This writer engages with the question of whether the Beatles can be considered high art. The way I see it there are two questions hiding within this one.
We do, I believe, need a concept of high art. It is nigh impossible to conceive of enduring values and a world that both precedes us and will outlast us if we do not appreciate cultural work from the past. And it makes sense to have high standards for this level of art.
But while high art matters, it's also necessary to have a living culture. Nothing great can come from a time and place if nothing is coming from it at all. So the great, the good, the ephemeral all have their place.
Where do the Beatles fit in? Well their work has, to a decent extent, already stood the test of time. They were ambitious as musicians and composers, but regardless of how high they aspired they always knew they were creating pop songs. So I feel confident that they'll continued to be remembered. As what? I'm not entirely sure.
Speaking of lasting, Gordon says that his students also pointed to Pink Floyd as something that could potentially be considered high art. Today I saw Pink Floyd graffiti at a bus stop. I'm curious in what context the tagger first encountered their work.
I also often see graffiti of Achewood characters. Not sure where that fits in.
2 comments:
That's an interesting question, or pair of questions, and I guess it all depends on the definition. After a few minutes thought it occurred to me that the term 'high culture' is only relevant depending upon whose culture we're discussing. If it's just the West then yes, there are certain elements that can be regarded as 'high culture' yet almost all of them are ancient and most have been supported by powerful wealthy people. Perhaps not so much literature since that's a solitary practice but definitely painting, sculpture, and music. Who else would have paid for the paint, marble, and instruments? Although I know this isn't universally true it's pretty close to the way things have been up to now in our society.
Besides, the term only makes sense in a western context. How would we even recognize it in any other part of the world? Does 'high culture' recognize some universal aspect of human experience and how would we identify it in another culture?
You're right about needing to recognize high standards, but I think that looking to add particular works might be a wasted effort. Since the second world war contemporary society has been far more ecumenical than in any other period. That circumstance allows for a broader interpretation of art in general - a living culture might produce examples of 'high art' but maybe not.
We have the music of Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart and numerous others, maybe some works by musicians who remain unknown might qualify as 'high art', but we can't know. I'm guessing the Beatles as well as Pink Floyd will long be remembered with great affection and respect, but I think the term 'high art' is a descriptor that belongs to the past.
(Achewood is over my head.)
It's a little unnerving and potentially dispiriting to realize how much of the great art of the past was underwritten by nobility and the very rich. It means that we've been dependent on the upper crust of the upper crust not only having a sense of taste and discernment but also desiring to leave some kind of legacy related to it. In many cases I think today's ultrarich only care about art as an investment: buying paintings off of thumbnails and immediately warehousing them, for instance.
"High culture" is something we're most primed to recognize in our own culture. I don't necessarily think it only exists in the West, though. Matsuo Basho, for example, is a poet as revered in Japan as, say, Milton or Dryden is in England. In other nations/cultures the idea may be more labile.
I suppose the question of whether we still produce "high art" can only be answered by the passage of time. A musician or artist or writer can't let themselves be bogged down with the question of whether that's what they're producing. You can't even assume that that's what they want to do. It may be that aesthetic ideas have changed too much. All we know is that art is necessary.
We have a little more knowledge of what the Beatles and Pink Floyd wanted to do than in the case of Beethoven and Brahms. Although you can probably find the same kinds of passions at the root of both sets of musicians. It's probably good for the listener to remain flexible.
(I think Achewood is just supposed to be weird, hopefully a charming kind of weird.)
Post a Comment