Calling all cultured aspies

Post Reply New Topic

I like going to the National Air and Space Museum in DC. I especially love the planetarium.

When you say "our God, " whose god do you mean? Thor? Zeus? Allah? Krishna? And what
about the sublime achevements of artists, philosophers and scientists who achieved personal meaning by devoting themselves to their work but had no need for a god, at least in the traditional sense?

The god that actually exists. Important to note, however, that all Muslims and some Vaishnavi Hindus identify their gods with the Christian god, so that there isn't necessarily any disagreement there about which is the correct god, but about what is His nature and what is the proper manner of worshipping him.

I would suggest that very little good art has been produced by nonbelievers. Philosophers and scientists aren't really relevant in a thread on the subject of culture, though it's obviously true that many prominent ones are/were atheists.

I don't know, I've only been to London once and with very limited time.



Half an hour isn't even a lot, though. If one isn't prepared to stand in line for such a short time, I highly doubt they were all that interested in what the queque was for anyway. Also, you can get in to the major museums in London pretty quick if you choose the timing right (right as in a time when there aren't that many people going.)

I personally want to visit the ancient history collection in the British Museum, I'm an antiquarian but don't really have any old antiques except from my travels in Asia.

How would you define “good” art?

Impressionism is good art, in a technical sense.

It makes use of shadows, and of variations of light upon such things as streams and billiard halls.

I do, quite a bit. I also enjoy early(er) Prokofiev and Stravinsky. Some Scriabin too - the Russians had great musicians around that era. But I have fairly eclectic taste, depending on the mood.



Never stayed long enough in London to go, but I lived in Amsterdam for a while. You'd probably enjoy the Rijksmuseum if you have the chance to visit. You can book tickets online and skip the queue.


I rarely talk about books and music these days, I'm tired of people calling me a snob for being interested in anything else than pop culture and (celebrity) gossip. Reverse snobbery is on the rise and is just as repulsive as the "regular" type. Fortunately, my wife is a curator so I can satisfy that need at home.

I like a huge range of styles and time periods, but lately, I’ve been into modernism, especially surrealism.

In any case, “good art” to me is something that makes me feel something (just like poetry and music).

Art can come from good technique but good technique, in and of itself, is not art.

Right. Of course not. But I feel like it could very well enhance the art.

I like Surrealism, too.

I like cave paintings that are like 30-50,000 years old

What you suggested above is a good working definition, though I'd add the qualification that good art must be moral and educative (in the etymological sense of "leading forth", or upward). It's this latter condition that excludes much modern art (or what passes for it), given that modern art is largely designed to undermine morality, self-respect and charity.

The art produced in Russia (chiefly music and literature) from the middle of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth was some of the greatest the world had ever known. I look towards the works of Dostoevsky in the same way Schopenhauer did the Upanishads: reading them has been the consolation of my life - and will be of my death.

Although Montesquieu was right in thinking Russia would become a political superpower in the twentieth century, its cultural preeminence predictably vanished with the Bolshevik Revolution. If the Menshevik revolution (most definitely necessary) had produced a constitutional monarchy on the British model, the twentieth century nightmare would have been avoided and, in consequence, our twenty-first century one. The only artists Soviet Russia produced were Shostakovich and Solzhenitsyn, who both despised it.

I was thinking about the Rijksmuseum recently; frankly, Amsterdam is just too dangerous a city to visit now, like every other capital in Western Europe. I also refuse to travel to countries whose languages I'm unacquainted with, though I estimate could achieve functional ability in the Dutch language with a fifty hour crash course (damn good fun!)

It's only those (admittedly a minority) uninterested in culture who make the bogus accusation of snobbery you mentioned. I try to avoid such people wherever possible.

I wouldn't say the only artists Soviet Russia produced were Shostakovich and Solzhenitsyn. Have you read Master and Margaret by Bulhakov? A painful masterpiece.
I also love poetry of Bulat Okudzhava but I doubt his works have any good English translations.
Of course, if the revolution stopped at a resonable point, the culture would have most likely gained a lot more treasure from this country.

In Netherlands, you can communicate in English everywhere. Some of my friends spent years there and never even had an opportunity to learn Dutch.

Yes, I was exaggerating of course.

I know the Dutch speak good English, but that's not the point; it's disrespectful to go abroad and carry on speaking English, even if people are okay with it. Speaking English also impoverishes the travelling experience for oneself, rendering the local culture inauthentic.

If I had to learn the language before visiting anywhere, I wouldn't be able to travel at all. I once read a description of lack of language skills and it fit me perfectly.
Of course if I spoke the local languages, my experience would be richer - but I do have my own inherent limitations. I'm unable to learn them.