Just a holding post for now after hearing the first of four in full.
Democracy has bad taste.
Quality does not = popularity;
Quality = validated by enough of the right people.
Simple truth. And brings in the value of “authority” based on time-served effort to understand. That and the memetic downside of popularity – all there. Democracy itself needs layers of authority. Brilliant. This one will run. Fun too. Wonderful lecture on many levels, language and style as well as content and message. Direct and without prevarication. Refreshing. And a great collection of authorities in the invited audience, asking questions as I type.
More later no doubt.
[I like the fact that, after the visual-introduction-for-radio, there is no mention of cross-dressing in either the lecture or the Q&A.]
[Also important to note, in the context of this blog, that the bit of the "truth" people will baulk at is the idea of "the right people" - an inescapable kind of "elitism" based on earned authority - as many will want to reduce this to objective definitions as will cling to individual subjective democracy, whereas by definition it's a kind of "agreed subjectivity". And in fact it is very close to "governance" in any sphere, democratically delegated but operationally subjective - but never totally objective in terms of popular democratic numbers.]
[Post Note : No separate blog for the second lecture. Common sense description of the "baggy" definition of what constitutes art - starting with the inevitable Duchamp again - anything can be art but not everything is. Ultimately a Venn diagram of many complex and shifting issues.]