soph (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophia_sol) wrote2018-03-26 08:57 pm
sophia_sol) wrote2018-03-26 08:57 pm
Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America, by Lawrence W. Levine
This is one of those nonfiction books that helpfully tells you in the title exactly what it's going to be about.
It was interesting to read for the historical details of what was going on in the arts scene in 19th century USA! But I felt like the author chose the wrong time period to begin his discussion. The book's thesis: during the 19th century in the USA, there was greater cultural sharing between the classes, but as the 19th century ended and the 20th century began, it became more stratified into ideas of certain things being highbrow ~art~ and other things being low-value popular entertainment.
But the book also makes it clear that this kind of cultural stratification existed in Europe in the 19th century during the time he's saying the USA was more unified. And US culture of the time, as a colonial country, is obviously influenced by the colonizing culture. So what was going on in the US before the 19th century? And did Europe also have a time of more cultural sharing between classes, and just went stratified earlier than the US did? Where did the perspectives of the early 19th century come from?
I feel like this is relevant in the discussion, especially since the author's epilogue says that culture is once again moving in a direction of being less stratified. (The author was writing in the 1980's, ftr.) So is it a cyclical thing? Or was one perspective or the other an unusual historic one-off?
The author is totally uninterested in these broader contextual questions. He's interested in an approximately 100 year span of history in a single location and that's it. Which like, sure, he can restrict himself like that if he wants, but I'm also allowed to be annoyed that his book isn't more comprehensive on the topic he's discussing.
Also, through much of the book he was talking in quite definitive tones about the way everything was at one time vs the other with little room for, like, natural human variety even in the face of a social trend. Which put me off and made me spend most of the book trying to find ways to argue against the author's thesis.
I don't know enough to be able to argue one way or another, and the author is certainly right that there were changes over the course of 19th century USA in how the expected relationship between art and audience goes, but overall I'm left not feeling as convinced by this book as I want to be -- and as, perhaps, I ought to be, since the author is likely right about broad trends even if those trends are not universal.
It was interesting to read for the historical details of what was going on in the arts scene in 19th century USA! But I felt like the author chose the wrong time period to begin his discussion. The book's thesis: during the 19th century in the USA, there was greater cultural sharing between the classes, but as the 19th century ended and the 20th century began, it became more stratified into ideas of certain things being highbrow ~art~ and other things being low-value popular entertainment.
But the book also makes it clear that this kind of cultural stratification existed in Europe in the 19th century during the time he's saying the USA was more unified. And US culture of the time, as a colonial country, is obviously influenced by the colonizing culture. So what was going on in the US before the 19th century? And did Europe also have a time of more cultural sharing between classes, and just went stratified earlier than the US did? Where did the perspectives of the early 19th century come from?
I feel like this is relevant in the discussion, especially since the author's epilogue says that culture is once again moving in a direction of being less stratified. (The author was writing in the 1980's, ftr.) So is it a cyclical thing? Or was one perspective or the other an unusual historic one-off?
The author is totally uninterested in these broader contextual questions. He's interested in an approximately 100 year span of history in a single location and that's it. Which like, sure, he can restrict himself like that if he wants, but I'm also allowed to be annoyed that his book isn't more comprehensive on the topic he's discussing.
Also, through much of the book he was talking in quite definitive tones about the way everything was at one time vs the other with little room for, like, natural human variety even in the face of a social trend. Which put me off and made me spend most of the book trying to find ways to argue against the author's thesis.
I don't know enough to be able to argue one way or another, and the author is certainly right that there were changes over the course of 19th century USA in how the expected relationship between art and audience goes, but overall I'm left not feeling as convinced by this book as I want to be -- and as, perhaps, I ought to be, since the author is likely right about broad trends even if those trends are not universal.
no subject
If you had told me you were limiting it that way I might not even have minded! But now I feel betrayed! I feel like there's a really bad titling trend among academics and their editors of late. The worst offenders have been archeology books that are titled like "Explaining This Broad Cultural Trend In This Long Time Period" and the contents are "we have written a very detailed study about two archaeological sites that were occupied for twenty years total and we make no attempts to generalize." I would totally read a book that was titled A Detailed Study Of These Two Archaeological Sites but that is not what I was promised!
no subject
But I too would rather read A Detailed Study Of These Two Archeological Sites that is presented as such. But I guess such titles don't have broad marketability.
no subject
I do have some books that are titled A Detailed Study Of These Archeological Sites but they're all fairly old.
no subject