Are We All Snobs Now?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- The Philosophy of Snobbery
It’s easy to hate on snobs who think they understand culture better than you do. But what actually makes a certain manner of cultural consumption snobby, and is it inherently bad? What do snobs do for culture on a philosophical level? And where do critics fit into the puzzle? Let’s find out in this Wisecrack Edition: Do We Need Snobs?
Support us on Patreon! ► / wisecrack
Join this channel to get access to perks ► / @wisecrackedu
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
Why Murderers Can Be Good Philosophers ► • Why Murderers Can Be G...
Easter Eggs Are Ruining Culture ► • Easter Eggs Are Ruinin...
Is Netflix Ruining Film? ► • Is Netflix Ruining Film?
Written by Amanda Scherker and Michael Lodato
Researched by Michael Lodato
Hosted by Michael Burns
Directed by Michael Luxemburg
Edited by Jackson Maher
Produced by Olivia Redden
Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound
#Snobbery #culture #philosophy
© 2023 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc. / Enthusiast Gaming
We didn’t do that, we went to a strip show. He’s lying.
WE HAD A DEAL AND PROMISED NOT TO TELL
@@WisecrackEDU Thunder Down Under was in top form. Epic night bros.
Wait, I don’t remember this. I thought we didn’t even go out that night? Oh no, are there pictures of me there?
I remember the VHS tape. Not much else.
Wait. . . Yall didn't invite me tho. . . ouch
I think the issue isn't snobs. It's people who weaponize the snobbery to make others feel bad for their interests. Like people who whine about mixing on albums because they watched Fantano once. Or someone watched a Cinemasins video and now shits on scifi movies not following physics. And thinking that makes the work immediately bad.
I think snobbery is defined by the preformative aspect. Part of that performance is belittling everyone else for knowing less than them
something you mentioned that im actively working on is enjoying music that isn't mix and mastered by the best on the planet. My ears have been spoiled by periphery, animals as leaders, polyphia, and archspire, so When i go back and listen to songs i used to really enjoy i find myself distracted because I end up picking apart the mix the whole time.
That is definitely the worst part, but simply performing snobbery for social capital isn’t particularly virtuous either
That's fair. All I ask is that people know exactly why they like what they like and are able to articulate this reasonably well. If I present good reasons to think it is of poor quality, I expect people to acknowledge this, while still, perhaps, liking whatever it is in question. There are movies I like that I know are not good movies, for example.
Ah, yes, humanity's ongoing project to build hierarchy where none exists, that they might elevate themselves at the cost of others.
I typically define a "snob" as someone who embraces and worships "high culture" for its own sake and disdains and eschews all things they see as "pedestrian" and "common," and who believes that their taste in things makes them an inherently better, savvier, smarter, and more sophisticated person than *you.*
I respect and appreciate people who authentically enjoy what they enjoy because they enjoy it, and whose pickiness or persnicketiness (as sometimes perceived by others) comes from a genuine place of passion and caring. People some might call "snobs" or "hipsters" serve an important social function when they call out shoddiness, laziness, shallowness, low standards, hypocrisy, deceptiveness, pretentiousness, and/or anti-intellectualism.
I am annoyed by people who always go with the popular flow because it's popular, and find myself equally irritated with "black sheep" who go *against* the flow just as robotically and mindlessly as the trend-followers they disdain! Refusing to enjoy something because other people like it isn't all that different from feeling you have to enjoy something because others do.
For the question of "do we need snobs?", Wisecrack answers "watch Babylon 2022."
The difference between a snob and a critic is that the latter adds value.
Critics get paid.
@@haroldoftherock8973 so if the former doesn't get paid and doesn't add value, while the latter adds value and gets paid...
Are we looking at an inverse transitive property, or a transitive property of evaluation?
Logic be weird y'all.
I was just being a smart ass. I wasn't looking to play a semantics game 🤷♂️
@@ricochetbabalon257 but it’s not up to the “snob” if the person decided to take offense for their poor choices saying “I am entitled to an opinion”. Clearly when opinions can be wrong
I think "snob" can be subjective. A critic can be considered a snob, depending on the context. There are PLENTY of film critics considered "film snobs" because they constantly recommend (in my opinion) unwatchable films, catering to a select audience. I think , even before the internet, one found a critic who tended to like films in their own taste, to listen to. It's actually the basis of the Evil Algorithim that ruined society.
In my country, films that aren't part of a franchise are pretty rare in the cinema lineups. Especially if they don't get Oscar buzz.
Who's not letting who enjoy their favorite films?
I think there is a cultural factor as well. In several Asian cultures, if you're not classically trained, you're not allowed to have an opinion. This goes for music, visual art, dance, literature, really anything. In a manner that almost emulated scientific expertise. This is what I grew up with, so I just accepted it as normal. As I grew up, watching my American friends comment on things that they didn't really have a background in, and my first instinct was "why are you saying that when you don't know anything", which probably wasn't a nice thing to think. While I'm nowhere near as orthodox as my elders anymore, I still think that it's worthwhile prioritising the opinions of those with the formal training on any matter, provided their statements stand up to scrutiny, of course.
"Why are you saying that when you don't know anything" sounds like a fantastic challenge one might level at the uninitiated.
I think this makes sense. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but opinions from experts are probably going to be more accurate.
that's a great way to destroy creativity while worshipping old racists.
I think that's a good approach if the art is made primarily for those who are classically trained in it, but the idea breaks down when you have mass-marketed media and expect 98% of your audience to keep their mouths closed. There's also value in an approach where everyone is free to describe their own experiences and how they perceive the work, but it's simply understood that experiences are not the same as understanding. As an analogy in medicine, doctors should very much listen to patients and to what they believe is going on, but use their medical training above all to guide their diagnosis and treatment.
@@wendys9500 some opinions are just so clearly wrong and they need to be told and accept that they are wrong
I definitely appreciate the distinction that the phrase “let people enjoy things” should not be used to silence criticism. Whenever I use that phrase, it’s in regards to people who try to judge others for enjoying something rather than simply stating valid criticisms.
Exactly I think having an opinion is ok, but artacking little girls for acting like little girls will always piss me off
@@manicpepsicola3431 Also calling adult Marvel fans "nerdy immature adult children"
Assuming you can judge a person's character based solely on what they choose to enjoy is arrogant, reductive and in some cases even spiteful.
@@MrBern-ex3wq I think it is not a problem what people like as long as they are willing to admit when there is something critically or even socially wrong about the media they enjoy. For example you can enjoy Sci-Fi military series while acknowledging that a decent amount of them push more militaristic and fascistic ideals. You can enjoy it but if you don't recognize the bad messages in the media, you run the risk of being persuaded that maybe the story has a valid point about politicians always getting in the way of the real heroes in war and that it wouldn't be so bad to get rid of them or allow the military complete autonomy. Granted I am pointing out one of the more extreme and obvious examples but still.
Basically I think critics do need to point out the bad messages and poor writings in our favorite things so that we understand the media we consume but shouldn't have enough power to shame us for enjoying our trashier media tastes.
@@Nostripe361 Wholly agreed yes. But when those critics become snobs who use what individuals watch as judges of their character, to dismiss them as something lesser, it's alienating. _That_ is what I mean.
Art is like food.
Sometimes you want a cheeseburger. Sometimes you want a 12 course tasting menu.
A snob is one who looks for 12 courses and complex flavours at McDonalds.
A consoomer is one who thinks Cheesburgers are the only food that matters and is above all criticism.
I'd say a snob is actually someone who just criticizes McDonalds for not being a 12-course tasting meal with no other thought or understanding of what it is. I'd say it's possible to appreciate what's there in McD's, but you need to understand what it is and isn't, accept it for what it is, and still enjoy it.
@@MrGksarathy I don't think you read my whole comment lol.
Well but in a world where food producers are figuring out there's a lot more money and a lot less risk in just making the same cheeseburger over and over, pretty soon you won't be able to find any other meal anywhere.
sometime for profit entertainment is mistaken for art
sometimes one can be entertained by art
@@edumazieri I disagree. Thanks to lowered costs and streaming services, more Indie films are being made than ever before.
Also, between studios like Neon, Annapurna and A24, we're still getting plenty of great movies which aren't typical blockbusters.
Yes the popular movies are all cheeseburger types. But there's plenty of amazing films to watch if you look a bit.
As a snobby rapper, the question "are snobs just bad at rapping?" is an absolute bar
Snobs are bad at rapping,
but they're really good at fapping
A lot of rappers are really bad snobs
Come on Michael, you're better than using anarchy as a synonym for chaos! I'd love to see you do an episode on anarchist thought one day :)
The ability to express criticism in a way that is not an attack against a person is not only going to be crucial to the evolution of culture, but also to the success or failure of democratic society. Super great video Wisecrack, always keeps us thinking!! ✌
But lower quality people also decide to take offense without realizing their lack of cultured ness. Goes both ways
@@solarmaru49let's start by not calling people "lower quality", jeez
What about people taking valid criticism as an attack?
@@elipticalecliptic481 What about stupid, does that work?
The part about not identifying w/ the stuff you enjoy hit home for me. Like in the last season of GoT, when everyone was upset it sucked- I just kept saying “how cool is it that we’re all experiencing this together?!”
“The house is on fire!”
My neighbor:
“How cool is it that we all get to share experience this together?”
Maybe it is because I gave up hope of a satisfying resolution to GoT pretty early in season 7 when it became clear that now that the show was completely past the books the showrunners had no idea how to finish the story and started breaking the show’s internal logic, but I had an experience more like yours with the final season. In particular, I was deeply annoyed with people who did things like petition for a rewritten final season like they are entitled to anything other than what was created for them to enjoy (or hate). I still found things I enjoyed about the final two seasons even if I also acknowledge that they are nowhere near the quality of the first 6 (a problem I think has a lot more to do with execution than the specific story choices anyway; if they had 20 episodes for the final 2 seasons instead of 13 I think it would have been a lot more satisfying, even if it wasn’t the ending you wanted.)
@@JEEDUHCHRI yes, because someone losing their home and having their lives put in jeopardy is definitely the same thing as a TV show pissing off its fans with how they ended the story…
@@chloemchll3774 I agree. The ending was much worse than having my house burn down.
😂
@@JEEDUHCHRI 🤣
I was once told to "let people enjoy things" when criticizing the obsession with applying "Healing" qualities to minerals and crystals. One of the best people I have ever know died of cancer because she enjoyed healing crystals and we all allowed it because she told nobody about her diagnosis.
Letting people enjoy things can be very dangerous.
Well yeah, but there's a major difference between letting someone enjoy something when it comes to marvel vs medical misinformation. There is a demonstrable aspect to medicine, enjoyment of art and media is by its nature, subjective.
I always say it's ok to love bad things and hate great things as long as you know your taste doesn't reflect the quality.
Unfortunately, lots of people have the idea of "I like it, so that means it's good."
The artist that made the "Let people enjoy things" comic Adam Ellis later made a post of him shooting the 2-panel comic.
Sticking up for good faith criticism and speaking hard truths to fanboyz - I like this look on Wisecrack…
Real snobbery is basing one’s cultural tastes on status, NOT someone who argues against a piece of art/media critically as too many overly sensitive people on the internet tend to cry about. And most critics love all types of culture; it’s stans and their inability to separate their own sense of self from what they consume that are the problem. Engaging with criticism helps you better understand and enjoy things and, y’know, grow and develop as a person
I don't have an issue with people liking bad or mediocre stuff, but I admit I am irritated
when people are bored by any media that asks them to think.
Thanks! Love it. Keep doing what you're doing.
9:55 9:55
Back when film criticism seemed like a bigger deal; I'm sure many people remember Siskel & Ebert. Ebert was often the film "snob" and Siskel was the "let them have fun!" guy. It seems we have way more Siskels than Eberts these days and well, I do think we do need these snobs to really keep things honest, something that is fun or based on peoples favorite "ip" has a lot of advantages and is going to do well regardless but we might miss out on those works that are no fun at all but have something important and transformative to tell us.
I'm pretty sure Siskel could be tougher on films than Ebert as a rule. Both were very intelligent and articulate, but I definitely think Ebert was the more intellectual of the two.
A lot of the morons who just assume that film critics are snobs and nothing else don't understand film criticism. They will say, "Its just their opinion! Who cares what they think?" without seeing how this undermines them. If there is no criteria to work with to decide what an above average or great movie is, then anyone saying any movie is good (as opposed to bad or mediocre) becomes meaningless. These same people assume critics are always harsher on "light" stuff, like comedies. But they would be sorely mistaken; they would probably lose their minds reading Ebert's review of, say, The Hangover. Or his review of a screwy movie that was nonetheless done well (Freeway, with Reese Witherspoon and Kiefer Sutherland).
It was also played up in the short format. When Ebert got to write longer pieces, he would wax lyrical on films he loved, and often tremendously enjoyed films he knew and discussed as being not particularly good but being perfect in their oddness or badness. He enjoyed all the Mad Max movies before he died, for one.
_cognitive load_ & access to different topics makes one "obnoxious" or "hard to hear" some times. Patience is required both ways, and honesty. Or communication may not take place.
I'd love to hear their take on Woke Hollywood
I don't like how Anita Sarkeesian is being credited with that philosophical stance. She was unable to acknowledge any legitimate criticism of her analysis of culture. Even those that admitted they enjoyed her media. That is falling far below the bar you just set.
Yeah she did seem a bit shoed in.
10:16 doesn't help your case, no one has to listen to criticism of something they like if they don't want to, it isn’t wrong to avoid shit that will make you even more miserable. They are just as free to dismiss criticism as others are free to criticise.
I just loved how you pointed how anti intellectuaism is just snobbism as well
Yeah, all those critics were wrong about Babylon. I’m glad I trusted my gut and just watched it. The film was life changing. And I’m glad Burns liked it too!
My favorite kind of media is the ones that I feel do merge these two. When I think of films like the original Matrix and Everything, Everywhere, All at Once, I get that vibe - they're fun, action packed, and exciting. They hook me and drag me into the world. The entertainment gets me invested, but they additionally will ask deep questions or present a point of view that's thought provoking.
I can appreciate dry, boring films which are technically great and have intelligent messages to convey, but without the entertaining aesthetic, they come across as a bit cold or holier than thou. With films like EEAO, I feel invited to come and play. There is joy in deeply contemplating the themes and messages and trying to interpret what it all might mean. I hope we get more exciting films like these that can appeal to normies and get us all to think more deeply.
No one's opinions or critiques matter except your own. Sometimes they may resonate but should never replace.
I'm a big believer that being "enjoyable", "well-made", and "artistically meritorious" are independent things.
Like, I loved the D&D movie, it is not the third thing by any stretch. I've played a ton of messy indie games that had really interesting ideas. And Kung Pow: Enter the Fist is total trash and it brings me incredible joy.
Have to second the idea something can have artistic merit but not be enjoyable. Penderecki's Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima is artistically brilliant. Would I purposely listen to it again? Doubtful.
I agree to, Ideally we want a piece to be all three, especially if it is something we personally like, but it doesn't have to be.
I adore the incredibly bizarre, insanely bad movie The Room. Also, the movie Clifford, starring Martin Short and Charles Grodin, is very bizarre and bad as well; it is frankly miraculous it got made at all. But I find it hilarious and it is one of my guilty pleasures!
Gonna have to disagree that Kung Pow is total traah- I think it is well executed satire of an entire genre of films.
Will 100% agree that it brought me incredible joy.
I've always felt that we need to make a distinction between art and entertainment. Both are valid but provide different utility. Sometimes you want to be challenged. Other times you just want to shut your brain off
Great video. There was one point that I would love to hear more about; "Don't Identify with what you consume". That really seems to be at the heart of a lot of social divisions. Why would you care that a product you consume is being sold to/by someone you don't like? Because that product is a part of your identity and sharing it with "those people" is an attack you and yours.
Often I find myself enjoying more a piece of media, art, music, movies etc etc after a well informed opinion.
My biggest example is blade runner 2047, I thought It was cool when I left the theater but It wasnt until I saw videos of people explaining the thematic of the first movie and how those ideas are clashing againts each other into the film that I truly appreciated the work of art I just watched.
Surface-level enjoyment of a product can only give you so much satisfaction😊
Y'all do a good job at taking pop art seriously.
There is always a message.
One thing I dispise about snobs is that as popular culture moves forward art does come out from popular culture that in the future becomes high art. I cant help but think about how jazz music was dispised and considered a lesser form of classical music. This has continued through time with different genres. Older media is always seen as better, until the new media becomes the old media that we now refer back to.
I think it's very very easy to say "Don't self identify with the things you consume". But, in reality, a person is made up of many aspects and indeed one's preferences, what they do and don't like and why are indeed part of one's identity. For example, I like wisecrack, that fact is something i consider part of my identity, as the me as of right now is the one who likes wisecrack, whether i do in the future or not has no true meaning to the me in the now, so if I was attacked by being called pretentious or weird for somethng I liked (a part of my current identity) I would at least be somewhat motivated to respond to that criticism either emotionally or rationally as long as i could express that I am defending that part of my identity. This may just be a me thing, and I admittedly am in the let people enjoy things camp because being made to feel lesser whether intentionally or not for something consider a part of the current me, hurts and I can't see the benefit of that especially when criticism is usually insular, not being said in forums of which criticism could actually effect change but usually said out loud or in places of anonymity or where there's no real established basis on why i should listen to any one person's criticism as usually in a relaxed setting it's thrown casually with no context without proddng for more information as in this thing is bad, or that was lazy. Also as another person put critique rarely acknowledges the effort time and life put into things usually taking for granted the limited time people are put on this earth to put time life money and mental being into something even if that something doesn't have what the critic considers value. Anyway thank you for the video.
I found myself suddenly becoming a snob when I realized everything around me was designed to sell me something that would only serve the capitalist and destroy both myself and the environment it would be discarded into.
Now I hate all things because all things are just corporate slime.
On some level, I remember someone saying "Snobbery is more accessible than ever, just say you don't like Marvel movies." I find a lot of good criticism can help put words into things I was feeling or thinking, like why Marvel movies don't feel as good as they did, and someone can go into the industry conditions and how the Disney monopoly has affected movie making.
It's also fascinating to see what's considered snobby, especially now, and I think something was missed with talking all about the criticism over the joy of more obscure things. Part It used to be harder to get a French film, but I spent a good period of time just watching German period pieces on Netflix because they were accessible and sounded different. But even if it's a genuine joy, because it isn't mainstream then saying how good it is becomes 'snobby'.
In my opinion, "snobs" are usually seen as people who have inflated opinions of their own views, or just in general, seem to lack an amount of humbleness. "Snobs" also aren't the only ones who can be very critical of the things they enjoy, people express likes and dislikes all the time, they just don't announce them in a hot take format, they just, say them, without attacking anyone or insinuating anybody has worse taste than them. Sure, the MCU can seem very assembly line, and as movies they're pretty alright with their own flaws, but at the same time, if the MCU didn't exist, it's not like we would be in this mythical renaissance of constant fresh, artistic, meaningful blockbuster movies either. People will complain and criticize, it's human, it's normal, but if all you do is complain, maybe just lighten up a bit. It might not even be what you're saying, just how you're saying it, which does matter.
The MCU also ISN'T devoid of artistic merit. That's the annoying thing about this kind of snobbish behavior, because it rejects critical thinking entirely while also asserting itself as an authority on the basis of critical analysis. At their core, a snob is a worthless delusional liar. The MCU might not be high art by a reasonable standard, but they are artworks of varying quality. Some of them are pretty god damn good specifically because of their effectiveness in communicating an artistic message. And some of them are bad specifically because they don't even attempt to say anything.
Long story short, I hate intellectual dishonesty, and that's the fundamental core of every snob's personal identity, therefore I hate all snobs.
This is a good take, especially the corporate influences on populist art, which is the basis of my biggest "snobbery" or criticism of most mass media these days: the pandering, or dumbing down, of artists' visions to maximize the next quarterly profit margins. Nothing can truly flourish under Disney (or Warner, or Netflix), at least not for very long. A few *minor* miracles, like Andor, may happen, but I have little hope for its later seasons as the corporate overlords start to suck it dry. And it's a systematic failure, like most things under capitalism. A very good podcast series you may want to Google (or Bing, now with AI!) is "Why Blockbusters Bore," that goes a lot deeper (like 8 hours worth) into the mechanics of modern high budget film-making, and how it's out of the hands of anyone actually creative.
You know I'm reminded of the saga of the novel I, Libertine, which arose as a practical joke that Jean Shepherd masterminded on his radio show. He and his listeners collectively came up with a fictional book and started talking about it, so much so that it got a lot of attention and public praise despite being literally nonexistent. Shepherd wanted to demonstrate how he believed that many people only cared about the superficial aspects of art and culture but would neglect to truly engage with something so long as they could get the social capital. Eventually he did commission an author to write a version of the book and donated the proceeds to charity, which I think was cool of him.
But I think this definitely happens in a number of media circles. Case and point, I didn't care a ton for Alien. Granted I recognize that it has a lot of technical mastery and is very influential, but it's just not really for me. More than one person baffles at this because it's supposed to be a Good Movie ™️. It's one of those things that you're "supposed" to think is good, regardless of how it makes you personally feel.
Myself, I don't really think I can meaningfully draw a circle around every bit of art that is "good," so I leave that alone and focus more on what I like about art. People who value what I value will be aligned, and people who don't will know not to take me too seriously. I find that's helpful for me.
Thing is, this take assumes all criticism is made in good faith. And it's not, especially not online.
People go tank a movie's rating on Rotten Tomatoes en masse before it's even released just because they don't like the female or Black lead, for example.
So when I say, "let people enjoy things" its NOT shutting down good faith criticism, but BAD faith critics who just want to signal their racism and sexism.
Now I'm questioning the things upon which I am snobbish.
I rarely allow my snobbishness to spill over into others enjoyment, though, when their tastes match my own I feel it's a good beginning (though, to what, I'm not sure).
I avoid some criticism of media, but mostly when I feel that it's overly negative, simply to be contrary for clicks and views.
Snobbery is just ego manifested. Everything we think we know about art is made up, and “fine art” is a made up distinction that can only be simulated by strict adherence to an arbitrary dogma.
There are no snobs, just people pretending to be snobs for the sake of their own ego. Either you have the observational skills and vocabulary to articulate your concrete and abstract thoughts about art or you don’t, being a snob is unrelated to these skills, it’s just an attitude.
I don’t like the distinction between high and low culture. Some of the art that has affected me most as a person and as an artist are The Last of Us, Spider-Man, The Cornetto Trilogy, Star Wars, and Guardians of the Galaxy. Are those low art? I don’t think so. They’re all stories that authentically explore the human condition, told by passionate, talented artists that also contain space ships, zombies and talking raccoons.
The distinction I do make is between media that solely tries to entertain, solely tries to be art, and tries to be both. I prefer the third option every time. The human condition is fun, exciting, sad, scary, dramatic, awkward, and, suspenseful, and mysterious. Why wouldn’t you let your exploration of humanity be those things? Don’t forget to have fun along the way.
Every time people discuss "wine snobs", they misrepresent these wine studies about telling red vs. white and cheap vs. expensive. These studies tend to involve "self-professed wine lovers" or students at the university where the studies were done. They are not necessarily wine experts (though neither are plenty of wine snobs to be fair). The studies also tend to be flawed in many ways. It doesn't mean people like somms can't differentiate wines with objectively good qualities from bad ones, which is sometimes but definitely not always correlated with price, and it doesn't mean they can't identify various wines (though this is increasingly difficult as grapes are now grown everywhere in the world and you can make some grapes, like Chardonnary, taste like almost anything through farming and winemaking techniques). If a somm can blind taste wines and identify the varietal, country and region with surprising accuracy, they can tell red from white (though some reds and whites do overlap in their flavors and aromas).
Honestly, ignore the snobs, but appreciate the knowledge that true wine experts can offer, and then just drink whatever you enjoy. Taste is personal so you shouldn't worry about other people. Plus, experts can guide you to those cheaper bottles that have amazing QpR and help you avoid the stuff that is expensive but mediocre.
I don’t know, the way that Martin Scorsese is making his “criticism”, almost sounds like the bitter rumblings of a teenager who is not being paid attention to.
I feel that the primary issue is less about criticism of media, and more about the ability to understand that we can both be critical of what we enjoy, and recognize that enjoyment and being critical are two independent things.
Most people tend to not recognize both of these concepts and lean heavily towards either uncritically enjoying/ hating consumed media or only criticizing that which they cannot enjoy/ resonate with.
Imo, snobs are the latter of those two, while the average viewer is the prior, making both at odds with one another inherently while not understanding that they as individuals are actually extremely similar. They are both actually more critical of each other's character than the media itself, and will often base their viewing experience on what the other opposes.
I've always been somewhere in the middle. On one end, I fully agree with the "Don't shade me for loving The Super Mario Bros. Movie," and "Understanding that a blockbuster like Jurassic Park can teach us about the foibles of human greed as There Will Be Blood," sentiments. I love all three because they have good messages and are a darn good time for my eyes, ears, and heart. Heck, I have written deep, philosophical essays about the cultural and historical philosophies that can be gleaned from both Captain America and Black Panther. But at the same time, it's interesting that you showed "the enemy scrotum" line to represent Transformers because I will look at the writers of that scene and call them low-brow, uncultured swine because it, among other things in the series such as its blatant racism and sexism, feel as though they come in bad taste. Like, Transformers are robots based on children's toys: Why do they even one? What is the point beyond a shameless attempt to cater to the juvenile male audience?
No matter what type of media you enjoy, if you look deep enough, you will find somebody's sweat and tears. Critics can enhance our enjoyment of something, helping us to see things we may miss. but if you like something why deny it, and if a critic makes you not like it, what's the issue? move on. People seem to want to attach themselves to things beyond their control, then they feel like they need to defend it. this is especially bad when somebody responsible for the work turn out to be awful.
Clarke's 1st Law: When a distinguished but elderly expert states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
I read this as: Negative, exclusive language is not usefyul for productive (or accurate) discourse.
Critic or snob, doesn't matter as much as whether you are saying how & why something is or what isn't & who can't.
Pshhhh, this is what's bothering people!? I've just had epiphany that everything humans discover, study or internalize; we then immediately intellectualize. Seriously, this our human curse! We elevate *everything* using our intelligence; even the things that really don't need to be.
For all other animals instinct takes care of half the work of understanding the world, but for us understanding using intelligence is an *obsession* . Does it really matter if I like a sweater or a piece of abstract artwork? Do I really have to overanalyze exactly what the reason is, and get to the bottom of it?
It just adds to the madness and complexity!
Finally someone who agrees
I thinks its important to appreciate both high art and low art, like finding a novel or stand up thought provoking, if it is good art than its is popular for a reason and was intelligently designed to resonate with the audience, like a horror/ b-movie that still prays upon your psychological fears
The meaning of the term "snob" has not changed from its original meaning. Snobbery remains an essentially middle class phenomenon, because it is a class-aspirational attempt to publicly assert good taste. Qua aristocrats, the Cambridge boys who invented the term had no class anxiety themselves, but they observed it in the 19th c. English townspeople who were developing what they regarded as a pathetic class aspiration (and correlative anxiety). From what I've seen, that hasn't really changed today. The true upper class (the old rich), have nothing to prove through public assertions of taste; they just embody it - that is nearly constitutive of being upper class in the first place.
I never considered Statler and Waldof a couple of snobs. I always considered them well-experienced elders
I remember a quote from game designer David Sirlin that went somwthing like: "any competitive scene needs both 'teachers' and 'destroyers'. New players need guides, but they also need mountains to climb."
Snobs serve that purpose of being challenges to overcome.
I kind of hate the art/not-art dichotomy. It's all art! Some of it may be shallow, cynically commercial art, but it's still art!
I understand the argument but when it comes to movies like zero dark thirty, the moral depravity of the film's message ruins my ability to enjoy the merits of the movie. And this applies to all forms of media. I find it hard to enjoy modern Call of Duty campaigns when it's so overtly just propaganda to get people to join the US army.
I gotta be honest, I have discarded anything scorcesse says since he said video games can never be art, because that was genuinely the dumbest shit take I have ever seen.
Popism, Snobbism, either way you can't escape the "ism".
Hey wisecrack, could you do a analysis on how different forms of media commentate on society? Like musicals vs movies vs tv? Like who makes these and each target audience
Oooooh I do not think we should be taking Anita Sarkeesian’s opinions without a massive hunk of salt. While not on a problematic scale that famous lines from dictators and murderers, I have always found her opinions on video game misogyny to be undercut by her lack of understanding.
Admittedly, I haven’t watched her videos since her Video Game Tropes back from a decade ago. I hope that she has gotten better in her coverage; 10 years is a long time and it would be a shame if she hasn’t learned from her mistakes.
I think there's a lot of good, constructive criticism out there, which is marked by an attempt to begin or continue a conversation, vs bad criticism that often attempts to "shut down" or "discourage" further discussion.
In my mind, criticism can either discourage someone from continuing to create or express themselves, or it can encourage a person to strive to "learn" and "do better next time," and I feel the later should always be the goal of criticism.
Bad criticism says "this bad". Good criticism says "this is the way x is, and that makes y a bit jarring to the audience, because z". Hell, criticism doesn't even need to be constructive to be good. Not all valid criticisms are actionable, uplifting, or even provide ways to improve. They describe what a thing is. That's all.
Peanut butter pea soup; You eat what you like, I'll eat what I like. Your informed opinion is still just your opinion. It's not hard to say, "I didn't say it was good. I said I like it."
I did not have a bachelor party. We eloped and got it done quick with little planning. For real though, hanging with your friends and watching movies sounds like a great bachelor party. But REALLY?! FREDDY GOT FINGERED?!
I feel like we're in a weird spot where only the uppclass can really participate in things that snobs would consider beneath them.
The upper class can only realistically afford Taylor Swift tickets right now for instance, even tho Taylor Swift'a music is not good enough for snobby types.
8:40 Criticism is one thing, but that type of comment is just insulting the viewers for not liking the same as what he does.
Critics are important aspect of public art but, and I mean this genuinely, they must be ready to be counterbalanced by the challenge that good art is more important than the most insightful criticism and that art criticism must be motivated by a desire to see improvement. Snobs are those who forget these truths and believe the criticism is itself valuable.
You know it's a trick question whenever a Wisecrack video asks "Which view is correct?" I just started this video, but gosh darn it, the correct answer to that question better use the term "metamodern," or I'll be very upset.
Edit: it's okay, you don't have to use the word. The spirit is there. I always associated "snob" with a moral attitude, not adherence to critical standards. So snobbery is bad, but it seems obvious that trying to think about and deepen our understanding of art is a good thing. My impression is we're getting to the point where distinctions between high and low culture don't mean much, and that's good. Some art is more challenging, of course, but I'm glad I can read my James Joyce and still listen to Led Zeppelin.
Taste cannot be defined, nor snob, nor critic. Watch it on an island. Yell about it on the island; or, get off the island if you want yell about it to someone else. Makes no difference.
If I like it- I like it- If someone says it's trash- I don't care. If a new movie I like NEVER gets made- don't care- plenty of old movies I like that I can watch over and over. Don't care what others think.
If we lived in a world with one TV channel, one movie theater, one book available at a time, maybe the snobbery would might work, as long as you ignore the people who don’t like their choices.
But we live in a world of 500 channels, streaming services and movie theaters in every large city. Everyone can indulge their taste while privately (and I stress privately) sneering at other people. I enjoy 40's noir, 50's SciFi and 60's Japanese kaiju. You do you and I’ll do me and who cares.
this feels like like listening to a snob explain why snobs are necessary
Though by the end we argue that snobs are maybe . . . not necessary?
Genuine question, though: why has Babylon flown so under the radar? Especially considering how there haven't been a lot of good stand-alone movies in the past couple of years.
I'm still trying to make sense of it. I think folks found it self indulgent and meandering? I guess? But I think in getting distracted by that they really did miss the larger point of the movie.
I feel these complaints are often ignoring the massive amount of new and original work constantly being created.
Promote the new and original work. That's why we have critics.
I guess I see it like this: I am interested in things. So I learn about them and learn to appreciate them. Getting into a subject is a source of pleasure. I could take something like, say, Alban Berg's violin concerto. Most people won't get it, a very few people will say that it isn't a pure example of the Second Viennese School because it's "too tonal" - particularly at the end. I don't expect people to share my interests. If someone says that "Macallan is a good whisky" then I might gently steer them towards better value alternatives, but I wouldn't mock them for not knowing about whisky or modern classical music.
I guess the term "snob" comes with that baggage - it implies someone who mocks other people for not knowing about a thing. For not being part of The Elect. I see the aggressive snobbishness as a way of forming cliques and saying who is in or who is out.
My son's gf - who has a degree in philosophy - would mock me for posting:
" And what is good, Phaedrus,
And what is not good-
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"
Precis: The enthusiast learns about and appreciates a thing - and may encourage others to appreciate it. The snob uses their learning to brand people as the "out group"
I'm of the opinion that art doesnt need to serve a purpose or make you think, while it's important to have those kinds of art in our society, that shouldnt be what defines art. Just because something isnt intelligent doesnt mean it doesnt have value to society. Escapism isnt a bad thing unless some in excess, the only people who claim it's bad are those who are benefitted by the current society (often the rich and powerful). In a world with a shrinking/non-existent middle class, escapism is a important tool to keep us from sinking into depression or worse. Art can just be Fun, it doesnt even have to be Good to have value. Just as the fast and furious franchise is just a set of movies about fast cars and explosions, the Mona Lisa is just a painting of a woman.
On a side note, anybody who thinks Marvel is pro-nationalism stopped watching after Phase 1... half the movies done even take place on earth, let alone america, and another 3rd are anti-government or atleast speak out against nationalism.
It's not an either-or. Entertainment and art are two very different things. Media can have high entertainment value while having low artistic value - and that is OK. It's certainly possible for media to both highly artistic and very entertaining, but it need not be both to have value. It need merely be successful as one OR the other.
Yes, criticism matters as it can deeply inform and broaden the appreciation of art by lay people and fellow critics alike, but critics don't have a role of any value in judging entertainment, because each individual person is the ONLY judge of what they find entertaining.
Subscribed! I'm, taking a leap of faith, that this channel strives to give context to the context-deficient/deformed society we now inhabit...
One of the biggest hacks in life is not taking things personally. Someone insults my appearance? They insult my appearance and not me. Someone insults my identity as it appears to them? They insult my identity as it appears to them and not me. Someone insults my tendency to pair things arbitrarily in threes? They insult my tendency to pair things arbitrarily in threes and not me. From reading Epictetus (ignoring the stuff he said about 14 year olds being considered mistresses) I've come to see things split between internals that I have control over and externals that I should not confuse with internals, vice versa. Will, for instance, is an internal that cannot be conquered by force, blade, or the might of the entire sun so long as it isn't offered to the external world by its sole carrier. An analogy for it could be, say, a table breaking in half. The table breaking in half might make you angry, on the surface it seems that way at least, but it's not actually the table breaking in half that is making you angry - it's you. There's nothing physical to a breaking table connected with neurochemical reactions within the brain, it's just knowing what a broken table means that makes people angry; the having to suddenly plan out how to clean up the mess, spend money on a new table, and carry it all the way back. If the narrative of the table breaking changes to, say, be about an excuse to get a new table or a window to have a meditative time cleaning then the table breaking becomes something beneficial instead. It's a creative process, and "not-creative" is name calling and nothing more. You're better than name calling yourself, aren't you? The names you pick and your justifications for them are rather creative.
While I agree with maybe the overall conclusion here, there are a lot of points where I can't buy into the lead up. I fundamentally disagree that critics that panned Vertigo or Scarface "got it wrong". There is no right or wrong when it comes to criticism. Those critics are no more right or wrong than modern critics that love those films. I think critics can be wrong if their arguments are unsupported by the work, like if they miss details that would contradict their point or think something happened that didn't. Everything else is up to interpretation.
My personal favorite movie critic, Mike D'Angelo, is someone that I rarely agree with, but reading his opinions I always feel like he comes from a sincere place of evaluating the film as is. There might be a scene that I liked and he didn't, or vice versa, but either way I know we watched the same scene and put it in the same context in the film. I trust that his take is purely his own, and I am always interested to read what he thinks.
My personal ideal for criticism is what the website the AV Club was like 10 or so years ago. Their philosophy was that films should be judged against themselves (perceived goals of the film) and against similar films, not against all films ever. So a Marvel movie would be judged against other Marvel movies, or other superhero movies, or the wider action/adventure genre, not against a 2 hour black and white indie drama. Those films have different criteria by which they can be successful, different goals, and different target audiences. It felt like a fair way to tackle pop culture.
And it also led to my appreciation for the role of critics to bring light to little seen/known works. Where an average moviegoer would probably struggle to break 100 new films in a year, an average movie critic easily breaks 250, 300, and some may do 500 new films in the year. The perspective of those two people is naturally going to be different, and the person watching hundreds of new films per year can also draw attention to something that those watching tens of films would never have heard of or known.
I don't know: what is the point of discussing film without using words like dietetic sound or mise en scène?
Babylon was actually a good movie and a celebration of film as well as the existential dread of stars becoming obsolete as they get replaced by newer and more popular material. I honestly believe the marketing and bad press hurt it alot.
YES. Spot on.
A critic is there to provide critical analysis. They create a new piece of leisure entertainment from the presentation of that analysis. A snobby critic is someone who is mad that you don't enjoy what they made.
I don't see how you can justify saying that people like Scorsese are not doing a personal attack when he explicitly lays it out as a personal attack on people watching those films. He even doubles down by saying that you should take the hit in your clip. He's specifically punching down instead of being a critic of society like you laid out afterwards.
I love this kind of debate. It reminds me of a book by Jason Hartley called The Advanced Genius Theory: Are They Out of Their Minds or Ahead of Their Time? From SuperHero movie craze to Ye - a lot of things were prophetically outlined in that book. Would love to see Wisecrack do a video on it, its right up their alley.
Kanye West was never a genius, though, he was just a narcissist. There's a difference, and being able to critically analyze those qualities would've led to that conclusion a long time ago... which is a thing that definitely happened for very large numbers of people. Hell, South Park was doing the "Kanye West is an idiot and a narcissist" joke in 2010, way before he was ever famous enough for an average person to have heard of him.
Coming from a masters in architecture at a "top" design school in the us, I can guarantee you there is an unfortunately large group of post-criticalists who think being critical is too much of a bummer. Oftentimes design & art are used to support existing systems of power by virtue of the average person conflating "beauty" with "morally good". These projects also consume large amounts of resources & labor. We have an ethical responsibility as designers and artists to think critically in order to not build more infrastructure for our tyrants of industry & to minimize the waste of human effort and environmental resources.
*Steps off the podium & goes back to doing dishes.
If everyone listened to critics, the Super Mario Bros movie would have bombed.
Personally I'm tired of franchise properties and media that blatantly aims for nostalgic feels or constantly makes references to pop culture, so I would've been just fine with it bombing, even if it was fun.
Anita Sarkeesian, that's a name I haven't heard in years
And one I didn't expect on a show that usually tries to be serious considering she's just a grifter.
Let's be real here. If the world didn't need snobs. Wisecrack wouldn't be where it is today.
The world has snobs. It doesn’t need them. It came function without them. I’m in the, let people people enjoy things crowd. If you if people want to voice the opinion. We are all individuals. The world would be a duller place of everyone though alike. It takes all kind to make the world go around.
I think even something like the saw movies have a lot and I mean a lot to say about society despite being what they are. I think snobs see horror movies especially and fail to see their values vex a lot of times their goals as movies differ so heavily from the norm
I definitely lean of the side of “just let people enjoy things” but I have several friends that balance me out when it comes to being critical of things. And I think that’s the call here (like most things in life) balance. It’s ok to enjoy things but don’t take it personally when someone else has a different opinion. Cause like we all are our own beings.
Big luls for unironically quoting Anita Sarkeesion
This is such a fantastic video. I was kinda having similar thoughts, and you just presented them with quotes from critics and philosopers, and in such depth! ❤❤❤
Some people will watch Saving Private Ryan and think "there's 2and 3/4 hours of my wasted" and some people will watch two girls one cup and think it's a cinematic masterpiece. At the end of the day, you know, that's just like, your opinion man 🤷🏿♂️
My problem with snobs is the utter lack of humility or self-awareness. Imagine deciding that YOU, with all of your human flaws, are the ultimate arbiter of which art is good and which art is bad.
I just think given the chance I wouldn't give in to the pressure that artists have to make more money than art. I'm a snob for authenticity, and I think that's valid.
"Let people like things" is a response to people who just cannot help but constantly regurgitate criticisms they've heard from other people because they do not have anything else to contribute to the discussion. Making cynicism your whole personality just sucks to be around.
That quote about art not being able entertainment stands out to me as particularly worth disagreeing with. Like, says who? If an artist wants to make entertainment, not only is that their choice, but it's probably going to result in more of an effect on the real world than most artists that want to make something more elevated.
Serious question: How much of the art that tries to be more than entertainment actually makes a difference? Just making people smile already has a huge effect on the real world and tends to be done on the scale of millions or even billions of people nowadays, so how much of the other stuff even compares?
The spectrum of people's judgment on art is as wide as the spectrum of people, and comes with all the pros and cons of both. There's trashy art that holds its value because it's trash, and there's high class art that suffers because of how highly if it seems itself. What the space of art needs are allotments for all manner of categories. Trash and pop will always have a place, the mature and experimental Will always have a place, but it's hard to find people in the middle who have the perspective to appreciate both for what they attempt to do. General audiences cannot be trusted to appreciate and defend challenging art, and critics will never appreciate dumb fun. And even when it comes to high quality art, critics can't be trusted. John Carpenter's the thing was near universally despised by critics at its time. Enough said
It doesn't have anything to do with art, culture or class. It's all about the money and whatever gets people to part with theirs is the only thing that's important. In other words, people will produce whatever people will buy.
The reassessment of Babylon is coming, just you wait
I can't wait.
"no one is attacking you" is straight up not true. both irl and on the internet, ppl bully you if you like something that is not critically acclaimed. even if its not a part of your identity.