"Culture is ordinary"

I completely agree on an intellectual level, as I can't think of a way of objectifying the supposed superiority or absence of it. However, this puzzles me, in the sense that it seems to me that the practical consequences of both might not be the same.

Cultural events/works that can provoke people into thinking about an issue can have a stronger impact on society than, say, bingo. They can be evidently be used as a force for change (for better or worse) and therefore it seems to me that they should be at a different level.

Note that, from my first sentence, I'm absolutely against the labeling any type or work as inherently superior. Particularly by supposed critics. Yet, again, there are many instances where "artistic culture" has been a positive force for the improvement of society while I can't think of any case where bingo did.

So there must be a difference. Identifying it clearly is the difficulty.

It may be impossible, actually.

There are 2 ways (both not fortunate, sadly) by which the
masses label something as 'superior'.

(1) By accepting the labelling from a source seen as qualified or even
superior in itself.

(2) By obscurity, i.e. the more cryptic the more 'superior'.

The first one is, unfortunately, a feature of religion -as obscure as it
sounds; while the other one is pure confusion.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I don't believe it is. If anything Bingo is better because it reflects the public preference.

I just happen to prefer opera, and that doesn't make me any better than anybody else, it's just my preference. I find bingo boring, and I love the sound and spectacle of opera.

There are advantages in preferring opera though - you can get a parking space closer to the venue!

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I'm not saying that at all.

[IMPERATIVE] Read Shakespeare, listen to Mozart, learn Latin, look at Turner, and so on.[/IMPERATIE}
First, from my post it should be clear that if labeling is impossible, then culture can never be dictated.

Why is the work of Italian Renaissance artists considered innately better than the work of colonial American female quilt-makers?
See above. I'm also against this.

Are you saying that something can only be described as cultural if it reaches a mass audience i.e. all of society?
Why would my ideas imply this? Some (most?) societal changes start with a leading minority that manage to influence or convince the majority.

how can classical music be described as high culture when it is constantly outsold, and out-listened to by pop music?
Pop music can certainly have an impact on society. I'd say (without proof here) that it probably has had more so than classical music. I'm not identifying the two types with the classical definition/concept of high culture. This comes from the impossibility of labeling that I described above.

Here are some things to consider:

1) Depth of subject. Some subjects are innately more complex than others. For example, chess is a deeper subject than checkers.

2) Depth of understanding of a subject. Some demonstrate a deeper understanding of a given subject. Also, the deeper one's understanding, the greater the appreciation one can have for such a demonstration. For example, you can look at a game played by two Grandmasters vs. a game played by two patzers. In the Grandmaster game the level of play demonstrates a depth of understanding the won't be found in the game played by two patzers. The greater the depth of understanding you have for chess, the greater the appreciation you can have for the differences between the level of play of the two games.

"Art" is a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject. The deeper the subject and the deeper the demonstration of understanding of the subject, the more superior the work of art. The deeper the understanding that you have, the greater the appreciation you can have for the work of art.

I think I'm going to start a thread on this topic. Go to "What is art" if you want to explore this in detail.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I reluctantly agree on some level. He is right, if you take the term literally, although he does emphasize the impact of societal influences on the components of language. In other words, "culture" is whatever we define it to be. You're right, just about anything that occupies large portions of our time could literally be considered "culture". Bingo could be culture, but you'd have to choose the right font.

Personally, I think culture represents the best and most influential things that we, as a society, in this day and age have to offer. It's difficult to tell what today's "culture" is. Time will tell.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That's exactly what I was saying. There are ways of attacking elitism without defending that there are no differences.

Bingo and opera?

I can only assume that those arguing that there is no such thing as good and bad cultural would agree that a game of chess is just as rewarding and demanding as playing bingo?

http://www.slate.com/id/2189318/

For those of you who find long words difficult allow me to quote the last question:

9. Well, I like poetry that is amusing, that maybe makes me chuckle a little. I'd rather read something reassuring and light than something complicated or gloomy. Is that bad? Does that mean I am a jerk?

Yes.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Originally posted by catfoodtim
Why is Michaelangelo's David better than The Angel Of the North?

Better? In what way? If you made a list of the qualities that both pieces had and the work required to produce each and then rated them would that suffice? I'm not sure. For me it's simply because the level of talent required to compose and craft the first single-handedly without the aid of machines far exceeds that required to draw and source the manufacture of the second. Personally I find the Angel of the North is a bit crap, and that's got nothing to do with me being a southerner, just that it's a rusty eye-sore. I'm not big on David either, but at least it's not a gigantic, scrap wicker man.

Why is Opera better than Bingo?

Because bingo is the @rse-end of entertainment, it has absolutely no content. In real terms it's sitting down and ticking off a piece of paper as someone calls out some numbers. I can get temping work doing that and get paid a regular wage. You may not like opera, but you have to concede it's a long way above bingo in the culture stakes.

You may have guessed by now (and I know that you're not surprised) that I am totally against the view held by Williams. There's culture and there's Culture. The first is what there is, the second is what shines through the cess-pit.

And before Palynka drops his two cents in, yes, I know, I'm an elitist sheep. So bleet it!