300 karma · joined July 2, 2010
Why does ideology force Berger to diss their work and minimize how popular and well-liked they were? Because they showed ordinary people enjoying themselves in the first mass society in the world in ordinary everyday settings. But Marxism says ordinary everyday society is oppressive and the people ground down by a brutal capitalist elite. He can't get himself to understand that Western European everyday life of the late nineteenth century was the best life ever for ordinary people anywhere in the world or anywhere in history, and the fact that they were out happily enjoying it in a civilized urban way was a new thing in the world, and depicting that was an important advance in art.
They were trying to absorb (and convey) the beauty and the often transcendent message of the painting. Of course, starting with modernism, elite culture's obsession with society and how bad it was meant that even the artists were mostly not aiming for beauty and an uplifting vision. This is where, in my opinion, it all started to go downhill for visual art.
Great art is above and beyond such crude bracketing. Berger is part of the trend in western art since modernism that abandons beauty and the transcendent for dull ideology.
When companies make profit, it doesn't mean we get screwed, nor even that they have a high profit margin. The grocery chain stores are a prime example. They typically make 2-3% net margins on revenue, and provide fresh, clean, reasonably well-tested groceries close to our home for that margin. Imagine trying to get equivalent quality fresh groceries ourselves from the producers, and I'm guessing it would cost at least three times as much.
I know it doesn't feel that way, but that's because of the hedonic treadmill.
The inflation adjustment includes everything: housing, education, and their proportion in the average US family's bucket, so calling out a specific item like education or housing doesn't change that data.
They do, however, require that I take a burner device or wipe it completely, if I travel to China.
Not according to this article, which looks into it.
When the cost of such claims goes to zero, that assumed dynamic will no longer work.
Also, this is where Rutherford's "all science is either physics or stamp collecting" holds a lot of water. As you move up the science layers, the laws themselves become less mathematically rigid until by the time you get to the social sciences, explanations are all hand-waving, and all "laws" are statistical at best and empirical.
- This change of what used be a functional object into a brand was done to appeal to one-upmanship (my watch is more expensive than yours) rather than the aesthetic urge which drives appreciation for art. He doesn't blame the watch brands, it may have been the only way they could survive after the triple shock. But..
- If you're an engineer and techie type and are drawn to the complexity and mechanistic elegance of mechanical watches, he's warning you that the problems being worked on in the brand age actually take you away from good functional design which attracted you there in the first place.
Some people, I guess. Looks like more than half the people approve of what he's doing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/trump-approva...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption...