Is there an advantage to being well-read?

ancapailldorcha

I've just been reading the News\Media rant on R&R and I've just been thinking, is there an advantage to being well-read? Especially now, in the days of reality TV and celebrity scandals.
In the last year, I've been trying to get more exercise, read more and see more museums. To that end, I've joined a gym, bought a Kindle and have tried to visit other cities in the north of England to see various museums. I happened to mention this to someone at work who mentioned, while perusing the Daily Mail website that there's not much point to reading or visiting museums and asked me if I'd remember any of it in a few years. It got me thinking. A lot of people deride the spread of celebrity gossip posing as news, saying that people should read more but is there any point?
I read and go to museums because it's something I enjoy doing. A few weeks ago, I went to Stirling castle and immensely enjoyed reading about it's role in Scottish history. I see literature as an art form that does not need to cater to trends in popularity to the same extent as videogames and cinema.
Anyway, I think this might be the right place for this. What do you think?

KyussBishop

It's what you read, not how much - you need to back up your reading with pretty sharp critical thinking skills, or you risk mistaking information which is propaganda/nonsense, for that which is truthful/credible.

If you don't have good critical thinking abilities, then all it takes is one pernicious (or naively nonsensical) book, read uncritically and accepted fully, to poison your thinking and deceive you about a subject (even get you defending truly reprehensible actions/policies, thinking they are justified).

You have to ruthlessly scrutinize the credibility of all your sources (and develop an allergic reaction to all forms of bullshít), and apply good critical thinking abilities to spot faulty logic and outright deceit, in order to determine what you should and shouldn't expose your mind to; you'd be surprised at how incredibly easy it is for perfectly intelligent people, to pick up 'knowledge' and beliefs (even those they once knew were false - through repetition), which are complete nonsense and often outright lies.


So, if you want to read more, good place to start is a decent book on critical thinking - that will teach you how to become smart (accurate knowledge plus persistence), and how to spot and avoid information that would make you stupid

Manach

Being well read is like spelling bananananana. When do you stop? Each author has his/her own built in biases and each human tale has a multifaceted version of the subjective true. Giving the evolving nature of technology, the written word is being edited and revised even when you read till nothing is certain only change.
My own method, get two differing views on a topic, compare and contrast and from their syngeny perhaps a nugget of wisdom can be found.

KyussBishop

The problem there, is facts aren't subjective, and all knowledge has to respect facts, where they're applicable. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

When you pick two biased authors, and meet in the middle, you don't get any closer to 'truth' (you just get a viewpoint, skewed in favour of the author that takes more extreme views) - you have to give what they say/claim a solid grounding, with facts, and you have to discard everything they say, that does not pass critical/logical analysis.

Manach

My view is that humans are not that rational when it comes to making decisions and evaluating judgements (interesting book on the subject, 'Righteous Mind'). Outside the scientific realm where objectivity is possible and prized, there are facts which are layered by contextual content that would take a lifetime to un-ravel. By taking two opposing view-points, then at least one can examine the issue from a bi-directional view and gain some measure of perspective.
For instance, say interested in the fate of Constantinople - which fell in 1453. That would be a standard world view of a European historian say from the 19th Century. However, taking that as valid view point and then reading the history of Istanbul from a pro-Turkish historian of the current era, a differing interpretation comes into play. The importance of the fact of 1453 remains unchanged, but the interpretation of it can be examined in differing ways.

The Corinthian

I believe that there are three advantages to being well read:

Firstly is that in being well read, you can draw from the knowledge and perspective of others, many of whom are a lot more clever than yourself. This leads to being able to see an issue from a different angle, that would not have occurred to you previously, or being in possession of facts that would change your own perception, once you are aware of them. This benefit is of course limited to yourself.

A good example of this would be the property bubble. Anyone who had read on economic history would have had a very different attitude twoards purchasing property than someone without.

Secondly, it facilitates communication between well-read peers. If two (or more) individuals of simelar educational background converse, they can speed through complex discussion by referencing shared knowledge.

For example, if one were to be asked whether they believe in God and they answered that they did in so far as they adhered to Pascal's Wager (where both are familiar with this), then the question would be quickly answered. Even if the questioner was not familiar with Pascal's Wager, and this needed to be explained, they would grasp quickly it if they understood at least the basics of logic in philosophy. Someone without any knowledge would need both explained, leading to a much longer, drawn out discussion.

Finally, and rather cynically, there is the principle of quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur ('anything said in Latin sounds profound'). This means that the person who is able to quote the knowledge of others will typically sound more authoritative on whatever is being discussed, leading to those listening (not necessarily their counterpoint) being more likely to respect their viewpoint, as opposed someone else who clearly lacks such breath of knowledge.

Naturally, this does not mean that the well-read person's viewpoint is more valid, only that others will instinctively tend to trust the opinion of someone who's well-read over someone who is not.

KwackerJack

Plenty of people have become wealthy and successful and have not necessarily be classed as well read!

Some of the worlds billionaires drop out of education yet the have succeed to the highest level.

Example :

You could meet a few random people that are well read and could tell you complete layout of an entire 747 aircraft, yet in reality they would have no clue about how to physically fly the thing.

You could have people that may not be well read and may not know the inner workings of a 747 yet they could fly it better than anyone who has a multitude of degrees!

So being well read and being able to put such knowledge into practice in my opinion is completely different.

People tend to listen to a person who is well read over someone who is not!!

So you are in an aircraft that is plummeting towards earth as the pilots have died of bad airline food. A Harvard graduate steps up and tells everyone what needs to be done yet has never seen an aircraft cockpit but the high school graduate who has his PPL has an actual understanding of actual flight control.

A) Pick the Harvard jock due to his vast knowledge and intelligence?

Pick the modest, middle class guy that has no college/university education yet has actually flown an aircraft?

Well if I was in that situation id choose Mickey Mouse who can fly over the jock

But that's just my opinion!!

KyussBishop

Manach wrote: »

My view is that humans are not that rational when it comes to making decisions and evaluating judgements (interesting book on the subject, 'Righteous Mind'). Outside the scientific realm where objectivity is possible and prized, there are facts which are layered by contextual content that would take a lifetime to un-ravel. By taking two opposing view-points, then at least one can examine the issue from a bi-directional view and gain some measure of perspective.
For instance, say interested in the fate of Constantinople - which fell in 1453. That would be a standard world view of a European historian say from the 19th Century. However, taking that as valid view point and then reading the history of Istanbul from a pro-Turkish historian of the current era, a differing interpretation comes into play. The importance of the fact of 1453 remains unchanged, but the interpretation of it can be examined in differing ways.

The vast majority of knowledge is subject to scientific facts though - there is rarely a discussion that can be had, that does not have to respect facts, and when you take two opposing viewpoints and 'meet in the middle', you don't gain any useful perspective when either viewpoints are contrary to facts (with two completely diverging viewpoints, often it's the case that at least one of them is wrong, and thus you are automatically polluting your views with false knowledge by trying to find a middle ground).

One of the most damaging and dangerous ideas, often used as the foundation of most propagandized ideologies, is that facts can be subjective, or facts can be safely denied, or that in some area facts "don't apply" (this one is used to a silly degree in many of the social sciences - but just because something isn't a hard science, doesn't mean it can ignore facts).

In your example above, an archeologist could search for and dig up evidence of the fall of Constantinople, and carbon date the evidence - that would help give an objective grounding to any historical theorizing.


Sometimes, just saying "I don't know" is also the far more intelligent approach, rather than comparing the positions of two authors who could be making completely unfounded assumptions (particularly true where it comes to history, in cases where it is not grounded in something objective).

MaxWig

So you don't up being a fcukin waffle-waitress

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

So you don't up being a fcukin waffle-waitress

end up***

I think I need to keep reading

Artful_Badger

One advantage of to being well read would be being exposed to and learning from authors who are masters of the use of language. Being well able to explain your own thoughts and opinions to yourself and others is key to understanding and communication and ultimately that boils down to your own use of language and vocabulary. The better the grasp of a language and vocabulary the more detail you can go into on a given point.

Combine that with a wide variety of well explained and reasoned information on a multitude of topics and you will be a more informed person more capable of understanding your own views and forming your own opinions with the ability to communicate them with others.

The Corinthian

MaxWig wrote: »

So you don't up being a fcukin waffle-waitress

I suppose this is the elephant in the middle of the room. As much as we'd like to go on about education being something that allows one greater understanding of the World around us and improved capacity to communicate our ideas with others, the grubby little truth of the matter is that education has always been the key to greater prosperity - especially nowadays.

Lottery winners and entrepreneurs who drop out of school yet go on to become billionaires (the chances of either is pretty simelar), the reality for the other 99.9999% of us is that without an education we are more likely to end up in a low-skilled occupation on low-income.

computer44

There's always an advantage to be well read.

I visit museums when I go to a different city.

Its called being a cultured person.

Artful_Badger

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Combine that with a wide variety of well explained and reasoned information on a multitude of topics and you will be a more informed person more capable of understanding your own views and forming your own opinions with the ability to communicate them with others.

Which in turn has the advantage of making you a more interesting person that other interesting people are more likely to engage with, adding to the sum total of each others knowledge. It's a rolling stone.

The Corinthian

computer44 wrote: »

Its called being a cultured person.

What you mean is that education aids in class advancement - after all, who defines what is 'cultured'.

Candie wrote: »

Which in turn has the advantage of making you a more interesting person that other interesting people are more likely to engage with, adding to the sum total of each others knowledge. It's a rolling stone.

Only if those people hold a simelar level of education whereby they can relate to you; otherwise you'll just sound like a pompous git.

As much as I can happily wax lyrical about the late Roman republic, and others can find it interesting too, it's not for everyone, especially if the closest to this they've ever gotten was watching Gladiator.

MaxWig

The Corinthian wrote: »

What you mean is that education aids in class advancement - after all, who defines what is 'cultured'.

Those who are well-read, generally.

Only if those people hold a simelar level of education whereby they can relate to you; otherwise you'll just sound like a pompous git.

As much as I can happily wax lyrical about the late Roman republic, and others can find it interesting too, it's not for everyone, especially if the closest to this they've ever gotten was watching Gladiator.

Being well-read would probably help one realise one was being a bore.

Well-read implies a rounded knowledge, not a specific expertise in one narrow subject.

A deep knowledge of the late Roman Republic (forgive me borrowing your example), and no other knowledge bar World of Warcraft does not make one well-read.

Being well-read is incredibly important for understanding the world, and those in it. And probably for understanding yourself.

I think the phrase needs updating, as many ingest their knowledge these days without picking up a book at all.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

As much as I can happily wax lyrical about the late Roman republic, and others can find it interesting too, it's not for everyone, especially if the closest to this they've ever gotten was watching Gladiator.

Nobody finds a monomath that interesting, and it's not necessarily indicative of erudition.

Artful_Badger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Only if those people hold a simelar level of education whereby they can relate to you; otherwise you'll just sound like a pompous git.

As much as I can happily wax lyrical about the late Roman republic, and others can find it interesting too, it's not for everyone, especially if the closest to this they've ever gotten was watching Gladiator.

That's true but of the people you're likely to be able to engage more freely with there are going to be a greater amount of them that can have an impact on your life. I know its not true in every case but a lot of those who succeed in life are keen to understand and learn, which is what enabled them to progress in their chosen career.

A good understanding of a wide range of topics along with a good ability to communicate clearly and efficiently shows that you are a person eager to learn, understand and share. Those things are highly valued in every aspect of life and will endear you to people professionally and socially even if they dont have much interest in a specific topic themselves.

It makes you less susceptible to propaganda which is very important in every area of culture, it also make you more confidant and articulate in you opinion and helps with the fluidity of you argument. After all there is little to know point in saying I THINK something ( whatever the issue is ) is wrong and when you are questioned all you have to back up you position is that you personality think it wrong, but you cant explain why.

clairefontaine

Candie wrote: »

Nobody finds a monomath that interesting, and it's not necessarily indicative of erudition.

Very true. I know lots of illiterate four year olds who can go on about dinosaurs with specific facts and classifications. But none of them could read a dick and Jane book or tell you much about the renaissance. They can drop in some Latin via the names of the dinosaurs though, and can even root out some etymology. Still can't read though.

The Corinthian

MaxWig wrote: »

Being well-read would probably help one realise one was being a bore.

You're confusing knowledge with wisdom.

A deep knowledge of the late Roman Republic (forgive me borrowing your example), and no other knowledge bar World of Warcraft does not make one well-read.

I never said it did.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And there lies a great modern tragedy.

Popular culture elevates mediocrity and promotes it to such an all saturating extent, that anything other is considered esoteric or obscure and pretentious, and role models or examples of people who are more are becoming fewer.

Mass media has a case to answer, and it's hard to see any prospect of it improving.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Radiosonde

Candie wrote: »

And there lies a great modern tragedy.

Popular culture elevates mediocrity and promotes it to such an all saturating extent, that anything other is considered esoteric or obscure and pretentious, and role models or examples of people who are more are becoming fewer.

Mass media has a case to answer, and it's hard to see any prospect of it improving.

How then do you account for the enduring popularity of wilfully 'pretentious' mass media performers like Bob Dylan, Scott Walker, and David Bowie, who have laced their music with references to some quite obscure and esoteric inspirations? How many people have delved into Rimbaud after hearing Blood on the Tracks, or into Brecht on foot of Bowie's Baal EP?

And these are merely pop music examples - you could just as easily cite the acclaim garnered by serious tv dramas like The Wire.

Radiosonde

Radiosonde wrote: »

How then do you account for the enduring popularity of wilfully 'pretentious' mass media performers like Bob Dylan, Scott Walker, and David Bowie, who have laced their music with references to some quite obscure and esoteric inspirations?

Popular they may be, but I doubt if they currently outsell Beyonce, or One Direction, or any number of artists currently in the charts. Whether or not they are 'wilfully pretentious' is a matter of opinion or taste, as is whether or not they fall into the same broad category as most popular music.

How many people have delved into Rimbaud after hearing Blood on the Tracks, or into Brecht on foot of Bowie's Baal EP?

I suspect they don't outnumber the audience figures for Keeping Up With The Kardashians, or the X-Factor.

And these are merely pop music examples - you could just as easily cite the acclaim garnered by serious tv dramas like The Wire.

I've never seen The Wire so I can't comment on how deserving of acclaim it is, but if it is, it's the exception in terms of popular culture.

Quality does exist in popular culture, but mediocrity is infinitely more mainstream. Outliers exist as a very small proportion of the overall picture.

Tordelback

Candie wrote: »

Popular they may be, but I doubt if they currently outsell Beyonce, or One Direction, or any number of artists currently in the charts.

I would hazard a guess that when the final tallies are made Bob Dylan will have outsold and out-influenced Beyonce and One Direction many times over (and I like Beyonce).

Every generation there has ever been has bemoaned the rising tide of mediocrity that surrounds it, not to mention the onrushing doom that is the generation to come. 'Course you might have to read around a bit to find that out...

Tordelback

Tordelback wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that when the final tallies are made Bob Dylan will have outsold and out-influenced Beyonce and One Direction many times over (and I like Beyonce).

Perhaps, but there are 10 or 20 or 100 popular ID type artists for every Dylan, so the comparison isn't really one to one in terms of saturation.

Every generation there has ever been has bemoaned the rising tide of mediocrity that surrounds it, not to mention the onrushing doom that is the generation to come.

Many arguments abound both for and against the perception of the dumbing down of mass culture, and many confuse popularisation for dumbing down. As with most human activity, only time will definitively tell.

'Course you might have to read around a bit to find that out...

Oh dear.

Artful_Badger

Candie wrote: »

Popular they may be, but I doubt if they currently outsell Beyonce, or One Direction, or any number of artists currently in the charts. Whether or not they are 'wilfully pretentious' is a matter of opinion or taste, as is whether or not they fall into the same broad category as most popular music.



I suspect they don't outnumber the audience figures for Keeping Up With The Kardashians, or the X-Factor.



I've never seen The Wire so I can't comment on how deserving of acclaim it is, but if it is, it's the exception in terms of popular culture.

Quality does exist in popular culture, but mediocrity is infinitely more mainstream. Outliers exist as a very small proportion of the overall picture.

Modern popular culture does elevate mediocrity but I'm not so sure it is all saturating. Just as the pointless lives of the Kardashians are broadcast to millions of people so too are other things which are of more worth available to a much wider audience.

Also if you go back to the time a lot of the now classics were created and they were not all popular among the masses, in fact a lot of those outside elite society were most likely illiterate and poor anyway and these high quality works were unavailable to them. I'm sure there was a lot of small shows, hookers, pub bands, burlesque shows, comedians etc that entertained the unrefined on a regular basis too.

And as with everything it cant all be great, for something to be considered a great work there has to be a lot of other works considered inferior which is just as true now as it was then. So in terms of what the masses were into I'm not so sure the quality has lowered more so than broadened just as everything has with technology making it much more accessible.

MaxWig

Candie wrote: »

Perhaps, but there are 10 or 20 or 100 popular ID type artists for every Dylan, so the comparison isn't really one to one in terms of saturation.



Many arguments abound both for and against the perception of the dumbing down of mass culture, and many confuse popularisation for dumbing down. As with most human activity, only time will definitively tell.

Couldn't it be said that this period is unique in it's pattern of consumption.

There simply were no 7 yr old consumers of popular music in the 60s and 70s. Hence we are bombarded with the rubbish during prime time.

But in terms of the availability and diversity of music, consumers and producers alike have never had it so good.

Tordelback

Candie wrote: »

Perhaps, but there are 10 or 20 or 100 popular ID type artists for every Dylan...

More than 100 Biebers to the Zimmerman, even in Dylan's heyday, and you can still be sure that fans of Bill Haley and the Comets bemoaned the proliferation of whiny balladeers. Similarly there are several billion people in the world with a camera and the means to distribute their work, but there's still only one Ansel Adams.

The raw numbers don't mean much, as you say, and truly worthwhile art will usually rise to the top of public consciousness in time, and then be lost and disregarded once again. All this 'kill the pig' telly will be forgotten in good time, and people will still be talking about The Wire the way they still talk about Hill Street Blues. Until they stop.

Artful_Badger

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Modern popular culture does elevate mediocrity but I'm not so sure it is all saturating. Just as the pointless lives of the Kardashians are broadcast to millions of people so too are other things which are of more worth available to a much wider audience.

Also if you go back to the time a lot of the now classics were created and they were not all popular among the masses, in fact a lot of those outside elite society were most likely illiterate and poor anyway and these high quality works were unavailable to them. I'm sure there was a lot of small shows, hookers, pub bands, burlesque shows, comedians etc that entertained the unrefined on a regular basis too.

And as with everything it cant all be great, for something to be considered a great work there has to be a lot of other works considered inferior which is just as true now as it was then. So in terms of what the masses were into I'm not so sure the quality has lowered more so than broadened just as everything has with education and technology.

In terms of availability my perception would be that the average is much more available then the exceptional, which was my original point.

I take your point that the masses consumed their culture in different ways to the privileged, and that things like levels of literacy would have been very relevant to the disparity. Classic novels were unlikely to be appreciated by the barely literate, or by people who were raised without the easy access to the printed word.

It still holds true to some extent, but not to it's former extent - which in turn probably also had much to do with perceptions of class and correctness, concepts that are very much diluted today.

I'm not sure that availability isn't an issue, speaking only from my own observation, there seems to be very much more of the average available than the exceptional, and average is a very broad concept. Quality exists as it always has, but as always, it's harder to find.

MaxWig

Candie wrote: »

In terms of availability my perception would be that the average is much more available then the exceptional, which was my original point.

I take your point that the masses consumed their culture in different ways to the privileged, and that things like levels of literacy would have been very relevant to the disparity. Classic novels were unlikely to be appreciated by the barely literate, or by people who were raised without the easy access to the printed word.

It still holds true to some extent, but not to it's former extent - which in turn probably also had much to do with perceptions of class and correctness, concepts that are very much diluted today.

I'm not sure that availability isn't an issue, speaking only from my own observation, there seems to be very much more of the average available than the exceptional, and average is a very broad concept. Quality exists as it always has, but as always, it's harder to find.

Perhaps, and I say this respectfully, you are confusing what is available with what is 'force-fed'.

I think where a desire for music is instilled in a child, they now have the means to find pretty much anything they want. In fact, they have the ability to make music on their smart-phone. If they are happy to be Beliebers, then fair enough.

You need only open three websites that I can think of, and you have almost every piece of music ever made for your listening pleasure.

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

Couldn't it be said that this period is unique in it's pattern of consumption.

There simply were no 7 yr old consumers of popular music in the 60s and 70s. Hence we are bombarded with the rubbish during prime time.

But in terms of the availability and diversity of music, consumers and producers alike have never had it so good.

Every period is unique in it's pattern of consumption. Cultural, social and economic variables dictate how and what every generation consumes and to what extent.

Diversity is good, popular doesn't always equal quality. However, if enough people like something, whether its Big Brother or Miley Cyrus, that in itself is enough to make it culturally relevant. Worthwhile or not is another matter, and one that is highly subjective.

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

Perhaps, and I say this respectfully, you are confusing what is available with what is 'force-fed'.

I think where a desire for music is instilled in a child, they now have the means to find pretty much anything they want. In fact, they have the ability to make music on their smart-phone. If they are happy to be Beliebers, then fair enough.

You need only open three websites that I can think of, and you have almost every piece of music ever made for your listening pleasure.

I'm confusing nothing. When the mass media is saturated with the mediocre, it doesn't equate to being forced to consume it. People still have choices, they just have a greater choice within the middle ground than the upper echelons.

Your post simply demonstrates what I've been saying. That access to the popular is easy. It's harder to find the niche, the elite, the more esoteric. That doesn't make it wrong to listen to popular music or to read chick lit, I've done both myself and enjoyed them greatly.

It just doesn't expand your tastes, or your mind, in the way consuming the more thoughtful, the more challenging, or the more lingering and enduring aspects of culture do.

Tordelback

Tordelback wrote: »

More than 100 Biebers to the Zimmerman

So sadly true.

Artful_Badger

Candie wrote: »

I'm confusing nothing. When the mass media is saturated with the mediocre, it doesn't equate to being forced to consume it. People still have choices, they just have a greater choice within the middle ground than the upper echelons.

Your post simply demonstrates what I've been saying. That access to the popular is easy. It's harder to find the niche, the elite, the more esoteric. That doesn't make it wrong to listen to popular music or to read chick lit, I've done both myself and enjoyed them greatly.

It just doesn't expand your tastes, or your mind, in the way consuming the more thoughtful, the more challenging, or the more lingering and enduring aspects of culture do.

But that's just taste your talking about not quality. It is harder to find something unique to your tastes if you dont know what your looking for because there is so much stuff out there but that's not a reflection of quality.

MaxWig

Artful_Badger wrote: »

But that's just taste your talking about not quality. It is harder to find something unique if you dont know what your looking for because there is so much stuff out there but that's not a reflection of quality.

I'd agree.

And while the hip were listening to Dylan in the East Village singing folk songs 'borrowed' from Irish and English traditional folk culture, they were essentially listening to the same stuff that people in villages around these islands with no access to any other music had been listening to for years.

It is very often the idea that something is niche that feels good to the consumer - that they have made a secret discovery that few else appreciate.

Artful_Badger

Artful_Badger wrote: »

But that's just taste your talking about not quality. It is harder to find something unique if you dont know what your looking for because there is so much stuff out there but that's not a reflection of quality.

By quality I mean something a little elevated above the norm, or more challenging. Most mass media isn't challenging or illuminating, but you're right, quality is also a matter of taste and highly subjective within broad parameters.

If I read Jordan's biography it wouldn't necessarily be as mind expanding as reading Ghandi's biography, even if I thought I was a clever 'un because I was reading biographies at all.

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

I'd agree.

And while the hip were listening to Dylan in the East Village singing folk songs 'borrowed' from Irish and English traditional folk culture, they were essentially listening to the same stuff that people in villages around these islands with no access to any other music had been listening to for years.

It is very often the idea that something is niche that feels good to the consumer - that they have made a secret discovery that few else appreciate.

They might have been listening to something that was recognisable in Ireland, but it was certainly a new discovery to people who had no prior exposure, and how fresh and exciting that must have been at the time for them.

Not sure Dylan was ever really niche - he was extremely popular at the height of his fame.

Fox_In_Socks

MaxWig wrote: »

It is very often the idea that something is niche that feels good to the consumer - that they have made a secret discovery that few else appreciate.

Of course. And if there is a market for niche interests, then it will be filled. That's the nature of the world and as long as people want to feel unique, then they will seek out more and more obscure material, either to read, imagine or discover. People want to feel part of a tribe, either nuclear physicists or Oprah's Book Club.

Ultimately, since we are all data consumers, the type of data that we consume ultimately doesn't matter. It's just information stored in a certain way in our meat computors.:)

As it is, we are data storage units-just atoms and molecules arranged a certain way for 80 years if you are lucky. And then disassemled to go back into the world again.

So no, OP, it doesn't matter ultimately whether someone is well read or not. :pac:

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

Couldn't it be said that this period is unique in it's pattern of consumption.

There simply were no 7 yr old consumers of popular music in the 60s and 70s. Hence we are bombarded with the rubbish during prime time.

But in terms of the availability and diversity of music, consumers and producers alike have never had it so good.

Id agree with that, a hundred years ago "7 year olds" teenagers and people that lived in tenements didn't get "a vote" when it came to influencing culture or else were relegated to some form of folk culture (I guess) which ran parallel.
Did certain parts of culture peak (in terms of technical brilliance) a couple of hundred years back and hasn't been surpassed since ? or would a "Mozart" born today have to dumb down his art to get on?

Fox_In_Socks

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Ultimately, since we are all data consumers, the type of data that we consume ultimately doesn't matter. It's just information stored in a certain way in our meat computors.:)

As it is, we are data storage units-just atoms and molecules arranged a certain way for 80 years if you are lucky. And then disassemled to go back into the world again.

So no, OP, it doesn't matter ultimately whether someone is well read or not. :pac:

Wow.

There's just no arguing with that.:)

MaxWig

Candie wrote: »

They might have been listening to something that was recognisable in Ireland, but it was certainly a new discovery to people who had no prior exposure, and how fresh and exciting that must have been at the time for them.

Not sure Dylan was ever really niche - he was extremely popular at the height of his fame.

Sure, and in that sense he has more in common with someone like Beyonce than maybe some of us would like to acknowledge. Not artistically, granted, but in terms of each's tendency to regurgitate their influences with a modern twist.

Pop did eat itself. Absolutely.

But simultaneously there was an explosion of creativity by bedroom producers all over the globe. There's no Dylan's these days because ultimately folk music is irrelevant in a globalised market. It simply cannot transcend boundaries of culture and language in the same way as 'pop', but more importantly electronic music.

Artful_Badger

Candie wrote: »

By quality I mean something a little elevated above the norm, or more challenging. Most mass media isn't challenging or illuminating, but you're right, quality is also a matter of taste and highly subjective within broad parameters.

If I read Jordan's biography it wouldn't necessarily be as mind expanding as reading Ghandi's biography, even if I thought I was a clever 'un because I was reading biographies at all.

The key to it is as you say what's going to broaden your own mind. And true enough a lot of whats available today doesn't do that and people are happy to just keep themselves stimulated with repetition or reassurance by consonantly exposing themselves to what they already know.

But if its biographies you want you have access to them all. The same force that makes available so much of what you see as worthless also recognizes that there's a market for the unique the challenging and the illuminating.

A lot of the answers are entering in to judgements of taste and repeating the belief that internet and the media has made a lot of people more stupid.

I have seen a wonderful production of madam Butterfly which was out of this world, I go to the theatre, however I have also seen great gigs in the 02 and in Whelans and I would not rate one above the other. There is noting wrong with popular culture per say it just that it has assumed more importance that it actually has. I went to see Elysium a standard Hollywood blockbuster and it did raise some interesting question about society, art house films can often be twaddle, so it is wrong to assume something artistic as opposed to popular is always going to be "better " and of more value.

For all the rise of popular culture event like fringe festival and live theatre are still very popular, novelist like Colm Toibin etc are very popular, for everyone who reads the Daily hate mail some one else is reading the Irish times or the Telegraph.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

A lot of the answers are entering in to judgements of taste and repeating the belief that internet and the media has made a lot of people more stupid.

Has anyone said that?

I actually think that's untrue, and if anything the internet has been a positive force in expanding peoples horizons, much like television can and often does do.

Popular culture doesn't make anyone more stupid. It might not be very mind expanding but that doesn't equal mind contracting.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

For me, the true test is that it appeals to multiple levels.

The divide between pop culture and more esoteric is a deceptive argument.

In 50 years people will still be listening to Dylan, some are already studying him in poetry classes. Not so sure I can say that about Beyonce.

It's a fools game to turn up ones nose at Elvis because he was popular. A new historicism or cultural critic can gleam nuggets of gold out of a performance or turn it to slime.

I did a personal experiment once when I took a music theory class at Columbia. The assignment was to compare and contrast two live and two recorded performances of two different pieces of music. I listened to the recordings, and not having the cash for the symphony at the time, invented the two live ones in my head and carried on with my assignments. I received an A. My conclusion? Art criticism is fiction.

MaxWig

clairefontaine wrote: »

My conclusion? Art criticism is fiction.

Or, worse, opinion.