Yeah. This comes up all the time in my house: the relationship/lack of relationship between class and "artsy" as a label. Oh, yes. So familiar. This is the conversation that comes up when my "artsy" fiancee gives me (reasonably good-natured) grief about not understanding whatever "artsy" static he bought from Aquarius Records that he likes to pretend is music, or an "artsy" painting painting I don't "get" or a sculpture I just plain don't like. Suddenly, in his eyes I'm put in the category of "The Masses" (that's the term I use instead of "mainstream" or "normal", by the way).
The Masses watch movies that star The Rock. They listen to Z100. They shop at Wal-Mart and buy all their "clean" CDs there, too. They subscribe to Us magazine. Now, I don't actually do any of these things, not that there's anything really wrong with them (except for movies with The Rock. That's truly unforgivable.). But I get pissy about it. I'm being categorized and i don't like it. So I do it right back, and call him a snob. Why? Because he's a snob. An artsy snob. Artsy people watch 2001: A Space Odyssey over and over and over and when you ask questions about what the hell is going on, they roll their eyes. They really dig Duchamp. The only good music is music that absolutely no one else is listening too. I could go on. But why does my fiancee the Sensitive Artist hate the "artsy" label? Because he is, in fact a "blue collar" and "normal" person who got in many a nose-breaking fight in South Boston as a youth for being so "artsy". Fair enough. There's a lot of crossover between "artsy" and The Masses. Mr. Artsy recently rented "Night at the Museum" and no, I'll never, ever, EVER let him live it down. I think he's even claimed he thought it was a documentary. As humans (and more specifically, I think American humans have a worse time of it) our brains jump to labels. We label, we classify, we file, we pigeonhole. Makes things easier, and frequently it's just wrong. But it's better to try and make a go of it with air quotes, than not. Carry on, Bekah -- http://www.missbhavens.com --- In [email protected], "David Meade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To David Howell's objection: I think what David is saying is that > using "normal" or "real" or some class-based term as the alternative > to "artsy" tends to imply that "artsy" therefore has some odd, fake, > or obscure measure of worth. (correct me if I'm wrong and putting > words in your mouth, David.) > > However, I agree with Cheryl ... I don't see what Charles said as all > that bad ... I like "artsy" stuff and I wasn't insulted. > > There is a reason the term "artsy" has common use (and it DOES have > common use). In terms of film/video, I have believed that the term > "artsy" is used because it's generally describing a subset of stuff > out there that is often outside of "mainstream" > consumption/expectation ... perhaps "normal" is a poor term to use for > "mainstream" but cut him some slack ... he did "quote" it - which has > the generally accepted implication of "for my lack of a better word" - > and he has since apologized for not having a better word for it. > > It's the nature of the human brain to classify and categorize and > label ... Charles didn't create the distinction of "mainstream" or > "artsy" ... and he's hardly the first to recognize it. > > > All that being said ... I'd love to see some vlogger win this contest > no matter their style! :-) > > > - Dave > > > On Feb 20, 2008 2:40 PM, Cheryl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Huh. I got what you meant. Didn't find it insulting. But now I'm > > curious - there has to be a more precise way to say it. Heath used the > > term mainstream, which seems closer and doesn't add a word implying > > social status (like "blue collar" does). > > > > How about "people who only drink the pop-culture kool-aid?" > > > > No, too weird, like me... Off to seek advice from the next wordsmith I > > see. > > > > Cheryl > > > > --- In [email protected], "Charles Iliya Krempeaux" > > <supercanadian@> wrote: > > > > > > I'm sorry you were insulted by what I said. I didn't mean to insult. > > > > > > The way it looks like to me is that whatever you want to call them... > > > the vast majority of the people I know seem to have certain tastes in > > > videos. I was trying to use a monicker that described them. > > > > > > I thought putting "normal" in quotes would be sufficient, and people > > > would know what I meant. Maybe I should have used something like... > > > "the common blue collar person". > > > > > > I thought "normal" would be a good monicker since you often hear terms > > > like "the real people" used in political discourse to describe the > > > same group. (Please note the quotes around "the real people"... and > > > that I'm not the one who came up the phrase "the real people".) > > > > > > Again, sorry if I insulted you. > > > > > > -- > > > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. > > > http://ChangeLog.ca/ > > > > > > Motorsport Videos > > > http://TireBiterZ.com/ > > > > > > Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Brook Hinton <bhinton@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Whoops just saw your followup. Gosh golly, you're right, I guess I > > > > don't have any "layman" or "common people" in my audience. Only > > > > "royalty" and "criminals"/ > > > > > > > > Sheesh. > > > > > > > > Brook > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > > > > Brook Hinton > > > > film/video/audio art > > > > www.brookhinton.com > > > > studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.DavidMeade.com >
