Dear Leader, Since I am in the process of comparatively studying the class and cultural similitudes in the finer arts as compared to its more reviled commercial and propagandistic brethrens, I would once again like to turn your attention towards the works linked in the next paragraph, and the South Korean video embedded below.
Go to this link first and from the pull down menu select "Crisis" and then "Pain".
Same fucking, and none too subtle diff; but might I assume, richer fucking eyeballs... Anyway, care to disagree?
Class struggle baby... and oh yes, I actually happen to like the video better; far more, how to say, culturally intriguing in it's narrative bluntness? I get another worldly cultural kick out of it by reveling in its teenage candor. As opposed to Elinor Carruci''s heavy handed stills of upper middle class emotional entitlementos!
And yet, I wonder how her work might (to) be perceived by my Korean brethren-o-parts, and how, and when, this table might well be turned to reflect their own personal attraction to more or less explicit work?
So, as the economic coin flips, so will the socio-cultural value of its arts to increasingly reflect the added value richer cultural institutions place, on more enigmatic and less accessible forms of artistic expression(ista)?
As wealth and economies mature, direct forms of communication become less and less successful and are replaced by other, more "indirect" forms of self and cultural expression. This serves to subtly differentiate the so called "cultural" classes from the less educated, but often equally affluent, classes vying to culturally influence at the top, or rather, as "they" (cabal*) like to call it, " The Center". *(a clique, as in artistic, literary, or theatrical circles).
By using such means to separate socioeconomic and cultural institutions, the so called cabalinlligentsia* maintains its perceived and sometimes real "intellectual" and cultural hegemony over the "Finer Arts"; narrowing the playing field. All the while preserving its economic and cultural dominance over its closest cultural and economic competitors. *(a clique, as in artistic, literary, or theatrical circles consisting of intellectuals when considered as a group or class, or as a cultural, social, or political elite).(again).
By intuitively or purposely manipulating these finer institutions they are able to influence its self perpetration and assert their role as the arbiters of cultural and artistic acceptability. With this comes more self perpetrating wealth, power, moral and artistic dominance for themselves and their progeny (who are probably fucking each others brains out in exclusive art schools, as we speak, think about it, imagine the possibilities!) and over the rest of society.
Reminds me of the old feudal and pre-French Revolution aristocratic system, whereas the children of the aristocracy would join the military, the clergy and the political classes to preserve their wealth, authority and power. A more contemporary vision of this would be for a powerful family or several children to each enter, the judicial, political, executive and cultural classes to continue to dominate as institutionalized families. Thereby creating large family monopolies whose purpose was to control every and all component part of the society it wishes to tax and rule (taxing, isn't it?), indeed, indeed.
Donald De Freeze.