Simmel had a nice analysis about how style and fashion are only possible in a money economy, if you're keen to connect this with the monetary side of the blog!
I most certainly am interested. I previously was ignorant or probably forgotten the range and depth of Simmel's insights and I've been an admirer of Chicago School of Sociology, great place to evaluate Summers's post. Well done.
"Simmel, similarly, points to the existence of fashion as a particularly modern phenomenon. With the division of labor no longer necessarily tied to social class, and therefore outward class distinctions now being unnecessary to enforce, means–ends rationality now frequently grounds aesthetic choices in an ethic of authenticity. I dress the way I do, not in order to signal my subjection to the enforcement of an external community, but in order to express some internal facet of individuality (and indeed, authenticity is closely related to the aniconism and aritualism that we have argued money also make possible: see e.g., Keane 2002). Individual choice in the expression of visual signals, along with more fluid group affiliation, become possible precisely because these signals are no longer bearing the burden of organizing the division of labor."
Alexey Guzey on Tyler Cowen: What great people work on is overdetermined because it’s clear what the greatest thing to do is at any point in history.
It’s a lucky man who wakes up to find that his particular talents are needed for the age’s greatest projects. A few happy generations bounced around Europe living anonymously on the cutting edge of building cathedrals. For a few years, the best and brightest were optimizing ad delivery on the internet. Not all ages are equal. Still, it must be exciting to be where the action is.
I've never really appreciated any David Lynch or Lars von Trier movies. I don't think I've ever enjoyed an "artistic movie" like those. (Maybe Parasite counts?)
I'm willing to give it another try though.. Where should I start? What should I be looking for as I watch?
The conditions that allow and promote the flourishing of human beings natural desire to reach towards their self understood horizons are always worth investigations. And I really enjoyed your riffs on the influence of mannerism on Films.
But I want to address your challenging invitation to develop Market Monetarism.
Thank you for sharing an interesting hypothesis. It seems intuitive that for talent to develop into greatness an additional element is needed. In your hypothesis, the additional element seems to be the availability of new means of expression. This seems plausible for Italian Renaissance painting. What about Greek drama and philosophy? Athens in the fifth century b.C. represents a unique concentration of greatness that comes naturally to the mind when reflecting to the uniqueness of Florence in the fifteenth century a.C.
(Not sure that the culmination of classical Renaissance painting should be described as ‘realism’, in ‘photographic’ terms (to use sn anachronism).
Great Reinassance painting is characterised by an exploration of the ‘eternal’ forms behind outward appearance: Piero della Francesca is possibly the best illustration of this character).
I had not thought of applying the anxiety of influence argument to the Mannerists, but I think is a felicitous characterisation.
Thanks for signalling the NYT essay: I have been in love with Parmigianino since my teens.
Simmel had a nice analysis about how style and fashion are only possible in a money economy, if you're keen to connect this with the monetary side of the blog!
I most certainly am interested. I previously was ignorant or probably forgotten the range and depth of Simmel's insights and I've been an admirer of Chicago School of Sociology, great place to evaluate Summers's post. Well done.
Chapter 6 ("The Style of Life") of The Philosophy of Money. Or my paper :) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00191-023-00844-4
"Simmel, similarly, points to the existence of fashion as a particularly modern phenomenon. With the division of labor no longer necessarily tied to social class, and therefore outward class distinctions now being unnecessary to enforce, means–ends rationality now frequently grounds aesthetic choices in an ethic of authenticity. I dress the way I do, not in order to signal my subjection to the enforcement of an external community, but in order to express some internal facet of individuality (and indeed, authenticity is closely related to the aniconism and aritualism that we have argued money also make possible: see e.g., Keane 2002). Individual choice in the expression of visual signals, along with more fluid group affiliation, become possible precisely because these signals are no longer bearing the burden of organizing the division of labor."
Thanks a lot. Now I have to skim or reskim Simmel
Alexey Guzey on Tyler Cowen: What great people work on is overdetermined because it’s clear what the greatest thing to do is at any point in history.
It’s a lucky man who wakes up to find that his particular talents are needed for the age’s greatest projects. A few happy generations bounced around Europe living anonymously on the cutting edge of building cathedrals. For a few years, the best and brightest were optimizing ad delivery on the internet. Not all ages are equal. Still, it must be exciting to be where the action is.
What 21st-century film is rated higher than Mulholland Drive? And what is your top ten list of paintings?
This post reminded me of Sam Bankman-Fried’s quote about Shakespeare.
https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/comments/1728oub/sam_bankmanfried_on_why_shakespeare_isnt_a_good/
I guess he was right that the odds are that Shakespeare isn’t the most talented playwright of all time, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t the greatest.
I've never really appreciated any David Lynch or Lars von Trier movies. I don't think I've ever enjoyed an "artistic movie" like those. (Maybe Parasite counts?)
I'm willing to give it another try though.. Where should I start? What should I be looking for as I watch?
The conditions that allow and promote the flourishing of human beings natural desire to reach towards their self understood horizons are always worth investigations. And I really enjoyed your riffs on the influence of mannerism on Films.
But I want to address your challenging invitation to develop Market Monetarism.
More later
Thank you for sharing an interesting hypothesis. It seems intuitive that for talent to develop into greatness an additional element is needed. In your hypothesis, the additional element seems to be the availability of new means of expression. This seems plausible for Italian Renaissance painting. What about Greek drama and philosophy? Athens in the fifth century b.C. represents a unique concentration of greatness that comes naturally to the mind when reflecting to the uniqueness of Florence in the fifteenth century a.C.
(Not sure that the culmination of classical Renaissance painting should be described as ‘realism’, in ‘photographic’ terms (to use sn anachronism).
Great Reinassance painting is characterised by an exploration of the ‘eternal’ forms behind outward appearance: Piero della Francesca is possibly the best illustration of this character).
I had not thought of applying the anxiety of influence argument to the Mannerists, but I think is a felicitous characterisation.
Thanks for signalling the NYT essay: I have been in love with Parmigianino since my teens.