Literature, poetry... It really doesn't matter in the real world, does it?

[Emil Miller]

I was fortunate in that I grew up before TSHTF i.e. before the advent of ultra mass media, and in formative years had some good teachers who introduced their pupils to reading and music. At that time the radio, and specifically the BBC, was a fount of knowledge apart from being an entertainment medium. As a boy, I naturally gravitated to boy's books but they were usually written by established authors and I became a voracious reader, thanks to a public library system that enabled people to travel to libraries outside of one's immediate locality. Children have a natural curiosity and, as the media became increasingly dominant, I wondered at its power to mesmerise people into irrational behaviour: anyone who has read H G Wells, Aldous Huxley or George Orwell will recognise this fact. In my view, the mass media are the enemy of reason: which is the foundation stone of culture. There is no such thing as 'popular culture' which is a euphemism for manipulated mass behaviour. Of course, there are varying degrees of entertainment but much of it has little correlation to culture and exists to extract as much money as possible from the gullible.
So. in reply to the OP, the answer is yes it does matter in the real world, but only to those who are able to appreciate it.

[Paulclem]

Within the English GCSE are studies about media, and I think it is the perfect opportunity to introduce a critical view of mass media. I think opinions about important topics are manipulatd by the TV and newspapers - it is quite obvious in the very selective coverage of world affairs by the BBC - (and the BBC is supposed to be notable for its unbiased stance).

I feel that being able to critically read or listen to opinions is a skill that is sorely neglected, but is vital to prevent the kind of uninformed rabble rousing we occaisionally get.

[AuntShecky]

A little side point, human beings are not the only creatures that express themselves. Off the top of my head animals that sing songs: dogs, birds (of course), whales/dolphins.

Art is more than mere "self-expression," even if you believe that each single, individual animal indeed possesses what we think of as a unique "self." There’s an more important difference, though, Miyako. As far as research in the topic has gone, the creatures whom you cite do “sing,” but the so-called songs stem from innate instinct rather than from the creative efforts which distinguish the human ability to create art. In other words, with birds there is a highly limited repertoire involving mating calls, and perhaps distress signals, each warbling essentially the “same old song” varying not a note from generation to generation. I really doubt that your average “whippoorwill high on a hill” would ever come up with a “new note,” far less spontaneously break into a brand new, Puccini-style aria. I didn’t know that dogs could sing, the notorious recording of “Jingle Bells” notwithstanding. (Howling at the moon doesn’t count.) The songs of dolphins and whales are well known – there was an actual hit record album by the latter – but could they come up with new melodies and lyrics? I seriously doubt it.

And to reply to StLukesguild:

Jazz was employed in a similar manner during WWII. And there were indeed propagandist efforts made by many of the biggest names of the era:
"The White Cliffs of Dover" - Jimmy Dorsey
"Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" - Andrews Sisters
"Der Fuehrer's Face" - Spike Jones
"When The Lights Go On Again (All Over The World)" - Vaughn Monroe & His Orchestra
Don't Sit Under The Apple Tree (With Anyone Else But Me) - Andrews Sisters

Although these songs have topics specific to WWII topics, they might have been written out of the prevailing Zeitgeist of the moment rather than cranked out “to order” as propagandist tools. I say this because some of those songs outlasted their wartime popularity, resurfacing now and then to this day. The “Boogie Woogie” one was a mega-hit for Bette Midler, and as you later mentioned, one song from the era served as a theme to [I]Dr. Strangelove[/I over the closing credits.

One has to wonder just how successful such efforts at promoting the superiority of the American culture were when one considers other musicians such as Sidney Beckett and Dexter Gordon who found it easier to live in Paris than in the US... simply because they were Black.

I agree with you on this one, StLukes, but I think the reason the jazz artists flocked to Paris wasn’t solely because of racial injustice, but rather economics. American jazz has always been more popular in Japan and in Europe (especially in The Netherlands)– I’m not sure why, except perhaps that young people in the United States haven’t been educated enough to appreciate America’s only native art form, the notorious Bart Simpson quote be damned.

Because jazz artists can more easily eke out a living in foreign markets might be one of the reasons Sidney (Bechet, not “Beckett”) and Dexter et al. were expatriates. On the other hand, high-quality mini-series like Tremé might introduce jazz to American audiences, who , if every glimmering of taste hasn’t already been leached out of them, might come to appreciate it.

We have seen a shift in the arts from art dominated by the wealthy and educated to art dominated by the masses. Has music improved? I'll leave that up to you? Are Dan Brown, Twilight and Harry Potter a step up from James Joyce and T.S. Eliot?

Only because American kids don’t know any better, never having been taught how to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. They simply don’t know what they’re missing, since they’ve been brainwashed into swallowing the crap which the corporations force-feed them. They think they “like” this stuff because “everybody else” seems to like it.

Even worse – and it’ll be obvious to you that Dwight MacDonald’s theories have influenced me– is the “mid-cult” stuff – Downton Abbey, Broadway musical versions of “Les Mis,” the watered-down Disneyfication of Aida, and the like. One NYT critic attributed Dan Brown’s success to the fact that Brown suckers people into thinking that they’re smart, even though the stuff he shoves at them is pure drivel.

The problem is with our public education, and the crass manipulation of commercial markets, especially in the music business. Maybe “the masses” are deliberately steered away from the arts, and that’s just how the Powers that Be want it.

. . .but I am resigned to believe that a passion for the "fine arts" will always be reserved to a limited audience. This has evolved from an audience born into wealth and power and education to an audience whose passion for art is an elective affinity... a choice. But I have have absolutely no faith in Democratic or Egalitarian political systems when it comes to the appreciation and support of the arts. We all know that the arts are the first thing cut during times of economic woes.

Yeah, but government aid to the Arts was always nominal to begin with. But to your central thesis that economically disadvantaged people don't choose to appreciate the arts I must disagree.

I will wager that there is no one – no one – on the LitNet who has emerged from a lower socio-economic place than yours truly, and in many ways I am still firmly entrenched there, though obviously not by choice. Moreover, I am one LitNutter who proudly supports upward mobility, and a truly democratic, egalitarian political system. The arts are for everyone. They were never meant to be hoarded by the rich.

[stlukesguild]

But to your central thesis that economically disadvantaged people don't choose to appreciate the arts I must disagree.

My "thesis" is not that economically disadvantaged people choose not to seriously participate in the arts. In fact I have stated the exact opposite: Art remains an "elitist" endeavor... but it is no longer wealth and social class that determine whether one participates but rather an elective affinity... a personal choice. Undoubtedly the wealthy still benefit from a greater exposure to the arts and culture... and to the broad alternatives within these. The arts are not slashed from the budgets of the private schools and when the wealthier students go on to college they do not need to fear that a choice to major in French literature or music or philosophy or art will spell a life of penury. Out of the majority of all of the populace, however, I see but a small percentage that choose to become seriously involved in the arts beyond that promoted by the mass media.

I am all for an Egalitarian/Democratic approach to arts education... giving a fair share of exposure to the arts to everyone. On the other hand, I don't trust an Egalitarian/Democratic process with regard toward judging and choosing what art is of merit. This results in little more than a popularity contest... and we all are aware of the less than stellar results... and how these have been increasingly manipulated by the media.

[mona amon]

The problem is with our public education, and the crass manipulation of commercial markets, especially in the music business. Maybe “the masses” are deliberately steered away from the arts, and that’s just how the Powers that Be want it.- AuntShecky

Is it really all these that are at fault, or is it just the natural order of things that only a few people can appreciate the higher stuff? No amount of exposure to math in school ever made me capable of appreciating the beauties of higher mathematics, for instance, because I just do not have any natural talent for it. Similarly, one can expose the kids to any amount of good art and literature, but most of them are going to settle for something far less than Shakespeare or Dickens.

Having said that, I do realise the importance of a good education in art and culture, so that those who do have the ability to appreciate such things do not miss out, due to lack of exposure to the good stuff.

[JCamilo]

Of course, appreciation of art as something "elitist" has nothing to do with public education. Popular art is also elitist because it also select the best artists and also can appeal just to a selected few. And frankly, there is never such thing as social groups that didnt appreciate or produced art. Some many not have operas, but everyone had music. (Included birds, who do not sing the same music, indiviuals of same species do have different performances and even "songs").