It is very clear to me that generally speaking Europeans value art considerably more than North Americans do as a group. People from Asian cultures seem to value education more. I consistently get distinctly different reactions from all these groups when I tell them I'm going into being a literature professor. From my fellow Americans I often get some sort of puzzlement. Why are you doing that? What's the point? Sometimes I get dismissive remarks about how what I'm doing isn't going to bring in much money or about how literature is worthless and has nothing to do with "real life."
Ah! The pragmatic Americans. If it has no practical purpose then what's the point? I was close with an artist/photographer from Puerto Rico when I lived in New York. He would often point out the differences between the Anglo-American culture and what he called the people of Mediterranean extraction. He noted that when the Anglo-Americans meet over business, they arrive early... and immediately get down to the business at hand. This was opposed to the culture he had grown up in in which he noted that even if the business at hand was something as serious as bumping off the other person for having cheated you, the meeting still began with the greatest of pleasantries... offers of home-made hot chocolate or coffee, talk about the wife and kids, etc... Repeatedly, he expressed an absolute dismay at the American tradition of eating a big lunch which usually included a good portion of meat (a double cheeseburger or a quarter pounder) and then heading back to work without a siesta. He would exclaim again and again that he hated the American ways but recognized that they were slowly taking over the world because "those da** Americans are just so fu**ing practical!"
Nothing practical about studying art... or making art. And this is a reality that confronts us daily within the the system of education. The arts are considered "extras"... at best "enrichment activities"... nice to have... but not necessary... and the first thing to go when the budgets get tight. The arts are continually put in a position of needing to justify their purpose within education. Thus we have the arguments about the correlation between music and math scores, and the value of visual art in aiding with a retention of historical persons and events. In other words... even the leaders within arts education have fallen for the notion that art needs to prove it is somehow practical.
I might not have ever linked these reactions with my own culture if it weren't that I've had the chance to interact a fair amount with people from Europe, both in my travels there and in this country. What I've noticed is that consistently when I'm talking to people in or from Europe of all sorts of backgrounds, I have almost never (possibly never at all) gotten the "why" question. They don't seem to wonder why someone would go into literary study or why literature is something of interest, and they also don't seem to have either the dismissiveness or the inferiority complex that people in the states do about encountering someone who knows a lot about books.
One suspects that the lack of support for public arts education is partially to blame. I would also surmise that the lack of a truly visible government support for the arts (and the attack of what small support there is by neanderthals in State and Federal government) has resulted in a greater need for artistic institutions to pander to the wealthy patrons... leading to the mistaken notion that the arts... the "fine arts"... are reserved for the rich.
From the Europeans I have met I agree that there is a far greater respect for the arts in Europe than in the US. I often remark to my studio mates how I am awed at such building as these:
I am awed for the simply reason that such buildings survived hundreds of years without falling prey to vandalism or the efforts of city politicians and developers to create new parking garages or a Starbucks Coffee on the spot.
I also get a similarly more enthusiastic response about the study of poetry from people who are from the Middle East or from India. When talking to people from East Asian cultures, such as China or Japan, I often get a response that is distinctly linked to praise for pursuing higher education of any kind. There's a sense that education and knowledge are valuable pursuits in these cultures that deserve, at the very least, some sort of respect.
I often laugh at the comments of my best friend who is Korean with regard to my own career in education. He declares that my career is one of the most respected and that I should feel honored to be a teacher. Of course it may be hard to share his enthusiasm or recognize the honor when one considers that the guy who drives the garbage truck gets paid more, while hundreds of thousands of teachers are facing lay-offs and salary cuts and being portrayed as overpaid and lazy in the press.
This is not to say at all that the people in the US or Canada are any less intelligent or interesting than those elsewhere. Certainly I have plenty of good conversations about literature with people in the US too. My sense is simply that, as a culture, we do not value art and learning in the same way that people do elsewhere and that this is partly because we don't feel as comfortable with talking about art or identifying ourselves as people who appreciate art.
St. Luke's is definitely not using it in a class or economic oriented sense. However, this is what the term elite usually conveys to most people, which is a reason I personally steer clear of using it myself. I agree with St. Luke's point about art requiring a certain kind of dedication and effort, about there being a small group who take the time to give an in depth dedication to art, and about there being a need in our culture for some sort of respect for the wisdom and insights that such a group are able to attain through that dedication. I also see that by taking up the term elite he is making a point about our cultural attitudes toward this group of art appreciators. However, it is a term that I myself avoid simply because, outside of a discussion like this where someone like St. Luke's has provided this carefully thought out definition, most people do automatically take the word to mean something associated with class. I've found that terms and phrases like "the best and the brightest" or "dedicated thinkers" or (a few times to surprisingly great effect in a more political context despite the fact that I thought I was being a bit over the top rhetorically) "guardians of wisdom" tend to be more productive when discussing this issue than trying to combat the enormous negativity and confusion that has amassed around the term "elite."
No matter the terminology... it is still difficult to convey the idea that there may be some persons whose opinions hold more sway than others when it comes to the arts. Perhaps this is due to the very "elitist" nature of art itself which contrast with the notions of democracy and egalitarianism. Of course our democratic culture has no difficulty with the notion that some opinions are better than others in questions of economics or business... that some athletes or sports teams are better than others. To suggest, however, that perhaps someone who has invested years of study of poetry or painting might be a better judge of the merits of a poet or painter than the average high-school student is seen by a good many as almost akin to blaspheme. As you have noted before... its not an issue of wealth (although certainly wealth affords the leisure time to spend in the exploration of art) nor an issue of intelligence. Many brilliant individuals with careers in science, math, medicine, the law, business, etc... have simply chosen that art is not worth the effort... or is not a central issue in their life.
I think you nailed it, Stlukes is a rich dude.
That's a point. As one of our most prominent bibliophiles, he clearly must be posting from a golden yacht while sipping a glass of $50,000 a bottle champagne. The jig is up, mister. Enough of this humble teacher/artist pose. We're on to you and the big money that you elitist types are raking in. Meanwhile, I'm raising my glass of 1907 Heidsieck (http://www.luxist.com/2008/09/08/wor...-000-a-bottle/) while lounging in one of my smaller palazzos (most PhD candidates in the humanities have at least 3 or 4). Ah, the joys of being one of the elite.
Ack!!! I've been caught with my pants down!
So to speak...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
