High and low culture - Term Paper Example

High and low culture The historical development of social relations has proved that through the decades the view of people on culture and society has been transformed under the influence of technology. In fact, the continuous development of technology has been the basis for significant changes in daily ethics and traditions; culture, in all its forms, has been also affected. The relationship between the high and the low culture is reviewed in this paper. Emphasis is given on the common elements of these forms of culture. Also, their history is reviewed in order to show, as possible, how the distinction between high and low culture appeared in the first place. It is revealed that these two forms of culture have common historical roots, meaning that they have appeared almost simultaneously. Another important characteristic of the above relationship is the following one: the supporters of high culture are often positive towards the low culture, even if the latter is considered as reflecting the style of life of people of low social classes. In other words, the distance between the high and the low culture is not so high as believed. The review of the literature published in the particular field has proved that high and low culture tend to interact, periodically, even if their relationship is not always clear. In order to understand the history and the relationship between the high and the low culture it would be necessary to refer to their basic characteristics, or else, to their role, as identified in societies with different culture and traditions. In accordance with Inglis, the term ‘low culture’ is used in order to describe ‘cultural products which exhibit qualities that are the opposite of great art’ (Inglis 101). However, at this point, the following problem appears: which would be the criteria on which the evaluation of a piece of art as of ‘high’ or ‘low’ culture would be based? It is explained that the views of people on art and quality can be differentiated. Works of art which are considered as of low quality for a particular individual may be regarded as exceptional by another person, i.e. subjectivity when referring to high or low culture cannot be avoided (Inglis 101). At the same time, low culture has been related to the characteristics/ background of the creator, meaning that culture produced by people belonging in disadvantage minorities is likely to be considered as ‘low’ even if its quality is significant. On the other hand, it is made clear that the distance between high culture and everyday life is not so high as believed. It is noted that high culture can be used, at the same level as the low culture, for understanding the cultural trends of people within a particular society (Inglis 101). On the other hand, Ferrarotti (2005) notes that the differentiation between the high and the low culture – also known as popular culture – reflects ‘the dichotomy between articulated culture and culture conceived of as a mode of life, the ensemble of shared experiences’ (Ferrarotti 65). In other words, the distinction between the high and the low culture shows the difference of culture as an activity promoting specific social beliefs and perceptions and culture as part of the daily life. In the second case, culture needs to incorporate or reflect the challenges of people as members of a community. If regarded as only a means for promoting specific interests, culture is isolated from the daily social life becoming close to the elite class. As analyzed in the study of Johnston (2006) the low culture has been often considered as the main tool for identifying the elements of the daily life of people within a specific social context, a target which cannot be achieved by observing the high culture which is likely to show exceptional modes of life, meaning the cultural preferences of the elite (Johnston 20). However, it is noted that the forms of low culture are often of poor quality, meaning that their aesthetic is limited, compared to high culture. It is explained that this problem has been made clear since the Renaissance (Johnston 20). The review of the historical development of high and low culture leads to the assumption that the distinction of these forms of culture should be considered as the result of the modernist period. As noted in the study of Bertens (236) the ‘great divide’ developed during the modernist period led to the distinction of culture to high and low in order to respond to the needs of the elite class of the above period. In the post-modernism period, the distance between the high and low culture was decreased – under the influence of the increase of power of middle/ low social classes, a result of the radical increase of population globally. The relationship between post-modernism and high/ low culture is emphasized in the study of Jameson (1983, 1984), of Ulmer (1985) and of Hirsch (1987). In accordance with Jameson, the limitation of the distance between the high and low culture, should be related with the appearance of popular culture as a mass culture (Jameson, 1983 in Giroux 62). Popular culture, as a form of culture, was introduced in order to show the forms of culture that are popular to the high percentage of the population, i.e. popular culture refers to the favorable culture of the majority of people, not necessarily restricted in terms of geography. On the other hand, it should be noted, that the popular culture is often characterized as low culture, i.e. of culture of poor quality, as this problem is described using the term ‘kitsch’ (Giroux 62); the above fact proves that even if the differentiation between high and low culture has been limited, still the acceptance of popular culture as part of modern culture is in doubt. In the context of post - modernism, the elimination of the distance between the high and the low culture is reflected in the pieces of texts – publications of the post - modernist period; Giroux refers to the examples of harlequin novels and films of such content and scope (Giroux 62). Because of the rapid development of popular culture, a fact that could threaten high culture, measures are necessary for ensuring that people will be adequately informed on the differentiation of culture, being able to distinguish among works of art of different cultural value. Theorists who have studied the particular subject have proposed the development of cultural literacy, as a method for ensuring the integrity of culture (Hirsch 1987, in Giroux 63). The differences between high and low culture can be identified in music. In accordance with Grimm (1994) the historical development of music reveals the distinction between high and low culture. More specifically, in the beginning of the 19th century, music forms were alternated in terms of tonality and content. This phenomenon has been clearer in Germany; in the above country the term ‘Inhaltslosigkeit’, which means ‘with no content’, has been used for showing a new type of music, not purely evaluated through the sound but also of other factors, such as the means used for the development of the relevant music pieces. In 20th century, the above phenomenon was further developed. The forms of music of the specific period have been studied and evaluated by the ‘New Viennese School’, consisted by Schonberg and his pupils (Grimm 60). During this period – 19th and 20th centuries - the alteration of the characteristics of music were so high so that music was considered as of no particular cultural value, just as ‘sound for sound’ (Grimm 60). Because of the significant changes in forms of music, as developed in the particular period, the quality of music has been adversely affected. This fact is reflected in the statement of Schonberg that ‘he has a public’ (Grimm 61). The development of music, as related to the development of technology, has not necessarily resulted to the improvement of music. On the contrary, it seems that the quality of music pieces has been deteriorated, leading to severe cultural problems – i.e. radical deterioration of music pieces and establishment of the music of this quality as of common standard. The deterioration of the quality of music, as a result of the alteration of its characteristics, as described above, has led to the establishment of low culture in music – the music pieces with the above characteristics have become known as popular music, which is not necessarily unacceptable, but, still, it is of lower quality compared to the music pieces of the past – when a limit existed regarding the involvement of technology in music production. In any of its forms, culture is often used as a tool for the promotion of specific political interests. An indicative example of this practice is the use of culture in education (Sealey 47). In accordance with Sealey (47) ‘using popular culture in education constitutes a political action encouraging popular participation’. It is assumed that depending the political ideas involved, education can be used as a means for promoting political messages; this target is achieved by alternating the curriculum accordingly or by adding educational activities related to culture, for instance, visits in local museums, theatres and so on. Such practice even if it seems related only to the educational needs of pupils/ students can promote political interests, even if this scope is not clear. Under certain terms, the elimination of distance between the popular and the high culture is not made for achieving specific interests, as in the case of education mentioned above. The popular culture itself is able ‘to eliminate social barriers’ (Fedorak 7). In this context, the mix of popular culture with high culture is not developed for achieving specific political interests. The case of samba and tango, which ‘are both of humble origins’ (Fedorak 7) but they have become popular to people with different social and economic characteristics worldwide, verifies the above view. From another point of view, the elimination of distinction between the popular and the high culture should be considered as expected taking into consideration the following fact: the popular art has focused on the needs of people in general, as the majority of population, not of the elite class. In this context, the popular art has been related to the ‘free agency’, the agency, which recognizes to the individuals the right to selfness but which, at the same time, offers the chance for personal development as a member of a particular social group (Maravall 24). The current status of high and low culture is described in the study of Everett (1995). In accordance with the above researcher, through the years, the differences between high and low culture have been reduced because of the following reason: young people with different cultural and social backgrounds have been involved in cultural activities the characteristics of which are not clear – i.e. they cannot be characterized solely as high or solely as low culture, for instance the wall painting or the pieces of art of graffitists (Everett 197). The interaction between the high and the low culture, or else, the popular culture, is reflected in the following fact: traditionally, museums have been used for the promotion of high culture; it is through museums that the characteristics and the value of high culture have become clear to the public. Today, under certain terms, museums are used for the exhibition of works of art that meet the criteria of popular culture. Such practices have been expanded in museums globally at such level so that ‘a crisis of representation’ (Pearce 1992, p.241 in Moore 1) occurs. The above phenomenon also verifies the following fact: the perceptions of people on high and low culture have been alternated; in the past, the supporters of high culture would not accept the interaction of the relevant cultural products with the popular culture – as such interaction takes place in museums, theatres and other places that have been traditionally used solely for the promotion of high culture. In accordance with the above, the long-term distinction between the high and the popular culture seems to be gradually reduced; this trend offers the chance to people of low economic status to have access to high culture. From another point of view, the limitation of distance between high and popular culture reveals the power of social trends to alternate long – term practices and ethics – referring to the idea that high culture should be accessible only to the elite class. Works Cited Bertens, Hans. International postmodernism: theory and literary practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997 Everett, Sally. Art theory and criticism: an anthology of formalist, avant-garde, contextualist and post-modernist thought. North Carolina: McFarland, 1995 Fedorak, Shirley. Pop Culture: The Culture of Everyday Life. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009 Ferrarotti, Franco. On the Science of Uncertainty: The Biographical Method in Social Research. Oxford: Lexington Books, 2005 Giroux, Henry. Postmodernism, feminism, and cultural politics: redrawing educational boundaries. New York: SUNY Press, 1991 Grimm, Reinhold. High and low cultures: German attempts at mediation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1994 Inglis, David. Culture and everyday life. London: Routledge, 2005 Johnston, Patricia. Seeing high & low: representing social conflict in American visual culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006 Maravall, Jose. Culture of the baroque: analysis of a historical structure. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986 Moore, Kevin. Museums and popular culture. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2000 Sealey, Kelvin. Film, politics, & education: cinematic pedagogy across the disciplines. New York: Peter Lang, 2008 Read More