Should Five People Decide?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 3:11 AM GMT
    What music you listen to, what books you read, what movies you watch? You do know that it eventually comes down to just a few people who make the final decisions on what gets highly publicized. Initially both the Charlie Brown Christmas Special and Wizard of OZ were slated to be scrapped, but voices pushed them through. Think about it. How many other great works of art have never seen the light of day based on the opinions of so few people.

    So I ask again, YES or NO, should five or less people decide what would entertain you?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Dec 18, 2010 3:19 AM GMT
    Yes, if the majority of them share my taste in what constitutes entertainment.
    No, if they don't.

    Currently, they don't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 4:25 AM GMT
    How very Orwellian 1984!
    I decide what or who entertains me. And so far Vic, youre the only one right now whose peaking my interest, especially with your cooking dinner. Yummy! icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 4:25 AM GMT
    wrestlervic saidSo I ask again, YES or NO, should five or less people decide what would entertain you?
    No. That's why I like the internet for finding music.
    In fact, I have no idea what five people you're referring to. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 4:28 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    wrestlervic saidSo I ask again, YES or NO, should five or less people decide what would entertain you?
    No. That's why I like the internet for finding music.
    In fact, I have no idea what five people you're referring to. icon_wink.gif


    I love you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 4:30 AM GMT
    . . . your either/or proposition doesn't really hold up . . .

    . . . why? because good taste coupled with courage has its own momentum and raison d'etre . . .

    . . in other words, authoritarians like meninlove can pontificate and censor all they want, but the true arbiters of the long term zeitgeist reside outside of your befuddled lowbrow system . . .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 4:32 AM GMT
    Excellent question. However, I don't think that you went far enough. Not only do a small elite get to pick and choose what you will be exposed to, they also get to dictate what gets made in many cases. The simple fact is that very few people are willing to create art for arts sake. Somebody has to back theater, somebody has to publish and promote a book. Nobody will create a television show that casts a negative or poses questions on the concentration media outlets as none of the networks are going to carry it.

    Basically, those who you reference get to suppress certain elements while promoting others even if they do not have a direct relationship with the artist. To answer those who would disagree; you can find some artists who are willing to forgo commercial success, but it is rare. Most of what we are exposed to is exactly what we are fed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 4:34 AM GMT
    No.

    Now, please continue with your next point. icon_smile.gif
  • swogdog

    Posts: 143

    Dec 18, 2010 5:50 AM GMT
    Yes.

    It belongs to whomever made it, or more probably, to whomever funded it, and they have the right to release it or not based on their whim. Most likely, it comes down to protecting investments or protecting image.

    The only art you come close to having a guarantee of seeing is the art you create.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 3:06 PM GMT
    If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 3:22 PM GMT
    If you make just a little effort you can find all kinds of music on the internet that is much better than anything done by Katy Perry, Gaga, or Beyonce. There are hundreds of television stations today and you don't have to settle for just watching Real Housewives, CSI, or American Idol. Every major city has art house theaters and Netflix offers nearly every movie out there so you can find much more than just the few movies the industry is pushing this week. There are independent music labels, independent movie studios, and many small book publishers. The internet is a good tool to find them, so don't be lazy and accept what is handed to you. Don't let the corporate world limit what you hear, see, read, and experience. Use the power you have in this information age to find alternatives.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 3:24 PM GMT
    wrestlervic saidWhat music you listen to, what books you read, what movies you watch? You do know that it eventually comes down to just a few people who make the final decisions on what gets highly publicized. Initially both the Charlie Brown Christmas Special and Wizard of OZ were slated to be scrapped, but voices pushed them through. Think about it. How many other great works of art have never seen the light of day based on the opinions of so few people.

    What VOICES and what FIVE people? I think you're HEARING voices... icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 3:45 PM GMT
    i like harry potter
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 3:47 PM GMT
    wrestlervic saidWhat music you listen to, what books you read, what movies you watch? You do know that it eventually comes down to just a few people who make the final decisions on what gets highly publicized. Initially both the Charlie Brown Christmas Special and Wizard of OZ were slated to be scrapped, but voices pushed them through. Think about it. How many other great works of art have never seen the light of day based on the opinions of so few people.

    So I ask again, YES or NO, should five or less people decide what would entertain you?


    That's ... deep. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 6:12 PM GMT
    It is kind of scary and points out how truly random many important decisions are.

    I've attended several hearings where a law was being passed based on nothing more than one forceful opinion or claim of fact. Even a national academy panel that was writing recommendations for federal policy. When one person eventually pointed out that the emperor had no clothes (usually me) all the opinion flipped 180° in the other direction. The problem is that they didn't usually check my facts either. Like a flock of sheep before a border collie.

    Sometimes I wonder if a system of decision-making based on coin flips would be any different than what we have now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 6:30 PM GMT
    mindgarden saidSometimes I wonder if a system of decision-making based on coin flips would be any different than what we have now.

    This was a dilemma the US Founders faced, in proposing a democracy. Were ordinary people qualified to decide their own fate, or should it remain in the hands of an elite aristocracy, bred to the role over generations? Would mob rule be better than rule by the anointed? Can rule by committee be better than rule by an single autocrat?

    I favor a true democracy, but as Benjamin Franklin said, the wisest of the US Founders, only if we can keep it. I wonder if we've managed to do that. I think the US has become an oligarchy (Google it), and real democracy has ceased. Americans still vote. but mostly as we're told.

    The candidate who wins is the one with the most money in most cases, and that money comes from a narrow special interest segment, not from the people at large. US Politicians are for sale, if you can afford the price. But ordinary citizens aren't even invited to the auction.

    There's no money to be made from the ordinary people, and most politicians go where the money is, to fatten their own hides. I think it was the ancient Roman Emperor Augustus who said he liked to keep his provincial governors in place, because after they had made themselves wealthy through graft & corruption, they would finally concentrate on governing well.

    Unfortunately in the US, our politicians never seem to get enough. And the critics of democracy are being proven right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 6:38 PM GMT
    charlitos saidi like harry potter


    Yay !!! ... me too , haha

    as for the question ... u now ... your statement is not entirely truth.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 6:41 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    mindgarden saidSometimes I wonder if a system of decision-making based on coin flips would be any different than what we have now.

    This was a dilemma the US Founders faced, in proposing a democracy. Were ordinary people qualified to decide their own fate, or should it remain in the hands of an elite aristocracy, bred to the role over generations? Would mob rule be better than rule by the anointed? Can rule by committee be better than rule by an autocrat?

    I favor a true democracy, but as Benjamin Franklin said, the wisest of the US Founders, only if we can keep it. I wonder if we've managed to do that. I think the US has become an oligarchy (Google it), and real democracy has ceased. Americans still vote. but mostly as we're told.

    The candidate who wins is the one with the most money in most cases, and that money comes from a narrow special interest segment, not from the people at large. US Politicians are for sale, if you can afford the price.




    This is all I needed to know when I followed the US Presidential elections back in 2008.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 6:45 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 6:48 PM GMT
    art_mariobros said
    charlitos saidi like harry potter


    Yay !!! ... me too , haha

    as for the question ... u now ... your statement is not entirely truth.icon_rolleyes.gif


    It absolutely is true. When artists submit music or films or even News, a small handful, often one person, decides whether it should go further. Did you know that, outside of the top stories, many of the items you see on the news are decided by interns? I was told this by a news producer. People call in or submit stories and it's an intern that decides whether it is newsworthy most of time before they pass it on.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 6:48 PM GMT
    kangourou saidThis is all I needed to know when I followed the US Presidential elections back in 2008.

    You should have followed the US Presidential election in 2000, when Al Gore won more actual votes, but George Bush won the Electoral College, thanks to Republicans on the US Supreme Court. You do know that Bush got fewer votes than Gore, and still moved into the White House, right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 7:00 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    kangourou saidThis is all I needed to know when I followed the US Presidential elections back in 2008.

    You should have followed the US Presidential election in 2000, when Al Gore won more actual votes, but George Bush won the Electoral College, thanks to Republicans on the US Supreme Court. You do know that Bush got fewer votes than Gore, and still moved into the White House, right?


    Yes, thanks to the Michael Moore books that flooded our bookstores, suddenly we all learnt how the election was 'stolen' from Gore etc. Gore won the popular vote by 500 votes, but Bush won the electoral college. One of the true oddities of the US electoral system is that you can lose the popular vote yet still become president. Moral of the story - you don't have a true democracy with electoral colleges.

    Half the reason why the Australian founding fathers went to such lengths in our constitution to avoid one ever being created.
  • bmw0

    Posts: 588

    Dec 18, 2010 7:02 PM GMT
    With as many choices are there currently are for entertainment, i hardly see your point. If you want to see something different go find it.

    So yes, they should for the general public. If you want to change that you could always aspire to be one of those "five"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 7:06 PM GMT
    bmw0 saidWith as many choices are there currently are for entertainment, i hardly see your point. If you want to see something different go find it.

    So yes, they should for the general public. If you want to change that you could always aspire to be one of those "five"


    Who the fuck are you? icon_wink.gif
  • bmw0

    Posts: 588

    Dec 18, 2010 7:10 PM GMT
    HAHA! Just call me captain obvious? ;)