High Culture and Popular Culture

[rav3n]

Shakespeare wrote for the masses. That is all.

 

[Honor]

I don't know. I'm not terribly educated. I have a two year degree in general studies from a rural community college. So basically, all high culture means to me is that it's old. But surely not everything that is old is high culture? So that is why I asked. I looked and couldn't find anything specific.

I think what he means is that he considers anything that's a fad (i.e. Harry Potter, Pokemon, etc.) to be "popular culture," whereas a Broadway show or a Jane Austen novel would be considered "high culture." I think the intention is to distinguish intelligent materials (i.e. books, plays, art, performances, publications, thoughts) from unintelligent but entertaining materials - but of course, it's a rather subjective definition. I'm sure there are some shows on Broadway that have less to contribute to humanity than a series of novels like Harry Potter.

 

[Zarathustra]

I think what he means is that he considers anything that's a fad (i.e. Harry Potter, Pokemon, etc.) to be "popular culture," whereas a Broadway show or a Jane Austen novel would be considered "high culture." I think the intention is to distinguish intelligent materials (i.e. books, plays, art, performances, publications, thoughts) from unintelligent but entertaining materials - but of course, it's a rather subjective definition. I'm sure there are some shows on Broadway that have less to contribute to humanity than a series of novels like Harry Potter.

Broadway shows are not usually considered high culture.

Seeing Oedipus Rex, or Shakespeare, or The Ring Cycle, is.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

If they identify more with Beyonce's music rather than Mozart's, is it fair to judge them?

It's not fair, but I still do somewhat.

Of course that won't be possible if all you have access to is the abstract.

Ding ding ding.

We have a winner.

 

[Honor]

Broadway shows are not usually considered high culture.

Seeing Oedipus Rex, or Shakespeare, or The Ring Cycle, is.

Ok.

 

[Pseudo]

If people buy better wine then traditional, smaller, historical winemakers earn more money and can keep their business going, which benefits the whole rural area (ftr I'm Italian so in the US it might be different). Plus, better wine is often just much better for your health (no sulfites etc.).

Yes, but idea was that buying these wines somehow makes someone a letter person.

I'm arguing that while appreciating complexity may make you appriciate complexity which could leading to other values , like being aware of the importance of local farms or the effects on the body of certain products, it is possible to have this positive qualities with out liking fine wines.

Sure somebody who like beyonce may not understand music like a beyonce conesuier, [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION], but I don't think that mean they are in empathetic or neccesarrily lacking other skills. This is why I said high culture is used to degrade people. At least her, in opposition to poster point, appreciation for high culture seems to be making some people here see other individuals as inferior just because they enjoy pop culture. I think there are very good, empathetic intelligent people who aren't, weren't in contact with high culture. And some very cruel people can be associated with high culture (Nero).

 

[Pseudo]

If people buy better wine then traditional, smaller, historical winemakers earn more money and can keep their business going, which benefits the whole rural area (ftr I'm Italian so in the US it might be different). Plus, better wine is often just much better for your health (no sulfites etc.).

Yes, but idea was that buying these wines somehow makes someone a letter person.

I'm arguing that while appreciating complexity may make you appriciate complexity which could leading to other values , like being aware of the importance of local farms or the effects on the body of certain products, it is possible to have this positive qualities with out liking fine wines.

Sure somebody who like beyonce may not understand music like a beyonce conesuier, [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION], but I don't think that mean they are in empathetic or neccesarrily lacking other skills. This is why I said high culture is used to degrade people. At least her, in opposition to poster point, appreciation for high culture seems to be making some people here see other individuals as inferior just because they enjoy pop culture. I think there are very good, empathetic intelligent people who aren't, weren't in contact with high culture. And some very cruel people can be associated with high culture (Nero).

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Um, Nazis had appreciation for high culture. Did that give them empathy?

Godwin, I know, but it seemed unavoidable.

Alex in A Clockwork Orange is a good riff on this bit of fallacious thinking.

 

[Zarathustra]

Per usual, [MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION], you seem unable to engage with what I'm actually saying, preferring instead to argue with some phantom person of your own creation who has absolutely no connection to what I am saying.

 

[chickpea]

High culture borrows from low culture and vice versa. And with time there's less and less of a difference between the two.

 

[Zarathustra]

^^^ Same goes for your Ti compadre above (wrt the OP, in his case).

Seems, once again, like an outbreak of the Ti reet disease.

How you all are so bad at logic, when that's what y'all are supposed to be good at is always a bit astounding.

How [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION] somehow thinks Ni doms are the one's with sloppy thinking, when Ti users make these kinds of statements, well...

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I don't need to read Pride and Prejudice, either, because, thanks to the implosion of the Gutenberg Galaxy, I can just watch it with Kiera Knightley on TV! I don't care about the dresses, really, but she's very hot, even in a cool medium.

And it's a fair question, [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION]. If high culture makes you empathetic, why didn't Hitler's love of high culture stop him from committing genocide? You didn't explain how I'm incorrect, you merely stated that this was so.

 

[Zarathustra]

And it's a fair question, [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION]. If high culture makes you empathetic, why didn't Hitler's love of high culture stop him from committing genocide? You didn't explain how I'm incorrect, you merely stated that this was so.

I didn't because I already know that answer, just as I said (and eventually demonstrated) to you the last time you tried this.

Your position is so easily dispatched, it's not even interesting enough to argue.

My only question is how you could actually possibly think it's a worthwhile thing to bring up.

I'd already thought of it many posts ago, and realized why it wasn't worth mentioning -- try to do the same yourself.

 

[Forever_Jung]

Hey guys! I'm just stepping in with the background facts, that might help give you something concrete to discuss. Mole is referencing this study, which has been making the rounds on various news websites:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/i-know-how-youre-feeling-i-read-chekhov/?_r=0

Basically the study shows that people who were assigned readings of literary fiction (like Chekhov and Alice Munro) performed better on tests that measure empathy, social skills, etc. Bestseller fiction like Gone Girl and Danielle Steel novels didn't help.

I guess Mole decided to include all of high culture, rather than limiting himself to literature, so he could come in and criticize MBTI. Which is fine, but the study doesn't say anything about classical music/art/other high culture.

If you look at the study carefully, it doesn't prove that popular literature never stimulates empathy, it's just that a lot of pop fiction is plot focused, not character focused. You don't get much of a chance to get inside the head space of complex characters. I'm sure there are popular and fun reads that give people practice empathizing, it's just more common in "high culture" books.

I imagine the reason they didn't explore the benefits of popular lit. is because they are trying to combat all the budget cuts to cultural programs with studies that demonstrate the practical benefits of the arts. So obviously they're going to frame their research in a way that serves that purpose.

As for the Hitler arguments, just don't bother.

 

[Zarathustra]

Hey guys! I'm just stepping in with the background facts, that might help give you guys something concrete to discuss. Mole is referencing this study, which has been making the rounds on various news websites:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/i-know-how-youre-feeling-i-read-chekhov/?_r=0

Basically the study shows that people who were assigned readings of literary fiction (like Chekhov and Alice Munro) performed better on tests that measure empathy, social skills, etc. Bestseller fiction like Gone Girl and Danielle Steel novels didn't help.

I guess Mole decided to include all of high culture, rather than limiting himself to literature, so he could come in and criticize MBTI. Which is fine, but the study doesn't say anything about classical music/art/other high culture.

If you look at the study carefully, it doesn't prove that popular literature never stimulates empathy, it's just that a lot of pop fiction is plot focused, not character focused. You don't get much of a chance to get inside the characters' head space. I'm sure there are popular and fun reads that give people practice empathizing, it's just more common in "high culture" books.

I imagine the reason they didn't explore the benefits of popular lit. is because they are trying to combat all the budget cuts to cultural programs with studies that demonstrate the practical benefits of the arts. So obviously they're going to frame their research in a way that serves that purpose.

As for the Hitler arguments, just don't bother guys.

Thank you, FJ.

An excellent post, per usual.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I didn't because I already know that answer, just as I said (and eventually demonstrated) to you the last time you tried this.

Your position is so easily dispatched, it's not even interesting enough to argue.

My only question is how you could actually possibly think it's a worthwhile thing to bring up.

I'd already thought of it many posts ago, and realized why it wasn't worth mentioning -- try to do the same yourself.

Ok, so you zoned out just because I mentioned Hitler. Gotcha.

 

[Pseudo]

Per usual, [MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION], you seem unable to engage with what I'm actually saying, preferring instead to argue with some phantom person of your own creation who has absolutely no connection to what I am saying.

I just took you off block today. And back on you go.

 

[Pseudo]

Ok, so you zoned out just because I mentioned Hitler. Gotcha.

He's in an accusatory, arrogant and inarticulate mood. Per usual.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I guess Mole decided to include all of high culture, rather than limiting himself to literature, so he could come in and criticize MBTI. Which is fine, but the study doesn't say anything about classical music/art/other high culture.

Yes... I actually can see how literature, especially stuff that's more character-focused and less plot-focused, would help with empathy/social skills. To some extent, I've benefited from it. Film could potentially do the same thing, or TV. I think the important thing is that these are all narrative.

I'm not convinced that visual arts or classical music (seeing as how it is either without words or in a language most peole don't understand) would help. Certainly, it is capable of stirring things emotionally. But what could it possibly teach you about interacting with someone else? How does a Hudson River School painting (look it up), for instance, teach someone social skills or empathy? Maybe it teaches them about appreciating nature, though.

As for the Hitler arguments, just don't bother.

It's a valid point and should be accounted for. If I found some other dictator, would that help?

Why is it "relevant" that the guy who shot up The Dark Knight Rises was studying neuroscience, but not "relevant" that Hitler liked painting and classical music? Or, to bring a more recent less interent meme-worthy example, why is it not "relevant" that the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech shootings was an English major?

 

[Zarathustra]

Ok, so you zoned out just because I mentioned Hitler. Gotcha.

No.

Your argument was just dumb.

That you can't figure out why is your own problem.

I just took you off block today. And back on you go.

And there go the two shits I couldn't give.

He's in an accusatory, arrogant and inarticulate mood. Per usual.

No.

Some people just aren't worth the breath.

Ti reets especially.