Is an anti-elitist attitude really a bad thing?
The problem isn’t anti-elitism, the problem is kneejerk elitism accusations.
It’s as bad as an elitist one. Absolutism kills intelligent thought and discussion.
“The problem isn’t anti-elitism, the problem is kneejerk elitism accusations.”
The problem isn’t elitism, the problem is kneejerk anti-elitism accusations.
They make my point for me.
There’s a reason why educated and intelligent people are accused of being elitist.
They have better taste than the people who make the accusations.
It’s simple.
intelligent people perhaps. ‘Educated’ is a moot terms these days. What does being educated even mean nowadays, seriously? There are Harvard grads with terrible tastes when it comes to the arts.
Depends on what you do with it.
To me, elitists are like the popular kids in high school. Unless they’re beating you up, or bothering you in some other devastating way, it’s best to ignore them.
Think how you want to think without putting labels on everything. Agree and agree to disagree. And then… let it go and live your own life in peace, away from the joiners.
Educated means well-studied in a specific subject. I’m sure there are Harvard graduate lawyers that listen to Fifty Cent and like movies like Transformers VII: The Shia Kid is Just Getting Annoying by Now, Isn’t He? Stop Giving Us Money for God’s Sake… But they’re pretty well educated in terms of the law, no?
Well-educated has a definitive meaning.
Education doesn’t necessarily have much to do with taste.
And there are different kinds of intelligence. Being book smart and street stupid doesn’t help you much in life.
Again, people who are insecure brag about who their are. If you’re secure you can also have humility, which means that no matter your gifts, you know how to appreciate what talents people have without constantly comparing them to yourself. Which is basically what people who brag do.
Fair enough Wu:
I agree, but on that note, why do so many people on this site and elsewhere I’m sure go around criticizing so many people for not caring about the arts when some of those same people may have in fact not had time or the interest and instead focused their efforts on something else equally worthy of respect like neuroscience, mechanical engineering, or advanced mathematics just to name a few fields?
It seems to me most people are missing the point with this elitist/anti-elitist thing. It’s not a matter of taste or liking/disliking certain films. It’s nothing to do with the merits of Koridorius versus Transformers. It’s about the dismissiveness of another’s opinion. It’s about a lack of respect and civility. It’s one thing explaining to someone why you believe Transformers (or whatever) is a bad film, but quite another denigrating someone because they like Tarantino (or whoever) or don’t see the genius of Syndromes & A Century (or whatever).
I don’t think most here have a problem with elitism per se – it’s when said elitism is manifested in insulting and dismissive behaviour towards others that they, quite rightly imo, have a problem.
Meh.
Education has little to do with taste. Critical ability and a strong sensibility determines one’s taste.
@Thislife: What does neuroscience, mechanical engineering, etc. have to do with the arts?
@Thislife — I don’t think you have to have majored in the arts to appreciate them or support them, or develop an interesting and in depth understanding of them. Why can’t a neuroscientist also be an avid art enthusiast?
Deckard:
Nothing. They’re only examples to back up a point that not everyone needs to be interested in the arts in order to be respectable individual. You just need to be respecting of the interests of others, as well as know what you want in life and pursue it.
why do so many people on this site and elsewhere I’m sure go around criticizing so many people for not caring about the arts when some of those same people may have in fact not had time or the interest and instead focused their efforts on something else equally worthy of respect like neuroscience, mechanical engineering, or advanced mathematics just to name a few fields?
Well, I’m sure some of the people who criticize elitists may have been elitists themselves at one point and then they came to the conclusion that they think being elitist is bad. It works the same way in reverse. Of course there are those who just say live and let live but frequently, when you think you’ve noticed a deficiency in the culture around you, you feel justified in pointing it out.
Also, there’s a difference between saying “you are dumb for liking this,” “you have bad taste for liking this,” or “our cultural tendency to like these things is a problem,” etc.
Basically, it depends, but as Wu implied any static and immovable attitude usually gets us into trouble. Discussion, discussion, discussion, without demanding a final result, this is the key…
As a hypothetical situation, let’s take this as fact for the moment: Tarkovsky, Ozu, Cassavetes, Kiarostami and Dreyer are better than Welles, Altman, Tarantino, Hitchcock and Scorsese.
Now assuming this is true and I know this, what am I supposed to do with this information? Obviously I shouldn’t think myself a better person because I happen to know something many others don’t, but should I be content to let people think Nashville is the height of filmmaking art?
We live in a world where the vast majority of universities, critics and therefore cinephiles believe the latter, lesser filmmakers to be the bee’s knees in cinema. For me to tell them any different means I’ll have to let them know they’re wrong, and no one likes to be told that. Hence, there are claims of elitism, because it naturally hurts to be told what you hold as plainly true is incorrect, and I must have an ulterior motive in putting down such masterpieces.
That’s a bummer, because it means people are missing out on the better films due to their own ignorance. The most I can do is point out exactly how the first group are superior to the second, and cope with the calls of elitist from those who identify with the latter group of filmmakers.
“when you think you’ve noticed a deficiency in the culture around you, you feel justified in pointing it out”
By the way, when people think of American culture, what comes to mind, minus the supposed modern day superficiality that many seem to refer to and lament? (i.e. “you’ve never seen the Rocky movies dude? American culture, come on, get with it.”)
But Fraser:
People may be less resentful if you simply state that you prefer those listed in the first list as opposed to those listed in the second list, instead of saying, “You’re wrong. I’m right. Your favorite directors inherently suck, and the ones I like are great.” Of course people are going to resent that sort of attitude. There’s no objective way to prove Cassavetes is superior to Altman. Some people will prefer Cassavetes and others will prefer Altman. It doesn’t mean one has better tastes than the other. Anyway, wouldn’t you say the two filmmakers are equally respected among film lovers anyway?
@Thislife - when I moved to L.A., I finally understood what the rest of the world understood to be “American” culture. The source of that export is here. Whether it’s truthful or not is another story, because I can tell you that Angelenos are pretty different from New Yorkers or Minnesotans, but there you are. The world thinks of America as whatever Hollywood tells them America is.
On a related note, are threads that only exist to be a cultural pissing contest a bad thing?
Ha ha ha touche
@Fraser
Hmm, you raise a lot of points I want to respond to, but I’m not sure where to start. I’ll start with the things that make me a little uncomfortable. The tone in your post suggests that notions of superior and inferior filmmakers is an objective truth. Certainly, I believe that some filmmakers/films are better than others, but I also recognize that people can legitimately disagree with these opinions. On the other hand, there may be some disagreements that I find “illegitimate”—i.e., I can’t take the differing opinion seriously. But even in such a case, I don’t feel a religious fervor to convert the person, to show him the errors of his ways. If the person is not overly obnoxious or influential, I don’t think his erroneous opinion is such a big deal. Or should it be?
Jazz and Thislife:
But even in such a case, I don’t feel a religious fervor to convert the person, to show him the errors of his ways. If the person is not overly obnoxious or influential, I don’t think his erroneous opinion is such a big deal. Or should it be?
Well no. If watching any kind of movie makes a person feel good, they should absolutely do it. But if people are actively looking for the best cinema has to offer, they should look as deep as they can.
There’s no objective way to prove Cassavetes is superior to Altman. Some people will prefer Cassavetes and others will prefer Altman. It doesn’t mean one has better tastes than the other.
If we make up some criteria that we can say a great film should fulfill, then we can objectively state which film better reaches these goals.
Let’s randomly use Woman Under the Influence and Nashville. If we’re say the criteria is the film should have a clear, intelligent, intellectual statement to make about people or a group of people in an entertaining way, Nashville is clearly the better film. If we want a film that has us involved with characters and allows us to see the world through their eyes (and we’re able to experience differing viewpoints almost simultaneously), then Woman Under the Influence is the better film.
So let’s judge the criteria itself: Is it better to judge people intellectually from a distance, or reach an understanding of them? To me, the answer is clear and I can objectively state that the latter is a better way to experience the world, therefore Woman Under the Influence is a better film.
You might say I’m deliberately giving a poorer criteria to fulfill to Nashville in this case. If you can give me something better, I’d love to hear it.
Come on now, friends. We can all get along and agree to disagree, yes?
Having an elitist attitude is equally as silly as having an anti-elitist attitude.
Both of which ferment best in forums such as this one. All is well. Peace.
L O L ^
Fraser said, But if people are actively looking for the best cinema has to offer, they should look as deep as they can.
But are you saying that if they look as deep as they can, they’ll arrive at the same opinions? See, I don’t agree with that. My position is that a) intelligent people “looking as deeply as possible” can come to different judgments from myself; b) my judgments about films aren’t infallible—even though I may feel convicted in these judgments; c) some judgments have more validity and weight than others, but these judgments aren’t Truth or Untruth.
If we make up some criteria that we can say a great film should fulfill,…
Are you assuming this is an easy thing—that we’ll come to agreement quickly about this? I certainly don’t automatically with the criteria you’ve chosen (at least as I understand it) and I think the use of the criteria is simple as you imply. To be fair, talking about this subject can be really complicated and cumbersome, so I understand the desire to simplify the discussion as much as possible, but still, we should acknowledge the shortcomings of this approach. Here are some of them: can we really judge the two films on the two criteria alone? I think there is more than two criteria needed to judge a film. This makes the assessment more complex. Are all the criteria equally important? Does a great film have to meet all the criteria? Suppose a film is great at meeting one criteria, but poor at others?
Is it better to judge people intellectually from a distance, or reach an understanding of them? To me, the answer is clear and I can objectively state that the latter is a better way to experience the world…
Some questions:
1. Can one not acquire understanding of people “intellectually from a distance?”
2. Are we certain that this type of understanding is (objectively) inferior? (Are we certain that this is what Nashville does, versus arrive at understanding people by “seeing the world through their eyes?”)
3. Why is seeing the world through the characters eyes" objectively the best way to see the world? And wouldn’t having multiple ways of seeing the world be preferable to one way?
Here are some of them: can we really judge the two films on the two criteria alone?
Nope, I’m simplifying to some extent. But I think both statements are accurate, and they speak to a fundamental difference in both films. What criteria do you think I’m missing? You haven’t given a reason why my analysis isn’t fair to either film.
1. Can one not acquire understanding of people “intellectually from a distance?”
Yes, but it will be a limited understanding. Compare reading about someone for a day, or actually spending a day with them. Which is going to give you a deeper knowledge of the person?
2. Are we certain that this type of understanding is (objectively) inferior?
Well, you’re free to disagree if you think so. But to me, it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
(Are we certain that this is what Nashville does, versus arrive at understanding people by “seeing the world through their eyes?”)
I am. Re-watch the movie.
3. Why is seeing the world through the characters eyes" objectively the best way to see the world? And wouldn’t having multiple ways of seeing the world be preferable to one way?
Like I said, in Cassavetes’ movies he encourages us to see through different viewpoints almost simultaneously. We think Nick’s being mean to Mabel, then she does something to make us take his side, before we can think we’ve got it worked out another change has occurred. The easy judgements we can make of Altman’s characters aren’t so easy in the work of Cassavetes.
Another reason why I tend to pay more attention and respect to elitists than to anti-elitists is because I want to find out about new things and, more importantly, things that will have a greater impact on me.
Elitists tend to say, “i’ve seen X, and I’ve seen Y, and I can tell you for a fact that X is better.” From this i may decide to explore X, if I’m unfamiliar with it and discover a great new work.
Anti-Elitists tend to say “I love X because it is amazing.” They may list reasons. When confronted with Y by the elitist, they tend to say “I’ve never heard of Y, but that’s just your opinion so stop being so elitist.” They basically defend stuff I’m probably already familiar with.
Hate them all you want but if, like me, you’re looking for new and interesting experiences from art, you’d do well to pay more attention to them than to those who debate subjectivity vs, objectivity without having explored anything outside of canonical lists. Of course, one can find new and interesting experiences from canonical lists, so my advice is mainly for those who’ve already familiarized themselves with the stuff everyone always talks about.
In the second paragraph above I meant to write “When confronted with X by the elitist…”
ThisLife
Let’s face it. Is there really anything wrong with opposing yourself to people who act like they’re superior, because they like to think they’re more highbrow than everyone else. When you think about it, that’s most anti-elitists disapprove of, the haughty attitude of many self-proclaimed intellectuals who feel the urge to show off their supposed intellectual prowess, and disapproving of these types can’t be such a bad thing. I ask this, because many seem to think anti-elitism is a form of pathos and that anti-elitists are merely ignorant, when in fact they may just be rebelling against what they see as pretentiousness. If a classical music purist ridicules someone for liking Bob Dylan or The Beatles, can’t one only expect the classic rock fan to find such an attitude a tad distasteful? Just throwing ideas out there and perhaps playing devil’s advocate. I’m not sure.