= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bogus comments on The mystery of Brahms - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (65)
True, but it's not clear that it should be excluded, especially when talking about things like decor. For that matter, one could argue that even the cheapest and most trivial cultural artifact reflects the society it is a product of, and to this extent it is "subservient" to social truths. And even the most "subversive" art ends up saying a lot about the way our society actively celebrates some sort of subversion. Which is certainly a social truth that has its own notable legacy and perhaps even "tradition".
When the question is how artists are accepted into the canon defined by the elite gatekeepers--the journal editors, the critics, the department chairs at major universities--then those things should be excluded, because they aren't part of the phenomenon being studied. They are more strongly governed by different rules.