Tsss... I am reflecting about Aesthetics
 
Let me remind you first: I was growing in the family that liked classical music, and under Classical music we understood any music from it's very beginning -  including even Seikilos epitaph - to nowadays, with one important amendment: we are talking about music that requires many years of professional studying, for both composers and performers; in other words, so-called serious music. Sorry, fans of rap, pop, trap, mop, and alike...
What you are going to read here (if at all...) is a kind of fleeting notes: it's not a consistent scientific study, but rather my observations together with flying thoughts...
A Fox News reader asks a Hollywood reporter, Trisha Something, about a new "American Idol": "What do you think about this choice?" "The choice is just great!", the reporter joyfully cries. So, what we have now as a new "American Idol"?
A pretty girl, Carrie, who surpassed everybody else in...bawling and squalling, screaming like a fishwife on an Eastern bazaar. No vocal technique, no beauty of voice timbre...Who heard who Maria Callas is (was)? Or Dietrich Fisher-Diskau? Or Cecilia Bartoli? Maybe, a handful of "aesthetes"... What TV is feeding the public with? Just yelling at the top of one's voice, and endless drumming. All over: in movies, TV shows, news, commercials...Drumming, drumming, drumming...So, how simple is to become an Idol! Bawl louder, and this is it. Oh, I forgot: shake your genitalia as openly and often as possible. It's called now "singing". Fantastic! It's so funny to see Simon Cowell seriously aiming his harsh criticism at one "idolized" bawler while another one is already "monkeying" on the stage killing the surrounding environment with a stentorian voice.
Do I understand what American culture is and what it supposes to be preferably? What my cultural fundamentals are?

I firmly know that the first American settlers came from Europe. Therefore, they brought here at least some  elements of the European culture. The European culture is what is my culture, too. Therefore, we have to have many things in common, right? So, what causes my sadness?

Due to my unpleasant situation, I have a possibility to watch TV 24/7. I am not saying  this is good, I am saying this is the fact. The fact that made me so sad, in particular. What I see, what I hear?

Oh, btw, remember? We are talking here about culture, aesthetics, not politics. To read about the role TV played in my American political education, please go to an appropriate page

Not so long time ago, Pat Buchanan (whom I far from always agree with) emphasized that some 40-50 years ago it would be absolutely unimaginable to see on TV screens what a young whor...sorry, flippant girl Paris Hilton demonstrated in Burger chain Carl's Jr. commercial.

What made me very much upset is the reaction some otherwise quite respected people have shown in their response to this event.

Yes, yes, yes, I remember we are in a free society, everybody is free to do what s/he likes. Is that so?
Then why we don't have officially allowed brothels? I know some activists are trying to make them legal, for instance - our much-esteemed Judge Ruth Ginzburg... But still...
And what about legal sexual intercourse in a church in public? As far as I recall, two brave youngsters were fired for such an escapade in the St. Patrick Cathedral. Which means, despite free country, there are some limitations, right? I believe, it's right. We, free people, cannot kill our mother without being imprisoned. Some can kill their ex-wife and go free, though, but this is again an issue for the Political page.

So, when the above-mentioned Commercial appeared in public, I was not shocked by what and how that rich dissolute damsel showed. I was frustrated by Keith Olberman's reaction. His "vision" had cast a gloom over me because, to my opinion, he underestimated some facts that are a manifestation of a very serious - and sad - processes in our society. I sent Keith a letter saying:

"Today I just wanted to call your attention to your jokingly flippant description of a creature who unfortunately repetitively, in other words - already professionally, demonstrates open lewdness and profligacy. It's not so funny that this behavior is treated as "a lovely prank" of a pretty girl. In fact, it confirms that the society - led by mass media (you and alike)  - shows permissiveness of promiscuity and thus is spreading Libertinism. Are you sure that the moral health of the society is not important?

In your words, "…the bikini-clad hotel heiress washes and hoses down a car while trying to eat a hamburger. Talk about multi-tasking.  That’s talent."

I am not sure that your words describe that young creature better than something like this: "The manner how that young and pretty(?) girl is faking a process of washing and hosing a car while eating a hamburger, exhibits - absolutely shamelessly and with a visible keen pleasure - the behavior of a harlot. If you recall how she "served" some guys in front of a video camera, you can surely talk about her sexual "multi-tasking" and professional talents".

What leads the producers of such things? I remember that one of them was insisting that there is nothing bad neither in the behavior itself nor in its public demonstration. What is that? Real belief? Wordy excuse for what any decent society treats as inappropriate? Money doesn't smell?

How can I be smiling on such "street professionals" when they are filling out the TV screens?

I cannot accustom myself to the 24/7-process of intentional profanation and dirtying of sexual relations by TV and satiated Hollywood public. I feel a physical aversion for scenes on 73rd Cable TV Channel where a rugose old woman thrusts a rubber phallus into her mouth, which certain people defend as a much needed sexual education. Poor we! How we only survived since Australopithecus era without such lessons!

Listen, you, defenders! I don't want the Great Sex, a very important part of the Great Love, to be smeared and aspersed to the level of defecation and urination that you're so eager to show in public.

I don't like when everything is conducted in the public toilets, like "Ally McBeal" and tons of other your production. I am tired smelling public W.C. Give me a tiny bit of perfume, damn!

I don't like that the real - I mean real - good music in movies of the last ten-twenty years is being intentionally associated with bad personages, while "good" characters are being accompanied by manifold-monotonous "Dreck mit Pfeffer", to say in an elegant way. For an audience that barely reads and counts (see my Reflections and Just facts about our education system), a liaison "classical music->bad boy" and "good boy-drumming noise you call 'music'" is being intentionally imposed. It's not the audience that asks you to associate a terrorist or a drug kingpin with Chopin or bank robbers with 9th Symphony by Beethoven, it's you who are methodically destroying the social pillars and taste.

The last movie I saw with a non-twisted, sound, natural link between a good personage and good music, was "Dying Young", 1991, with Julia Roberts and Campbell Scott. Then, a "strange darkness has covered me, the wretched one"...

I know you'll tell me: we are in the free country, you don't want to watch? Don't watch! Don't want to listen? Don't listen! But there is nothing else on TV Channels because of your money-thirsty sexual and drumming addiction. And you are deliberately, on purpose creating a cultural desert. No, jungle. Damn you.

May 25, 2005, I heard Pat Buchanan saying to Bill O'Reilly about our failure in culture war, about "soft cultural Marxism" victory in our society. He actually repeated the same thoughts I expressed in my poems many times. I don't necessarily agree with his definition "Marxism" since Marxists-Leninists-Stalinists in my former country allowed sex only to themselves. But if we recall something what in 1920s in the former Soviet Russia adopted a name of a "theory of a glass of water", then we easily find a lot in common between Communist Morality of 1920s and American Libertinism of nowadays. Just listen: "The sexual act must be seen not as something shameful and sinful but as something which is as natural as the other needs of healthy organism. such as hunger and thirst."

I agree with Alexandra Kollontai, author of these words*, that there is nothing "shameful" and "sinful" in Sex...but I agree if it is treated as a part of Love, which she didn't; I never agree with almost everything else she said:

"it should above all be established that the isolation of the “couple” as a special unit does not answer the interests of communism..."; "The needs and interests of the individual must be subordinated to the interests and aims of the collective. On the one hand, therefore, the bonds of family and marriage must be weakened, and on the other, men and women need to be educated in solidarity and the subordination of the will of the individual to the will of the collective. Even at this present, early stage. the workers’ republic demands that mothers, learn to be the mothers not only of their own child but of all workers’ children; it does not recognize the couple as a self-sufficient unit. and does not therefore approve of wives deserting work for the sake of this unit.";  "Secondly. communist morality demands the education of the younger generation in responsibility to the collective and in the consciousness that love is not the only thing in life (this is especially important in the case of women, for they have been taught the opposite for centuries). Love is only one aspect of life. and must not be allowed to overshadow the other facets of the relationships between individual and collective. The ideal of the bourgeoisie was the married couple, where the partners complemented each other so completely that they had no need of contact with society. Communist morality demands, on the contrary, that the younger generation be educated in such a way that the personality of the individual is developed to the full. and the individual with his or her many interests has contact with a range of persons of both sexes. Communist morality encourages the development of many and varied bonds of love and friendship among people. The old ideal was “all for the loved ones”; communist morality demands all for the collective."..

and so on. and so forth.

Are there still adherents of Communism here? I don't know what about you, but I am sick reading this Communists crap.

* This chef-d'oeuvre is called "Theses on Communist Morality in the Sphere of Marital Relations"

This is a "philosophical" aspect of the issue. But it relates to both aesthetics and social life. Pat (I mean, Buchanan), I agree with you this time: we are defeated by domestic Marxists. In everything related to Sex. But it is not a finish yet. They are much more persistent in their attacks. Just like Bolsheviks.
OK, but why am I so opposed to the sexual rowdyism and roistering? Why don't I agree when they call Penthouse hussies "continuation of ancient Greece tradition" as they recently started doing on TV? What in particular don't I like in the Sabbath our weariless vigilant Hollywood and TV vaginitocephalopithecines*  and spermatosaurs* are up to? Why not to relax and let them copulate in front of my nose as much as they have sperm and vaginal delirium? Hmm...Perhaps, the problem lies in me? Forget about woman enigma! Simply throw a bit of meat into a saucepan. "...hunger and thirst..." Why not to install cameras inside toilet bowls and keep door open? For the sake of greater Realism and Materialism...Damn the Christian morality and pudency, all this bourgeois superstitions crap! ... But my grief is that I feel abandoned and thrown into a shoreless ocean of boiling glands discharge.
* Don't even think to find these nice words in any Dictionary: they are my own inventions that I am proud of. If you don't yet understand them in their entire beauty, I highly recommend you to vote for major changes in our education system and keep your eyes on teachers' Unions and Civil Rights activists preventing them from stealing your money like they already did many times.
 
to be continued...

 

This site was last updated 09/21/05