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.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.
If they identify more with Beyonce's music rather than Mozart's, is it fair to judge them?
Of course that won't be possible if all you have access to is the abstract.
Ok.Broadway shows are not usually considered high culture.
Seeing Oedipus Rex, or Shakespeare, or The Ring Cycle, is.
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.).
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.).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, so you zoned out just because I mentioned Hitler. Gotcha.
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.
As for the Hitler arguments, just don't bother.
Ok, so you zoned out just because I mentioned Hitler. Gotcha.
I just took you off block today. And back on you go.
He's in an accusatory, arrogant and inarticulate mood. Per usual.