geenoo Banned

What would you suggest? Non-eligible trans, gay, no-global, ignorant people without a diploma... Or maybe a nice correction to non-eligible under 28 years old? Or non-eligible citizens of Italian origin from abroad? Or non-eligible ex-fascists? Or those under investigation? The accused... better? Who has been in jail in the past? Who can't write and speak correct Italian? Who?

Like Aeneas?

Burns, on the other hand, your argument perhaps "holds" a little bit more when you shift it to the power and effects of television on Italian society (but also American...etc.), especially in the last 20 years. Despite the undeniable advantage of educating the Italian people to a version of the Italian language unknown in certain corners of Italy, it has actually vulgarized us in many other aspects (advertising, reality shows, vulgarity, commodification of feelings, exploitation of dreams, undermining the desire to study and make sacrifices, in short: a planned dumbing down). However, I still do not see the "beauty" that would reside in being ignorant. Finally, throw into the mix also the rampant industrialization, the wild urbanization, the consumerist society... which are secondary aspects and have little to do with the discourse of art, the power to understand it, and the rightful value to give it.

Burns, regarding your post about me, I almost completely disagree: 1) I find voting and being voted a fundamental and necessary step forward that I call "democracy" in the civil development of a society; 2) literacy provides the tools for cultural progress. Those who cannot read will never truly "know"; 3) Usually, one learns to read in school, and there, even if only to a minimal extent, the foundations for a basic honest culture are laid. For example, I see the raising of the mandatory school attendance age as a positive step; 4) I consider the "sacred ignorance" instead a horrible ignorance: what is sacred about being ignorant if not the fact of being easily manipulated by those who are "educated"? 5) And you even end up saying that "the press has caused more damage than one can imagine"... I'd say that's a bit of an exaggeration, to put it mildly. You claim not to be fascist, fine, I believe you, that’s not in question. But does "the night of broken glass" ring a bell for you?

3) For Henry Purcell, discussing The Da Vinci Code requires a bit of basic culture and a desire to know. I mean, the same discourse could then be applied to most novels. In the case of the Code, there’s the added aggravation of the charming writer who, in the prefaces, muddied the waters by claiming that the historical references were all true. Eh eh... a solid smack on the wrist, but a very strong one. If someone is intellectually dishonest, what can we do but defend ourselves with culture? However, precisely, it has little to do with beauty. Only Brown is to blame. 4) Perhaps another criterion for beauty could be how many people like a particular work of art. But we’re stepping into a very dangerous and unreliable minefield here... Ultimately, I believe that moderation is key, as the ancients used to say. If Beethoven has reached us, it certainly has value simply for having survived so well through many eras and different tastes. One last question: what value and pleasure do you find in the famous "cuts" on the canvas by Fontana? Or those shapeless stains by Emilio Vedova? Or those childish scribbles by Picasso? Is it art or what? Is it objectively art?

Good morning…! A quick and -unfortunately- necessary preamble for having been brought into the discussion by Punisher. Between my -let's say- reviews and Hal's, in my opinion, there is no comparison, both in terms of the quality of the proposals and the quantity, overwhelmingly in favor of Hal. That’s the end of that topic. Instead, what’s really interesting is the discussion on the so-called relativism. 1) I'll start with Burns’ considerations: I believe that art was once directed towards the nobility not so much because it was "only" for them but, probably, because only they could fund its sustenance. The common people clearly didn’t care much about it, as I think they were focused on survival. Nowadays, your argument, as Mauri says, seems a bit indigestible also because perhaps, due to significant education levels, this class distinction no longer exists and makes no sense, at least regarding art (also because there are graduates with no money in their pockets but with brilliant minds…). In summary, today even a child recognizes Beethoven's music as something exceptional, extraordinary. 2) Odradek, instead I have tried in every way to untie the noose, at least for me it is obvious. Here are the results: I have two or three fundamental parameters to evaluate the "depth" of a work of art: A) the innovation it brings, B) the pleasure it gives in viewing, reading, or listening to it; and I would also add C) the interest it can provoke in that historical moment.

Perhaps I prefer Aquilarco, also because it reminds me of the film "La meglio gioventù" in which it features some themes in the soundtrack.

Cooowss!

Aeneas, how much I like you when you massacre certain sounds without any real meaning... it's time for someone "with balls" to tell it like it is, I would have gone even harder. Long live Lucio Dalla and Franco Battiato!

Ah ... the '80s! Pretazzo... what a nice revival.