Talk:High culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the High culture article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

---

Contents 1 pop culture 2 elaborate 3 questionable 4 source? 5 re-write article 6 dead white males 7 weird edit

[edit] pop culture

I think that they are both equal. There is simularites of high culture in in pop culture and the othere way around.

Your viewpoint is not uncommon and represents the inverse of elitism, and someone sharing this view would not use terms like high culture vs popular culture at all. Nixdorf 10:29, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

[edit] elaborate

Someone needs to elaborate more on the changes in high culture (i.e all forms of theatre was once shunned). This article also needs to be less eurocentric. Perhaps more sections on what is/was considered high culture in other cultures like China, Japan, ancient Egypt?--Countakeshi 12:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] questionable

Every single sentence of this article is questionable, or demonstrably wrong. Questionable, for example, is the idea that high culture has anything to do with the renaissance: there was a distinction between sophisticated and vulgar culture in antiquity and the middle ages, and the renaissance did not introduce any new distinction. Wrong, for example, is the statement that high culture is the culture of the upper classes: that ceased to be true in the 18th century. In fact, the self-conscious emphasis on protecting high culture from lowbrow culture was the peculiar invention of the 19th century middle class. This whole article seems to have been created out of whole cloth by people who have never even looked into the subject.68.118.61.219 06:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] source?

What are the sources for this article, other than the author's opinion?? 28 MArch 2006 Kemet

• I agree - the phrase presumably has a German C18/19 origin & well-established history (Lessing? Goethe?), which someone who knows what they are talking about should write up.

The related "High Art" should be covered too Johnbod

[edit] re-write article

I have now wholly replaced the old text, but it could do with plenty of expansion, and references Johnbod 20:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

What sources were used, or based on already known knowledge? -- Stbalbach 15:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dead white males

Regarding this sentence:

In America, Harold Bloom has taken a more exclusive line in a number of works, as did F.R. Leavis earlier - both, like Arnold, being mainly concerned with literature, and unafraid to champion vociferously the Dead white males of the Western canon.

I understand what is being said within a certain context, but for most people it will probably not pass the NPOV test, it seems to disparage the Great Books as "dead white males" - which sadly many people do as a reason not to read them. Can we remove dead white males, or source it, or re-phrase more gently to the western canon? -- Stbalbach 15:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it in as a link, and something of a balancing item in the context of mentioning Bloom & Leavis. Maybe putting it in quotes also would be enough? I'll do that. The talk page on the dwm article claims, plausibly I think, that the term is now mainly used by supporters of the Western canon rather than opponents. But cut it if you like. Johnbod 16:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How about if we just said:

In America, Harold Bloom has taken a more exclusive line in a number of works, as did F.R. Leavis earlier - both, like Arnold, being mainly concerned with literature of the Western canon.

For Wikipedia purposes it is more neutral and doesn't cast a value judgment one way or another about the nature or worth of the western canon. Not saying it's "better", just more neutral, I can see this being a problem with other editors in the future. -- Stbalbach 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] weird edit

Regarding this edit of mine [1] - very strange. The only thing I did was add a link to classic literature. I didn't delete anything, and I didn't change the section header to "Sociology" (if you want to change it go ahead) - no idea what happened there. Ghost in the machine. -- Stbalbach 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I didn't think it was like you. It goes back to a previous edit of mine - conceivably we were doing them at the same time in an edit conflict that slipped under the wire Johnbod 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)