Comment by _qbjt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _qbjt | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You can cite individual examples of talented people who were born with privilege and I can cite entire genres and art forms that were born out of struggle. The foundation of Western music, the blues, originated on American slave plantations. Punk music was started by poor and disaffected youth in the United Kingdom. Hip hop, the most popular and innovative genre of music today, was invented by African American youth who continue to be systematically disenfranchised and discriminated against in our society. These are artistic movements that changed the course of history and I'm only talking about music. The same can be said for other mediums and if you'd like me to present arguments supporting this claim I'd be happy to do so.

Let me address your two cherry-picked examples though. Lady Gaga is overrated. Without the aesthetic (which is an amalgamation of many creative energies from different backgrounds), she would be another formulaic pop artist. Sorry to any Gaga fans, but her music is not that interesting on its own. She's no Björk or Nina Simone or SOPHIE. Her time at an "elite private school in Manhattan" apparently didn't teach her how to color outside the lines. Give me the name of her magnum opus and I will gladly stack it against any number of great albums, both indie and mainstream, from the past 10 years. She won't fare well.

Spike Lee is a more interesting example. I love Spike Lee. He does come from a relatively well-to-do background. But you have to admit, the subject matter of his work tends to focus on disenfranchised people and communities. We also can't ignore the racial prejudices of people in Hollywood that may have made his story a bit more turbulent. I'd have to look into this a bit more but I'm willing to bet it's not as simple as you think.

Final note, I apologize if any of my arguments here have come across as insensitive. I believe that personal struggle plays a huge role in the creation of important artists and creators but I absolutely do not see that as a valid excuse for social injustice. My original point was only targeted to OP's post. The Yale professor mentioned in this article and the students calling him "disgusting" are largely insignificant in my view, and I considered it a waste of a click (especially considering NYT only gives you three free reads a month).

> ... I can cite entire genres and art forms that were born out of struggle.

Can you name anything like that besides music? I'm genuinely curious.

Sure, although my original comment was flagged so no one else will see this (pretty ironic considering the “free speech” arguments of other commenters in this thread).

When I mention "modern art" one might be quick to associate it with the type of people I was criticizing in my original post; rich, well-adjusted individuals who go to Ivy League schools and end up spending more money on paintings than you or I will ever see in our lives. But it didn't start this way. If you trace modern art back to its roots, you'll find a trend among most of the foundational artists and painters of this period: personal turmoil and careers which were almost universally dismissed by the art schools and museums of the time.

Vincent van Gogh's last words before shooting himself in the chest with a revolver is reported to have been, "The sadness will last forever." Indeed, van Gogh lived a troubled life of alcoholism, poor academic performance and psychotic episodes. He is also widely credited as being one of the most important 19th century painters and an artist whose works serve as an underpinning of expressionism, one of the foundational stylistic movements of modern art. We see similar lives of turmoil among other important post-impressionists during this period. Paul Gauguin, who witnessed domestic abuse and death in the family at an early age, ended up broke and living in a hut in Panama when he produced some of his most important works.

Of course there were other key post-impressionists who lived less tragic lives, such as Henri Matisse who was lucky enough to be non-Jewish during the Nazi occupation of Paris. He and other artists of this movement were harshly criticized and rejected by the art establishment of the time, however, which considered their rejection of tradition an affront to art. Nonetheless, it's this artistic movement that led to an entire era of artistic experimentation; expressionism, cubism, surrealism, abstract art, pop art and other genres would follow.

Your original point was that "[v]irtually [no]" good culture comes out of elite institutions. I cited two examples, there are many more. Of course much more culture is created outside of elite institutions than within them, but that's largely because elite institutions are by their very nature very small.

Those "rich pricks at Yale, Harvard, etc" make up a tiny fraction of society, likely far less than 1%. Accordingly, it would be crazy to think they create a majority or even a plurality of culture.

However, they do have a very outsize influence. They make up less than 1% of the population, but contribute much more than that percentage to culture (I'd unscientifically gander somewhere between 2 and 8%).

Also, my intention was never to give an exhaustive list of artists that went to elite schools, but your point focused on "great" culture, and while Lady Gaga is definitely beloved by many (and I personally think she's pretty great), it's understandable that some would find that a controversial choice.

So here are a few more "cherry-picked" pop musicians, surely some of them would qualify under your rubric:

- Tom Morello - Rage Against the Machine - Harvard

- Lauryn Hill - Columbia (dropped out, but released The Score while still a student)

- Alicia Keys - Columbia (dropped out after growing fame)

- Greg Graffin - Bad Religion (punk band) - Cornell PhD

In the non-pop world, at least classical and much avante garde, much of the new activity is based out of these "elite institutions".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com