Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
No it isn't.
So what's wrong with fascism?
- Thread starter Borachio
- Start date
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Of course it is. States in the past and the present don't regulate culture because it strikes their fancy. They do so because they say it's vital to the moral or political integrity of the country. Every liberal state in existence retains the right to limit cultural expressions when it feels legitimately threatened by them, but for the large part, the liberal state is perfectly happy to adopt an agnostic view of culture because unlike say, a 14th century monarch, they don't think those things are that important.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
I do not dispute that. That's not the same as being based on the idea however. It's not even part of the premises. Lack of concern isn't the same as a fundamental.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
So you're suggesting that the limits to which liberal states by design limit freedom of expression is simply...what? Coincidental?
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
what the hell are you talking about
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Or to clarify my question:
How can something assume control of cultural issues because it thinks they are unimportant?
What does "liberalism" entail to you`?
How can something assume control of cultural issues because it thinks they are unimportant?
What does "liberalism" entail to you`?
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Liberalism in this case is big L liberalism. The political tradition that springs from the American and French revolutions. For most people, it's pretty much simply "politics as we know it."
Now, as for how these states limit freedom of expression, they chose only to limit these things when it feels it's vital interests are at stake. Incitement to riot, sedition, fighting words, state secrets, graffiti etc. At this point, the inalienable rights become quite alienable, and the enforcement of state authority comes down, regardless of cultural merit.
Anything else however, the liberal state does not touch because it is a "private matter." A person's choice of religion, musical style, manner of dress, etc. is a strictly personal matter, like whichever Pony is your favorite. The Liberal state therefor, is wholly uninterested in culture.
The Fascist state, and most pre-modern states, however, feel culture is a vital matter in nearly all cases. Art styles matter. Poems matter. Religious Imagery matters. In the big, necessitates government involvement way. Their rulers are not simply intolerant and extravagant in their power, they genuinely worry about the state of these things.
It seems odd, therefor, to praise the Liberal state for something that it is peculiarly uninterested in, like praising the Tsarist regime for producing Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky.
Now, as for how these states limit freedom of expression, they chose only to limit these things when it feels it's vital interests are at stake. Incitement to riot, sedition, fighting words, state secrets, graffiti etc. At this point, the inalienable rights become quite alienable, and the enforcement of state authority comes down, regardless of cultural merit.
Anything else however, the liberal state does not touch because it is a "private matter." A person's choice of religion, musical style, manner of dress, etc. is a strictly personal matter, like whichever Pony is your favorite. The Liberal state therefor, is wholly uninterested in culture.
The Fascist state, and most pre-modern states, however, feel culture is a vital matter in nearly all cases. Art styles matter. Poems matter. Religious Imagery matters. In the big, necessitates government involvement way. Their rulers are not simply intolerant and extravagant in their power, they genuinely worry about the state of these things.
It seems odd, therefor, to praise the Liberal state for something that it is peculiarly uninterested in, like praising the Tsarist regime for producing Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
It's not odd at all. Aesthetic activity is flourishing under a liberal system. Why would I support some oppressive regime if it will be a detriment to my aesthetic activities?
Political expression is different than aesthetic expression; perhaps not always, as they sometimes coincide, but they're completely different fields. And even by that, the political freedoms we enjoy under liberalism are much better than those under eg fascism. It's overall win more. Therefore it's not at all odd to praise. Why would it be? Culture's pretty awesome. I guess you can theorize some impractical political structure and tell me that "this would be better", and to that I will answer, "yes, if it would be".
Political expression is different than aesthetic expression; perhaps not always, as they sometimes coincide, but they're completely different fields. And even by that, the political freedoms we enjoy under liberalism are much better than those under eg fascism. It's overall win more. Therefore it's not at all odd to praise. Why would it be? Culture's pretty awesome. I guess you can theorize some impractical political structure and tell me that "this would be better", and to that I will answer, "yes, if it would be".
While i am pretty sure no type of fascism actually ever helped cultural activity, liberalism by itself, as others noted, is mostly apathetic towards it, and on the other hand tends to (either deliberately or again in apathy) cause the rise of low-quality art.
No actual political stance on art really helps it grow, since a more ingrained positive culture seems to be needed to allow for such a growth of "high art". Then again the Tsarist Russia saw, as was mentioned, the 19th century with writers like Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov and before all of them Gogol. I suspect this had to do with Russia at the time, inevitably, but obviously not so much the actual political system rather than the feeling that it was one of the two superpowers of its era.
Still, Russia had endless millions by that time in population. Compare with Athens where half a million people lived in the golden age, and many of them were not citizens (a bit like the old serfs in Russia). It still saw the creation of high dramaturgy, and probably the highest this planet will see anyway (although i like a lot of later theatrical writers, their scope simply is too small to compare).
Nietzsche had argued in some of his books that a science of the factors which enable the rise of a high culture would be beneficial. I am pretty sure he would have started talking to horses far sooner if he had lived in our own age
No actual political stance on art really helps it grow, since a more ingrained positive culture seems to be needed to allow for such a growth of "high art". Then again the Tsarist Russia saw, as was mentioned, the 19th century with writers like Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov and before all of them Gogol. I suspect this had to do with Russia at the time, inevitably, but obviously not so much the actual political system rather than the feeling that it was one of the two superpowers of its era.
Still, Russia had endless millions by that time in population. Compare with Athens where half a million people lived in the golden age, and many of them were not citizens (a bit like the old serfs in Russia). It still saw the creation of high dramaturgy, and probably the highest this planet will see anyway (although i like a lot of later theatrical writers, their scope simply is too small to compare).
Nietzsche had argued in some of his books that a science of the factors which enable the rise of a high culture would be beneficial. I am pretty sure he would have started talking to horses far sooner if he had lived in our own age
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
But that's something the system is strictly disinterested in. I like Tolstoy, but I wouldn't praise, and it would be odd to praise, the Tsar for Tolstoy.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
While I'm not big on the concept of "high culture" Nietzche also is an example of 'extremely-confusing-treaty-system-serving-as-an-effective-government-with-the-support-of-theoretically-independent-kingdoms-with-various-degrees-of-liberalization' being pretty nifty at Culture.Nietzsche had argued in some of his books that a science of the factors which enable the rise of a high culture would be beneficial. I am pretty sure he would have started talking to horses far sooner if he had lived in our own age
Yes, but its not like Nietzsche was fond of the german art of his own era. Apart from some early stuff by Wagner, and some more peripheral figures in poetry (most of them german jews too), he hardly seems to have anything positive to say about his contemporary german art.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
And, more importantly, because it fits the analogy, I can't imagine the Kaiser would have anything nice to say about him.
Though the plus side to a monarchy is I get to actually picture Wilhelm's face if I thanked him for Nietzsche.
Though the plus side to a monarchy is I get to actually picture Wilhelm's face if I thanked him for Nietzsche.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
There's a fallacy in the simile in there, but I can't correctly point it out. I'll be back later.
Perhaps: The two are not equatable since Tsarist was infact repressive towards way too many other aspects; simply pointing out that a good artist exists under a regime is not enough as a grounds to equating that regime's "artistic effeciency" (bear with me about this term right now, I lack a better formulation) to another regime's, simply because a good artist exists under that as well. There is a whole cultural framework to be taken into consideration. I think your logic boils down to the fallacy of "Denmark is as philosophically important or perhaps "effecient" (to easen the simile) as Germany because we had that one Kierkegaard that is fundamental to existentialism."
I can't coherently formulate it, but I sincerely believe that you are connecting the dots wrong. I'll most probably return when I've formulated it.
I mean, right now, people akin to Tolstoy are around, and there's simply more of them.
Am I being clear at all? I don't think I am, but you might still understand me.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Yeah you two are talking about two different types of qualifying a culture's relationship it its culture.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Actually, try me: Can you categorize our opinions for us? I'm not sure I'm getting him and I love having my knowledge defined as per others' mouths.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
You are qualifying art in a liberalist way, by basically quantifying it, or quantifying how many artists the system actively supports. In this way, the liberalist state supports art the most.
Parkchunghee is saying the liberalist state usually doesn't care about or support culture at all. That just because art flourishes under a liberal state does not mean that the state is supporting it, so its more that art exists in spite of the state, because the state cares too little to either fight or promote it. That a fascist state will promote an aesthetic actively, and a liberal state will not, and that a greater quantity of art in the system is not a reflection of the system itself valuing or supporting art.
Going back to PCH's first statement on this part of the thread: the liberal state can't claim art as its victory because it didn't promote that art. But that isn't the same thing as claiming art hasn't been most successful in the liberal state. That is just claiming that art isn't the friend of the state, whereas art is the friend of other types of states, which may suffer in quantity or even aesthetic, but care more for and actively support art matters, and therefore can claim victory on its role in art.
I would agree with PCH more completely if it were not for the bit in which the human agents of a liberal state often support it precisely because they think the best way to support art and science is to have a state get out of the way of art and science, thus the philosophy behind a liberal state is sometimes that art is irrelevant and can happen if it wants, but sometimes that culture is super important and that the best culture emerges when there is no interference. It depends on what the definition of is is.
In other words once you address one another's definitions, we will see wherein lies the real discussion between you and PCH.
Parkchunghee is saying the liberalist state usually doesn't care about or support culture at all. That just because art flourishes under a liberal state does not mean that the state is supporting it, so its more that art exists in spite of the state, because the state cares too little to either fight or promote it. That a fascist state will promote an aesthetic actively, and a liberal state will not, and that a greater quantity of art in the system is not a reflection of the system itself valuing or supporting art.
Going back to PCH's first statement on this part of the thread: the liberal state can't claim art as its victory because it didn't promote that art. But that isn't the same thing as claiming art hasn't been most successful in the liberal state. That is just claiming that art isn't the friend of the state, whereas art is the friend of other types of states, which may suffer in quantity or even aesthetic, but care more for and actively support art matters, and therefore can claim victory on its role in art.
I would agree with PCH more completely if it were not for the bit in which the human agents of a liberal state often support it precisely because they think the best way to support art and science is to have a state get out of the way of art and science, thus the philosophy behind a liberal state is sometimes that art is irrelevant and can happen if it wants, but sometimes that culture is super important and that the best culture emerges when there is no interference. It depends on what the definition of is is.
In other words once you address one another's definitions, we will see wherein lies the real discussion between you and PCH.
Mise
isle of lucy
FWIW I agree with you Angst.
edit: x-post
edit: x-post
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Neither argument is necessarily incompatible with the other. Can a liberal state claim its system is the most art-friendly? Yes by quantity and innovation, but to claim victory means that the liberal state has ownership and had a role in the creation of that art. It'd be like the State taking credit in my asking a girl out. A fascist state might want that, but is more likely to interfere. A liberal state doesn't care at all, but will provide better conditions to make that happen.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Well, my state is liberal and the most succesful artists that are deemed qualified by an academic roster get additional state support. This is to have unprofitable good art flourish. That said, liberalism's political indifference to art usually lies in what you said later: that flourishing culture really only happens without too much interference or control; that which eg fascism does. The cultural state support in Denmark, however, is to compensate for the unprofitability of nonconsumptionist arts. Traditional liberals think of art as only happening when it's sellable. We want both.
Similar threads
