 |
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I just want my MTV! |
MTV is still in New York isn't it? When it first started in was shot in New York but it wasn't available IN New York for quite a while. Not sure how long, at least a year.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
True, but at least I list things. Other here simply claim that so and so city is greater than other cities without listing something unique that city has contributed to world culture.
Last edited by Ned on 17-10-2002 at 08:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
culture != high culture. If it did, you wouldn't have to add the word "high". Culture is about the way people live their lives - not how some cooler-than-thou type thinks they ought to live their lives.
Now that the OBVIOUS is out of the way clearly Paris is out of the running. The Parisian mono-culture is cool, interesting etc. but it is not nearly as influential as the Parisians would love the rest of us to believe.
Determining the world-capital of culture is all about deciding whose culture is the most dominant. Just look at all the McDonalds the world over - that is culture, whether you find it edifying or not. Clearly US culture is the most dominant. And in the US, NY culture is the most dominant (though the LA/Orange county entertainment industry does give it a run for its money in filmed entertainment, NYC holds its own there and kills in all the other big categories (music, fashion, language, food, etc.)).
So NYC is the clear winner.
As for "high culture" - pfft, whatever.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
really - your eating a big mac has nothing to do with some jackass food chain? What - you make them yourself?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by - Groucho -
culture != high culture. If it did, you wouldn't have to add the word "high". Culture is about the way people live their lives - not how some cooler-than-thou type thinks they ought to live their lives.
Now that the OBVIOUS is out of the way clearly Paris is out of the running. The Parisian mono-culture is cool, interesting etc. but it is not nearly as influential as the Parisians would love the rest of us to believe.
Determining the world-capital of culture is all about deciding whose culture is the most dominant. Just look at all the McDonalds the world over - that is culture, whether you find it edifying or not. Clearly US culture is the most dominant. And in the US, NY culture is the most dominant (though the LA/Orange county entertainment industry does give it a run for its money in filmed entertainment, NYC holds its own there and kills in all the other big categories (music, fashion, language, food, etc.)).
So NYC is the clear winner.
As for "high culture" - pfft, whatever. |
Groucho, I agree with everything you said here, but I don't think you supported your conclusion with any facts. What is it about NY that dominates US culture, let alone world culture?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MOBIUS
|
 |
Prifysgol Caerdydd
Dec 1999
time: 15:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
New York is the current world capital of theater. A show isn't considered "there" until it is a hit on Broadway. It is the world's litmus test for hit theater. |
Andrew Lloyd Webber anyone?
Sure he’s not the same force he was a while back, but for a while he practically was broadway!!! Apparently he was even rated as the most powerful person in the American theatre in a list compiled by TheaterWeek magazine – he was born and bred in London, y’know…
So let’s see then, the plays are still dominated by Shakespeare (who did most of his stuff in London, the musicals are a bit better except that all the longest running famous stuff is not American: Aida, Les Miserables, Phantom (longest running by that famous Londoner Andy ), some of the stuff that pretends to be American is plagiarised (Miss Saigon is based on Madame Butterfly! The there’s a whole passel of stuff that’s based in Europe such as Cabaret (Berlin), or Mamma Mia (Greek Island with Swedish songs!). Still there is room for all this European talent/subject matter for the odd US musical like the Disney ones, Chicago or Oklahoma etc… . As for Opera, let’s not even go there…
As for the litmus test, American actors like Kevin Spacey don’t think they’ve really made it as actors unless they’ve trodden the boards of the West End, not to mention all those that don’t feel they’ve arrived unless they’ve been in a Shakespearian (the guy who had to come to London to make it big!) play…
Sorry.
quote:
This is laughably untrue. New York is the capital of America's independent films, and there are HUNDREDS of independent film theaters, festivals, premieres, shootings, etc. I know because I attend them all the time, and see them filmed here all the time, and am friends with indy filmmakers. |
Ah well I meant, foreign films actually so I guess I should have said ‘Arthouse’ (you know, anything that’s not a Hollywood movie! ) – as best as I could tell there weren’t any, or they were hiding extremely well. Our NY friends said that the last one had closed a year or two ago… Imagine the ‘Cultural Capital of the World’ not showing any foreign films in it’s cinemas… In London they show foreign language films in mainstream cinemas, let alone ‘Arthouse’ cinemas. Besides, didn’t Lumiere show his first film in Paris? So all Hollywood is doing is spreading a Parisian idea!
quote:
New York surpasses London as a fashion, music and literature center. |
Frankly I don’t know enough to comment, but I would like you to give reasons instead of just blithely stating these things as fact…
Fashion: We’re part of the fashion triumvurate of London-Paris-New York, so I’d say we’re up there…
Music: Well, most acts are recorded in good ole London, remember the famous Beatles Abbey Road pic??? Whereas NY would have to play 2nd fiddle to LA. Then there’s stuff like Paul Oakenfold being recognised as the best DJ in the World, that has to count for something…
Literature: Again, don’t know enough to comment but I have real trouble believing NY surpasses London on a literary front – convince me…
quote:
It's also more multi-cultural. |
Only because yours is a country of immigrants. We do very well over here given EEC nationals can freely live and work here, the there’s the Commonwealth etc. At least we play their films here and the communities don’t sanitise/subsume their cultures to become more acceptable to the American mainstream – I had sushi in a Japanese Restaurant in Greenwich Village where they served watered down wasabi
So NY can’t even put in a convincing cultural lead with the ‘modern stuff’, and I notice you totally neglected to mention all the ‘old stuff’ where NY is (literally) non-existant!
So, on balance when you add all that too – London beats NY by a country mile! You know miles, that Imperial – British invention!
NY timekeeping is governed by London and, unless my eyes deceive me, you’re writing in English
No matter how hard NY tries, it will never escape London’s shadow…
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
From Britannica.com*:
quote:
Culture
Main Entry: 1cul·ture
Pronunciation: 'k&l-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin cultura, from cultus, past participle
Date: 15th century
1 : CULTIVATION, TILLAGE
2 : the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education
3 : expert care and training
4 a : enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training b : acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills
5 a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes a company or corporation
6 : cultivation of living material in prepared nutrient media; also : a product of such cultivation |
From reading this thread, it seems that most Europeans think of definition 4(b) when they think of "culture", but Americans think of definition 5(b). Probably depends upon how they were taught - I for one know that we are taught that "culture" is, pretty-much, everything that influences a particular society, regardless of whether it is "tasteful." That, to me, seems to be the big sticking point here.
So, using the above wording, which is your definition of "culture"?
*Before MOBIUS pounces and cries "A-HA, another London influence", let me note that their dictionary of choice is the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is an American publication. I guess they're still sparring with those Oxfordian bastards. ( http://www.m-w.com/about/mwqa.htm )
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MOBIUS
|
|
Prifysgol Caerdydd
Dec 1999
time: 15:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
By the way, MOBIUS, I wouldn't use Andrew Lloyd Webber as an arguing point for the supremacy of London culture. But, then, perhaps it is a matter of taste. |
I did feel a bit queasy mentioning him I have to admit…
But surely that’s a damning indictment of New Yorker’s taste, the fact that he’s so incredibly popular over there…
Personally I would have stuck with Shakespeare, but a lot of Americans here wanted modern equivalents – what can you do?
I agree with your dictionary findings, I would be a definite ‘4’ in the ‘pure’ respect, though I also agree with ‘5’. What I’m saying is that London has about 2,000 years (*waits for pedantic Italian*) as a major centre, whereas NY only has a couple of hundred years to draw on all definitions of culture. London holds it’s own in the here and now, and historically wins hands down.
Just to be really pedantic, one of Hollywood’s favourite evil English accents is cockney which is from London, Guv’nor
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
tinyp3nis
|
 |
compensate this!!
May 2002
time: 07:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by - Groucho -
culture != high culture. If it did, you wouldn't have to add the word "high". Culture is about the way people live their lives - not how some cooler-than-thou type thinks they ought to live their lives.
Now that the OBVIOUS is out of the way clearly Paris is out of the running. The Parisian mono-culture is cool, interesting etc. but it is not nearly as influential as the Parisians would love the rest of us to believe.
Determining the world-capital of culture is all about deciding whose culture is the most dominant. Just look at all the McDonalds the world over - that is culture, whether you find it edifying or not. Clearly US culture is the most dominant. And in the US, NY culture is the most dominant (though the LA/Orange county entertainment industry does give it a run for its money in filmed entertainment, NYC holds its own there and kills in all the other big categories (music, fashion, language, food, etc.)).
So NYC is the clear winner.
As for "high culture" - pfft, whatever. |
--->
quote:
Determining the world-capital of culture is all about deciding whose culture is the most dominant. Just look at all the McDonalds the world over - that is culture, whether you find it edifying or not. Clearly US culture is the most dominant. |
It's none to do with whos culture, we are still talking about a single city right? Also if it is an american city, the city must be viewed from worlds perspective, NOT just from USA's view. Don't mention Mcdonald's if it's not from NY.
I admit I dunno were Mcdonald's originated but I have a feeling that you just mentioned something american.
Remember, one city!
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-10-2002 23:40
|