[Fmpro] a new world odor

[Fernando Rivas]

> 
> But yes we are cultural morons. One of the reasons is that there are
> no rules we can use that tell us we are defining culture. The world
> of Jungian archetypes is gone as far as we are concerned and as many
> people have said, "Anything goes."
> 
> Ted Peterson


I don't know that you can generalize in this way. Just because we exist in a
permissive milieu doesn't necessarily mean we are all cultural morons.  What
is the alternative to this world view? A totalitarian world where everyone
is told what is 'cultural' and what isn't and how to properly live up to it
and pursue it? That hardly qualifies as anything better than what we have.
Though I am most definitely a cynic even I must hold on to some of my
youthful idealism and believe that freedom of thought and choice is far
superior to groupthink and dictatorship.  I've experienced those and they
are not fun.

As to repeatability of themes as a laughable item or in some way cultural
faux pas such an idea is nonsense.  Some films need that approach others
don't. Is such an approach manipulative? Probably. But then all film and all
art is manipulative.  I think it's odd when creators speak about 'organic'
art.  The minute something is framed, the minute certain words are spoken,
the minute certain sounds are produced a choice has been made.  To search
for some kind of idyllic uncorrupted uninfluenced expression is a pointless
task; engaging ruthlessly in that search often produces subliminal, esoteric
and non-communicative art that is like an inside joke. If you're not in on
it you get nothing.

As to the world of Jungian archetypes being gone, what does that mean?
Jung had a concept about human perception.  This concept paved the way for
other ways of looking at the world.  Should all it end there?  No more than
it should all end with Freud or the Bible.  Human perception continues to
expand or diminish or evolve beyond our very limited present.

This discussion reminds me of one I had with a colleague long ago in my
music school days.  This guy was so turned off in Beethoven's music by the
use of diminished chords to achieve tension that he couldn't listen to it
and in fact it made him laugh.  But he ignored the rest of the architecture
and construction in these compositions.  Everyone is certainly entitled to
their own esthetics but it is important to take a comprehensive view of art.
Beethoven could no more have used sophisticated dissonances than
Michaelangelo could have put his stuff on video.  Culture is defined in the
moment of the artist's world and we can hardly judge things from our
perspective and expect those worlds to be otherwise.

Perspective is so crucial.  The earth is some five billion years old.  We
are just specks on its surface, blossoming a scant 3 million years ago. Most
recorded history is within the last five thousand years.  How we can believe
that we have 'arrived' at anything or how we can believe some ultimate
destiny is now 'defined' is beyond me.

Perhaps our era is better defined as a time of cultural tolerance,
inclusiveness and permissiveness as opposed to cultural ignorance. Does this
prepare us to place a sample-based hip-hop track on a par with a composition
by Stockhausen or Boulez? Can we find a point of intersection between say,
Bartok and Glass? Can we put Stravinsky and Sondheim on equal footing? The
mind reels at all the possible comparisons - Bach and the Beach Boys -
Mahler and Madonna - Schoenberg and Gershwin (Hey- wait a minute. Weren't
they friends?)

FR