Neocon, why did you post your "brows" post to yourself? I ask because in it, you try to address some points that I raised in posting to you. Were you afraid I might respond right away? If so, you were right to be...<g>
1)You write:
First, in rejecting the democratization of high culture, I do not mean that only those of high birth or great wealth should have access to it. I love paperbacks and museums. I mean that encouraging people to think that hard labor and an adherence to standards is unnecessary in acquiring an education is pernicious...
Wha-a-a-t? Stating a fact -- that in the course of this century High Culture has been brought to the masses -- is to advance the "pernicious" idea that "hard labor & etc. are unnecessary in acquiring an education"? What a persnickety thing to say! Are you saying that attending St. John's entitled you to join the Cultural Elite, so you object to the hoi polloi being allowed in, too? What I was saying is that mass paperback publishing, for example, has put the classics within the reach of the masses -- and that many of the members of the "masses" have availed themselves of this opportunity!
Right, I can see it now. Joe Blow is sitting in the subway, reading, say, Madame Bovary. He is chewing gum; he is wearing a purple windbreaker and unlaced sneakers; in short, he is definitely "low brow" material. Are you going to march over to him, snatch the book out of his hand, and roar: "Bethink thyself, varlet! Thou hast not the learning nor the taste nor the devotion to hard work that the reading of Flaubert should demand of thee!" <g>
2) Further, you write:
I do not think that there is anything sacred or authentic about folk culture, which is just what customs people happened to have, and what artifacts (including art) that they happened to circulate before becoming more sophisticated and affluent.
To paraphrase Wittgenstein: Whereof thou dost not know, thereof ought thou to be silent.
And talk about straw men! Whoever said anything about folk culture being "sacred"? It is "authentic," however, if "authentic" means, as Webster says it does, "genuine," "real."
And why do you keep mixing up "culture" in the anthropological sense ("folkways") and "culture" in the aesthetic sense (art, music, dance, poetry, handicrafts)? And from the aesthetic point of view, do you really think bad rock music is superior, more "sophisticated," than the elaborate Georgian choral singing it has temporarily displaced (to take only one example)?
Let me give you an example where "folk culture" is clearly superior, aesthetically, to "modern culture." Folk costumes, practically everywhere in the world, are beautifully designed, meticulously adorned, scrupulously sewn and embroidered, etc., etc. They have been supplanted practically everywhere by often shoddy nondescript, ready-to-wear clothing. Ready-to-wear is much cheaper, and it sure saves time to buy a whole wardrobe rather than to sew one yourself. But -- it is nowhere near as beautiful!
3) One more point:
Human being like knick knacks and trinkets, it does not take Madison Avenue to create the desire. If a child is fond of Pokemon, he will enjoy contemplating the character, and trading cards is a way of doing it.....
Perhaps I did not make clear why I brought up "Pokemon." I have no objection to knick knacks, trinkets, & the like. What I DO object to is the aggressive marketing of one fad or another to little kids, who then whine and squeak at their parents until the latter finally go out and plonk down yet another day's pay on yet another pile of trinkets. And the kid, half the time, doesn't even really want this particular pile of trinkets; what he (or she) wants is not to be disgraced in the eyes of all his friends, who have also been persuaded that they will not be "with it" unless they have this latest thing...My point, in short, had to do with the effects of commercialization on culture. Advertising all too often bullies people (especially kids)into feeling they ought to like what in fact they do not like. (Not that I am calling for "government regulation." But facts are facts.)
4) Speaking as a true highbrow, let me say I don't much care for your treatment of "lowbrow," "middlebrow," and "highbrow." It is judgmental, rather than descriptive, for one thing, and the highbrow clearly "wins." But more than that, your definitions puzzle me: I have difficulty reconciling them with your praise for the "democratic" virtues of American (okay, "modern") popular culture, and with your admiration for some real lowbrow and (what's even worse!) middlebrow popular icons.
Here's another take on the "brow" issue, from an interview with
Michael Kammen, author of a recent book entitled: American Culture, American Tastes: Social Change and the 20th Century.
Q: What are the definitions of the taste levels "highbrow," "middlebrow," and "lowbrow" and their effect on Americans?
A: Definitions of taste levels (or brow levels) are extremely fluid and very much in the eye of the beholder. Yet another irony: although the operative definitions of taste levels (e.g., famously used by Russell Lynes in Harpers and Life in 1949) have become much less meaningful since the 1950s, many people do not seem to realize that. (Brow levels have become steadily more blurred during
the final third of this century.) Consequently terms like highbrow, middlebrow, and lowbrow continue to be used -- with the appearance of precision but not the reality of precision. Still another complexity: many people prefer labels that are not really appropriate for themselves. For example, not very many people choose to regard themselves as highbrows. Many highbrows proudly claim that they have lowbrow taste because they enjoy watching a lot of sports events on
television or like rock music or rap. Virginia Woolf, Virgil Thompson, and Raymond Chandler all said so explicitly.
randomhouse.com
|
