3beebies aka Breakfast

[french frank]

I'd be quite happy with a sub-forum just for adhominem criticism of Trelawny

I could create a secret, password protected board which people could descend to when they felt the need. But you wouldn't catch me going anywhere near it

[John Skelton]

"In a seeming irony, the media class's refusal to be paternalistic has not created a bottom-up culture of breathtaking diversity, but one that is increasingly infantilized. By contrast, it is paternalistic cultures that treat audiences as adults, assuming that they can cope with cultural products that are complex and intellectually demanding. The reason that focus groups and capitalist feedback systems fail, even when they generate commodities that are immensely popular, is that people do not know what they want. This is not only because people's desire is already present but concealed from them (although this is often the case). Rather, the most powerful forms of desire are precisely cravings for the strange, the unexpected, the weird. These can only be supplied by artists and media professionals who are prepared to give people something different from that which already satisfies them; by those, that is to say, prepared to take a certain kind of risk .... It is another irony that capitalism's 'society of risk' is much less likely to take this kind of risk than was the supposedly stodgy, centralized culture of the postwar social consensus."

Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There an Alternative? (Zero Books, 2009). Fisher also talks about a new emphasis on teaching people not to think, but to feel 'correctly'. All that feedback about associations pieces of music have, all the emphasis on emotional response, in the context of Radio 3.

[Serial_Apologist]

"In a seeming irony, the media class's refusal to be paternalistic has not created a bottom-up culture of breathtaking diversity, but one that is increasingly infantilized. By contrast, it is paternalistic cultures that treat audiences as adults, assuming that they can cope with cultural products that are complex and intellectually demanding. The reason that focus groups and capitalist feedback systems fail, even when they generate commodities that are immensely popular, is that people do not know what they want. This is not only because people's desire is already present but concealed from them (although this is often the case). Rather, the most powerful forms of desire are precisely cravings for the strange, the unexpected, the weird. These can only be supplied by artists and media professionals who are prepared to give people something different from that which already satisfies them; by those, that is to say, prepared to take a certain kind of risk .... It is another irony that capitalism's 'society of risk' is much less likely to take this kind of risk than was the supposedly stodgy, centralized culture of the postwar social consensus."

Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There an Alternative? (Zero Books, 2009). Fisher also talks about a new emphasis on teaching people not to think, but to feel 'correctly'. All that feedback about associations pieces of music have, all the emphasis on emotional response, in the context of Radio 3.

I thought I was the one who coined the term "capitalist realism" as a mirror reflection of "socialist realism"!

Besides agreeing wholeheartedly with Fisher's update of Marcusian thought in that great quote, there is the problem of product value depreciation too, analogous with the rapid disposability of cars mentioned on another thread here, roadworthy or not, inasmuch that the longer the attention span and the appreciation learning curve required for the complex and intellectually demanding, the lower the turnover of product.

[aeolium]

By contrast, it is paternalistic cultures that treat audiences as adults, assuming that they can cope with cultural products that are complex and intellectually demanding.

Is it? That just seems like a straight argument for illiberalism - the old Harry Lime sophistry. I didn't think there was a great diversity of culture or complex and intellectually demanding artworks coming out of those paternalistic societies within the former Soviet empire, or British colonies, or the theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia. In as far as interesting artistic creation does emerge from those societies it is in opposition to that very paternalism. And that's unsurprising, since how could paternalism in relation to adult people ever result in anything less than a form of oppression and control?

You could argue the opposite, that we have the very infantilized culture in large parts of the media today partly as a result of the continuation of paternalistic styles of governance - in the BBC, in commercial organizations which operate with a very hierarchical structure in which what is output is strictly controlled by what those at the top of the hierarchies wish to see, something that is easily palatable and pleasing but which does not at any stage ask serious questions about the hierarchies. Media organizations just like other big multinationals still appear to operate in very paternalistic ways - look at the Murdoch empire for instance.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

how do we know what the media class is? how did it refuse to be paternalistic?

this stuff is feel good tosh innit

the market opportunity for media has shown increasing fragmentation and competition ... this in itself can account quite substantially for the characteristics of their output without recourse to aunt sally abstractions and mythical 'refusals'

do people know what they want? how are we to decide this, not by the kind of presumption evident in the quote ... do they always in all cases desire the strange or mebbe just a frisson? the new is rarely popular which is why it requires sponsorship not markets [sponsorship may be from any source] .... the Vienneses took some time to come to terms with Beethoven .... the Kniting factory in the 70s is now mainstream etc ... not every new thing recieves popular acclaim, many initiatives just die out .... they do not die in consequence of any intrinsic evil in the market

[Serial_Apologist]

Is it? That just seems like a straight argument for illiberalism - the old Harry Lime sophistry. I didn't think there was a great diversity of culture or complex and intellectually demanding artworks coming out of those paternalistic societies within the former Soviet empire, or British colonies, or the theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia. In as far as interesting artistic creation does emerge from those societies it is in opposition to that very paternalism. And that's unsurprising, since how could paternalism in relation to adult people ever result in anything less than a form of oppression and control?

You could argue the opposite, that we have the very infantilized culture in large parts of the media today partly as a result of the continuation of paternalistic styles of governance - in the BBC, in commercial organizations which operate with a very hierarchical structure in which what is output is strictly controlled by what those at the top of the hierarchies wish to see, something that is easily palatable and pleasing but which does not at any stage ask serious questions about the hierarchies. Media organizations just like other big multinationals still appear to operate in very paternalistic ways - look at the Murdoch empire for instance.

Good points aeolium.

[Serial_Apologist]

the market opportunity for media has shown increasing fragmentation and competition ... this in itself can account quite substantially for the characteristics of their output without recourse to aunt sally abstractions and mythical 'refusals'

I wouldn't be so quick to discount the turnover imperative, however...

do people know what they want? how are we to decide this, not by the kind of presumption evident in the quote ...

Agreed. Under existing conditions the answer is through various competing interests, focus groups, feedback, and the assumed kudos of reputation on the "worldwide stage".

the new is rarely popular which is why it requires sponsorship not markets [sponsorship may be from any source] .... the Vienneses took some time to come to terms with Beethoven .... the Kniting factory in the 70s is now mainstream etc ... not every new thing recieves popular acclaim, many initiatives just die out .... they do not die in consequence of any intrinsic evil in the market

One cannot generalise - this is the problem in considering markets willy-nilly as "neutral". It depends on the initiative, conditions pertaining at the time of initiation, and whether (if at all) and how widely it resonates.

[french frank]

[...] Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There an Alternative? (Zero Books, 2009). Fisher also talks about a new emphasis on teaching people not to think, but to feel 'correctly'. All that feedback about associations pieces of music have, all the emphasis on emotional response, in the context of Radio 3.

That is a wonderful(ly depressing) quote, particularly the opening sentences.

What does Fisher say about the thinking corrrectly/feeling correctly shift? To me that exemplifies (and explains) the almost total absence of intellectual demands in the general R3 output. Response to music should be intelligent as well as emotional.

And as for infantilism: it's inherent in the policy of making everything as easy, instantly enjoyable and, of course, 'accessible' as possible.

[Perhaps there is a case for arguing that illiberalism has certain cultural 'benefits'. Russia, it seems, and China, have the kind of public cultural standards that we might prefer.]

[John Skelton]

The extract I posted doesn't do justice as extracted to Fisher's argument: he explicitly says that the Left needs to move away from an obsession with models and practices of paternalistic control. So, no, it isn't an argument for illiberalism - though as baldly extracted I see that it does come across as that. It is part of an argument about how neo-liberalism internalises control: so that the control that was applied externally people provide, 'spontaneously', from within themselves. And part of an argument about formulating a new, wider, notion of paternalism (which I find an unfortunate word. He is using it to an extent paradoxically).

Here's an interview with Fisher http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/fisher271209.html. I have to be away from the computer now until tomorrow or at the least much later: I'll look out the text on thinking / feeling, ff .

[mercia]

Response to music should be intelligent as well as emotional

I'll do my best

[french frank]

I'll do my best

Heh, perhaps I was too dogmatic. But for me the intellectual response, the feeling that the brain is constantly occupied while listening, is more important than the emotion. I understand I am in a minority

[mercia]

I understand I am in a minority

no reason to believe that

[Serial_Apologist]

That is a wonderful(ly depressing) quote, particularly the opening sentences.

What does Fisher say about the thinking corrrectly/feeling correctly shift? To me that exemplifies (and explains) the almost total absence of intellectual demands in the general R3 output. Response to music should be intelligent as well as emotional.

And as for infantilism: it's inherent in the policy of making everything as easy, instantly enjoyable and, of course, 'accessible' as possible.

[Perhaps there is a case for arguing that illiberalism has certain cultural 'benefits'. Russia, it seems, and China, have the kind of public cultural standards that we might prefer.]

Part of the blame rests on us in our "hippy phase". You are probably too young to remember accusations such as "Hey man, you're just on a head trip! To be responsive you must get into your body!"... and other similar such stuff purporting to be getting away from the mind/body dualism inherited by the Western male-power dominated philosophical canon. Personal priorities changed; responsibilities became charged with a new sense of duty, easily interpreted as "paternalistic", were it not for feminism decrying the term...

[mercia]

for me the intellectual response, the feeling that the brain is constantly occupied while listening, is more important than the emotion

you're not saying that emotion has nothing to do with the brain? (rhetorical question)

[Serial_Apologist]

you're not saying that emotion has nothing to do with the brain? (rhetorical question)

Emotion must be at least mediated by the brain, since - unless I am confusing functions - it is triggered by what we think about things, which normally contains an emotional component, even if it is indifference?