Well, I think we're talking about the 'arts' here, right?
Because if we're talking about culture then we can have a conversation about how materialism has warped our social values and priorities, and you can see this in the arts. In which case, Matt's article resonates with me far more than the observations that Katherine made.
The interesting suggestion in this article is that the cross-town traffic between high and low culture happens via the middle class. And therefore if the middle class shrinks then this has a negative impact on cultural formation. I’m not sure that I wholly buy it but it’s worth further investigation.
What is still lacking for me in these kind of assessments is a comprehensive view of culture over the last 100 years. As a 50 year old who saw the culture that my parents and grandparents consumed, they weren’t reading Sophocles.
And the article underplays the contempt in which jazz was held by intellectuals (I had that Theodor Adorno in the back of my Uber the other day) - some of it certainly race-based.
In the UK, high culture was very much supported by the existing class structure with a paternalistism embodied by Reith’s BBC. The opening up of higher education (that my parents and I benefited from) likely did expose more lower middle / upper working class people to the arts. That is probably now in retreat.
As for no art on TikTok, I can’t comment on that. But certain things I have seen on YouTube that I count as art:
"The interesting suggestion in this article is that the cross-town traffic between high and low culture happens via the middle class. " Interesting point. Back in the 50s, when we had a stronger middle class, intellectuals lamented the rise of the middlebrow. You don't know what you have til it's gone.
and yes Adorno on jazz is miserable--and he wasn't alone; but jazz also was recognized pretty quickly and widely -- Adorno is typically the exception --
What is still lacking for me in these kind of assessments is a comprehensive view of culture over the last 100 years. As a 50 year old who saw the culture that my parents and grandparents consumed, they weren’t reading Sophocles."
I would also say I hinted that this--the vineyards are in ruins--the issues of the present go back to our... grandparents
another thing not mentioned is the opportunity cost associated with the ubiquity of addictive, ephemeral, forgettable slop. when everything is battling with the coke line rip of Being on TikTok on You Phone anything else will seem flat, gray, and tedious. people won't work to engage with slow-burning, attention-demanding art when the easy alternative is digital meth. art gets crowded out by short form video drivel!!!
I'm curious about how Gasda distinguishes genius and culture.
Is Gasda saying that genius could well, and probably does, exist on TikTok, but that our culture invariably means that this genius won't be discovered and appreciated? Or is he saying that our culture is such that it cannot even foster genius, that no genius can exist on TikTok at all?
To put it another way, I'm not sure if Gasda is arguing that there may be genius TikToks, but the culture lacks the capacity to recognize them as such OR if he is arguing that TikTok et al is destroying the ability of would-be geniuses (individual or collective) to produce works of artistic genius in the first place.
Is culture stuck because genius can no longer influence culture? Or is culture stuck because our culture no longer cultivates genius? I think that Gasda is saying the latter, but my hunch is that the former is a bigger issue.
Well, I think we're talking about the 'arts' here, right?
Because if we're talking about culture then we can have a conversation about how materialism has warped our social values and priorities, and you can see this in the arts. In which case, Matt's article resonates with me far more than the observations that Katherine made.
In the real world, my main problem is making sure my child can read a novel, as the latest social panic article in The Atlantic has just informed me that this is NOT a given... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/the-elite-college-students-who-cant-read-books/679945/
The interesting suggestion in this article is that the cross-town traffic between high and low culture happens via the middle class. And therefore if the middle class shrinks then this has a negative impact on cultural formation. I’m not sure that I wholly buy it but it’s worth further investigation.
What is still lacking for me in these kind of assessments is a comprehensive view of culture over the last 100 years. As a 50 year old who saw the culture that my parents and grandparents consumed, they weren’t reading Sophocles.
And the article underplays the contempt in which jazz was held by intellectuals (I had that Theodor Adorno in the back of my Uber the other day) - some of it certainly race-based.
In the UK, high culture was very much supported by the existing class structure with a paternalistism embodied by Reith’s BBC. The opening up of higher education (that my parents and I benefited from) likely did expose more lower middle / upper working class people to the arts. That is probably now in retreat.
As for no art on TikTok, I can’t comment on that. But certain things I have seen on YouTube that I count as art:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSuK_5zW2iM
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD2briZ6fB0
"The interesting suggestion in this article is that the cross-town traffic between high and low culture happens via the middle class. " Interesting point. Back in the 50s, when we had a stronger middle class, intellectuals lamented the rise of the middlebrow. You don't know what you have til it's gone.
Yes and intellectuals and culture are like toddlers and food - whatever you put in front of them is wrong.
https://youtu.be/xHash5takWU?si=DX4k6gfH_eSarPfS
it's definitely speculative -- but I also found it interesting--which is why I teased the argument
maybe class isn't exactly right -- but something like that... culture needs to be able to move up and down the ladder... and across
and yes Adorno on jazz is miserable--and he wasn't alone; but jazz also was recognized pretty quickly and widely -- Adorno is typically the exception --
What is still lacking for me in these kind of assessments is a comprehensive view of culture over the last 100 years. As a 50 year old who saw the culture that my parents and grandparents consumed, they weren’t reading Sophocles."
I would also say I hinted that this--the vineyards are in ruins--the issues of the present go back to our... grandparents
another thing not mentioned is the opportunity cost associated with the ubiquity of addictive, ephemeral, forgettable slop. when everything is battling with the coke line rip of Being on TikTok on You Phone anything else will seem flat, gray, and tedious. people won't work to engage with slow-burning, attention-demanding art when the easy alternative is digital meth. art gets crowded out by short form video drivel!!!
I'm curious about how Gasda distinguishes genius and culture.
Is Gasda saying that genius could well, and probably does, exist on TikTok, but that our culture invariably means that this genius won't be discovered and appreciated? Or is he saying that our culture is such that it cannot even foster genius, that no genius can exist on TikTok at all?
To put it another way, I'm not sure if Gasda is arguing that there may be genius TikToks, but the culture lacks the capacity to recognize them as such OR if he is arguing that TikTok et al is destroying the ability of would-be geniuses (individual or collective) to produce works of artistic genius in the first place.
Is culture stuck because genius can no longer influence culture? Or is culture stuck because our culture no longer cultivates genius? I think that Gasda is saying the latter, but my hunch is that the former is a bigger issue.
good q--
the latter indeed