Our influence, beginning in the mid-eighties, was at that time incredible large, specially the philosophers, sociologists, literary theoreticians. But this was a special, very limited conjunction. Now there is the pure ignorance of the regime, who is simply not interested in ideological questions. I feel sorry for those countries in which writes nowadays play an important role. Take Serbia, where this nationalist madness was fabricated by writers. Even in Slovenia it’s the same with the nationalist writers, although they do not have much influence.
(link)
-Zizek, an interview transcribed. He’s talking about the role of the “intellectual” in government or social functions.
My comments: To be perfectly honest, I pity the countries where the intellectual does not play any important role. In the USA, it seems that the intellectual is almost romanticized as a completely ignored genius, who always has all the right answers, but to whom no one in power ever listens. This is seen especially in our movies, as it’s extremely popular for the “smart nerd” to be the one ignored, or brushed aside by the military, or the president when he/she tries to explain about some impeding disaster. This in fact is actually the entire PREMISE of most of our popular disaster movies and tv-shows. Didn’t you see The Day After Tomorrow? The X-files? Stargate? These movies usually resolve themselves with the realization that the “nerd” was right all along, and in some cases, the government or the “dumb people in power” come to realize this and it’s implied that they are going to change their ways. (The Day After Tomorrow is a great example of this.) But in others, this romantic and essentially overly-optimistic resolution is merely alluded to, and strongly denied during the Season Finale because that kind of nerd-teasing is a very effective cliff-hanger in the US for some reason. (I’m thinking of the x-files here)
Tangent: is this saying that we all are nerd-wannabes at heart? not necessarily. Fans of the x-files or science-fiction disaster movies aren’t specifically responding to the struggle that the intellectual protagonist goes through. They are responding to themes of personal struggle that are more universal. It’s the same themes that are present in most super-hero mythologies… the underestimated and isolated individual turns out to be the one who saves the world all the time. Same thing with Harry Potter, or Karate Kid, or anything else with a theme of “maturation” that goes beyond merely maturation and into a fantastic medium of some kind.
The thing that this intellectual-themed sub-thread of this trend shows is that the “intellectual” being denied their powers of effective and applicable reason is simply a very effective one of several. There is a very strong audience in the US who want to believe that the government and the people with power over them are stupid, ineffective, and that when some huge disaster strikes, we will be allowed to blame it on their ignorance. It’s romantic. It’s comforting to think of this. But all of this really does reflect on the apparent relationship between the Powers that be and the Intellectuals in our society.
Again, I think that the US is a country where this fantasy (either begot by the attitudes, or vice versa) exists. And I think it’s clear that the attitudes and tastes of our popular culture in entertainment is an integral part of this and reflects on (and is reflected by) this.
fellnearshiva | 01-Jan-01 at 12:00 am | Permalink
alteredeggo | 01-Jan-01 at 12:00 am | Permalink
lacunaend | 05-Jun-04 at 11:41 am | Permalink
Something I think thats worth noting is that, as far as I have seen anyway, creative people tend to be intillectuals. And creativity tends to be bread from being ignored. you know - your ignored so you have a desire to scream, or tell a story, or say something - to create something that the world will pay attention to. And in order to do that, your kind of forced to understand things. I mean, you have to understand how color works in order to be a painter. (not nesisarily the chemical compositions of individual pigmints - not nesisarily understand that - but you have to understand that red plus blue equals purple.)
wich kind of says that people that create are slightly biased towards the misunderstood/ignored.
You also look at Bush (I dont mean to offend anyone here.. just an observation) and the fact that he is very much supported by people involved with orginized religion (and likewise he very much supports them). Religion is based on faith - faith is the Idea that you dont have to understand things just believe them. And that kind of reflects Bush’s stance on things - he dosent nesisarily want to understand…erm.. Iraq - he just wants to fix it.
And then you have those that appose bush - wich is most publically - the hollywood comunity. people that create. and the general Idea behind that side is - the desire to understand it. when you want to understand something - you learn about it. you educate yourself untill you do. people that desire understanding - really get it. intillectuals.
anyway - the point is, that while the mass memdia may be sold by people that arnt particularly inclined towards intelligence.
Its created by people that are… and they are probably a tiny bit biased. But I am too - I think the whole world should be run by artists.
alteredeggo | 05-Jun-04 at 12:37 pm | Permalink
With respect to the point Zizek was making, intellectuals DO have an important role in the US, because they still serve as dissidents to try and keep our government in check. If there was a sudden sweeping nationalist movement by the intellectuals of our country (especially at this point in time), then there would be a lot to pity (and fear).
With respect to the point you are making, I don’t understand why there aren’t more intellectuals in leadership roles. Seems like most of the times the smart guys take up roles behind the scenes where they don’t have much influence.
It would be a great change to have someone with brain power leading our country, with the caveat that this person is also ethical. There is always the question of who has the potential to be more dangerous: the intelligent guy with an agenda or a bumbling idiot president.
starladear6 | 05-Jun-04 at 1:52 pm | Permalink
I’m a little leary of equating hollywood and the media with intellectuals. There’s a good chance that they have maybe read more books than the average citizen, depending on the length of their off-time between making movies, but I wouldn’t say that they are the kind of intellectual I’m talking about, or the kind that Zizek is talking about. Their primary job is to create a product to entertain people. They can’t escape the way they are percieved in that way, even if they attempt to step out of that role and into politics, or social criticism. Therefore, while perhaps through no fault of their own, but the fault of the discourse in which they exist, their opinions and viewpoints are pretty moot.
I think you are right to associate ‘creativity’ with ‘intellectual’ though. I think the two are related. I’m not completely sold on the idea of intellect being in part created by isolation or being misunderstood… I know a ton of smart people from high school who are some of the strongest minds I’ve ever known, and they were very well loved. Take Naupaka (you knew of him, right?), or even Mrs. Naungayan for example. Yeah, I think that being ignored creates a really strong desire for a person to express themselves/rebell/break something OR create something. But I don’t think it specifically leads to the kind of intellectualism I’m talking about.
and yeah. ha ha ha. I think you’re right about the whole bush/conservative-religion base thing. Some of those ideals do seem to reflect on the way he handles certain unmentioned issues. :)
starladear6 | 05-Jun-04 at 1:56 pm | Permalink
to be perfectly honest, I think the bumbling idiot president is more dangerous than an intelligent person (not just guy) with an agenda.
An idiot will make heinous errors, and be too stupid to know how to rectify them in the world-view. (do I need to give some examples?) an intelligent malicious person will have an agenda that will at least benefit some, and less mistakes will be made along the way. In the united states, I think we are pretty safe from an agenda-intellect staying in office anyway. The vast majority of the voting public are lower-to middle class, and most likely any agenda this person could come up with would benefit his/her own class (upper) and not ours. It would be a short matter of time before (s)he’s no longer in power. That is, as long as we’re talking about an elected position. We’re pretty screwed if an asshole intellectual was appointed somewhere.
going back to your first paragraph. I don’t see intellectuals really making much of a difference in politics or the issues lately. Take gay marriage for example. There are no sound arguments against legalizing gay marriage. Yet, the controversy persists, and I predict it will be a very very hard battle. Iraq, the “war on terrorism” is another. It persists, dispite the fact that anyone with a little bit of intelligence can see through to what it really is.
Intellectual dissent is weak in the US. And frankly I’m not surprised, considering how little emphasis education recieves, compared to things like missions to mars, and military operations. I’d like to see this change. And maybe I’ll find a way to help make this change… but I don’t know yet.
fellnearshiva | 05-Jun-04 at 2:17 pm | Permalink
So my question to you would be why are you still here in the US? :P
starladear6 | 05-Jun-04 at 2:37 pm | Permalink
because canada doesn’t give americans financial aid.
lacunaend | 05-Jun-04 at 5:46 pm | Permalink
“Their primary job is to create a product to entertain people.”
ah - disagree completely. there primary “job” - is to create.
the primary job of motion picture studios, and record labels, and book publishers is to create a product. because labels, and studios, and publishers essentially are retailers.
the artists are the people that write movies, and write records, and write books. before said retailers decide it wont sell - and order it changed. or chage it themselves.
anyway - I dont think there are different “kinds” of intillectuals - and I dont think reading a book or two (hundred) makes you one. I think there is a massive difference between intelligent, and knowledgable. A knowledgable person could recite the US constitution by memory - but an intilectual could tell you what it means.
I think that, like I mentioned, an artist’s primary job is to create - and basically what you were saying in reverse is true. They create - and through no fault of your own, but the discourse in wich you exist it entertains you. I certainly dont think that because people dont take artists opinions seriously they are any less valid. Saying Art is entertainment, is like saying beethoven writes britney spears’s music.
and saying an artists opinions are moot because they are an artist, is like saying beethoven was a talentless hack because britney spears exists.
Really you think of ANY form of art, any movie, or song, or book ever written - and it will undoubtedly be about the way people, act, react, and interact.
and that is what politics are. people interacting. Be it across continents, or across rooms. And again in contrast to your view, I think that the views that a person exceptional at understanding, and expressing the way people behave, and feel, and think - is not moot. I think it is of the utmost value.
Let me put it this way..
Your standing in a room with another person. The other person is holding a gun to your head threatening to shoot. you can call one person in to help difuse the situation - who do you call? A) someone who knows how the gun works? or B) someone who knows how the person works?
As far as isolation contributing to intillect - I dont know who the people you mentioned are (I was kind of isolated in school heh…) - But I think that one dosent need to be ignored to feel isolated. And I dont think isolation is the ONLY thing that leads to intillect - I do think its the most common thing though. The want to know why (and then how) is what leads to (if not is in itself) intillect. (insadently, the want to read books is what leads to being knowledgable.. hee.)
Anyway - Main point here is the initial one.
An artist job is to create. a retailers job is to create product. And your telivision is one big retailer.
And on a seperate, still relivant note: The most intelligent social/political comentary Ive heard on the last four years Has been from Jon Stewart, on the daily show. (comedy central)
but hey, thats just me.
lacunaend | 05-Jun-04 at 6:05 pm | Permalink
Sorry for double posting..
I just read the initial journal entry again - and it was more about the media portraying the intillectual as insignificant untill its too late.
I thought Ide point out the parallell in dismissing the artist opinion for a reason that you must see is silly.
I mean, you kinda disproved your second post, in your first. that is that you where referencing fiction to make a point on reality in the first. and in the second said that because one creates fiction, there words have no bearing on reality.
unless I missunderstood you? :)
kazujin | 05-Jun-04 at 7:31 pm | Permalink
This post got me to thinking about a certain something.
American(united states) culture, really.
I’ve come to understand that other countries seem to view the US as the sort of people that presses their views over anothers. It’s got a large part of the world hating the US because of it. Politicians and diplomats don’t have a problem with that kind of attitude because they believe it to be right. They believe america to be liberating instead of supressive.
My little experiment took hold with this link :
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/asia4.html
My initial reaction was to see how far I could get into it before my “american culturization” kicked in.
“This is wrong! They shouldn’t be doing that!”
Followed by a
“Oh. I already can predict what the rest of this says. I don’t need to read the rest because I know what “the right thing!” Is.”
That’s what I would call american culture.
That’s what your post reminded me of.
It’s amusing me to stop for a moment and think that I actually have a culture I belong to. Am I correct to assume most americans don’t think america even has a culture, let alone a conscience?
alteredeggo | 05-Jun-04 at 11:36 pm | Permalink
I apologize. Intelligent guy was just meant to be a generic term, no gender bias intended.
My original point was to contrast the difference between intellectuals having a purely nationalist attitude and the dissenting attitudes that do exist in our country. People can and do speak out. You don’t exactly see people (maybe not the best examples) like Michael Moore or Al Franken wearing “Kick Iraq’s Ass” T-Shirts :)
On the idiot vs. the agenda-intellect: I think its really the apathy or lack of by the voting public that determines who gets booted out of power first. If you screw up enough to raise some eyebrows, chances are you are a goner. Look at how low Bush’s approval ratings are, his bumbling has definitely gained some attention, and he will have a tough time getting re-elected. I think the agenda-intellect is smart enough to stay in the public’s favor. As far as gaining benefit for each. People are definitely benefitting by Bush’s actions: defense contractors, corporations slated for rebuilding efforts in Iraq, Halliburton :)
OTOH, I wouldn’t assume that the agenda-intellect is in office just to gain wealth for a specific social class.
About differences in politics/social issues:
Let’s take gay marriage for example. You now have mayors of cities willing to recognize gay marriage, to go against federal bans, to stand up for these individual rights. While it is a baby step towards sweeping reform, it is a big step towards change. It really is just a beginning. Major social changes don’t happen overnight. Eventually (pending no apocolyptic end to the world in the near future) the discrimination that supports the ban on gay marriages should die out.
The war on Iraq does persist. But, there is a lot of opposition to the war. And if the intellectuals of the US were like those that Zizek pitied, there would be near-unanimous support by the media and by the press for it.
And lastly:
Well, dissent is weak because it’s a minority group. I think the real problem is the apathy of the majority. Not a new idea by any means. I’m sure many people would prefer things to be different, but they are distracted by less important things and allow decisions to be made for them. I mean, isn’t much more exciting to vote for the next American Idol winner than for education reform? :)
starladear6 | 06-Jun-04 at 6:04 am | Permalink
My comment in reply is … um… HUGE. (gotta post it in pieces) I’m sorry. But this is super fun, and I hope you dont mind. Take your time reading if you feel like replying. ANd if you want to stop here, just say “wow… too much thinking. I think I’ll stop here” and I’ll totally understand. :)
Anyway, here we go:
To be honest, I think we began our discussion on some points not exactly about what was in my first post. My first post was more about the -apparent- relationship between intellectuals and say, the government, as seen in the way that relationship is romantically portrayed in movies and the entertainment industry. I did not make the claim that this relationship -actually- exists. I was attempting to describe how the tastes of the American public -want- to see the relationship portrayed in this way because something in our culture/tastes/whatever makes us respond to that kind of theme. The response to these themes is what gives weight to this evidence. There is some underlying reason why Americans might respond to and love themes like this, but I left that “reason” open to interpretation, like a good student of Foucault might do. It’s likely not to have any single source, but a whole system of sources, and the public “tastes” are most likely both the effect and the cause of this phemomenon. A discourse of any kind is usually self-reinforcing; it’s a system that needs its own components in order to exist, and at the same time, the components need the system in order to exist.
My original post was an attempt to explore the relationship between the that particular theme in movies, and what it might be saying about how we percieve the actual relationship between the intellectual and the government, for example. (”percieve” because at this point, the actual relationship is innaccessible, and irrellevant, and most likely strongly influenced by the attitudes propagated by those themes I mentioned. the cause leads to the source leads to the cause and on and on. such is discourse.)
But coming back to what you were talking about in your comments. I think that our points-of-view have split because you are defining a certain term one way, and i’m defining it in another way. You are making no distinction between the “hollywood community” and “starving artists”, which I think there is a very strong distinction. Yes, I agree that an artist’s primary drive, or motivation, is to create. self, expression… rebellion against their childhood isolation… etc etc. But in order to make a living, or become famous doing so (hollywood artists), they need create something that will sell, and make someone money. (here I revise my definition… not just a product to ‘entertain’, but something that will ’sell’.) There is a distinction in this too. A hollywood movie star’s primary drive might be to create, but they get their paycheck (and thus the following would be their “job”) from their ability to create things that their agent can sell. If those two processes coincidentally are parallel, (their ‘art’ is what their agent wants) then you’ve got a very satisfied artist/actor. theirfore, I think a distinction must be made between the term “job” and what I’ve called their “drive” or their “motivation”.
starladear6 | 06-Jun-04 at 6:05 am | Permalink
I also described their expressed opinions as “moot” due to the discourse they exist in. This was not to say that I personally think their opinions are invalid, I was just describing what has actually happened. When a hollywood actor makes a public statement about something, sure their opinions might be very well founded, and not “invalid”, but they lack the power that they might have had if they were said by a politician. An actor’s function in society (unfortunately) dilutes the power that their opinions might have. That’s part of the discourse of the entertainment industry. It’s through no fault of their own, but unfortunately it is inescapable. The strength of certain people’s opinions and ideas will be diluted by the system in which they live. This happened on a much larger scale before women’s-rights movements, or any number of other movements. This happens still in all kinds of other ways today, most notable to me, in non-standard-english speaking communities. They are not -stupid people-, and yet you won’t see highly educated hispanic-americans getting really great jobs if they have a thick spanish accent. That’s part of the discourse.
Ok, also, your line here: “Saying Art is entertainment, is like saying beethoven writes britney spears’s music.
and saying an artists opinions are moot because they are an artist, is like saying beethoven was a talentless hack because britney spears exists. ”
I don’t quite understand what you are attempting to deconstruct here… mostly because I never said that “art” is entertainment. entertainment is entertainment, and sometimes an artists work will end up entertaining/englightening/etc someone and it will sell. other times it won’t. And still other times, an agent will look at popular culture and try to predict what will sell, and create a product to meet that. I’d say Beathoven was an artist, who’s work happened to become popular. I’d say that Britney Spears is purely a product created to satisfy a pop-culture demend. The two are not in the same ballpark at all… and to be honest, I don’t think Spears fits my definition of “artist”. She’s a performer. I think her agents should be given credit for creating her, and some might even say that -they- are the artists; she’s just the canvas.
The part about the person in the room holding a gun to your head. I think your point is solid. You’d never call a gun-nerd to disolve a human-human tension. You’d call someone who knows how people in this situation works. I don’t think I ever made a claim saying that the gun-nerd ever does get called in. In terror-situations, negotiators really are called in. But in politics, I see a lack of “negotiator phone calls”. It seems to me that our political leaders don’t think too deeply on higher political theory. They are more interested in increasing our GDP, staying popular with the public, etc etc. I’d equate these acts with the “gun nerds”. Politicians know how the system works, and can describe all the parts, and manipulate the system in all kinds of ways. But they don’t seem to see the bigger things… the long-run. Their goals aren’t ideal, and they aren’t there to diffuse a tension situation. They’re there to maintain a working gun. Your point is great on an idealogical standpoint. Ideally, what you’ve described is what should happen. But in reality, in the cases that I’m trying to explore, it unfortunately does not happen.
Lastly, in reply to your second comment. I don’t think I ‘disproved’ myself in any way. I wasn’t making any claims in my original post, other than the idea that public-tastes reflect on what we want a certain relationship to be, and this possibly is part of the system that creates that relationship in reality. I never said that creators of fiction are directly commenting on actual political situations. If that’s what you thought I was saying, then yes, that was a misunderstanding.
My reply is huge now, and I’m sorry. This is much fun though.
starladear6 | 06-Jun-04 at 6:52 am | Permalink
Ha ha ha. yes… American Idol. I hate that show for so many many reasons.
Yes, I think you’ve taken apart my points in my last comment pretty well. I think it would be naive to say that an agenda-intellect would have an agenda to create wealth for someone. There are all kinds of other dangerous agendas that someone could attempt to pull off… I guess I have a hard time buying some of this because I have a hard time equating “intellectual” with “agenda” (with the negative connotations) in the first place. maybe my definition of intellectual is too idealistic, or that I’m using a definition that closely resembles who I’d like to someday become… someone who has interests and ideals and an education comparable to the one I hope to have someday. This would be a mistake on my part, and would grossly limit my ability to see the dangers of an agenda-intellectual in power.
This realization could really open any number of doors here… a discussion on what exactly would constitute a “dangerous agenda” in the first place… and I forgot to ask you what you really meant by your line “with the caveat that this person is also ethical”. Ethics and intellect don’t always run in the same circles. An intellect could see both sides of an issue, provided both sides have logical support for them. An ethical person judges one side and endorses the other, often with little regard for Reason. Ethics are subjective, and a product of a totally different set of factors than reason is. So, to require that a world-leader be “ethical” could be very very dangerous. Bush is by some definition, extremely ethical in his adherance to conservative religious ideals. I think his ethics are dangerous. So to say a world-leader should be “ethical” without qualifying how his/her ethics should have come about might be just as dangerous.
On gay marriage: Yes, I’d like to think that with time, the discrimination will disolve. But I base this hope on my faith in the minority dissenters. My hope is that they will not stop fighting, but I can’t begin to predict how difficult this will be, especially if the people in power are based in conservative right-wing religion. I don’t want to try to think about how this fight might be -lost-, because I’m afraid to consider it a possibility… no reasonable logical thing in my mind could predict a loss here at all… but I also can’t be so naive as to think that I might have perfect reasoning skills.
Also… I think that Zizek was pitying a certain kind of intellectual. particularly writers, but I’m begining to realize his definition of ‘intellectual’ is different from my own. I’m realizing now that he pities countries who are influennced by what we’ve been calling the agenda-intelects, I think. Perhaps Zizek does not attempt to define “intellectual” in any kind of idealogical way… and from what I know of his work, and the kind of post-modernist “ideals” (they need a new word for that in post-modernism, don’t they.. haha) he has, that would make sense. I’d overlooked that and I think that was a source of confusion for me when I read this interview.
lacunaend | 06-Jun-04 at 8:29 am | Permalink
first paragraph:
I thought I responded to that well enouph. In my first comment I just meant to say that I dont consider artists and intillectuals different. I think they both are the same at there cores. same flower, different petals. because of that, I think intillectuals make said movies. wich would explain why they are always ignored, and then proven right. you know - the plot of a movie parellells the artist saying “this is what I think” and hoping hes not ignored. (because look what happened in the movie! he was right!)
but I see guess you where refering more to the publics responce to that. wich I agree, as you said - is a hell of alot more complicated than that..
second paragraph:
well thats a bigger question than I can even begin to answer, I can say that to me - its the hollywood comunity speaking out to the current government and being ignored.
third paragraph:
by hollywood comunity, I just meant the portion of hollywood that has in the last four years spoken up. and, It seems to me that in general most actors/writers/poets/organ grinders are at odds with the current government. And like I said, I think that is because in general they are intillectuals, as the current government (having so much err..faith, in faith are not)
as far as starving artists and making a living goes - that to me is a question of what came first - the artist, or the agent? I think the artist. that is to say - the artist created something, and the agent said - “hey, people like that - I can sell it!”. I think that when the agent gets in the way it shows, and more often than not things that are made for product are flops. I mean more often than not the movie that wins oscars, and makes millions at the box office - is really actually pretty good. I mean things that are really moving, or smart do sell. Its why there is a new next big thing on mtv every other day - because they are NOT moving, and they DONT sell. Alot of little things will make as much as one or two big things. (or at least thats the theory - wich is being proven wrong, as the whole declining sales thing.. blamed on file sharing.. and all that.. blah blah)
next..
lacunaend | 06-Jun-04 at 9:16 am | Permalink
first paragraph:
“This was not to say that I personally think their opinions are invalid, I was just describing what has actually happened.”
Ok, I didnt get that - so alot of what I said was pretty much to convince you otherwise..
but really - the Idea that the hollywood comunitys opinions are not respected due to there position is inacurate.. because - they are. in the things they create. As you said, people respond to the intillectual being ignored and then being proven right.
second paragraph:
art = beathoven, entertainment = britney spears.
if beathoven writes britney spears’s songs, then art makes entertainment. saying that an artists creations are crap because they suposedly make entertainment is like discrediting art, because entertainent exists. (it dosent make sence to do that - art and entertainment are not the same)
lol - nevermind. >..
starladear6 | 06-Jun-04 at 10:50 am | Permalink
I’ve frozen the thread above, to try to keep the replies connected. If I’d had my way, my response wouldn’t have been split in two at all, and maybe that would have been better.
Anyway, it seems like we’ve been discussing things that are pretty different from what I was talking about in my original post. I still want to reply to some of what you said though.
but I see guess you where refering more to the publics responce to that You are right. I was talking about the public’s reaction to the content. I was leaving the creators of the content out of the picture actually. But, to clarify since you’ve said “I think intillectuals make said movies. “, I want to point out that the ‘intellectual’ I was talking about in my original post wasn’t a real person at all. It was the character in the movies, to whom the audiences usually respond. The core bit of my original post wasn’t about real people at all, but the concept of a “type” of person.
And, actually, I think we’ve shifted topics once we start talking about movie directors and artists and creative people themselves. To be honest, I’d rather not debate whether one type of creator should be called an artist or an intellectual. I do think there is a difference between the two characteristics but that the two things can exist in a single person, but i don’t think the two characteristics are completely equal. but yeah, I didn’t want to really debate this exactly. :)
And like I said, I think that is because in general they are intillectuals, as the current government (having so much err..faith, in faith are not) I’d really like to say more things about the generalizations you’ve made here too (although this is another topic that I didn’t expect to come up)… partly because neither of us really has the ability to know if one person is an “intellectual” and another is “not”. “intellectual” has become a pretty subjective word. In fact, as I realized when replying to alteredeggo’s post below, i misunderstood what zizek meant when he used the word too.
as far as starving artists and making a living goes…. I think this again would be an interesting topic to debate/discuss, but it’s pretty different from what my original post is about and like the other things above, I’d rather not try to debate the mechanics of the entertainment or art-idustry, mostly because I don’t know that much about it, and I don’t have the means to research that really.
but really - the Idea that the hollywood comunitys opinions are not respected due to there position is inacurate.. because - they are. in the things they create. again, this is another topic, but here are some thoughts I had anyway. when you refered to them speaking out, I assumed you meant when certain celebrities publically took a stance against the Iraq war… not politically motivated movies/books/songs. I think we’ve mixed up the content of each others comments a little bit, and we’ve lost track of the thread…
…I think that shows the significance of the artists opinion. This is where I think my posts are being misundestood. I never once said an artists opinions were insignificant, invalid etc etc. I was refering to how the power of their opinions/assertions (in the political arena especially) is often diluted because that person is seen in society to be an “artist” or an “entertainer”, as compared to say, the power of the ideas of a person known as a political analyst, for example.
Anyway… I think it’s pretty clear that we’ve traversed half a dozen interesting tangents. If you want to start over, that’s cool. :) if not, we could pick up a discussion on any of these topics in your journal maybe… :)
starladear6 | 06-Jun-04 at 11:04 am | Permalink
After re-reading what I said, I realize I sound like a total BITCH!
I’m sorry. When I was saying things like “again, this isn’t what I want to talk about” I didn’t mean to sound like such a snob!
I won’t lie and say that I wasn’t slightly frustrated by how it seemed like my topic was being misunderstood, but I wasn’t angry, and I wasn’t annoyed, and I sure as hell wasn’t trying to sound patronizing.
I’m sorry I sounded so bitchy and self-absorbed. :)
starladear6 | 06-Jun-04 at 11:09 am | Permalink
wanted to say sup. :)
welcome to my lj. It isn’t usually quite so heavy in here…
I think the topic of if there is an american culture/conscience is a tough one. it’s easy to say “no, we don’t… because we’re made of immigrants and/or displaced peoples… the ‘culture’ they try to impose on us is that of the white male powers in our country” and that makes a lot of sense.
But really… a person who might say something like that above fictitious quote is kind of exhibiting a sort of “american culture” too. not just an ‘anti-culture’, but something that must exist just as much as the ‘classical white-male’ culture exists.
Dunno. it’s interesting I think.
alteredeggo | 08-Jun-04 at 11:35 am | Permalink
Yeah, I can’t see really attaching any sort of preconceived “good” or “bad/evil” connotations to the term intellectual. I’ll differentiate that from “positive” or “negative” connotations, because I would like to think that in general being intelligent is a “positive” thing. But, there are all sorts of character examples of the “evil genius” you could point to: Lex Luthor, Hannibal Lector, etc.
Of course, as we grow to up learn, almost everything is relative which leads me to your second paragraph …
Hah. I’m dodging the ethics discussion. I realized that I kind of cornered myself using that “with the caveat that this person is also ethical” line. We could be hear all night debating the subect of ethics, so I’ll just clarify my statement. I think I really wanted to attach some attributes to this ideal intellectual person, or distinguish him from some power hungry genocidal maniac. Ya know, give him qualities like compassion, or the sense to use of diplomacy instead of gunning for war.
Back to the issue of gay marriage: I think even if the fight becomes weak, it’s still just a matter of time. As the current generation grows up, I think American society will continue to get more liberal on that front. Eventually, the older generation that is firmly opposed will die out. Homosexuality has a lot more mainstream roots in society today. Eventually with time, it will just be an accepted part of normal society.
alteredeggo | 08-Jun-04 at 11:38 am | Permalink
Erg. For someone who makes his living managing a website, you’d think I would have learned by now to close my damn tags!!!! :)
kazujin | 08-Jun-04 at 11:58 am | Permalink
Dunno is the best word ever!