I think Scott (the student, I believe the professor's name only has one "T") generated some interesting discussion in class the other day, and I'd like to expand with my thoughts.
Scot's (the professor) explanation of structuralism into poststructuralism allowed me to put the high culture / low culture debate into a contemporary context. Even though information is more accessible to the masses than ever, the notion of the intelligentsia still exists. And I think it becomes very confusing when we start talking about art, including literature.
If you think about the music you listen to - consider the different genres. Country music is made for the masses...apple pie, tear in your beer, golden retriever, God-lovin type music. And there isn't anything wrong with that. But then think about when you listen to NPR. Their voice suddenly becomes more distinguished...their vocabulary more assorted...and if you don't know the difference between Schubert's 16th Opus in D minor and Beethoven's Sonata in G, then maybe NPR isn't a place for listeners like you.
Think about the art you look at. We all enjoy a Starry Night, but I have a feeling most of us have gone to an art museum, saw a bunch of splattered paint on the wall, and thought, "Boy, my 5-year-old cousin could do that." Perhaps we are more attuned to the structuralist in this case.
Think about the movies we watch. Some of us enjoy indie films - and scoff and a certain director's work. Others just enjoy a movie and try not to be too critical. I happen to be in the latter...but that's still no excuse for Meet the Spartans.
Think about the theatre, and whether it is theatRE or theatER...and whether or not it's the opera or if it's Grease. The lady with a fancy dress who watches with little binoculars from the balcony isn't going enjoy any Greased Lightning.
So you see, all of us are at different spots on the structuralist-poststructural grid. We place ourselves above or below each other in different artistic categories. It takes all types, I guess.
Oh, and one more thing...how many times have you heard from people in the crowd at a sporting event, "Can't they just sing the national anthem how it was written? Why do they have to butcher it?"
My point exactly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wow, so I thought that the part about the paintings when you said, "Perhaps we are more attuned to the structuralist in this case", was a really good point. It shows that not everything advances the same and not everyone views the advances in the same way either.
I have felt the same way about why each singer has to "butcher" the national anthem. Now that you mention it, I feel that maybe it comes from their urge/need to distinguish themselves from others, be more "original" just like how authors want to be original.
Post a Comment