Levine Highbrow/Lowbrow

I find it peculiar that many of the authors quoted in chapter three (I am thinking particularly of some of those from the early twentieth century - Henderson and Higginson, pages 212ish and on) seem to have little concept of/desire to acknowledge cultural relativity or maybe even the general concept of relativity. They continually assert the need to suppress or eradicate cruder cultural forms. How did they expect the highbrow culture to remain intact when jazz, movies, etc. had been sequestered? People, Americans in particular and especially intense thinkers, impulsively impose hierarchies, so when the cultural guardians had successfully thrown out the undesirable cultural forms, people would automatically divide the remaining culture into new categories, making new divisions ... and theoretically this process could continue until there was nothing left but an acceptable word or a letter maybe. I am not suggesting this literally could have happened, but I am bugged by the flaw in the plans devised by these particular writers/intellectuals.

I am also bugged by the common use of the word "truth" to describe a particular goal of high art/music. It just seems so fraught/complicated/subjective. And - at least not from what I can remember about the reading - none of the authors quoted by Levine tried to propose some criteria as to what constitutes "truth" and "beauty". It is not that I actually expected to be convinced by any set of rules, but I would have at least liked to see some attempt. I find it arrogant that they didn't even try and I think more specifics would be expected if someone were to make a similar argument today.

I immediately noticed the continual popping up of the idea that true art is not for the faint of heart and that you have to work to understand it and sometimes you have to work even to like it at all. One author quoted by Levine describes the pursuit of real art as "self-denying". Another - I cannot seem to find where - says, roughly, that a person's impulse directs him/her towards popular art instead of high art. I think that such notions still exist in our contemporary culture, but I also think that they are accompanied the idea that true art can be spontaneous and instinctual.

“People have as much difficulty existing in a cultural or aesthetic limbo as in any other kind” (232). I am quite taken with this statement, although I think it is really a psychological claim and only secondarily a cultural one. It gets at the modern person’s tendency to self-fashion. And while that term has historical meaning that is applicable here/worth thinking about in the context of brows, I find it especially pertinent in an era when people are expected to continually cultivate so many self-representative cyberspaces: Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, hell … I think you can personalize your profile on this particular blog. And indeed these attempts at self-representation require us to think about how we want to be perceived as students of culture, as cultural agents and consumers. Also in this context, I agree with Levine’s claim that people want to present themselves as someone who can be understood culturally.