This Scorcese op-ed is an elegant expression of a philosophy of aesthetics that is, I believe, ultimately indefensible https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html …
-
-
He's just making a mild and gracious concession to philistinism.
-
I'm a sucker for anyone that uses "philistinism" in a sentence.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's an explanation for where his views come from, not a concession of non-cognitivism. Were he to concede that, then the conceptual architecture of the piece would completely fall apart. That's particularly clear in the conclusion, which rests on arguments about value.pic.twitter.com/dOvGihRCcJ
-
I think this argument is not about values but economic structures. He's saying that there was once a structure that allowed for personal art within the context of mass entertainment (i.e. 1940s film noir) but now structure separates mass entertainment & personal art.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.