MV72018, I'm still not clear on the point that you're arguing.
I think you're saying that Stanford should permit artists to perform on campus only if they meet some arbitrary standard of cultural excellence.
If that is a fair summary of your position, I would reply:
1) Morality may not be relative, but judgments of cultural relevance and excellence certainly are. I can pretty much guarantee that you would not consider Chinese opera excellent but one billion humans on this earth would disagree.
2) Who gets to decide (or gatekeep) what is culturally excellent? Even among the narrow demographic of old white guys on this board of which I am one, we will have major disagreements. You will never convince me that the works of Jackson Pollack and Mark Rothko are culturally excellent. It's one reason I like the music thread, as a way to combat the fact that most people's musical tastes ossify in their teens and early 20's.
3) Culturally excellent works are only apparent in the long view. What may seem excellent to people now may have no relevance 50 years from now. The examples you cite -- Beethoven and Wagner -- are from 200 to 300 years ago, and they wrote some stinkers in their time. Shakespeare wrote plays for the masses; it was only in the late 1700's that he really started to be elevated to the level he's at today. On a more recent time scale, just look at the list of Oscar winners for Best Picture from 20-30 years ago and see if you agree that they really were the best films of those years.
4) Symphonies, opera, ballet, other "high art" and fine art have rarely been financially viable. All have relied on patrons since the beginning. The SF Symphony plays live to the movie "Pirates of the Caribbean" to get the the funds to play Mahler the next week. I work in the film industry where this dynamic is well-known: you do one movie for the paycheck so that you can do your next movie for the art.
I would instead argue that when booking artists to perform, Stanford should and currently correctly does consider an artist's effect on society. Stanford should provide a platform for artists who uplift people and/or give us an opportunity to experience an aspect of our culture that we might not otherwise seek out. BTS would fall into that category in addition to making it financially viable for Stanford to host classical music and ballet performances on campus.
I think you're saying that Stanford should permit artists to perform on campus only if they meet some arbitrary standard of cultural excellence.
If that is a fair summary of your position, I would reply:
1) Morality may not be relative, but judgments of cultural relevance and excellence certainly are. I can pretty much guarantee that you would not consider Chinese opera excellent but one billion humans on this earth would disagree.
2) Who gets to decide (or gatekeep) what is culturally excellent? Even among the narrow demographic of old white guys on this board of which I am one, we will have major disagreements. You will never convince me that the works of Jackson Pollack and Mark Rothko are culturally excellent. It's one reason I like the music thread, as a way to combat the fact that most people's musical tastes ossify in their teens and early 20's.
3) Culturally excellent works are only apparent in the long view. What may seem excellent to people now may have no relevance 50 years from now. The examples you cite -- Beethoven and Wagner -- are from 200 to 300 years ago, and they wrote some stinkers in their time. Shakespeare wrote plays for the masses; it was only in the late 1700's that he really started to be elevated to the level he's at today. On a more recent time scale, just look at the list of Oscar winners for Best Picture from 20-30 years ago and see if you agree that they really were the best films of those years.
4) Symphonies, opera, ballet, other "high art" and fine art have rarely been financially viable. All have relied on patrons since the beginning. The SF Symphony plays live to the movie "Pirates of the Caribbean" to get the the funds to play Mahler the next week. I work in the film industry where this dynamic is well-known: you do one movie for the paycheck so that you can do your next movie for the art.
I would instead argue that when booking artists to perform, Stanford should and currently correctly does consider an artist's effect on society. Stanford should provide a platform for artists who uplift people and/or give us an opportunity to experience an aspect of our culture that we might not otherwise seek out. BTS would fall into that category in addition to making it financially viable for Stanford to host classical music and ballet performances on campus.