Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 December 10

= December 10 =

New Zealand Royal Assent
When was the last time the Governor General of New Zealand did not give royal assent to a bill? 49.225.208.189 (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See Governor-General of New Zealand. The power of veto has not, to date, been exercised by a Governor-General. Tevildo (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that mean the Queen talks to the Governor General and tells him what to do? 49.225.208.189 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the Queen does not under normal circumstances give any instruction to the Governor General (of any of her domains). Formally, the Governor General is an appointee of the Queen to represent her interest to her domain while she is not present there.  Practically, the Governor General is appointed by the Prime Minister (and his advisors) of the country in question, and serves the same basic role as the Queen does in the UK: largely a symbolic figurehead which hypothetically can exercise executive power, but as a matter of course, does not.  The times when the GG of a Commonwealth Realm has exercised their actual power has ALWAYS resulted in a constitutional crisis: Two examples I can think of were the King-Byng Thing in Canada and the Dismissal of Gough Whitlam in Australia.  Like the Queen, the GG is supposed to look nice in public, open expressways, wave at the press, and otherwise stay out of the way as the real government runs the country.  -- Jayron  32  03:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, that was helpful. :-) 49.225.102.157 (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Constitutional Coup in Pakistan under Malik Ghulam Muhammad is probably one of the more extreme cases of a Governor-General exercising reserve powers. In answer to your question, according to the website of the Governor-General of New Zealand, reserve powers other the power to appoint a prime minister have never been used in New Zealand. Hack (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since NZ embraced Mixed-member proportional in 1996, it has been suggested the GG may need to take more of a role in the formation of governments, this sort of mentioned in Governor-General of New Zealand although as  says, it's more of a matter of being a facilitator when absolutely necessary with great care being taken to avoid being see as advocating for any particular outcome beyond the formation of some government that can command confidence and supply (whether through getting the 61 or whatever votes or however many needed if someone always abstains). In any case, there hasn't been any real need for this, even AFAIK in 1996 which had the most uncertain outcome. Given current political party groups (including the people involved), I don't think it's particularly likely either. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Possibly famous people in Tokyo
Can anyone identify the people in this photo I took in Tokyo? Judging how the people around them were reacting, they are probably famous or at least close to famous. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 07:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The man on the left is 千原ジュニア/Chihara Junior, a comedian and actor. The Japanese article is ja:千原ジュニア. See also . The man with bleached hair looks like a comedian too, but I do not know who he is. I think you can get the answer at ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers. It seems to me that they were shooting something for a TV program. Oda Mari (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is there demand for new art?
First, lest it should be unclear, I mean art in a broad sense, including sitcoms like Friends, for example. Surely there is enough material already in existence to last anyone a lifetime. So, why is there demand for new novels, new TV shows, new music and new paintings?--Leon (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Because art is always a reflection of its time and culture. Friends has aged somewhat gracefully (except for Chandler's laptop), but it's only 10-20 years old. Remington Steele, one of my favourite shows, hasn't done nearly as well. Much of the art of any generation is effectively ephemeral - it may survive in one form or the other, but it will lose its appeal and appear dated, stale and cliched soon. It may have a revival, but then typically only a select few pieces remain, and the audience may be limited to a small, sophisticated clientele. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, in part, "old" art gets to be old, both in the sense of becoming dated in terms of themes and techniques, and in the sense of being the art of previous generations. While very popular television shows like Friends and The Honeymooners are lauded as being almost timeless by some, there are other works that become dated very quickly. Try watching old episodes of The Spitting Image having no knowledge of British domestic politics and popular culture of the 1980s, for example. In short, I would say that ongoing movements in the arts and in culture both serve to change people's tastes, and thereby change people's demands. An alternative argument might center on the profitability of public domain works when you can create something new and have exclusive rights to it for years: there's less impetus to continue supplying such things. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Old vs. New is a factor. People are naturally creative, and there's no reason to stop creating. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Plus, don't forget that contemporary art galleries, TV companies, film studios etc. are capitalist enterprises who are in business to make money. They generate new works of art to sell in much the same way as a car company makes cars.   --Viennese Waltz 13:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Homer Simpson once said "Why do you need new bands? Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact." And later, he joined a mega-concert of those dreaded new bands. Cambalachero (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Capitalism might figure into it, but as Dick Clark once said, "No amount of hype can turn a dud into a hit." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying that capitalism "might figure into it" is like saying that economics "might figure into" the workings of the Federal Reserve. Read Art valuation. --Viennese Waltz 14:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. What I'm saying is that if it's junk, it won't generate much if any revenue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The question of what is good and bad art is an entirely subjective one, and has nothing to do with what is popular.  There are plenty of million-selling albums and Hollywood blockbusters that I consider to be worthless junk, but that doesn't say anything one way or the other about their ability to generate revenue. --Viennese Waltz 15:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's up to each individual consumer to decide what qualifies as "junk". If too few think something has quality, the item will not sell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that contradicts what you said above. There are no objective criteria for what constitutes "junk".  Junk sells. --Viennese Waltz 16:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then it must not be junk. Do you consider the original Star Wars movie to be "junk"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. --Viennese Waltz 19:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A large number of moviegoers thought otherwise. I saw it once, and it was OK. But it did have its detractors among the critics. Now, what about No Country for Old Men? It won for best picture. The acting was good, but the film was marred by what Siskel & Ebert would have called "the idiot plot". So, is that movie junk? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit skeptical of Stephan's and Mendaliv's answers (namely that the cause is that old art gets old) not because the facts are untrue (they are perfectly true) but because they don't seem to describe accurately how consumers of art operate. People do not first take a look at everything that is offered under old art, decide that it is too dated for them and then go looking for something more recent. The demand for the new is something that is not directly related to the old getting old. People look for new things. That's just the way it is. It's a drive in itself. I think the demand is divided into (1) looking for new things and (2) enjoying old stuff, and (1) and (2) are mixed in some proportion that varies between individuals, time periods, cultures, societies, and even art forms. The proportion of old art consumed by art music lovers is not the same as that consumed by people who enjoy popular music or opera or theatre or television or cinema or literature or painting. (The world of classical music or opera e.g. is notoriously conservative: programs contain a majority of works composed more than a hundred years ago, a striking contrast with concert or opera programs in the 19th c. say.) The demand for (1) can only be filled by new art, by definition, no matter how large the offer is for (2). Contact  Basemetal   here  14:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not that people get tired of any particular piece of art - the whole style will go out of style. For high art, you will get used to the mannerism and form language. How many Doric columns do you have to see before you've seen enough? How much Strauss waltzes can you hear before you get bored? Looking at "low art", the giant grey wired telephones in Hart to Hart are just quaint nowadays - as are, to a lesser degree, the 5 cm thick tablets on Star Trek: TNG. These things are products of their time and relate less and less to the current generations. Some few things are bound to become classics (or cult classics), but most just lose relevance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like everyone here to spare a couple of minutes and listen to this song, from 1921, complaining about then-current music which he calls "trash": ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Because the art-industrial complex won't allow the sale of the blue duck. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree on the comments above about many movies and TV shows quickly becoming dated. But look at this from the other way around.  Evolutionarily, art (as well as sport) is a byproduct or direct product of sexual selection.  People find artists and athletes, actors and lead singers, etc., sexy.  Certain sports and art forms like chess and novel writing may not be associated with sexiness, but they still use the same brain skills.  Also, artists themselves want to create their own work.  Mr A. Bowerbird is not content contemplating Mr. B. Bowerbirds work.  He wants to create his own.  For some great insights on the psychological importance of art to man, see the novelist Ayn Rand's The Romantic Manifesto and some excerpts on art, artistic creation, romanticism. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Since oyu say you mean "art in a broad sense, including sitcoms." I just tried watching some films I'd missed in the nineties. Well, guess what: they're incredibly dated and hard to enjoy for that reason. Everything would happen differently today. It's like watching films from the 20's. They're funny in a context I have to guess (or in the case of 90's try to remember.)   I mean, imagine you could get a chance to see stand-up comedy from ancient Rome (you have it translated for you). It would be fasctinating, to be sure. But would it be funny? You wouldn't get any of the references. Even if they *are* funny, and general enough for you to get (bathhouse humor), then it would be still better to have that translated to today's society. I mean just consider how hard it is to read ancient texts like the bible. There would be HUGE demand for a modern bible that translates ideas from shepherds bread etc into totally modern concepts. (I mean if there were a modern-day jesus). There isn't one though, so we have to enjoy the original art -- with a lot of difficulty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.61.236 (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Book ID (nonsense verse about birds)
Does anyone recognize the book in this post? I tried Googling the lines of the verse and found nothing; also, the user's ask page has the message "if you are here about a Popular Post i have no idea what the book in that post was," so assuming it's in reference to that book asking them isn't an option. 75.4.21.125 (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bewick's birds: a selection, Volume 8 Thomas Bewick; Hutchinson, 1952 - Birds - 181 pages, page 126.  Snippet view on Google. Collect (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! 75.4.21.125 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Not quite resolved. As a (nominal) member of the Bewick Society I should point out that the poem has nothing to do with Bewick. This is an edition of the Bewick bird illustrations with poems by A. S. J. Tessimond. Tessimond is the author. Paul B (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The question was about identifying the book -- which includes the illustrations. I admit my first guess was Wood, but I found Bewick quickly. Collect (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. What is the point of this defensive reply? I am trying to provide useful information to the questioner not get one over on you. Paul B (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I support Collect. He gave the right answer and there was no need for any follow-up. The additional information you provided was not useful. --Viennese Waltz 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Support Collect"?? What kind of ludicrous tit-for-tat world are we entering here? The author's question implied that he/she was interested in the poem. The tile of the section is "nonsense verse about birds" ("I tried Googling the lines of the verse and found nothing"), so I tried to be helpful and provided the answer, as I happen to be a member of the Bewick Society. Now I get comments that I am not being helpful. We are supposed to be helping people with answers to questions, not trying to "win" some kind of game. If the IP wants a copy of a relevant book, getting any edition of Bewick's birds won't help, so surely it's useful to know that the poems are by a particular author. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On your last point, Collect already gave the exact edition of the book the OP was looking for, so that's taken care of. On the other point, maybe it's just me but I don't like it when other people come along and make additional superfluous comments after I've already given the correct answer to a question.  It comes across as a bit "me-too".  Maybe that's what bothered Collect, but he/she can speak for him/herself I am sure. --Viennese Waltz 16:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Does this sound like an additional superfluous comment? Contact Basemetal   here  16:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference and annotation for a "Story"
I am looking for the printed version with an attribution of a "story" I have been looking for over a month and seem to have lost it. The story is about a spirit bird flying around the spirit world who comes across a huge castle which is mostly an immense great room. The bird flies down to investigate and flies in through a window. The bird finds all manner of human activity, good, bad and indifferent going on but, cannot be seen by the participants since it is a spirit bird. The bird learns that there is only one rule. The rule is that you can leave the great room any time you wish but you cannot get back in!!! I find elements of this story in the work of Plato (cave stories) and Confucius. It is key to both my philosophy and religious practice. If you can find the printed version and its attribution, it is worth a fast $500 contribution to the site you volunteer for. I am searching Karen Armstrong, William Houff, and Robert Fulghum but without success at this point in time. You may be my last hope for a while. Thanks, Ward Bowersox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:AE80:1A1:C34:B74:991D:3578 (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is similar to the Venerable Bede's parable of the sparrow (not mentioned in our article, but see WikiQuote for the text). However, it sounds as though you're looking for a modern story along the same lines. Tevildo (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ward, for $500 I'll write you that. How many pages do you need :)  I only have one rule . . . 212.96.61.236 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)