High Culture- Art forms that require a great deal of capital to participate in.
Folk Culture- The art of ordinary people such as fairy tales, weaving, singing, and the use of
simple instruments.
2 contrasting ideas, 1 society. Which will win out? Which is better? Is one better? Is one worse? How do these to types of "culture" shape the society we live in?
These and many other questions were raised in my mass media and society class recently. We examined how high and folk culture affect the world that we live in. High culture requires a lot of money if you want to participate in it. Buying paintings, sculptures and other high culture items is something that many people want to participate in, but simply cannot support with their income. Interestingly enough, high culture was the only type of culture until the printing press was created. The printing press allowed folk art to actually get out and into the general public, for others to consume than just those who created it or lived close to people who performed it.
So what does all of this mean to us today? Does high culture and folk culture still exist? Yes, they do, and some believe they are causing problems in our society today. Some say that high culture has contributed to the increasing gap between rich and poor in the U.S. Others argue that folk culture or "popular culture" will erode civilization entirely because of it's massive spread. Those who create items of high culture status have to spend years upon years being taught and learning their trade. People in folk culture almost never receive any professional training for the art they create. So which one is better; Folk art that is original, or High culture art that is only considered high culture art if it meets the standards laid out by people in the high culture itself?
Personally, I don't think that there needs to be a choice between which is better. I believe that both have something to offer to the general public. I love things from both sections of culture. I love to listen to some good classical Bach, but at the same time I like to hear a self made artist named John Rueban who never had the training of such an esteemed artist. I love the art of many artists from the high school I graduated from, but at the same time I could spend hours upon hours inside a museum of art in any major city in the world looking and appreciating the art work of those who spent lifetimes in training to complete their works. I don't think it should be a question of credibility because of who had more training, but rather a question of the quality of the works.
It is undeniable that many artists of high culture create and have created masterpieces over the years. Furthermore, it is also true that many common folk create their artwork that in it's own way is phenomenal. I think we should have a respect for artwork from each of the two respective "categories" of culture. I will continue to consume media from both categories and even try to maintain a balance between this seemingly controversial issue. I think that everyone has something to contribute to the "world of art," and I will continue to respect that. Art will continue to be created by those who are considered trained and skilled, and by those who come out of the woodwork. I think all who create high quality works should be considered great at the things they do, and that the individual threads of high culture and popular culture should be melded into one single strand. Culture.
~DeLiRi0uS~
Folk Culture- The art of ordinary people such as fairy tales, weaving, singing, and the use of
simple instruments.
2 contrasting ideas, 1 society. Which will win out? Which is better? Is one better? Is one worse? How do these to types of "culture" shape the society we live in?
These and many other questions were raised in my mass media and society class recently. We examined how high and folk culture affect the world that we live in. High culture requires a lot of money if you want to participate in it. Buying paintings, sculptures and other high culture items is something that many people want to participate in, but simply cannot support with their income. Interestingly enough, high culture was the only type of culture until the printing press was created. The printing press allowed folk art to actually get out and into the general public, for others to consume than just those who created it or lived close to people who performed it.
So what does all of this mean to us today? Does high culture and folk culture still exist? Yes, they do, and some believe they are causing problems in our society today. Some say that high culture has contributed to the increasing gap between rich and poor in the U.S. Others argue that folk culture or "popular culture" will erode civilization entirely because of it's massive spread. Those who create items of high culture status have to spend years upon years being taught and learning their trade. People in folk culture almost never receive any professional training for the art they create. So which one is better; Folk art that is original, or High culture art that is only considered high culture art if it meets the standards laid out by people in the high culture itself?
Personally, I don't think that there needs to be a choice between which is better. I believe that both have something to offer to the general public. I love things from both sections of culture. I love to listen to some good classical Bach, but at the same time I like to hear a self made artist named John Rueban who never had the training of such an esteemed artist. I love the art of many artists from the high school I graduated from, but at the same time I could spend hours upon hours inside a museum of art in any major city in the world looking and appreciating the art work of those who spent lifetimes in training to complete their works. I don't think it should be a question of credibility because of who had more training, but rather a question of the quality of the works.
It is undeniable that many artists of high culture create and have created masterpieces over the years. Furthermore, it is also true that many common folk create their artwork that in it's own way is phenomenal. I think we should have a respect for artwork from each of the two respective "categories" of culture. I will continue to consume media from both categories and even try to maintain a balance between this seemingly controversial issue. I think that everyone has something to contribute to the "world of art," and I will continue to respect that. Art will continue to be created by those who are considered trained and skilled, and by those who come out of the woodwork. I think all who create high quality works should be considered great at the things they do, and that the individual threads of high culture and popular culture should be melded into one single strand. Culture.
~DeLiRi0uS~
1 comment:
I totally agree with you here andrew. I think that both "high" and "low" culture contribute to society in benneficial ways. There is a balance that needs to be achieved between the two in order to embrace the bennefits each has to offer us. I also think that closing the gap between high and low culture is something that we can do as opinion leaders in media.
Post a Comment