Talk:Highbrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Incorrect reference??
2 VfD
3 Picture
4 Anonymous dubious quote
5 2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

[edit] Incorrect reference??

I think the ref. to "middlebrow" may be incorrect; Virginia Woolf used the term extensively in an essay written in the 1930's...the answer may (or may not, I haven't checked) be in "The Making of Middlebrow Culture." by Joan Shelley Rubin. ...

[edit] VfD

On April 12, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Highbrow for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

What is the relevance of the picture of Melanchthon? His name does not occur in the text, neither does Durer's. JackofOz 06:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What a classic image of the idea of a highbrow Dürer's portrait of Melancthon is, both in its literal sense and its figurative use. To analyze it in words would be superfluous, and would quite likely be criticized as "Original Research" by some dullard. Would you prefer a photo of a phrenologist's model? Why not think of it as just decorative? --Wetman 18:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My only concern was that, people being primarily visual in their way of perceiving the world, they will immediately notice his high forehead. This suggests the word "highbrow" applies to people with such a physical feature. It might do in certain cases, but in general it relates to what's going in inside a person's skull rather than what their skull looks like from the outside. I'm not asking for it to be removed, just wanting clarity about what message the image is intended to convey. JackofOz 22:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's some anonymously contributed text that doesn't seem to add clarity to the generally-understood significance of "highbrow": "Contemporary uses of the word have changed the meaning somewhat, referring less to the interests of a social elite and more commonly referring to pursuits of a (usually art) form which involve focused intellectual study and a large body of knowledge of that subject." --Wetman 23:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"JackofOz" has provided legitimate concerns and you have ignored them. But, to answer your concern, a quick google search to a subject with "highbrow" before it, i.e. "highbrow humor" will see the usage differ grealy from the classical. As an individual you can make no valid claims that a term like "highbrow" is "generally-understood". Outright it is a condescending comment because it implies that the way you define it is universal; a lack of results that conform to what you believe the correct way to perceive "highbrow" will only reinforce that statement, as the results you find that do not conform, being located on the internet, would be contemporary. This attitude is also evident in your previous comments; saying it would be "superfluous" is debatable because the information about the drawing is also noted once one clicks on the thumbnail, effectively listing the same information twice. Analyzing it in words would benefit this article, which does not provide very much information compared to most articles pertaining to sociology. Your following assertion about how this would be categorized is vile because it has no basis nor provides one. (Anonymous User:68.92.156.5).

(Not to respond directly to an anonymous comment, Jack of Oz simply asked "What is the relevance of the picture of Melanchthon? His name does not occur in the text, neither does Durer's." He was given a fully circumstantial response. The "generally understood" usage is not universally understood, needless to say... "Vile" is inappropriate.) --Wetman 05:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--Wetman 05:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you have ignored other points such as current usages of the term. Masking a rebuttal in (what seems to be) condescension by refusing to "respond directly" is not only inappropriate but counterproductive, as it could start a seperate debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of anonymity and privacy. I don't know if this was intentional, however, so my apologies if it wasn't. As for your usage of the term, "generally" still implies "majorily" or "more frequently" (source: dictionary.com, "widely", "usually"), and it is much easier to prove the case of "contemporary usages" (direct, available google results) than to prove yours, which seems to support the classical usage, evident by how most writings that contain it have aged significantly, thus, obviously not being contemporary.

[edit] Anonymous dubious quote

"it consists of people who are hoping that some day they will get used to the stuff..." The barely literate phrase "it consists of people" and the revealing post-modern usage of "stuff" seem to betray an American public education rather than Punch in 1925 being quoted in OED. My OED is the Shorter, however: can someone verify the authenticity of this "quote"?--Wetman 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)