dependent and does not forget.
Even if bad music and bad art died, its influence would reach out from beyond the grave; the shadow would simply take another shape and grow again. But don't get me wrong.. I don't doubt that bad art and music will die in due course, but it just might be the good art and music that will die first.
And is there truly no connection between mere entertainment and culture at large, as you appear to suggest? I do not buy the technology and popular culture argument. Popular culture, as we know it today, does not fulfill something missing in society prior to the advent of mass media. Culture--popular or not--is existential and intrinsic, not created. The fantasy belief held by some that modern technology has somehow changed the human condition puzzles me. Online dating is still dating, after all, and the more things change the more they don't.
You refer to pre-mass media society as an underserved market for popular culture, a point that I agree with. However, as is often the problem with new markets, how much demand was truly latent or consequently induced cannot be known or measured. It is very possible that while we created a market to serve us, the market ended up running us. That is to say, perhaps the line between a mindful consumer and a mindless drone is very much thinner than we think.
Damn I don't want to make my reply any longer than this. Hehe.. thanks for commenting Dave! And oh.. can you not use the "reply" function if you decide to respond? My commenting system is kind of broken at present.. your reply-comment won't show up!!!
Dave C · 826 weeks ago
Good feedback as always. Again, I want to say I largely agree with you. To be perfectly, 100% clear, I agree. Culture is intrinsic, its a part of human nature. Technology and societies and anything else become means to express the culture but never the cause of it.
My fundamental point is towards an argument not held by Spengler alone; that high culture and low culture are mutually exclusive. They aren't at odds, they serve different functions. Look at it this way, some times you want a steak, sometimes a salad. Its not fair to judge a salad against the strengths of the steak.
Again, its the process of becoming a connoisseur excludes people from experiencing music as anything but a connoisseur. And to Popular Culture being new; I stand by that. Of course there is a human need for entertainment and expression, but before advances made it cheap enough for common people (and common people gained enough free time and affluence) to share these expressions on a large scale, there was nothing really resembling what we have now. Dirty Limmerics and oral tradition may be the grandfather of popular culture, but nothing like the radio/pulp novels/records/television etc.
As far as the disposable ultimately disappearing; I stand by that. It's the classic "test of time." Its not suggesting that all good material will be remembered. Of course not. Great things have been lost forever, and will continue to be so. I'm only commenting on the phenomenon of the past looking brighter because of our selective memory. We only remember, naturally, the memorable. It creates the illusion of a degrading culture. To think that good art will some how die is silly, since, as you said, its so intrinsic to us. I personally believe the crap to gold ratio has been consistent.
As far as the ultimate point about 'mediocrity.' Its really hard to definitevely speak to a tone, but I do think we aren't as hungry for greatness, and I think we've lowered our expectations of each other. It's a hard thing to prove of course, but I do sense a triumph of "people are products of circumstance" mentality over the "people are responsible for their actions and capable of great things" mentality. Maybe its just my Conservative bias. I think its a shame.
milesian 35p · 826 weeks ago
I only have one more comment on the "test of time:" you don't have to remember something in order for it to affect you. Life is path dependent, with the future being an indiscriminate summation of the past and present. You may not remember if you ate more steak than salad in your lifetime, but when you get older you'll know it alright. Culture, like our corporeal bodies, degrades whether or not you know it is degrading or not.
You really nailed it on the head, Dave: we aren't as hungry for greatness these days. As I ventured to explain in my post, we are not as hungry for greatness because we feel we already have it. Why eat when you're already full? It is the notion that our greatness is slipping away from us that scares me most.
Aspiring to be an instant celebrity, in a show that rewards quasi-amateur talents with lavish contracts and concert tours, is not my idea of aspiring to greatness or bettering yourself. Whether the show itself is fun and accessible does not concern me.
That connoisseurs of "high culture" are excluded from mainstream culture is probably a matter of vanity. However that is a fact that runs both directions. Being a connoisseur of popular culture would prevent one from experiencing higher culture, just as it works vice versa.
This is just my opinion, but I believe that has consequences beyond mere musical appreciation. Just look at the state of our mainstream politics nowadays.
Brendan · 826 weeks ago
You've piqued my interest with this one and both you and Dave have made some astute comments along the way. As for Spengler, while he has an interesting biography, I rarely find myself giving his writings more than a cursory glance. Partially I'm turned off by the histrionic tone of his conclusions, but beyond that, I take issue with attempts by him or really anyone trying to characterize "American culture" or any other "culture" for that matter as a homogeneous entity that is clearly pointed in one way or another.
I think it would be interesting to hear more about how your own experiences confirm or contradict the assumptions that Spengler promotes regarding East Asian diligence and American mediocrity especially in music. Come to think of it, I can't think of anyone else who has the breadth of experience that you have on this topic. Is it divulging too much to point out that your mother is a classical pianist who studied at two of the best music programs in the US and has taught extensively in the US and in Hong Kong? or that you've had the opportunity in the not too distant past to interact with musicians such as Sean Jones or Stanley Cowell who exemplify a diligence and profundity that's very different in character? In your experiences in Hong Kong and Beijing did you come away with a distinct impression that people of our generation are better equipped for "self-criticism" or have different ideas about entitlement than people here? Personally I think that any insight you could give from these experiences would be tell me far more than your reaction to Spengler's reaction to Steve Rosen of the Kansas City Star's reaction to the public's reaction to Susan Boyle's performance on British Idol or whatever it is.
It's getting late and I don't have time to respond to the extent that I would like to the ideas you guys present about 'mediocrity' 'circumstance' 'mass media' etc. but I would like to make a quick point about music before I turn in. Spengler's writing seems to carry with it the assumption that the ultimate goal of music is to provide lofty ideals towards which those who have a particularly strong desire for success can set their sights on. To say that music can serve other functions such as allowing people to relate through common experience, (for musicians at least) giving people a framework to interact in situations and with people that present varied ideals, reinforcing roles and ideas about gender, religion, identity etc. is not being apologetic, it's taking a view that acknowledges the limitations of previous definitions of 'music'. Each of these functions presents very different systems of musical values where for example virtuosity or esoteric appreciation for nuance in harmony or phrasing might not be of the highest order, but perhaps the groove created by the upright bass and the ride, or a feeling of community among participants and observers might be.
milesian 35p · 826 weeks ago
At his best, Spengler's specialty lies in simplifying perspectives on difficult subject matters. Consequently, his commentary is intrinsically dead right or dead wrong, never somewhere in between. This must obviously be guarded against, and that is a challenge that I personally rate highly. That Spengler's world is in clear view (ever more clear now that he has revealed himself) is precisely the reason I find his theatrics stimulating.
I would call Spengler's tone less as histrionic than out right conceited. That aside though, what's wrong with a bit of intellectual flare? Surely you enjoy Obama's gift for rhetoric enough to appreciate Spengler's own model.
You suggested that it would be interesting to hear me challenge Spengler's perspective on Asian diligence vis-a-vis American mediocrity in music. But isn't that precisely what I've done? Perhaps I made my point weakly, but I wrote that "the Chinese may be little better off, contrary to what Spengler implies. However more thrifty or diligent they may be, a culture of strict discipline can seed a decadence of its very own . . . I would venture to say that our freedom to slack off vis-a-vis their regimented discipline both have its price." This basically amounts to a repudiation of Spengler's position by which he practically crowns the Chinese as superior. Not if I have something to say about it.
In regards to citing my own life circumstances as supporting evidence: I'm neither good at verbalizing my own experiences, nor vain enough to believe they are not superfluous to name here. What I have written, though, I will leave the reader to weigh with their own experiences, rather than mine.
By the way, Brian was the one who told me that story about the Chinese parents going ballistic. I wish I could get his input here, but he's too busy getting action heh.
I really like your exposition on different types of music. I should very much like to read an essay on it, if you ever feel inspired to pen one. If you do though, might I recommend shorter sentences? ^_~ I ran your paragraph through the word processor, it said I need to be at an American grade level of somewhere between 16 and 19 to understand it. I agree!
milesian 35p · 826 weeks ago
Since both of you appear fixated on this point, I'd like to clarify my stance on American Idol before moving forward. Dave is right to say that high and popular culture are mutually exclusive, which Brendan professorially clarified to be the difference between aesthetic and functional music.
It isn't a fair comparison; I get that, and am in full agreement, as I explicitly stated in my blog post. I am not deceived by the significance of the show's intent and purpose.
That is precisely why I couldn't care less if someone liked American Idol or not. You'll notice that nowhere in my post did I personally denigrate the show itself, nor did I claim myself as a connoisseur of anything. Yes, I latched onto Spengler's opinion on the matter. That was because, in the end, he zoned in on a point that resonanted with me, Dave and President Obama himself (Spengler would resent the latter comparison, but it's true.. just look up excerpts from Obama's commencement address at Arizona State University this past week).
I'm going to take this opportunity to reframe Spengler's opinion the way I see it: civilizations rise and fall irrevocably, right? Exogenous factors like war notwithstanding, what compels a civilization to stop trying and decline? That's the real question that inspired my blog post in the first place.
Look, it is OK to enjoy American Idol; I'm not Spengler. But that doesn't mean there are no consequences to speak of. Eating too much steak or salad, after all, would be unhealthy all the same.
It is the significance of those hypothetical consequences that inform Spengler's commentary here. But no matter how eloquent his pen may be, in the end his opinions are mere conjecture. I am not deceived by this, which is why I can hijack his narrative with a straight face.
Now that that's over with, and because this STUPID commenting system prevents me from replying directly, I'm forced to break my personalized responses into sections. Pathetic.
In any case, thanks for these comment dudes. It really made me think harder on the subject matter, and I also became more aware of how my writing expressed itself. It's an area I really need improvement in, so I sincerely appreciate the feedback and workout.
Bettering myself, after all, is the sole reason I write this blog.
Brendan · 825 weeks ago
Thanks for your feedback. I've been knee deep in academic literature the last few months so please excuse my inclination towards long sentences and inflated grammar. I also feel that I got distracted by Spengler's premise and didn't do much to address your basic argument or the distinctions you made between Spengler and yourself (note:upon rereading this comment I might have only done marginally better)
I recognize that the economic situation has been a shock to the system, and to the extent that "the west" - as Spengler likes to generalize - arrived to this state because of composite complacency and lack of motivation, I'm sure it's important that we reexamine our ideals.
In your argument, you challenge Spengler's assumptions about the ideals that create a successful society. Nowhere in your post however do you challenge his characterization of American Idol as the dominant model for American musical aspirations. Im no more omniscient than Spengler, but I suspect that American Idol's vaulted status exists more in the reality of television and the blogosphere than in the tangible world around us. While many people are captivated by the theatrics of American Idol and may even enjoy the musical element, I would argue that the show's premise does much less to inform their ambitions than the people around them. Therefor, I disagree with your statement that being a connoisseur of popular culture would exclude someone from experiencing high culture. If I recall correctly, didn't you have some mix tape from high school that had Brittney Spears and a bunch of other crap, while at the same time your interest in Joshua Redman and Micheal Brecker was blossoming?
When you look at this in the context of your belief that "the present is the cumulative sum of the past, no exceptions" I suggest that the conception of the past or present that you promote should reflect not just what you've read, but the variety of your own experiences. Maybe it's because the intangible world of American Idol and Miss America and AIG bonuses is so much easier to write about than our own experiences that it occupies so much space in mainstream media and the blogosphere. This is why, while your conclusion has merit that we can all point to in some way or another in our personal experience, I feel the basic premise that you work from is misguided.
One more argument: The more we become convinced that our world is shaped by the intangible, the more helpless we feel right? Rather than further perpetuating this feeling of helplessness and complacency by operating within the discourse provided to us by the mainstream media - spending our time fretting, lamenting, dwelling, conjecturing on these issues - wouldn't we be better served to spend our time promoting the alternatives that we see around us? Or better yet participating in something that contradicts the notion that American's are irreversibly drawn towards disposable celebrities? (translation: come to my gig tonight!!! just kidding... kind of)
milesian 35p · 825 weeks ago
The world is NOT shaped by the intangibles.. if only it were! Instead, the modern world is shaped by the intangibles BENEATH the tangibles, that which people should but do not readily perceive. This paradoxical mix of reality and fantasy I refer to, of course, is the power of propaganda (see my Chesterton quotation below). That is why sometimes it seems like the Congress echo chamber runs Americans rather than vice versa, and how people become cynical, feel powerless and become disaffected with government.
In my opinion, these Americans look for the cause of their malcontent in all but the most obvious place, which is the mirror. In my view, the victim mentality holds no water in a democracy. See my post on Obama with Jay Leno for a brief exposition on this idea.
While it's important to operate beyond the confines of the mainstream media, it is also important to not be completed removed from it. In a democracy, you are forced to share your fortune with people who do not agree with you, perhaps those who cannot separate fantasy from reality. "Fretting, lamenting, dwelling, and conjecturing" about mainstream issues is worthwhile because it challenges a fundamental mindset of Americans who just eat all the crap up. And because so many people eat this crap up, I'm forced to eat it up too anytime I surf the news. I deplore this imposition, but I will not hide from it.
In a democracy, to ignore the mainstream is to ignore the fact that you share an existential fate with all those around you, even those you deem to be beneath your intellectual prowess. I do not make this mistake, however misguided you think me.
Brendan, while I appreciate your judgment and opinions, I am truly offended when you accuse me of not putting my personal experiences in my writing. I'm even more offended when you accuse me of regurgitating what I read. This is simply not true. However, if you have read my posts and judged that I have not put anything of myself into to the matters on which I write, then nothing I can say here will convince you otherwise.
Nevertheless, I will declare that it is precisely because my life experiences and instincts feel at odds with mainstream narratives that I'm compelled to write on them. That which you reject and deplore in disgust, I consider a challenge to uphold my personal sense of integrity, and an opportunity to think critically and independently.
If I can conjure up a perspective on a mainstream issue that, in my view, breaks with the fantasy choke hold, I feel better about myself. I invite you read my upcoming post on the 2009 Giants, to which I will apply my stated approach verbatim. I also want to finish a post on Apple computers along the same principle. Don't worry, I do not seek validation from anyone, only respect.
In my Miss Cali post, I cited a quote by G.K. Chesterton I recently read: "when the modern man see two truths that seem to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them." This indictment of modern man is what I fight against and is, however vain it may be, a primary motivation for my writing.
Last thing: about my connoisseur thing, that was a response to Dave's notion of separating high from popular culture. I qualified his statement on the basis of dialectic integrity, but I really believe that the two concepts are only mutually exclusive if one allows it to be. Just ask Herbie Hancock. Like him, I believe that it is personal vanity and insecurity that truly separates high from popular culture. I may not say so explicitly, but I speak from my own personal experiences.
Brendan · 825 weeks ago
Let me clear the air real quick by saying that in my effort to follow up on your comments in a concise and timely manner, I was obviously less than courteous, and for that I apologize. Please don't take my comments as a personal attack, as I state in my post, the view that I present is an argument, it is not an indictment, and in no way do I "reject and deplore in disgust" the task that you have taken on. Furthermore, if I were ever to level personal accusations against you, you can rest assured that it would never be on the basis of originality.
I have a very particular motivation in challenging you to do more to site your own experiences in a post that, in the course of making it's point, characterizes American musical aspirations in a certain way. I look forward to elaborating on this, and clarifying my perspective on the 'tangibles' and 'intangibles' that constitute the fabric of our experience. As I'm learning, expressing myself clearly takes time, and at the moment I have a lot on my plate, but no doubt this challenge is a high priority and you can another round comments sooner rather than later.
Drew · 825 weeks ago
The only utility I think such an argument could have is to allegorically point out a difference in American and Chinese work ethic. However, this too comes down to a matter of choice. To put it simply, at this point in history, you can work a lot and make a lot of money, or you can take it easy and merely make plenty of money. Some people prefer time to money, and vice versa. I like to take it easy so I have plenty of time to practice classical music. Go figure.
milesian 35p · 824 weeks ago
I'm not sure that Spengler is suggesting we should all learn piano instead of playing Rock Band. As you observed, that would be stupid. That is why, in full recognition of this, Spengler warns of the consequences of too much Rock Band and too little piano. Too much leisure in society, or of anything else, can't be a good thing.
Let's put this into context. Your defense to Spengler focuses on the individual choice. Because we can choose our pleasures according to personal taste, what one man chooses won't affect another's choice. And so everyone goes about their respective lives and life goes on. Did I get that right?
I agree with that principle, but is there really so little societal connection between individuals? Is society not the collection of individual needs and tastes, a society that its citizens share?
After all, individual tastes determine market trends, those which affects us all. Our political economy is such that everyone's choices can create tangible differences, whether in government or the market place.
If we can agree that personal tastes affect market trends, then it is likely that market trends say something about the things society value. It follows that, because society affects us all, we are in some ways bound by others' choices.
It is precisely the aggregate effect of individual choices on society that concerns Spengler. He, and I, couldn't care less if someone like American Idol or Rock Band, or took piano lessons or whatever. To Spengler, an individual's well-being is beside the point. Nor does he care about the effect of an individual's choice on another individual.
Put another way, it is the cumulative effects that informs Spengler's social commentary. After all, it is obvious he places little faith in individuals making the "right" choices anyway. Instead, his best writings speculate on why nations exist and, by extension, the death of nations.
It is hard to say that Spengler is off on all counts. After all, the latest innovation in Rock Band is the "no fail" mode, in which players can't mess up no matter what. I like to think of this as the drunk mode, but that would be giving it the benefit of the doubt; it is hard to deny that we have taken the rewards for mediocrity to the next level, even if the attainment of skill is beside the point.
By contrast, I like the idea of Wii Music. Although you cannot "fail" in that game, your input creates a tune of its own, however terrible. At least, in Wii Music, your mediocrity is itself put to good use, instead of simply put out of mind.
Although I defend Spengler here, I do so only because it will take more than what we have ALL said here to deflate his argument. If we really want to do that, we would have to examine his key writings systemically and in depth. Though with my recent Spengler Expose post, Steve has granted us a head start.
I'm not sure I'm up to this task, but you and Steve seem rather good at this.... so let me know how it goes ^_~
milesian 35p · 824 weeks ago
Featuring amateur performers from all over the country, it drew a massive audience, with 400 million viewers tuning in for the 2005 season finale. That made it the most widely viewed TV program in China, surpassing even China Central Television’s annual Spring Festival Evening Gala.
While hugely popular, the shows also triggered hot debates. Some celebrated them for representing the victory of grassroots culture over official or elite culture, while others believed the show just encouraged young people to seek out overnight fame. Along with popularity came increased government scrutiny.
[New] conditions include the following: the competition may last no more than two months (about half the length of an American Idol season); episodes may only air after 10:30 pm; judges must be appropriately dressed and use proper language; competitors are not allowed to hug each other or shed tears on stage; and there must not be any fan groups cheering for contestants in the studio audience. Meanwhile, all forms of public voting for contestants, including mobile text messaging and online polls, will be prohibited, as reported by the Chinese-language media."
I must note, however, the significance of this show may be different for Americans and the Chinese. After all, their cultures and political economies are very very different, as hilariously evident in the new government restrictions outlined above. Maybe I can write a post on this someday.
More importantly, this article reinforces the criticism I leveled at Spengler's crowning of Chinese culture.