Campbell Vertesi

As much as I enjoy this discussion, I'm not a fan of using up topspace on the blog for it... nor necessarily for broadcasting every step of it by RSS. This post will serve as a response and as a placeholder for future discussion via comments.

Mr. Douglas insists that I misunderstand his original article, and that my response accordingly misses the point. I'm afraid I'm only a singer, and I still don't see the misunderstanding!

I do understand that Mr. Douglas is speaking about the artifacts of culture rather than the culture itself, but apart from the insertion of the word "artifact" repeatedly in my response, I don't believe that this alters the argument in any fundamental way.

As a clue, Mr. Douglas presents a quote - one in fact that I had considered using, because it was some of the most straightforward writing in the piece - to demonstrate that 'intent' has nothing to do with his argument. Key sentences from the quote:

"the singular principal hallmark of all artifacts of the realm of high culture is their perceived aspiration to transcendence...

"And that singular hallmark is what's singularly lacking in all the artifacts of the realm of popular culture, their singular principal hallmark being a perceived aspiration to the widely accessible here-and-now entertaining."

(emphasis mine)

It seems that our misunderstanding centers around the use of the words "aspiration" and "intent". Indeed, Mr. Douglas is careful to point out:

...in themselves (as distinct from the conscious intentions of their creators), their hallmark characteristic is their perceived quality of aspiring to transcendence.

(emphasis mine)

So, the work itself ASPIRES to transcendance, no matter what the creator intended? I'm afraid this concept eludes me. A work of art is inanimate in every sense but the metaphoric. It's only aspiration or intention is that of the artist, or that of the viewer imposed thereupon. But Mr. Douglas cannot be saying that the definition between high and popular cultural artifacts is that he (Douglas) wishes upon them an aspiration to transcend. This wold be nonsensical.

Clearly there is something in the subtleties of the words "aspiration" and "intention" that I'm not getting. I tried Merriam-Webster to see if it was something obvious, but the definitions are quite similar:

Intend: "to have in mind as a purpose or goal"
Aspire: "to seek to attain or accomplish a particular goal"

What am I missing here? Mr. Douglas has done plenty to try and help me better understand his meaning, but I'm dense enough not to get it. Anyone else care to help?