What you understand as character, I call identity. These cultural elements embody attitudes, that, if strong enough, or cohesive enough, engender the zeitgeists that can also resonate with people individually, to the extent that they see themselves in these things and form preferences.
The idea of being seen as 'having good taste' is a cultural value.
But identities, like the culture that foster them, are mutable. Whereas, I see a person's character as something fixed, like a basic config comprising the acts a person would or would not do.
Being affluent is the most conventional way of expressing quality and excellence, prime societal values. This expression of quality is so highly valued that people confuse it with notions of good character. Culture is commodity; art is a social vehicle designed to convey status.
There is something infantilizing men and women today, and consumerism certainly plays a part, and perhaps it's contributing to the death of empathy/community living. But Im not sure there aren't other factors involved, such as the obsession with success/failire, and the ever-increasing demands on productivity and intolerable levels of stress. Social media is also to blame, with its insistence that outward approval should be the highest societal value.
This whole conversation points to why I'm so bothered by the phrase "It was my childhood!" It's okay to have some nostalgia and to fondly remember what it felt like watching movies or reading books or listening to music or whatever that you've subsequently grown up on. It's okay if you still like it or if you now see its flaws but forgive them because of your childhood enjoyment. What's bizarre to me is then buying into new versions, sequels, franchises or whatever. It's not the same product! And above all, do you really want your 'childhood' to be the intellectual property of some corporation?
My example is Jurassic Park. I lived and breathed that movie for years after its 1993 release. Had all the toys, novelized the movie myself with a friend, studied maps to figure out where Isla Nublar would be located, knew way more about the potential scientific approaches than were realistic, had detailed debates over whether the characters were better in the book or the movie... etc.
None of that makes any of the Jurassic Park sequels good. Not one of them. So I stopped watching them, because they're not good. But people keep saying "But Jurassic Park was my childhood!" So what? Why do you identify with a franchise? That seems like a really superficial place to distinguish your memories. Your self.
One of those small moments my mother taught me a lot was when we watched The Matrix at my urging, despite the fact she doesn't like science fiction, and afterward she said, "Listen, it's a very good movie. I don't like it at all." People need to separate the distinction between 'liking' a thing, its qualities, and its importance. Nobody "likes" Salo: or the 120 Days of Sodom, but it's important. Is it a good movie? I actually don't think so. Any of these issues being bounded by your own personality or character is bound to be fragile.
I don't believe in guilty pleasures. Like what you like, even if you recognize the quality is poor. But simply being capable of understanding other people don't like the same things is basic maturity.
Hi Charles, you hit the nail on the head. My wife and I joined friends for an opera in a major US city. At the first intermission shared only between ourselves that we HATED IT. We usually love operas. The set was awful, there were long periods where no one was on the stage, there wasn’t one memorable aria and the music was bad. Twice out of context two performers let out an operatic screech. No explanation. Afterwards our friends extolled how they loved it. I gently asked about the set, the onstage absences and the screeching. One agreed the points were germane. I stopped there as it was clear that “liking opera” meant we should not persist with this discussion. I think this fits with what you are saying. Going to and liking opera is central to their identities. It obfuscates whether any particular opera is great, fair or awful. Daniel
What you understand as character, I call identity. These cultural elements embody attitudes, that, if strong enough, or cohesive enough, engender the zeitgeists that can also resonate with people individually, to the extent that they see themselves in these things and form preferences.
The idea of being seen as 'having good taste' is a cultural value.
But identities, like the culture that foster them, are mutable. Whereas, I see a person's character as something fixed, like a basic config comprising the acts a person would or would not do.
Being affluent is the most conventional way of expressing quality and excellence, prime societal values. This expression of quality is so highly valued that people confuse it with notions of good character. Culture is commodity; art is a social vehicle designed to convey status.
There is something infantilizing men and women today, and consumerism certainly plays a part, and perhaps it's contributing to the death of empathy/community living. But Im not sure there aren't other factors involved, such as the obsession with success/failire, and the ever-increasing demands on productivity and intolerable levels of stress. Social media is also to blame, with its insistence that outward approval should be the highest societal value.
This whole conversation points to why I'm so bothered by the phrase "It was my childhood!" It's okay to have some nostalgia and to fondly remember what it felt like watching movies or reading books or listening to music or whatever that you've subsequently grown up on. It's okay if you still like it or if you now see its flaws but forgive them because of your childhood enjoyment. What's bizarre to me is then buying into new versions, sequels, franchises or whatever. It's not the same product! And above all, do you really want your 'childhood' to be the intellectual property of some corporation?
My example is Jurassic Park. I lived and breathed that movie for years after its 1993 release. Had all the toys, novelized the movie myself with a friend, studied maps to figure out where Isla Nublar would be located, knew way more about the potential scientific approaches than were realistic, had detailed debates over whether the characters were better in the book or the movie... etc.
None of that makes any of the Jurassic Park sequels good. Not one of them. So I stopped watching them, because they're not good. But people keep saying "But Jurassic Park was my childhood!" So what? Why do you identify with a franchise? That seems like a really superficial place to distinguish your memories. Your self.
One of those small moments my mother taught me a lot was when we watched The Matrix at my urging, despite the fact she doesn't like science fiction, and afterward she said, "Listen, it's a very good movie. I don't like it at all." People need to separate the distinction between 'liking' a thing, its qualities, and its importance. Nobody "likes" Salo: or the 120 Days of Sodom, but it's important. Is it a good movie? I actually don't think so. Any of these issues being bounded by your own personality or character is bound to be fragile.
I don't believe in guilty pleasures. Like what you like, even if you recognize the quality is poor. But simply being capable of understanding other people don't like the same things is basic maturity.
Hi Charles, you hit the nail on the head. My wife and I joined friends for an opera in a major US city. At the first intermission shared only between ourselves that we HATED IT. We usually love operas. The set was awful, there were long periods where no one was on the stage, there wasn’t one memorable aria and the music was bad. Twice out of context two performers let out an operatic screech. No explanation. Afterwards our friends extolled how they loved it. I gently asked about the set, the onstage absences and the screeching. One agreed the points were germane. I stopped there as it was clear that “liking opera” meant we should not persist with this discussion. I think this fits with what you are saying. Going to and liking opera is central to their identities. It obfuscates whether any particular opera is great, fair or awful. Daniel
Fascinating!