Discussion about this post

User's avatar
David44's avatar

I agree with you that egalitarianism of taste is misguided; at the same time, I think part of the problem is that a lot of people (not you!) fail to make certain key distinctions.

1. People fail to distinguish "is this GOOD?" from "do I ENJOY this?". I think Henry James is a remarkable writer: I have read several of his books, and I can see the sheer intellectual and artistic force behind them. At the same time, I personally find Henry James a crashing bore. I can see the brilliance in his works, but it isn't a kind of brilliance that appeals to me at all. I hope I will never read another Henry James novel in my life: I would much prefer to read (say) Ian Rankin, even though I do not consider him a "greater writer" than James - not even close.

2. People fail to distinguish "is this good?" from "is this admired by elites?". Plenty of works that were initially despised by elites and have been supported "only" by popular favor, have belatedly received admiration across the board. I am old enough to remember when (for example) Tolkien was despised by literary critics, and Sergio Leone by film critics. I not only enjoyed but also admired (cf. distinction 1 above) both of them from early on, and I feel that my taste has been vindicated by their belated canonization.

Conversely, works admired by elites have sometimes not stood the test of time. The work of Wagner's that was most beloved by the elite audiences of his lifetime was Rienzi, which Wagner himself repudiated and which is (justifiably) hardly ever performed nowadays.

3. Relatedly, people fail to distinguish "is this a highbrow genre?" from "are these works valuable?" There are a lot of really terrible operas (cf. Rienzi ...), there are a lot of really terrible avant-garde movies. In the case of opera, the worst have been mostly weeded out of the repertoire, but as the repertoire expands to include new works or revivals of forgotten old works (which, I emphasize, I think is a good thing!), a significant number of those are not very good.

Conversely, there are plenty of works in genres that have traditionally been perceived as lowbrow which only needed sustained critical attention for their worth to be seen. From that perspective, it is a good thing that elites are paying more attention to (e.g.) popular music, or television, and even if it comes out of a kind of false egalitarianism, it may nevertheless have salutary effects.

4. One needs to distinguish "is this good?" from "is this easy to appreciate?". This is, to my mind, the root of the problems you identify. Some great works are easy to appreciate - I would challenge anyone with even a minimal familiarity with Western music not to love the first movement of Mozart's 40th symphony at an immediate hearing. But others need a lot more education and background: Mozart's string quintets are phenomenal, but you need to have the trained ear to hear what is going on in order to get anywhere with them. And that is not even to mention the works that are even more challenging, because they make innovative use of language or sound or visuals, or because they come from an unfamiliar time or place.

But the kind of egalitarianism which flattens everything into "all tastes are equal" discourages people from getting the education. Why struggle to learn the language of Chaucer, or to understand harmony and counterpoint, if you can get something just as valuable by listening to or reading or watching the works you were going to listen to or read or watch anyway? For those of us who believe passionately that there are works that are simply better than others, our biggest problem is to persuade people that that effort is indeed worthwhile.

And while there can't be a single solution to that problem, constantly insisting on differentiating good works from bad, as you do, Henry, is surely essential. But also, while insisting on this, encouraging people to cultivate their OWN tastes, to make their OWN differentiations. Ask them to distinguish "good" from "enjoyable", and if, having made that distinction, they still think that certain works they like are "good", challenge them to tell you WHY ... That way they will not simply be replicating the tastes of certain social or intellectual elites, but thinking critically and seriously about the works they know as well as those that, through education, they may come to know.

Expand full comment
Moonsweater's avatar

I think it's important not to overemphasize the tastes of cultural elites, whose tastes are highly subject to the forces of trends, signaling, and historical happenstance which are at best irrelevant to the ultimate quality of a work, and instead focus on the artistic evaluation of working artists and craftsman within the medium in question. After all, these people are pretty uncontroversially the experts in their medium, and we see their tastes diverge from those in cultural elites in pretty radical ways.

Using music as an example, it's true that you'd be hard-pressed to find a working musician, especially a working composer, who didn't hold Bach in extremely high regard. But the trends in elite listening tend to begin and end with the baroque, classical, and romantic periods, with no regard for the genius of later composers like Shostakovich, Holst, or Stravinsky. And this is still only restricting ourselves to the broader western classical canon! If we move even farther from the tastes of cultural elites and closer to the tastes of musical elites, you can find this same reverence held for artists of all sorts of traditions: for Ellington and Coltrane, for the Beatles, for James Brown, and so on. All that is to say, I think it's shortsighted, and even harmful to the notion of promoting great art, to use elite tastes as a signpost when we have the words of working experts to work off of instead.

Expand full comment
61 more comments...

No posts