High Culture and Popular Culture

[DiscoBiscuit]

Thanks. I wanted a clear cut example. It's not the idea of 'high' culture that I disagree with, but the implications. I think the principles of the people that perpetuate a culture a much more telling than the culture itself. Discernment and elitism are not the same thing.

And what might those implications be???

As a side note, your icon is amazingly distracting.

I chose it for a reason.

 

[Holy]

And what might those implications be???

I mentioned it before. The idea that those who have more access to 'high' culture being viewed as greater than those who don't.
That's my main issue. Elitism is so silly.

I chose it for a reason.

Clearly, a good one : )

First off, d***e, you never asked me this.

Second, try dealing with the actual points your interlocutor makes, especially when they've directly answered the question you've asked. All you've done is go off an a new tangent, pretending as if you had asked me something before, even though it has nothing to do with the previous question asked, and the answer given (hints of Ne user: probably INFP [INFx seemed rather obvious from the start]).

Such a heated response. It's pretty amusing I gotta say. Since I first replied on the previous page of this thread, I suppose you could do us all a favor and take your own advice:

Also, who are the ones who decide high culture? I thought beauty was in the eye of the beholder. I think presentation of ideas is just as important as the content. There is more than one path to enlightenment. What use would it be to embrace peace and shun so called 'barbaric' behavior if one has never experienced it themselves? I'm not saying going out and murdering people. I just mean embracing a baser side of one's own consciousness, at least at one point in their lives seems...a little more genuine to me than thinking that I have experienced the entire world just because I read or saw a movie about it.

That being said, I also understand the other side of the argument as well. I just worry that the ones who usually have easier access to 'high class' material, will always been seen in a perfect light while the ones who do not are just as easily cast into a bias that says that they will always have a negative impact on society. It's not as if the only things you can learn from 'high class' material are virtue. You could just as easily learn how to be an adversary.

But, to answer your question: those who have the knowledge to do so.

This is really vague and comes off as hilariously holier than thou so you only have yourself to blame if one begins to infer that you reek of pomposity. Perhaps you could learn to express yourself without such brute force. I mean, did my replies really warrant that kind of reaction?

(hints of Ne user: probably INFP [INFx seemed rather obvious from the start])

I wonder what my MBTI type has to do with any part of this conversation?
Even if you had managed to type me correctly, which, you did not, it's quite irrelevant.

Apparently you missed all those times where I said that I partake in both low and high culture readily.

Try opening your eyes before, once again, you shoot your mouth off.

Well, considering you missed my entire first post explaining my stance I think I can be afforded some leeway : )

If you compare our current dominant low culture with the canon of high culture, there is far more exploitation of children's sexuality going on in low culture than there is in the canon of high culture. There is a semi-interesting discussion to be had here, but you're so missing the proper degree of proportionality to each side that you've rendered such a discussion useless.

Or you could not let yourself be so emotionally ruffled and simply explain yourself / give examples of what you mean. I will gladly fully examine your views quite objectively, if only you would explain them completely. It sounds like your dismissing me because I'm hinting at the possibility that I may not completely agree with you and that's just...juvenile. Or it could be that you don't have the patience to explain because it's just so obvious but since you're not talking to yourself you're probably going to have to be a little more clear. It seems that we have different cultural backgrounds so our views on the matter may not agree.

That is one interesting piece where an interesting debate could be had.
But, considering that is one book, amongst hundreds or thousands that would properly be considered high culture, 99% of which would yield no such difficult a debate, it would be myopic to focus too intently on Lolita and thus completely miss the forest for one tree.

I was using it as an example. I understand that it's only one thing, but it's one thing that seems to strike me as a standout. Never anywhere did I say, at any time, that Lolita fully encompasses high culture. The kettle is getting blacker.

I'm sorry, I don't recall responding to you, nor knowing or caring who you are.

And later on in this same post I believe you seem to become incensed over the notion that I did not read your posts.
I'm just noting this for my own humor and possibly others.

A very worthwhile topic of discussion.

Perhaps you should just read the post above that already addressed this topic:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64885&p=2153478&viewfull=1#post2153478

My question was answered, just not by the person I asked. It seems that you are so frustrated, simply answering honest inquiries is beyond your capacity.

No, probably not. There is plenty of not-easily-accessible low culture.

Okay, that was really important. See?, now I know that you are not completely unreasonable.

Regarding the former, I doubt culture "equates" to people. And regarding the latter, I don't know, do you like high culture?

That's strange. Something that people practice and in some cases, try to keep themselves from falling out of the confines of a particular one doesn't say anything about that person or the rest of the people with whom they are participating? The latter, was rhetoric and a bit of joke ( which was easily lost on you since I made no hint at marking my sarcasm )

Well, I am not surprised that a lowly cultured member of society such as yourself would not know the definition of "projection".

Oh, you know Freud. How novel.

And if you expect to get any kind of response from now on, do not selectively respond to what I write. Respond to every part of it. I understand that your entire posting style thus far has been an exercise in not reading, misreading, and reading into what was written what was not actually there, but maybe having to actually deal with each word written would help stop you from doing so.

(wishful thinking, I know, considering the extent of the problems displayed, but we may hope...)

I can't help it if I'm too busy snickering at your belligerence to respond to every little thing you said.

Actually, you have no idea what the fuck I have or have not thought about.

Taking note that this is coming from the same person that has tried to guess my MBTI in order to comfort themselves with their own inflated sense of logic. And then below proceeds to berate me based on where they think I am from. ie:

As it stands, you sound like another typical piece of Eurotrash who comes here thinking they know all about what they're talking about, when really they're just another prototypical postmodernist who doesn't have a clue.

Man, look at the big kid using their big words and labels! Isn't it much easier to say: 'I don't agree with you' and give me an actual reason instead of using my possible social class and school of thought as your defense? For the record, I am not in any way European nor do I care about or subscribe to postmodernism. At least your insults are interesting. I'll give you that.

Try being around here for more than a day or two, with 4 posts, before thinking you know who the fuck people are and what they're about.

I really wish I had blinders that worked as well as yours did. Again, your own advice. Take it.
And as far as my post count goes: quality over quantity.
I had input so I gave. It's not to your liking? You have no idea how much I do not care. Really.

If anyone's a baby around here, it's you.

I really want you to think about the way you've been responding to me.
Think about the slew of curses and insults you had to give just to try to prove your point.
Look at the verbal tantrum you've been having just because I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion.
Those blinders. They are amazing.

Ouch. You really got me there, bub.

I don't have to. You are doing it for me.

You are so very defensive.
I don't get it.

It's just the internet. Calm down.
It's...embarrassing.

 

[FigerPuppet]

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I mentioned it before. The idea that those who have more access to 'high' culture being viewed as greater than those who don't.
That's my main issue. Elitism is so silly.

One would need to define greater in this instance.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Btw, just ftr, ITT the dominant postmodern cultural paradigm is attacked, and its proponents (aka the sheep) rush to defend it.

Lol, at you calling me a post-modernist. I just have little patience for snobbery at personal preferences (which includes post-modern hipsters) from anyone older than 25 and self-righteous self-important posturing about "taste". The Nazis had "taste" which is relevant, actually, because it tells you how fucking useless "taste" is. It doesn't mean that anyone with "taste" is a Nazi, it just means that as an indicator of a "better person" "taste" is pretty fucking laughable. Why not instead of using "taste" to determine who is a "barbarian", we use things like behaviors? Hippy-dippy fluff, I know.

The only thing that determines high culture is the fact that people still remember it centuries after the fact. How, then, does one know that the "low culture" of today cannot become the "high culture" of tomorrow? Perhaps if people could consider things from the past century as belonging to "high culture" the concept might have some value, but it usually refers to stuff older than that. As though there aren't people producing things that are valuable and relevant today. Evidently, for something to be relevant and valuable, it must be removed from the present moment.

Yes, I think the past is important, and it shouldn't be dismissed just because it was done by "dead old white men". But, so is more recent history/the present.

 

[Zarathustra]

This will be my last response to you.

It is clear who you are now, if only I could remember his/her name.

Probably an unhealthy 5 -- he/she was INTP -- gets off on convincing self that others are "responding emotionally" -- argumentative -- but doesn't actually engage with what was said -- it's all there (ha, now that I remember, he/she even ha the pot/kettle metaphor as his/her profile image -- typical).

Such a heated response. It's pretty amusing I gotta say.

Aren't you awesome Mister Enneagram 5?

Look how calm and dispassionate you are.

Others are clearly your inferior.

(nevermind the fact that you're projecting what's not actually there, and unable to actually deal with the objective points that are raised)

(really don't need to deal with a self-described shut-in incapable of getting outside his own head -- have better things to do)

Since I first replied on the previous page of this thread, I suppose you could do us all a favor and take your own advice:

Yes, well, since you first responded to me, in response to something asked of someone else, and I never responded to you, nor had any intention of doing so, it's not really on me to have read your posts beforehand, whereas it is on you to have done so to me. See the principle? If you're going to pick a fight, then actually have done the homework. If a fight is picked with you, and especially by someone who did so without having first done their homework on you, then there is certainly no onus on you to suddenly do it on them.

Amazing. Principles.

This is really vague...

Not really.

It's actually very distinct.

Some people have that knowledge, some do not.

I just chose to address the general category of people, not the specific individuals who fit under that category.

...and comes off as hilariously holier than thou so you only have yourself to blame if one begins to infer that you reek of pomposity.

Holier and more pompous than naming yourself "Holy" and calling yourself a "PURE" type?

Watch our for that pot/kettle metaphor that you seem hell bent on using, seeing as how aptly it fits you; one might come to reason that your tendency is to go around wielding it, precisely because it's so true of you (albeit unconsciously).

I wonder what my MBTI type has to do with any part of this conversation?
Even if you had managed to type me correctly, which, you did not, it's quite irrelevant.

We're on a typology website, you don't have your type listed, and type affects why and how we perceive and judge things.

Pretty relevant, on many counts, actually.

Well, considering you missed my entire first post explaining my stance I think I can be afforded some leeway : )

No, again, you cannot.

Based on the principle, and an understandable one, laid out above.

Anything less would be uncivilized (i.e., expecting something of me that you did not do yourself, when you were the one who initiated).

Or you could not let yourself be so emotionally ruffled and simply explain yourself...

Believe it or not, while I understand that in your unhealthy enneagram 5 mind this makes you feel superior, it's actually a completely reasonable response to get pissed off when someone who you have not said a word to, unprovoked, comes out of nowhere and calls you a hypocrite, falsely, based on a blatant and demonstrable misreading of what you've said.

In such a case, I don't feel the need treat such a person civilly, as the very first interaction that they initiated was uncivil.

In other words, go **** yourself.

You started this, and not only did you start it, but you can't even keep up with the logical arguments that have been made, so don't fret that there's a fire in the back, when you can't even handle the logic that's up front.

/ give examples of what you mean.

I have responded completely appropriately to everything you have asked.

If you want an example of people who fall in the category of "people who know", then ask.

I will gladly fully examine your views quite objectively if only you would explain them completely.

Why are you so arrogant to think that I would even give a shit about getting your examination?

Believe it or not, your examination means absolutely nothing to me.

I understand that 5s (and TPs) get off off on this kind of shit, thinking their analysis is the most paramount thing in the universe, but, believe it or not, it's not. And, not only that, but based on your clear inability to follow what I have said, and your lack of thoroughness in surveying the evidence that does exist, and your unprincipled behavior in expecting something of me that you did not do yourself, when you were the one who initiated with me, not I with you, I have little-to-no faith in your ability to actually be objective.

It sounds like your dismissing me because I'm hinting at the possibility that I may not completely agree with you and that's just...juvenile.

What's juvenile is everything about your behavior that I just enumerated above.

I was using it as an example. I understand that it's only one thing, but it's one thing that seems to strike me as a standout. Never anywhere did I say, at any time, that Lolita fully encompasses high culture.

And never anywhere did I say that's what you said.

You used Lolita as an example to muddle the lines between high and low culture.

All I stated was that because there are some pieces that muddle the lines does not mean there's no such thing as high and low culture.

Learn to follow an argument.

The kettle is getting blacker.

Your projecting is getting more evident.

And later on in this same post I believe you seem to become incensed over the notion that I did not read your posts.
I'm just noting this for my own humor and possibly others.

Yes, apparently you missed out on that principle I laid out above.

If you're actually capable of understanding it, then I'm sorry to have ruined the humor for you.

I'm sure, as an unprincipled person to begin with, you can find some other strategy to make yourself feel significant, tho.

My question was answered, just not by the person I asked.

Good for him.

That's one specific group who he thinks falls under the general category I laid out.

It's an understandable one, and many would, and I might have, laid it out, if I'd wanted to be specific.

That being said, though, they probably would not have been my first.

It seems that you are so frustrated, simply answering honest inquiries is beyond your capacity.

If honest inquiries were what you'd actually offered, I would have had no problem answering them, and pleasantly so.

But honest inquiries were not what you offered, pot.

Okay, that was really important.

See?, now I know that you are not completely unreasonable.

But see? I couldn't give two shits what you think about me.

I know who I am, and I already know that I am completely reasonable.

You, on the other hand, know nothing about me, and, as such, your opinions about me don't mean anything at all.

That's strange. Something that people practice and in some cases, try to keep themselves from falling out of the confines of a particular one doesn't say anything about that person or the rest of the people with whom they share it with in said culture?

Once again, your clearly demonstrated inability to follow an argument: "doesn't say anything about" does not equate to "equates to".

I suppose it should not be surprising that an art school drop out would make such a conflation, tho.

The latter, was rhetoric and a bit of joke ( which was easily lost on you since I made no hint at marking my sarcasm )

I have a degree in Rhetoric, so I really don't need it pointed out to me.

I got your joke, I just turned it around on you.

I wouldn't point that out to you if you didn't demonstrate that clearly it needed to be.

Once again: pot calling kettle.

Just, in this case, the pot's not even naming the right color.

Oh, you know Freud. How novel.

Oh, you know sarcasm. How impressive.

I can't help it if I'm too busy snickering at your belligerence to respond to every little thing you said.

Once again, congratulations Mr. Unhealthy Enneagram 5 on maintaining that false sense of superiority.

Perhaps when you actually learn to deal with reality and the external world I will be able to give half a shit.

Taking note that this is coming from the same person that has tried to guess my MBTI in order to comfort themselves with their own inflated sense of logic.

And that's what's known as a false attribution of intention.

Nothing about my guessing your MBTI has to do with comforting myself.

I'm merely getting a read on who you are, and with each sentence it keeps getting closer and closer.

And then below proceeds to berate me based on where they think I am from.

Actually, I did not berate you based on where I thought you were from (and when I wrote that, I fully maintained the possibility you were not actually European), but based on your displaying the same type of ignorance as those types of people.

There's a difference.

(even though you're not aware enough to see it)

Man, look at the big kid using their big words and labels! Isn't it much easier to say: 'I don't agree with you' and give me an actual reason instead of using my possible social class and school of thought as your defense?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize "prototypical" and "postmodernist" were considered big words and labels anymore/on here.

And I didn't realize that someone who picks a fight, falsely calling someone a hypocrite, based on a clear and demonstrable misreading of what they have said, and lacking of reading of what else they said immediately above that blatantly contradicts your claims, was in any sort of position to state how others ought to behave.

For the record, I am not in any way European.

Thank you.

I'd already figured as much before your response.

I really wish I had blinders that worked as well as yours did.

Yes, yours seem to be on far too tight.

Again, your own advice. Take it.

I'm following some pretty damn good principles already.

You're the one who needs to learn to get on board with them.

And as far as my post count goes: quality over quantity.

Well, I gotta say, I see a lot of shit so far.

And apparently, AGAIN (not surprisingly), you missed the point of why I said that.

I had input so I gave. It's not to your liking? You have no idea how much I do not care. Really.

Oh, I assure you, I do.

Going with 5w6.

Perhaps 6w5.

That would be interesting.

I believe that's what the other one eventually typed as.

Seems to have a good dose of counterphobia (and unaware of it).

We'll see if they can actually learn to put it to good use.

I really want you to think about the way you've been responding to me.
Think about the slew of curses and insults you had to give just to try to prove your point.
Look at the verbal tantrum you've been having just because I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion.
Those blinders. They are amazing.

I don't have to. You are doing it for me.

You are so very defensive.
I don't get it.

It's just the internet. Calm down.
It's...embarrassing.

 

[Mole]

it makes me a little sad because I like you.

I am sorry, Cafe, for making you sad.
[MENTION=4]cafe[/MENTION]

 

[Mole]

If find it hard to beilive that your high culture has resulted in empathy when you consider people with out your taste and experiences to be "barbarians".

Don't take my word for it. Read the article in Science and see high culture literature measurably increases empathy.

We are faced today with religious barbarism where, in the name of God, we kill civilians in malls with automatic weapons and grenades.

Of course we need force, ie, hard culture, to defeat these barbarians, but we also need soft culture, ie, high culture, to maintain our morale, to fight from the moral high ground, and to offer something better than religious barbarism.

 

[Mole]

There is value in everything, dear Victor, if you know where to look. And I'll ask you to look upon the world with kindness, even when you feel hopeless.

I think, dear 21%, we are moving out of the fuzzy world of New Age kindness into a realistic world of tough love.

We have just voted in a Conservative Government to repair the damages done by the trusting, the idealistic, the gullible, New Age world.

 

[Mole]

I would argue that it is a barrier to the untalented, and that as long as one can mask their more base instincts, it will accept those with all different kinds moral inclinations.

This is a good argument.

We can, though, do things for intrinsic or extrinsic reasons. In other words, we can do things for their own sake, or simply as a means to an end.

And as you and I are ends not means, I take it that doing things for their own sake, is aestheticlly and morally superior than using us as means to an end.

And you are quite right: high culture can be used for moral or immoral ends. However the fact that high culture is usually made for its own sake encourages a state of mind that values doing things for their own sake.

 

[Zarathustra]

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]

Do you think 'The Wind in the Willows' counts as High Culture?

 

[Mole]

Mole and High Culture

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]

Do you think 'The Wind in the Willows' counts as High Culture?

Yes, if for no other reason than it is well written.

And it was written before the catastrophe of the First World War, and Wind in the Willows has lasted right up to the present day. And I think we can say it is part of our literary canon.

Wind in the Willows has been taken into our culture and informs our values. It is read to children across the world, and it also appeals to grownups.

When I buy my coffee in the morning, they ask my name, and I say, Mole, and most baristas know of Mole - high culture with coffee.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ok, not trying to be an ass, but it's bugging me.


A cannon is something you shoot at people with. A collection of important works is a canon.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

When I buy my coffee in the morning, they ask my name, and I say, Mole, and most baristas know of Mole - high culture with coffee.

Lol. Charles Winchester is that you? I love you in MASH.

 

[WALMART]

Ok, not trying to be an ass, but it's bugging me.


A cannon is something you shoot at people with. A collection of important works is a canon.

Our Mole on High
Deliver us, that thunderous Cannon
Absolve me of Twilight

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes, if for no other reason than it is well written.

And it was written before the catastrophe of the First World War, and Wind in the Willows has lasted right up to the present day. And I think we can say it is part of our literary canon.

Wind in the Willows has been taken into our culture and informs our values. It is read to children across the world, and it also appeals to grownups.

When I buy my coffee in the morning, they ask my name, and I say, Mole, and most baristas know of Mole - high culture with coffee.

The only thing I can see here that could not likewise be applied to just about any element of low culture would be that it is well-written.

And some elements of low culture might even be said attain that status.

I say this not to be argumentative, nor because I disagree with your fundamental point -- that high culture is more enriching to our souls than is low culture -- but because I do think it's an interesting question how new works of art come to be considered a part of high culture, as opposed to low culture.

 

[Blackmail!]

The Nazis had "taste" which is relevant, actually, because it tells you how fucking useless "taste" is.

No, unfortunately you're totally wrong on that specific subject. The Nazi regime rejected very strongly high culture and appealed everytime to the masses, very demagogically, just like what you did when you tried to use that argument. True independant artists were prosecuted and murdered everyday under the Nazi rule, while "popular" German arts were encouraged and subsidized. Nazis had lists of books and musics you would not be allowed to read or hear.

Hitler was a failed artist, a failure of the system, so he hated high culture even more because he had been rejected by it. He hated "high painting", he hated "high music". His actual tastes in classical music were ridiculous. Have you tried to hear Anton Bruckner works and not fell asleep? He hated Mozart with a fierce rage, he hated Beethoven even more. Everything he really liked was a lowly popular form of the contemporary "German/Austrian rural/folk music" of his times. For the United States, the best possible comparison would be country music.

Every totalitarian ideologies hate high culture and try to replace it with a form of impoverished "low culture", to control the masses and make them more obedient. It is actually one of the possible definition of totalitarianism, and the exact same phenomena occured both in Stalinism and Islamism (Italian Fascism being the sole exception, because it didn't immediately destroyed its "avant-garde").

"Wenn ich das Wort Kultur höre, dann greife ich schon an meinen Revolver" -> Baldur von Schirach, head of the Hitler Jugend.

Translation: "When I hear the word "culture", I have to grab my Revolver".

The only thing that determines high culture is the fact that people still remember it centuries after the fact.

Once again, you're wrong.

There are contemporary works that can be undoubtedly labelled as "High culture". Why do you think some people still manage to win the Nobel prize of litterature?
And it's the same for movies, and it's still the same for painting, and anything else.
When for instance you watch a movie like "the Hunt" (Thomas Vinterberg -> 2012), it's not the same experience as the latest Hollywood blockbuster, and it's not for the same audience as well. And even you, I'm sure you would not be able to confuse David Lynch or Terrence Malick with American Pie or Harry Potter. Can you tell me at least why?

 

[Zarathustra]

Blackmail and I have managed to agree on something.

That's when you really know the rest of you people are wrong.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

No, unfortunately you're totally wrong on that specific subject. The Nazi regime rejected very strongly high culture and appealed everytime to the masses, very demagogically, just like what you did when you tried to use that argument. True independant artists were prosecuted and murdered everyday under the Nazi rule, while "popular" German arts were encouraged and subsidized. Nazis had lists of books and musics you would not be allowed to read or hear.

Yes... much like a list of stuff that's in "good taste". I'm not the one advocating the dismissal of certain forms of culture. Yes, the Nazis hated modern art, and hated new stuff. I'm not arguing with you. They hated the modern in favor of the traditional. To me, the term "high culture" does not allow for modern art, but only for traditional art. I've never seen a good denotation of the term, so I'm stuck with the connotations I have, which to me includes traditional and excludes anything made after the 20th century.

Hitler was a failed artist, a failure of the system, so he hated high culture even more because he had been rejected by it. He hated "high painting", he hated "high music". His actual taste in classical music were ridiculous. Have you tried to hear Anton Bruckner works and not fell asleep? He hated Mozart with a fierce rage, he hated Beethoven even more.

Horseshit. I'm not sure about Mozart... but...

http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/arts/musreich.htm

According to Hitler and Goebbels (Hitler's second in command), the three master composers that represented good German music were Ludwig van Beethoven, Richard Wagner, and Anton Bruckner.

I like Beethoven. I'm not hating on Beethoven. But if Hitler felt Beethoven was an abomination, I'd need to see a quote, and only like German country music, whatever that is, I'd need to see a quote.

This is the first time I've heard of Bruckner, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people still consider Wagner to be high culture. You might also want to read some of Wagner's complaints about "low culture." I wonder how they would fit into your argument.

Every totalitarian ideologies hate high culture and try to replace it with a form of impoverished "low culture", to control the masses and make them more obedient. It is actually one of the possible definition of totalitarianism.

Actually, I think what you do with totalitarian ideologies is make people jerk off to the superiority of your civilization against "barbarism." Which is exactly what someone is doing in this thread.

There are contemporary works that can be undoubtedly labelled as "High culture". Why do you think some people still manage to win the Nobel prize of litterature?

And it's the same for movies, and it's still the same for painting, and anything else.

Contemporary things are not what I think of when I think of high culture. I never get the sense that people invoking the term "high culture" are referring to Paul Thomas Anderson, or (even better) Stanley Kubrick movies, for instance. "High culture" to me, privileges the traditional over the innovative. I've never seen a good denotation of "high culture", so I'm stuck with the connotations it turns up.

Excuse me, my head is getting itchy. Let me take off my cowboy hat and go fire guns at paint cans. I have to take my pickup truck out early tomorrow to rope some cattle.

 

[Mole]

No, unfortunately you're totally wrong on that specific subject. The Nazi regime rejected very strongly high culture and appealed everytime to the masses, very demagogically, just like what you did when you tried to use that argument. True independant artists were prosecuted and murdered everyday under the Nazi rule, while "popular" German arts were encouraged and subsidized. Nazis had lists of books and musics you would not be allowed to read or hear.

Hitler was a failed artist, a failure of the system, so he hated high culture even more because he had been rejected by it. He hated "high painting", he hated "high music". His actual taste in classical music were ridiculous. Have you tried to hear Anton Bruckner works and not fell asleep? He hated Mozart with a fierce rage, he hated Beethoven even more. Everything he really liked was a lowly popular form of the contemporary "German/Austrian rural music" of his times. For the United States, the best possible comparison would be country music.

Every totalitarian ideologies hate high culture and try to replace it with a form of impoverished "low culture", to control the masses and make them more obedient. It is actually one of the possible definition of totalitarianism, and the exact same phenomena occured both in Stalinism and Islamism (Italian Fascism being the sole exception, because it didn't immediately destroyed its "avant-garde").

"Wenn ich das Wort Kultur höre, dann greife ich schon an meinen Revolver" -> Baldur von Schirach, head of the Hitler Jugend.

Translation: "When I hear the word "culture", I have to grab my Revolver".

Once again, you're wrong.

There are contemporary works that can be undoubtedly labelled as "High culture". Why do you think some people still manage to win the Nobel prize of litterature?
And it's the same for movies, and it's still the same for painting, and anything else.
When for instance you watch a movie like "the Hunt" (Thomas Vinterberg -> 2012), it's not the same experience as the latest Hollywood blockbuster, and it's not for the same audience as well. And even you, I'm sure you would not be able to confuse David Lynch or Terrence Malick with American Pie or Harry Potter. Can you tell me at least why?

This is very well put, my dear Blackmail, you have covered all the bases and made an unassailble case for high culture. We are indebted to you.