Is society being intentionally 'dumbed down'?

IvySlayer · 10-11-2009 04:33PM

Art is different nowadays.

Painting on a canvas, wow!!

Look at art nowadays, watch Top Gear and their amazing car reviews, the visual style. Look at photography. I could cite hundreds of examples.

Latchy · 10-11-2009 04:34PM

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

But now we have X-Factor for the masses, we're no stupider now than we have ever been.

Yeah and it's not the masses who choose to put X-factor or any other 'trashy' quick route to fame show on the tv .It's high powered executives and money men like Simon Cowell who call most of the shots .He's just bailed ITV out of a whole by pumping more of his money into it

peasant · 10-11-2009 04:52PM

As for commercialisation of art ...Michelangelo worked only on comission and many of the now famous artists died poor and unrecognised.

But I think you'd need to look at the whole issue a different way.

Up to 100 years ago (or so) the "common man" was ignorant due to the fact that education and information wasn't easily and certainly not freely available.

Spend a day browsing Wikipedia today and you can probably learn more in that one day than some medieval bogtrotter ever had a chance to learn in his whole life.

The issue is that most people choose not to educate themselves and rather use our information age for entertainment than enlightenment.

markesmith · 10-11-2009 04:53PM

My name is URL wrote: »

I stopped reading after the first sentence

I_am_Jebus wrote: »

I is to dum to reed all that. Pleaze mayk it shorterer.

hobochris wrote: »

Given this is after hours, I'd just like to add "your ma"...

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Hahahahahhahahahahahaha

:rolleyes:

Society isn't intentionally being dumbed down, it's just that the masses vote with the asses and watch the drivel that's spouted out the telly. X Factor, Gladiators, Premiership Soccer, all the soaps...there isn't an underlying plan by free market capitalists to pacify people, it's just that people have proven again and again that they like to be pacified by TV.

As Paul Weller says, "The public wants what the public gets". But the OPs points are right on the money, if unsuited to After Hours (sample thread title: "Dog set on fire and left to burn to death").

RealEstateKing wrote: »

90 per cent of people are ignorant as pig****. Thats the way its always been.

I think the golden age foreseen by leading thinkers during the Enlightenment never materialised. Your average person is an idiot that flails from one distraction to another on the way to dying.

Great post, OP. But wrong forum for debate.

Pygmalion · 10-11-2009 04:54PM

Less than 70 years ago a team of mathematicians and engineers got together to build a device that would perform a cryptological attack which, though I did read about it, I still fail to understand, on what was believed to be an undefeatable cypher used by the opposing army.

Thanks in a great part to their effort, I'm now in college studying how to program machines that can do hundreds of millions of calculations per second, and informing tons of people (some of whom on the other side of the world, or at least atlantic in my case) of my most stupid and boring actions, I could be doing it with full colour video and crystal clear audio if I wanted.

So boo hoo, there aren't any nice sculptures anymore.

IvySlayer · 10-11-2009 04:55PM

markesmith wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Society isn't intentionally being dumbed down, it's just that the masses vote with the asses and watch the drivel that's spouted out the telly. X Factor, Gladiators, Premiership Soccer, all the soaps...there isn't an underlying plan by free market capitalists to pacify people, it's just that people have proven again and again that they like to be pacified by TV.

As Paul Weller says, "The public wants what the public gets". But the OPs points are right on the money, if unsuited to After Hours (sample thread title: "Dog set on fire and left to burn to death").

I think the golden age foreseen by leading thinkers during the Enlightenment never materialised. Your average person is an idiot that flails from one distraction to another on the way to dying.

Great post, OP. But wrong forum for debate.

Just because I have different taste to you, doesn't mean I'm stupid.

Biggins · 10-11-2009 04:57PM

Is society being intentionally 'dumbed down'?

Yes and no in particular cases - that and too much complacency, we're doomed to become sheep to be dumbly herded around more so.

deisedude · 10-11-2009 05:04PM

markesmith wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Society isn't intentionally being dumbed down, it's just that the masses vote with the asses and watch the drivel that's spouted out the telly. X Factor, Gladiators, Premiership Soccer, all the soaps...there isn't an underlying plan by free market capitalists to pacify people, it's just that people have proven again and again that they like to be pacified by TV.

As Paul Weller says, "The public wants what the public gets". But the OPs points are right on the money, if unsuited to After Hours (sample thread title: "Dog set on fire and left to burn to death").

I think the golden age foreseen by leading thinkers during the Enlightenment never materialised. Your average person is an idiot that flails from one distraction to another on the way to dying.

Great post, OP. But wrong forum for debate.

I agree with some of the things you have said but i fail to see how watching the premiership can be considered pacifying the masses. Does watching sport make you less intelligent or something?

markesmith · 10-11-2009 05:11PM

IvySlayer wrote: »

Just because I have different taste to you, doesn't mean I'm stupid.

Of course not. :pac:

Latchy · 10-11-2009 05:13PM

deisedude wrote: »

I agree with some of the things you have said but i fail to see how watching the premiership can be considered pacifying the masses. Does watching sport make you less intelligent or something?

Now this might be crux of OP's thread .Like just as many middle class people ' amoung the masses ' love , play and watch sport ,including the premiership .

markesmith · 10-11-2009 05:15PM

deisedude wrote: »

I agree with some of the things you have said but i fail to see how watching the premiership can be considered pacifying the masses. Does watching sport make you less intelligent or something?

Sorry for double-posting. I watch the Premiership too, I'm a huge Spurs fan (but that's my problem). Football is obviously a mindless entertainment, albeit an acceptable one to us males. Doesn't make us less intelligent, but it's not exactly learning a new language, it's not exactly reading the classics, or whatever.

conorhal · 10-11-2009 05:15PM

"90 per cent of people are ignorant as pig****. That's the way its always been."

True, but never have the unwashed masses been so aggressively anti-intellectual in western Europe or learning possessed of so little value or admiration, nor have the brainless, Joe Duffy calling, chattering, troglodytes counted for so much. It used to be that great men shaped nations, and not every gob****e that had the dexterity to text skynews.com
It used to be that the lowest common denominator knew it was the lowest common denominator and shut it's mouth for any purpose other than breathing.
The barbarians are at the gates I tell ya! And great empires are rarely destroyed, they merely rot from within. BTW, does anybody know if Katie Price has really been knocked up by that cage fighter bloke? Inquiring minds need to know!

chem · 10-11-2009 05:16PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

I see your point and somewhat agree, it is a bit unfair to compare, however it seems that there are so many trivial distractions these days that it can stifle even great artists? The point was that 500 years ago art was allowed to be art, now it's consumerised at every level and and all artists exist in a climate that is not conducive for thinking.
Anyway more importantly, the thread wasn't just about ignorance but rather peoples lack of enthusiasm or courage for wanting to improve themselves. I feel society is 'numbed'.

Its fear. Look at what happens to people, who want to explore things. If you walk over a field to study flowers, you might be done for tresspass. If you hang a "prank" painting in a museum, your questioned by the police. We have all read stories of people doing stuff outside the box, and have been arrested, questioned or jailed.

Remember the hobby chemist in the UK? He ordered some chemicals from a company and his home was raided, street cleared for two days and the bomb squad called in! The man who discovered pure oxygen, had no science degree etc. He liked to experiment at home and discovered oxygen.

If you want to do anything different here, its made hard to do as red tape is everywhere :mad:

stevejazzx · 10-11-2009 05:17PM

topper75 wrote: »

There is no 'intentional' steering going on. That reeks of paranoia.

There are art galleries open and there is Celebrity Farm Enders on the TV. People choose. They are not forced. We may both be disappointed that the choices of others are not ours, but life is like that and requires tolerance. You would only have grounds to rant really if there was a concerted effort stopping you from accessing what you perceive to be great culture. Do you feel that is the case?

That is so incorrect it's painful.
Do you really think the structure of society as it exists today is encouraging mass take up of serious art and culture? The concentrated efforts of business is the consumerisation of people. A kind of slow programming through advertising from an early age. It is possible of course to entertain other aspects of life, it's not like the programming is all consuming but it certainly doesn't help in the creation of a better culture or art. It stifles and numbs people and makes them afraid to step outside the restrictions of everyday life - and again I say that the thread has more to with this than 'high art' as it were.

segaBOY · 10-11-2009 05:32PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

if people would just stop watching mainstream TV that would be a start.

Says the guy with a Fawlty Towers sig, that was mainstream TV back in the 70s?

I understand where you are coming from OP-there's nothing worse than those who are more interested in the going ons within the pages of Hello magazine over anything that is happening in the real world.

I think a lot of it is simply down to escapism, people don't like certain aspects about their current life so the go away and forget about it for an hour by watching X Factor or Big Brother, go off and watch some football match or even run away from life to post on boards.ie (hey look at that)

It becomes a bit unbarable when it begins to consume their lives and all they can talk about is what happened on TV last night etc. but it takes all sorts to make this life interesting and I think you'll find that 300 years ago the masses were fall less educated than what they are today(and thank God for that no longer being the case otherwise I'd be screwed), there may have been greater atrists back then in your view but art changes with generations and often takes years to become appreciated.

Last Angry Man · 10-11-2009 05:38PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

That is so incorrect it's painful.
Do you really think the structure of society as it exists today is encouraging mass take up of serious art and culture? The concentrated efforts of business is the consumerisation of people. A kind of slow programming through advertising from an early age. It is possible of course to entertain other aspects of life, it's not like the programming is all consuming but it certainly doesn't help in the creation of a better culture or art. It stifles and numbs people and makes them afraid to step outside the restrictions of everyday life - and again I say that the thread has more to with this than 'high art' as it were.

The structure of society doesn't exist to encourage, or DO anything. It just exists like you, me and everyone else in the world. In the vastness of time our lifetimes are just specs of dust and we ourselves are of zero importance and will all be forgotten within a couple of generations. Who cares if you are into X Factor or Cubism or cramming peanuts up your nose?

In fact how nice to have nothing more to worry about the creation of "better" culture. If you were alive in some of the eras you would neither have the time, the freedom or the expertise to explore and endulge in the many aspects of culture that we have access to today.

It sounds to me like you need a hobby. Or maybe some new mates that don't annoy you so much. And perhaps you could enighten us as to how you yourself are contributing to better culture? Come on, share...

10-11-2009 05:44PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

I see your point and somewhat agree, it is a bit unfair to compare, however it seems that there are so many trivial distractions these days that it can stifle even great artists? The point was that 500 years ago art was allowed to be art, now it's consumerised at every level and and all artists exist in a climate that is not conducive for thinking.

Art wasn't allowed to be art, the industry was controlled by rich patrons and only open to a tiny elite.

Prof.Badass · 10-11-2009 05:50PM

Telescoping. When you look back at the past it always seems better. For example take music, you have a very small number of musical geniuses spaced over hundreds of years but we somehow remember them all as "classical music" and think "music must have been amazing back then". There was an awful lot of ****e back then, it just so happens that time has forgotten them.

samson09 · 10-11-2009 05:52PM

Last Angry Man wrote: »

In the vastness of time our lifetimes are just specs of dust and we ourselves are of zero importance and will all be forgotten within a couple of generations.

Speak for yourself buddy. You are more important than you will ever realise, and so is everyone else, from the bum on the street to the queen of england. Such limited and inaccurate understanding of the self is probably the end result of this dumbing down the OP is talking about. We no longer realise who we are and how incredible we ALL are. People don't really look at themselves in any great depth anymore, its much easier to switch off and be distracted by the ongoing stream of distractions provided to us by movies, television, etc.

"Look here, not there".

stevejazzx · 10-11-2009 05:54PM

994 wrote: »

Art wasn't allowed to be art, the industry was controlled by rich patrons and only open to a tiny elite.

Not so. Although there certainly existed a system whereby the upper classes were free to commission great artists, the floor was more open to artists to create art without motive. Take a look around the Vatican or Louvre at all the unknown geniuses on display or even at all the great poets and writers that have existed without impinging upon general consciousness but whose works have been cataloged, recognized and remembered nonetheless. I don't think such a system exists anymore.

stevejazzx · 10-11-2009 06:03PM

segaBOY wrote: »

Says the guy with a Fawlty Towers sig, that was mainstream TV back in the 70s?

.

Aw man. You should read the transcriptions of some Fawtly Towers epsiodes, they're almost Wildian in thier scope for great comedy and supreme farce.

"Mrs. Richards: What? And another thing. I asked for a room with a
view. When I pay for a view, I expect something more interesting
than that.
Basil Fawlty: [going to window, indicating] That is Torquay, maam.
Mrs. Richards: That is not good enough.
Basil Fawlty: Well, may I ask what you were expecting to see out of a
Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? The
Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeasts swinging
majestically...
Mrs. Richards: Dont be silly. I expect to be able to see the sea.
Basil Fawlty: You can see the sea. Its over there, between the land
and the sky.

I consider this closer to art than entertainment but it's both and exceptions to the rule do exist

tricky D · 10-11-2009 06:11PM

dr.bollocko wrote: »

This accurately sums how I feel about this thread.
I weep for humans that weep for humanity.

Here's the filum version with lesser words...

Idiocracy
Clip 1
Clip 2

Brought to you by Carl's Junior

segaBOY · 10-11-2009 06:11PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

Aw man. You should read the transcriptions of some Fawtly Towers epsiodes, they're almost Wildian in thier scope for great comedy and supreme farce.

"Mrs. Richards: What? And another thing. I asked for a room with a
view. When I pay for a view, I expect something more interesting
than that.
Basil Fawlty: [going to window, indicating] That is Torquay, maam.
Mrs. Richards: That is not good enough.
Basil Fawlty: Well, may I ask what you were expecting to see out of a
Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? The
Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeasts swinging
majestically...
Mrs. Richards: Dont be silly. I expect to be able to see the sea.
Basil Fawlty: You can see the sea. Its over there, between the land
and the sky.

I consider this closer to art than entertainment but it's both and exceptions to the rule do exist

I agree it's a great show probably one of my favourites. But to you that may be art, others may consider this to be better...

Catch my drift?

Latchy · 10-11-2009 06:15PM

Escapism is the word .How many will go to the match at croke park on saturday or watch it on tv , hoping upon hope , that the country gets a good result ? A result that will help boost the national psyche when there is little to be cheerful about . But amoung the crowd there will be many personnel storys of pain ,anguish and sorrow so the football even for some of the non soccer public, is a welcome distraction of sorts .

kowloon · 10-11-2009 06:22PM

3qsmavrod5twfe · 10-11-2009 06:22PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

That is so incorrect it's painful.
Do you really think the structure of society as it exists today is encouraging mass take up of serious art and culture? The concentrated efforts of business is the consumerisation of people. A kind of slow programming through advertising from an early age. It is possible of course to entertain other aspects of life, it's not like the programming is all consuming but it certainly doesn't help in the creation of a better culture or art. It stifles and numbs people and makes them afraid to step outside the restrictions of everyday life - and again I say that the thread has more to with this than 'high art' as it were.

Jim Corr, is that you?

The argument should not be based around art and culture, but innovation. Culture and art change based on the time they came from, some of it remains fashionable and some of it moves on. And some of it is timeless.

Culture adapts around the society, and while current culture is more egocentric and materialistic in nature, doesn't make us any more or any less "dumb" than a culture that has preceded us. There have been great thinkers throughout history from when civilisation first started. That is why I would drive the point that it is innovation and our ability to build on what has preceded us is far more important than if we watch too much TV.

The roman civilisation was arguably one of the greatest cultures that has existed in the known history of the planet and they enjoyed nothing better than watching a load of christians getting the **** knocked out of them. But they still managed roads aquaducts and marvelous feats of innovation in terms of building.

I presume when you speak about art you are talking about the renaissance period where innovations in art led to classics being created. They also were quite fond of knocking the **** out of each other for the craic, fuedalism was rife where the populace really was controlled by its government.

The current western culture that we live in has provided for you, my friend, the medium to voice your opinion on society around the world. It has also provided you with pretty much every electronic item in your house which was built using modern materials, not horse****, straw and sticks as would have been common during the golden age. The same culture has given us several people of great genius (check the Nobel prize listings for science and you will see genius). Yes we enjoy the idiotic shows and fall foul of advertising, but the proles of the past enjoyed equally mundane and trite distractions when they were rooting around the planet as well.

So, no, I have to disagree that society is intentionally being dumbed down

Latchy · 10-11-2009 06:26PM

^^ great post which sees the other side of the arguement

K-9 · 10-11-2009 06:54PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

ah ha...?

Knowing me, knowing you.

stevejazzx · 10-11-2009 06:55PM

Audrina Proud Mice wrote: »

Jim Corr, is that you?

The argument should not be based around art and culture, but innovation. Culture and art change based on the time they came from, some of it remains fashionable and some of it moves on. And some of it is timeless.

Culture adapts around the society, and while current culture is more egocentric and materialistic in nature, doesn't make us any more or any less "dumb" than a culture that has preceded us. There have been great thinkers throughout history from when civilisation first started. That is why I would drive the point that it is innovation and our ability to build on what has preceded us is far more important than if we watch too much TV.

The roman civilisation was arguably one of the greatest cultures that has existed in the known history of the planet and they enjoyed nothing better than watching a load of christians getting the **** knocked out of them. But they still managed roads aquaducts and marvelous feats of innovation in terms of building.

I presume when you speak about art you are talking about the renaissance period where innovations in art led to classics being created. They also were quite fond of knocking the **** out of each other for the craic, fuedalism was rife where the populace really was controlled by its government.

The current western culture that we live in has provided for you, my friend, the medium to voice your opinion on society around the world. It has also provided you with pretty much every electronic item in your house which was built using modern materials, not horse****, straw and sticks as would have been common during the golden age. The same culture has given us several people of great genius (check the Nobel prize listings for science and you will see genius). Yes we enjoy the idiotic shows and fall foul of advertising, but the proles of the past enjoyed equally mundane and trite distractions when they were rooting around the planet as well.

So, no, I have to disagree that society is intentionally being dumbed down

This is not a technology versus art debate, it's a debate based on the idea that people in general seem to be stifled and numbed by modern mass media and culture. It is not a deep rooted conspiracy ala Mr. Corr but rather a simple idea that perhaps all this consumption is not good for us. Saying that modern business propogates this via subtle programming through advertisting is hardly a novel or conspiratorial suggestion. It is also not playing down the brilliance of modern science, these are all aspects which you've read into and decided to argue against. Please read the OP properly.

stevejazzx · 10-11-2009 06:58PM

segaBOY wrote: »

I agree it's a great show probably one of my favourites. But to you that may be art, others may consider this to be better...

Catch my drift?

Yeah, I agree - I'm not excluding areas that may not be automatically granted or afforded the same privileges, in artistic terms, as say literature or painting.

Is society being intentionally 'dumbed down'?

Comments