Protection

I was fascinated by how often the term “protection” came up in Levine’s text and that it echoes a similar note in Lynes’ article, “It is part of his function as a highbrow to protect the arts from culture-mongers, and he spits venom at those he suspects of selling the Muses short” (21). The protection of culture both for and from the public extends from the theater, to the movie house, to the museum, and to the park. I see this trend continuing later in discussions about the national parks (places that must be protected from the public in order to be for the public) and later in the beginnings of art house theaters (where the theater viewing experience must be protected from typical movie distractions: munching popcorn and chattering children) and the growing presence of film reviews.

This protection needed to be mediated by some physical person, beyond mere institutions. This individual in the music hall was the conductor (Levine 188). The conductor is the teacher, assigned the cultural classroom authority by society through growing professionalizaiton. Classroom chatter and disruption will subside if the teacher stands his/her ground long enough. Culture grew to be more and more something that needed to be mediated through learned or trained experts. Such that the some might believe that the beauty of a national park cannot be truly appreciated until coupled with the words of John Muir or the latest independent film or retrospective screening not worth attending until it received a favorable write up in the New York Times. The conductor Theodore Thomas’ statement, “Then they [audiences] must hear them [the masters/Wagner] till they do [enjoy the music]” (188) suggests the outdated approach still used in much literary or film reviews, an approach that has led to large scale layoffs in those professions. In these cases, art and culture do mimic Howells’ argument that art became a thing to be hated due to its association with owned property by the wealthy (204).

Such a backlash is echoed today in issues of national parks’ usage (banning recreational activities) and audience monetary support of blockbuster films despite terrible critical reviews. There is certainly a distrust of critics and government when dealing with these public spaces and additionally a dismantling of the idea that one must have specialized knowledge in order to enjoy a waterfall or appreciate a filmed battle scene. The renewed or maybe just elevated role of participation in contemporary culture calls these mediators/protectors of culture into question. When one can as easily write and send out to the world their review of a film via Youtube or Twitter what role does the protector/critic play in contemporary culture? How can they continue to protect culture from us and for us in a future in which nearly anyone can christen themselves the cultural mediator?