Its always hard to talk in terms of generalisations and labels. Its understandable that people resent it sometimes, but sometimes generalisations and stereotypes have some truth to them, they just dont apply to people quite as broadly as solid words suggest.
I mean there are a lot of 'scenes' that have their own culture, vocabulary, and feel like they are mostly made of a certain group of people, even if this is only a superficial impresion, it still means something if thats what lots of people see. I think there a lot of people who can appreciate art and culture and creativity of many sorts, but do not necessarily have the formal training/education to join in with the 'experts' or others who represent and talk about the scene publicly. But at the same time I have talked about how the BBC during the early decades of TV, had a paternatistic instinct, trying to bring 'high culture' to the 'great unwashed', and how by 'dumbing down' and offering more light entertainment, the first commercial rival was able to better satisfy the needs of the masses. And in this group we sometimes see people from different spheres of life, have awkward moments when their worlds collide. The business, entertainment, techie, academic, political, creative, arts and other angles of approach to the human condition, have all been represented here, sometimes for mutual benefit and understanding, and other times we may as well have been talking in completely different languages. >From snobbishness about 'worthless crap' on youtube to labes that paint the >masses as philistines, it is a minefield for sure, still better to talk about it and risk slipping and annoying someone, than be silent for fear of erring. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Cheryl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Huh. I got what you meant. Didn't find it insulting. But now I'm > curious - there has to be a more precise way to say it. Heath used the > term mainstream, which seems closer and doesn't add a word implying > social status (like "blue collar" does). > > How about "people who only drink the pop-culture kool-aid?" > > No, too weird, like me... Off to seek advice from the next wordsmith I > see. > > Cheryl > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Iliya Krempeaux" > <supercanadian@> wrote: > > > > I'm sorry you were insulted by what I said. I didn't mean to insult. > > > > The way it looks like to me is that whatever you want to call them... > > the vast majority of the people I know seem to have certain tastes in > > videos. I was trying to use a monicker that described them. > > > > I thought putting "normal" in quotes would be sufficient, and people > > would know what I meant. Maybe I should have used something like... > > "the common blue collar person". > > > > I thought "normal" would be a good monicker since you often hear terms > > like "the real people" used in political discourse to describe the > > same group. (Please note the quotes around "the real people"... and > > that I'm not the one who came up the phrase "the real people".) > > > > Again, sorry if I insulted you. > > > > -- > > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. > > http://ChangeLog.ca/ > > > > Motorsport Videos > > http://TireBiterZ.com/ > > > > Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Brook Hinton <bhinton@> wrote: > > > > > > Whoops just saw your followup. Gosh golly, you're right, I guess I > > > don't have any "layman" or "common people" in my audience. Only > > > "royalty" and "criminals"/ > > > > > > Sheesh. > > > > > > Brook > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > > > Brook Hinton > > > film/video/audio art > > > www.brookhinton.com > > > studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab > > >
