Good Taste and Vulgarity

[Mole]

Popular culture is largely vulgar, while high culture is largely refined.

Popular culture requires no education to be appreciated, while high culture can't be appreciated without an education.

For instance, astrology is popular culture while astronomy is high culture; and mbti is popular culture while psychometrics is high culture.

Unfortunately many of us personally identify with popular culture, and take critique of popular culture as personal criticism.

And worse, in popular culture it is cool to mock high culture. It is a form of reverse snobbery.

In fact mocking high culture is now a badge of belonging to popular culture.

Interestingly, culture is a matter of taste, and good taste is found in high culture, and vulgarity is found in popular culture.

 

[á´…eparted]

Interestingly, a study has shown that cursing a lot, and using a lot of vulgarity is a sign that an individual is trustworthy and gives no bullshit. Sadly, the study is singular and doesn't hold much.

Nevertheless, I've seen this to be pretty true throughout my life. I also curse like a fucking sailor and give no shits either (granted, I try to temper it somewhat on the forums and in formal company). Left standards though I swear ALL the time. So long as context is taken into play, vulgarity isn't a problem, and quite a lot of people enjoy it. It doesn't make them bad or unrefined.

Also, I don't see people taking these sort of "critques" as a personal critisism. People are MUCH more reasonable than you give them credit for. Further, defining "good and bad taste" is not something that can universally or cleanly be done, due to too much subjectivity.

 

[RobinSkye]

Tell me more about this Psychometrics. Where would you start with learning about it?

 

[Coriolis]

Popular culture is largely vulgar, while high culture is largely refined.

Popular culture requires no education to be appreciated, while high culture can't be appreciated without an education.

For instance, astrology is popular culture while astronomy is high culture; and mbti is popular culture while psychometrics is high culture.

Unfortunately many of us personally identify with popular culture, and take critique of popular culture as personal criticism.

And worse, in popular culture it is cool to mock high culture. It is a form of reverse snobbery.

In fact mocking high culture is now a badge of belonging to popular culture.

Interestingly, culture is a matter of taste, and good taste is found in high culture, and vulgarity is found in popular culture.

The highlighted is questionable at best. I have seen even young children with very little education under their belts respond well to what typically passes for high culture, especially classical music and visual arts of various sorts. Even cuisine and fashion. They can't appreciate and enjoy it if it isn't presented to them, though.

 

[Crabs]

I usually listen to Jazz or Classical music at work, with a ball cap on backwards and some sort of graphic t-shirt. Also, I don't give a shit about pop culture/high culture.

 

[Dyslexxie]

If we're stereotyping I could see merit in this but taste is subjective, and it doesn't make one less or more cultured if they prefer one type of music or art versus another. My piano teacher, a very talented, classically trained pianist, was so bored of complex music that if he had a choice and didn't have to pretend, he'd listen to pop like Britney Spears and Lady Gaga.

I don't know I'd I necessarily agree that popular culture mocks high culture or that people take high offense to being labeled. I think people who watch the Kardashian show know it's trash, and many joke about it themselves, although I can't say I really know of anyone who mocks classic lit or music.

Education has little to do with taste - I think the only reason stereotype that holds merit here would be education may give people exposure to different and often more refined culture, but I don't think education = culture. Education is highly biased so really, making claims one way or another is pretty difficult. I know some pretty classless educated people, just like I know some pretty brilliant and talented people who've never stepped foot in a formal higher education institution. My aunt has the biggest stick up her butt about how much class she's got because she has not one buy TWO masters degrees and how that makes her high society but that very notion makes me think she's an idiot. If you're that high and mighty maybe tone it down a little, your piece of paper doesn't make you better or worse than anyone.

I'm done ranting though. I'm gonna go enjoy my classless Seinfeld because I didn't a masters degree to tell me what good taste is.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

We're a culture where highbrow and lowbrow have merged. The distinction between the two is muddy and there is a lot of overlap.

Someone can sip their 200 dollar wine whilst laughing at episodes of Family Guy. Or drink Boone's Farm while binging on Ted Talks.

And that's perfectly fine.

Taste is always subjective and, while individual taste may not reflect popular taste, they are linked and influence one another, even if this isn't always apparent to the individual or to the collective. Taste will always be defined by values and feelings and evolves and changes with them correspondingly. Opinion and taste are related, though not necessarily the same. Sometimes taste reflects truth, but more often it is simply a reflection of opinion.

 

[indra]

Vas likes pop and she's one of the most refined people I've met.


CASE CLOSED.

 

[Proctor]

First off, the idea high brow culture can only be enjoyed by the educated is elitist rubbish. Perhaps you could make a case that only those with a deep comprehensive knowledge of a piece of art can appreciate it. Just as only a talented pianist can really enjoy Chopin's piano concertos. I don't agree with that, but there's an argument to be made.

Secondly, just because something is vulgar doesn't mean it's necessarily low brow trash. There are plenty of examples of vulgar pop culture which are deep, provocative and can give profound insight into the human condition. And there exist many tasteful, refined pieces which are intellectually bankrupt. I studied English Literature at college and the amount of empty, pompous, but tasteful poetry could fill library after library.

 

[magpie]

This is exactly the type of thinking that discourages people from engaging in theatre, particularly if the play is Shakespeare or a Greek Tragedy. They assume they won't be able to understand because they're not "educated" enough. But if the production is done well, everyone can understand regardless of how educated they are or aren't.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

This is exactly the type of thinking that discourages people from engaging in theatre, particularly if the play is Shakespeare or a Greek Tragedy. They assume they won't be able to understand because they're not "educated" enough. But if the production is done well, everyone can understand regardless of how educated they are or aren't.

Yes. Shakespeare was actually quite popular with commoners and aristocrats alike.

 

[magpie]

Yes. Shakespeare was actually quite popular with commoners and aristocrats alike.

And Shakespeare's plays themselves are filled with tons of vulgarity. Interesting that they're now considered "high culture."

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

And Shakespeare's plays themselves are filled with tons of vulgarity. Interesting that they're now considered "high culture."

I think his plays are the equivalent of Steven Spielberg or even Farrelly Brothers films for Elizabethan times.

I don't mean to bash them and that isn't my intent, but as art ages and the language of society evolves whilst the language with which the art was made appears more and more wordy or difficult to translate compared to the constantly evolving live language, people have a tendency to begin to assign higher status to art that may have been made not with elitist academics in mind, but rather with the goal of appealing to a broader audience.

I once saw a debate over Ray Harryhausen films. Someone defended his films and said they're better than the garbage being spewed by Michael Bay. Someone else countered them and said Harryhausen films WERE the equivalent of Michael Bay films in their time. I am inclined to agree with the latter opinion. They're good, but they were never made as high art. They were made as popcorn films for people who appreciate sfx and escapism.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Art can and should impact us on a deeper level, bypassing ego constructs, just like smells, sounds, and touch. Anyone should be able to appreciate good music, no matter their background, and good can include non classic highbrow stuff.

Creativity is for everyone and brings joy to life and heals the soul.

Several of our local highbrow museums have special programs for kids. The kids love looking at great art then doing a project of their own.

Another one has a special program for Alzheimer's patients. They come in once a week and the art opens their minds for a few minutes, giving then great joy and lucidity.

Does the commercialization of entertainment interfere with culture? Yes. But we also get amazing productions that are masterpieces like Breaking Bad.

Unfortunately, with the billions spent advertising, we get a lot of crap motivated to hit us at our psychological choke points, so we will watch and buy.

But everyone can love culture. Before technology, people all over did a lot more community culture events-plays, readings, debates, music, etc. This is unfortunate, because so many would gain from actually interacting with others and being involved in life, instead of being in their cocoon, locked into Facebook or video games or Netflix....

 

[magpie]

I think his plays are the equivalent of Steven Spielberg or even Farrelly Brothers films for Elizabethan times.

I don't mean to bash them and that isn't my intent, but as art ages and the language of society evolves whilst the language with which the art was made appears more and more wordy or difficult to translate compared to the constantly evolving live language, people have a tendency to begin to assign higher status to art that may have been made not with elitist academics in mind, but rather with the goal of appealing to a broader audience.

I once saw a debate over Ray Harryhausen films. Someone defended his films and said they're better than the garbage being spewed by Michael Bay. Someone else countered them and said Harryhausen films WERE the equivalent of Michael Bay films in their time. I am inclined to agree with the latter opinion. They're good, but they were never made as high art. They were made as popcorn films for people who appreciate sfx and escapism.

I once heard someone call Shakespeare the Stephenie Meyer of his time. I don't think the equivalency is quite correct, since Shakespeare was actually a talented writer and you can't exactly say that for Stephenie Meyer. But yeah, his plays were written to appeal to a large number of people. It was entertainment and there's nothing wrong with that. What makes them interesting to study now is the historical relevence and the way meaning has changed for us as compared to an audience in Shakespeare's time. But the plays are still relevant to people currently, even if what exactly is relevant about them has changed with time. I mean, that's what makes something timeless.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I once heard someone call Shakespeare the Stephenie Meyer of his time. I don't think the equivalency is quite correct, since Shakespeare was actually a talented writer and you can't exactly say that for Stephenie Meyer. But yeah, his plays were written to appeal to a large number of people. It was entertainment and there's nothing wrong with that. What makes them interesting to study now is the historical relevence and the way meaning has changed for us as compared to an audience in Shakespeare's time. But the plays are still relevant to people currently, even if what exactly is relevant about them has changed with time. I mean, that's what makes something timeless.

I would compare him to Stephen King, maybe. King is a talented writer. I'm not a big fan but I can agree he writes well enough. I imagine King will be regarded more highly if his writing should survive 400 years from now.

 

[magpie]

I would compare him to Stephen King, maybe. King is a talented writer. I'm not a big fan but I can agree he writes well enough. I imagine King will be regarded more highly if his writing should survive 400 years from now.

I've never actually read any Stephen King books, so I'll take your word for it.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I've never actually read any Stephen King books, so I'll take your word for it.

I could never get through his novels, but I find his short stories to be quite fun. He is a better fit to that medium. His novels tend to drag, and this is coming from a guy who has read Lord of the Rings multiple times.

 

[magpie]

I could never get through his novels, but I find his short stories to be quite fun. He is a better fit to that medium. His novels tend to drag, and this is coming from a guy who has read Lord of the Rings multiple times.

Hm, maybe I'm missing out then, at least on his short stories. I love LOTR and other books that people tend to find long and boring, like Les Miserables and Moby Dick.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

But everyone can love culture. Before technology, people all over did a lot more community culture events-plays, readings, debates, music, etc. This is unfortunate, because so many would gain from actually interacting with others and being involved in life, instead of being in their cocoon, locked into Facebook or video games or Netflix....

Yep. Beethoven was quite popular with Vienna's public. He was composing in a time when the old patronage system was fading and artists were forced to write or create for the general public to make a living, rather than relying on a single nobleman for income.