Death of the Liberal Class

[bboy1827]

"The artists, like the specialist or the professor, is plugged into a system where he or she serves the interests and tastes of the power elite. The choice may be between high and low culture, but in each sphere members of the liberal class dare not risk losing their prestige and employment by defying the structures of power. Playwrights end up writing inane television scripts. Graphic artists draw and animate for Corporations. Actors pay the rent doing commercials and voiceovers, Filmmakers, editors and writers sell themselves to corporate advertising agencies. And those on the upper end of the cultural spectrum, the tenured professors and cultural critics, the lauded poets and art historians, speak and write only for one another like midievil theologians. Artistic expression, like scholarship, is sustained by a system of interlocking , exclusive guilds."- Chris Hedges, Death Of The Liberal Class

Discuss, though I doubt anyone will read this.

 

[bboy1827]

"The artists, like the specialist or the professor, is plugged into a system where he or she serves the interests and tastes of the power elite. The choice may be between high and low culture, but in each sphere members of the liberal class dare not risk losing their prestige and employment by defying the structures of power. Playwrights end up writing inane television scripts. Graphic artists draw and animate for Corporations. Actors pay the rent doing commercials and voiceovers, Filmmakers, editors and writers sell themselves to corporate advertising agencies. And those on the upper end of the cultural spectrum, the tenured professors and cultural critics, the lauded poets and art historians, speak and write only for one another like midievil theologians. Artistic expression, like scholarship, is sustained by a system of interlocking , exclusive guilds."- Chris Hedges, Death Of The Liberal Class

Discuss, though I doubt anyone will read this.

 

[its that dude]

Leninist interpretation

According to Leninism, superprofits are extracted from the workers in colonial (or "third world") countries by the imperialist powers (in the "first world"). Part of these superprofits are then distributed (in the form of increased living standards) to the workers in the imperialists' home countries, in order to buy their loyalty, achieve political stability and avoid a workers' revolution. The workers who receive a large enough share of the superprofits have an interest to defend the capitalist system, so they become a labor aristocracy.

Superprofit in Marxist-Leninist theory, is the result of unusually severe exploitation or superexploitation. All capitalist profit in Marxist-Leninist theory is based on exploitation (the business owners extract surplus value from the workers), but superprofit is achieved by taking exploitation above and beyond its normal level. There are in Marxism-Leninism no profits that could result from an activity or transaction that did not involve exploitation, except socialist profits in a Soviet-type economy.

 

[its that dude]

Leninist interpretation

According to Leninism, superprofits are extracted from the workers in colonial (or "third world") countries by the imperialist powers (in the "first world"). Part of these superprofits are then distributed (in the form of increased living standards) to the workers in the imperialists' home countries, in order to buy their loyalty, achieve political stability and avoid a workers' revolution. The workers who receive a large enough share of the superprofits have an interest to defend the capitalist system, so they become a labor aristocracy.

Superprofit in Marxist-Leninist theory, is the result of unusually severe exploitation or superexploitation. All capitalist profit in Marxist-Leninist theory is based on exploitation (the business owners extract surplus value from the workers), but superprofit is achieved by taking exploitation above and beyond its normal level. There are in Marxism-Leninism no profits that could result from an activity or transaction that did not involve exploitation, except socialist profits in a Soviet-type economy.

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

"The artists, like the specialist or the professor, is plugged into a system where he or she serves the interests and tastes of the power elite. The choice may be between high and low culture, but in each sphere members of the liberal class dare not risk losing their prestige and employment by defying the structures of power. Playwrights end up writing inane television scripts. Graphic artists draw and animate for Corporations. Actors pay the rent doing commercials and voiceovers, Filmmakers, editors and writers sell themselves to corporate advertising agencies. And those on the upper end of the cultural spectrum, the tenured professors and cultural critics, the lauded poets and art historians, speak and write only for one another like midievil theologians. Artistic expression, like scholarship, is sustained by a system of interlocking , exclusive guilds."- Chris Hedges, Death Of The Liberal Class

Discuss, though I doubt anyone will read this.

what generation wasn't like this?
Michaelangelo's work in the sistine chapel was a commissioned piece for the "power elite"

Little Richard's tooty fruity was originally about gay sex before commercialized

This debate isn't even a debate.....the "liberal class" has been serving the "power elite" since the days of Court Jesters.

Artistic value maintains artistic value....but if you want MONEY....then you tend to have to change your focus to monetary value

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

"The artists, like the specialist or the professor, is plugged into a system where he or she serves the interests and tastes of the power elite. The choice may be between high and low culture, but in each sphere members of the liberal class dare not risk losing their prestige and employment by defying the structures of power. Playwrights end up writing inane television scripts. Graphic artists draw and animate for Corporations. Actors pay the rent doing commercials and voiceovers, Filmmakers, editors and writers sell themselves to corporate advertising agencies. And those on the upper end of the cultural spectrum, the tenured professors and cultural critics, the lauded poets and art historians, speak and write only for one another like midievil theologians. Artistic expression, like scholarship, is sustained by a system of interlocking , exclusive guilds."- Chris Hedges, Death Of The Liberal Class

Discuss, though I doubt anyone will read this.

what generation wasn't like this?
Michaelangelo's work in the sistine chapel was a commissioned piece for the "power elite"

Little Richard's tooty fruity was originally about gay sex before commercialized

This debate isn't even a debate.....the "liberal class" has been serving the "power elite" since the days of Court Jesters.

Artistic value maintains artistic value....but if you want MONEY....then you tend to have to change your focus to monetary value

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Its That Dude

Leninist interpretation

According to Leninism, superprofits are extracted from the workers in colonial (or "third world") countries by the imperialist powers (in the "first world"). Part of these superprofits are then distributed (in the form of increased living standards) to the workers in the imperialists' home countries, in order to buy their loyalty, achieve political stability and avoid a workers' revolution. The workers who receive a large enough share of the superprofits have an interest to defend the capitalist system, so they become a labor aristocracy.

Superprofit in Marxist-Leninist theory, is the result of unusually severe exploitation or superexploitation. All capitalist profit in Marxist-Leninist theory is based on exploitation (the business owners extract surplus value from the workers), but superprofit is achieved by taking exploitation above and beyond its normal level. There are in Marxism-Leninism no profits that could result from an activity or transaction that did not involve exploitation, except socialist profits in a Soviet-type economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superprofit
you copied all that line for line.... and it has nothing to do with this topic.....

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Its That Dude

Leninist interpretation

According to Leninism, superprofits are extracted from the workers in colonial (or "third world") countries by the imperialist powers (in the "first world"). Part of these superprofits are then distributed (in the form of increased living standards) to the workers in the imperialists' home countries, in order to buy their loyalty, achieve political stability and avoid a workers' revolution. The workers who receive a large enough share of the superprofits have an interest to defend the capitalist system, so they become a labor aristocracy.

Superprofit in Marxist-Leninist theory, is the result of unusually severe exploitation or superexploitation. All capitalist profit in Marxist-Leninist theory is based on exploitation (the business owners extract surplus value from the workers), but superprofit is achieved by taking exploitation above and beyond its normal level. There are in Marxism-Leninism no profits that could result from an activity or transaction that did not involve exploitation, except socialist profits in a Soviet-type economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superprofit
you copied all that line for line.... and it has nothing to do with this topic.....

 

[boilermaker x]

Has there ever been a time or place when artists and non-tenured academics who were not independently wealthy could operate with complete impunity for any length of time?  That sounds profound until you think about it and the author sets it up as an implicitly circular definition: If you produce something that is not ready for easy consumption, then you are beholden to benefactors for your day-to-day needs and if what you produce is ready for consumption by the unwashed masses, then you are either not a "true" artist/thinker or you are an intellectual wh@re who has lowered their standard or sold out.  Personally, I don't find the landscape to be nearly that stark.  Perhaps if the author had included a qualifier about the relative wealth or benefits paid to the artist/thinker his statement would ring more true.  While many (thought certainly not all) well-paid artists/thinkers may fit this definition, myriad individuals live without whoring out their minds.  They just may not make seven figures doing it.

 

[boilermaker x]

Has there ever been a time or place when artists and non-tenured academics who were not independently wealthy could operate with complete impunity for any length of time?  That sounds profound until you think about it and the author sets it up as an implicitly circular definition: If you produce something that is not ready for easy consumption, then you are beholden to benefactors for your day-to-day needs and if what you produce is ready for consumption by the unwashed masses, then you are either not a "true" artist/thinker or you are an intellectual wh@re who has lowered their standard or sold out.  Personally, I don't find the landscape to be nearly that stark.  Perhaps if the author had included a qualifier about the relative wealth or benefits paid to the artist/thinker his statement would ring more true.  While many (thought certainly not all) well-paid artists/thinkers may fit this definition, myriad individuals live without whoring out their minds.  They just may not make seven figures doing it.