How REAL are movies?
04-30-2010, 03:36 AM
I've got to admit to being a little confused as to the direction this discussion has taken. I read the whole thread through two or three times to try and work out why this has become some kind of cultural pissing contest.
If one country outstripping the creative achievements of another depends on the number of miles of shelf space in its libraries, the size of its opera houses or the relative rankings of its art galleries according to the number of visitors each draws (I've made an assumption that Wintereis's evidence refers to the rankings on the TripAdvisor website as reported, but not endorsed, by Reuters?) where is the evidence of quality those spaces contain? The international panel that judged the top twenty orchestras for Gramophone magazine would, I assume, have considered issues of quality, but the panel looked solely at modern romantic orchestras. This is not really sufficient evidence of dynamic creativity. In this report in The Times, the top five playing this repertoire were judged to be:
1 Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra
2 Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra
3 Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra
4 London Symphony Orchestra
5 Chicago Symphony Orchestra.
One could read those rankings in a very different light if taken at face value, but the Concertgebouw Orchestra's chief conductor is currently a Latvian while one has to go back to 1969 to find an American as the chief baton wielder at Chicago. I have no idea as to the staffing by nationality of any of these bands; I would imagine there is room for something of an international mix, but I'll assume that the bulk of he rank and file players in these orchestras is largely of nationals, as would seem to be the case with those British orchestras with which I am familiar through my work. However, what cannot be in doubt is that the repertoire, as well as the musical leadership, is largely international. I can't see that this provides us with sufficient evidence that "the U.S. has largely outstripped much of Europe's prowess when it comes to its own aesthetic and intellectual endeavors".
PA and I enjoyed the tremendous privilege of visiting New York's Museum of Modern Art a week or so ago. The works of art on display were by no means the exclusive achievements of one country's talent. This is surely true of galleries everywhere?
As the richest country in the world, a huge country in terms of landmass and with a population roughly five times the size of Great Britain, one would imagine that the U.S.A. should be able to buy up works of art from around the world as they appear on the international markets.
I don't have the time to research the facts concerning academic achievement, but I don't know how the evidence provided confirms the assertion, unless one accepts unquestioningly that more and bigger equals better?
I'm not disputing the fact that one nation or another may ultimately prove to have had more to offer in terms of cultural achievement, but I have yet to be convinced that any evidence provided for these assertions relate to criteria for assessment that are actually helpful :confused:
Albabonzai, I've only seen the film once (and PA will tell you I have a dreadful memory for the content of films), but from what I remember I saw little of merit in going into a hostile environment in such a devastatingly unprepared way. Curiosity is one thing, but stupidity quite another. I don't know to what extent the film was a true reflection of Chris McCandless' life, but I was angry with his behaviour and very upset by the relationship with his parents that drove him to such extreme behaviour. As a professional survivor I am sure you would never dream of undertaking such a venture in such a naive way. I was also irritated by the diary narrative at the end that appeared to seek to make his behaviour heroic. Sorry, I found that there was just something in this film that pressed a few buttons!
If one country outstripping the creative achievements of another depends on the number of miles of shelf space in its libraries, the size of its opera houses or the relative rankings of its art galleries according to the number of visitors each draws (I've made an assumption that Wintereis's evidence refers to the rankings on the TripAdvisor website as reported, but not endorsed, by Reuters?) where is the evidence of quality those spaces contain? The international panel that judged the top twenty orchestras for Gramophone magazine would, I assume, have considered issues of quality, but the panel looked solely at modern romantic orchestras. This is not really sufficient evidence of dynamic creativity. In this report in The Times, the top five playing this repertoire were judged to be:
1 Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra
2 Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra
3 Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra
4 London Symphony Orchestra
5 Chicago Symphony Orchestra.
One could read those rankings in a very different light if taken at face value, but the Concertgebouw Orchestra's chief conductor is currently a Latvian while one has to go back to 1969 to find an American as the chief baton wielder at Chicago. I have no idea as to the staffing by nationality of any of these bands; I would imagine there is room for something of an international mix, but I'll assume that the bulk of he rank and file players in these orchestras is largely of nationals, as would seem to be the case with those British orchestras with which I am familiar through my work. However, what cannot be in doubt is that the repertoire, as well as the musical leadership, is largely international. I can't see that this provides us with sufficient evidence that "the U.S. has largely outstripped much of Europe's prowess when it comes to its own aesthetic and intellectual endeavors".
PA and I enjoyed the tremendous privilege of visiting New York's Museum of Modern Art a week or so ago. The works of art on display were by no means the exclusive achievements of one country's talent. This is surely true of galleries everywhere?
As the richest country in the world, a huge country in terms of landmass and with a population roughly five times the size of Great Britain, one would imagine that the U.S.A. should be able to buy up works of art from around the world as they appear on the international markets.
I don't have the time to research the facts concerning academic achievement, but I don't know how the evidence provided confirms the assertion, unless one accepts unquestioningly that more and bigger equals better?
I'm not disputing the fact that one nation or another may ultimately prove to have had more to offer in terms of cultural achievement, but I have yet to be convinced that any evidence provided for these assertions relate to criteria for assessment that are actually helpful :confused:
Albabonzai, I've only seen the film once (and PA will tell you I have a dreadful memory for the content of films), but from what I remember I saw little of merit in going into a hostile environment in such a devastatingly unprepared way. Curiosity is one thing, but stupidity quite another. I don't know to what extent the film was a true reflection of Chris McCandless' life, but I was angry with his behaviour and very upset by the relationship with his parents that drove him to such extreme behaviour. As a professional survivor I am sure you would never dream of undertaking such a venture in such a naive way. I was also irritated by the diary narrative at the end that appeared to seek to make his behaviour heroic. Sorry, I found that there was just something in this film that pressed a few buttons!
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
)
