Saturday night’s Eurovision party was only slightly marred by the injustice of Russia’s tepid (but on ice!) entry triumphing over the far superior Ukrainian UN Peace envoy. Apparently Dima Bilan is massive in Eastern Europe, meh.
But imagine my delight that there is a small cross-disciplinary field of what might be called ‘eurovisiopsephology’ incorporating insights from politics, sociology and computer science.
Yes folks, those voting patterns can be analysed and simulated and predicted. Hurrah for science!
Looks pretty accurate to me, since even this piece of data gives the UK nil point.
Belgium tried to fool the Balkan bloc by using a fictive language that could be balcanic, but it didn’t work out.
Well, yes, Jennifer, but this doesn’t account for things like song quality or the number of knitting brides on stage. And some of the most educated of Eurovision commentators (ie, my most obsessed friends/acquaintances) are concluding it wasn’t political voting what won it, but Dima’s superstar status in eastern Europe. It would have been as if we’d fielded Kylie, or somesuch.
I wonder, if we continue objectifying art, do we erode subjectification until we can no longer consider it art? If so, what do we call it? Next, we’ll be kidding ourselves we like things that we know we don’t like. Or are we there already?
(I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue where I’m going with this…)
By objectifying art, do you mean the “scientific” or rational analysis of it, as per the pretty diagrams above, or the idea that, say, Eurovision has some political meaning?
(and do you mean subjectification as in the assessment by the individual as being subjective? I know it has a meaning in philosophy beyond that, but have a very wooly understanding of that)