The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Value of Culture (and by whose definition?)
ryuprecht
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I recently engaged in a debate with a coworker regarding the value that should be placed on culture and if there is a greater inherent worth in certain cultural exposures. Vague, to be sure, but the discussion revolved around the fact that she found no worth in reading or understanding Shakespeare, knowing anything more than cursory information regarding historical cultures (such as Roman or Greek) and could not stomach ballet, classical music, or movies in black and white (or that didn't feature fart jokes or explosions).
Historically mankind has placed value on learning these "finer things" and I personally feel that the drive and understanding of them is faltering. Latin was once taught in schools, Homeric poems were studied and dissected, and even in other, non-western cultures there was an emphasis on these items. I'm thinking of Asian cultures that held up individual masters of poetry and calligraphy as paragons to be emulated as an example.
She took great offense that I mentioned there was more to be gained from an understanding (even a basic one) of the human elements of Shakespeare than to be gained from watching Fear Factor (a favorite show of hers). And so the debate ended with me being hailed a holier-than-thou asshole who felt that such appreciation of culture was only needed to lord over those whom I felt myself to be the better of.
That said, is there a value towards a knowledge, understanding or appreciation of these items that would deem one "cultured"?
Historically mankind has placed value on learning these "finer things" and I personally feel that the drive and understanding of them is faltering. Latin was once taught in schools, Homeric poems were studied and dissected, and even in other, non-western cultures there was an emphasis on these items. I'm thinking of Asian cultures that held up individual masters of poetry and calligraphy as paragons to be emulated as an example.
She took great offense that I mentioned there was more to be gained from an understanding (even a basic one) of the human elements of Shakespeare than to be gained from watching Fear Factor (a favorite show of hers). And so the debate ended with me being hailed a holier-than-thou asshole who felt that such appreciation of culture was only needed to lord over those whom I felt myself to be the better of.
That said, is there a value towards a knowledge, understanding or appreciation of these items that would deem one "cultured"?
ryuprecht on
0
Posts
I don't think that a person who's read Shakespeare is inherantly better equipped to live in this world than a person who watches fear factor. What's key is that whatever you watch, read, or embrace, you approach it fully engaged, as a way of examining the world and its various contexts. Watching reality TV can be quite illuminating if you examine it for what it is, where it comes from, etc. If you just zombie out to it that's pretty useless, but to some degree so is the bardolatry that tends to dominate college English classes when they get to Shakespeare.
It's about your level of engagement, analysis, or examination. I definitely think that a person who exclusively reads, say, science fiction, and is passionate and critical about it, can be just as intellectually impressive as your average literary enthusiast.
I completely agree, and I recognize that my OP was a bit narrow on some of the options. I think there is also inherent value in understanding pop culture and what it represents. Snubbing television or games or pop music does little for you either in that regard. I guess the question as I had it wasn't fully realized, but I think there's some additional worth in understanding historical representations of the human condition (through music, art, etc) that transcend what happened on Lost last week. If you don't have a sufficiently deep background, how much do you get out of the current culture?
That I will agree with. I struggled with properly identifying the subset of concepts I was thinking of. Sometimes they are called the finer things, but I guess in aggregate, they represent the foundation of human entertainment and expression over time.
Arguably though some creative works have more potential for engagement, analysis, and examination. They possess a deeper vein to mine for these life-enriching experiences.
Generally speaking, I think it's safe enough to say that such works possess a far higher degree of craftsmanship, which is something that is far less subjective and charged as "culture." Generally, great works of high craftsmanship provide a richer substrate on which we can build personal interpretations and obtain personal growth.
And, as someone who has debated this before with anti-intellectuals (though they won't call themselves as such) like your co-worker, I'd encourage you to use the word "craftsmanship" over anything like "culture" or "fine art" because it is honestly something that is more readily definable, objective, and far less likely to incur anti-intellectual sentiment.
Old White Men's Great Works =/= epitome of culture.
I think there's value to be found in any human expression or production, from Shakespeare to al-Quran to the works of Iron Maiden. I also think there's a lot of boring, abrasive, and morally appalling shit in most human endeavors.
My policy is to expose to myself to as much stuff as possible from all of history, enjoy the stuff I like, and abandon the stuff I don't, unless I think I could be missing something. I don't think there's anything wrong with concentrating on more modern art and literature, though, since humans have produced much more in the past hundred or so years than we ever have before.
Here's a brain teaser - which promotes more unity between Americans - culture or pop culture? I guess that could be a Quality vs Quantity debate.
Well, I guess I'd say that the main thing you do get from historical representations of the human condition that you don't get from contemporary representations of the same is that historical context. There's nothing in Shakespeare, thematically, that is not also present in your average American daytime soap opera or prime-time sitcom. There is no wisdom or craft embodied in Shakespeare that is not just as strong, or stronger, in modern literature. The only thing that belongs exclusively to historical literature is that window into history. And since there are plenty of ways to study history which do not involve reading Shakespeare, or indeed any piece of classic literature, I don't think "reading the classics" should be a prerequisite of culture.
I actually think the over-canonization of literature tends to divert attention from a lot of the exciting stuff that's being written today, which is unfortunate.
Certainly. But I think acadamia tends to overestimate the advantage that classic literature and art has over its modern counterparts in this regard.
For the record, that's not exactly what I said. I used one non-western example, but it could easily apply to such as reading and or knowing the Arabian Nights stories, or appreciating Middle Eastern architecture, Spanish literature, or any number of other things.
I mostly agree.
I mean, the thing the classics have going for them is that we only remember the really fucking good ones. All the half-assed drivel never made it through the centuries to be read/seen/heard by audiences today, so I guess modern art/literature has a slight disadvantage in that it's going up against 3000 years of Greatest Hits.
Still, I do agree that there are some contemporary pieces of art/literature that stack up quite well against many older texts.
I sort of think that modern rock music can be taken as a microcosm of this whole idea of "culture." From humble beginnings, rock music has evolved into a sprawling, chaotic, wonderful mess of music styles. Along the way, there have been high points and influential, much-imitated bands. Some of these are so old and have been copied so much that they (like Shakespeare) seem archaic and cliched to many modern ears. So is someone with extensive knowledge of Elvis or The Beatles "cultured" in rock music? Not compared to someone who is passingly familiar with them but has also managed to keep on on the thousands of bands and styles that have evolved since.
Shakespeare was pop culture at little as a century ago. It was in a bastardized form that used heavy amounts of regional humor, but the American lower classes were reasonably literate in Shakespeare as recently as 150 years ago.
Good point. What of the person who won't listen to the Beatles or Stones, but professes a love for Rock and Roll? I'm no expert on the Bard, but I have a reasonable grasp of his major works, and I think they enhance my understanding of many things. It's almost a common language that survived hundreds of years. If though I unabashadly reject these things, the underpinnings of modern cultural entertainment or achievement or whatnot, what then have I excluded myself from? And back to the original point, what value do they have?
This person I spoke of states she has no desire to expose her children to theater, no desire to take them to a museum, no drive to expose them to classic cinema. I enjoy planning what I need to show my son in order for him to be cultured in this way, at least to the best of my ability, and he is only 4.
I think of my recent read of the Illiad. I was ashamed I had never read it, and only knew what I did from episodes of Ducktales and the Brad Pitt movie. Having read it though, I have a place from which I can pontificate on the nature of human rage and its blinding effect on a wide range of things. It is not to say that the book taught me everything I need to know about it, but there is a value I think in knowing what is meant by "Sing, O Muse, of the rage of Achilles".
Is 'culture' anything that stands the test of time but is no longer pop culture?