The Challenge of "Culture"
 

A few posts caught my eye this morning - one dismissing opera as an otherwise unpleasent experience, another mentioning how boring ballet is - and my mind started drifting. I've heard similar things said about art and "classical" music. A lot of these things get lumped into this thing called "culture" that you reognize is supposed to be good for you, but is never enjoyable.

I'm reminded of literature classes where we were made to read Steinbeck - to be sure a great writter, but that "supposed to be good" title and coercive nature of the class took away any joy I would have had in the experience.

That said, I have a great love for all forms of creative expression - including opera and ballet. Of course, my preference is for more contemporary works. I have to wonder though, if the communities that surround these modes of expression foster the sort of environment that kills the enjoyment of these modes of expression.

The Art community is often accused of being elitist, and deliberately obscure as a way of keeping out the "less cultured" - I wonder if that's true.

I also wonder, for those of you that dislike certain "cultural" things, what it is that bores or annoys you - as well as what it is that excites you?

I know that my love of contemporary cultural exploration and experiences is directly related to my exposure to "culture" as a child. I took ballet, piano and flute lessons, frequently went to the Ballet, Classical performances, musical theater and museums. I had books that I poured through as a child about Henri Rousseau, Kandinsky and Renoir. My exposure was probably much greater than most other kids of my time.

While my parents were highly religious, I don't think they really understood the "subversive" side of creativity and, therefore, were not afraid of it. I think they felt it was the right thing to do to expose me to "culture" as part of their creation of a well-rounded "Miss America". (My Mom had SERIOUS delusions of grandeur.)

As much as I hate my formal training as a child (there was little or no talent inherent in me which make it very frustrating), I grew up to understand and love all forms of artistic expression and appreciate differing cultures. I majored in Art History in college, became an arts administrator professionally and have not spend any "real" time not plugged into at least some form of cultural expression for most of my adult life. I pick and choose what I become obsessed with. There is a huge gap in my knowledge of Contemporary American Pop Culture from about 1980 on, but I find myself fascinated with Japanese Pop Culture from the 1950's onward. Go figure.

In a way, it's probably good we don't have children. They would be these little blind, oddballs dressed like Pugsly or Wednesday and spouting lines from films no other child has seen. I'm content to keep it to our little club of however many want to join in and happily absorb anything that strikes my fancy.

I'm not sure I even answered your question, but man can I babble with I'm sick.

I think opera and ballet definitely fall under the elitist category because of the money needed to produce them and this is reflected in the expense of the tickets to attend. I do not think the opera companies themselves try to obscure to keep the less cultured out. That would be silly as they are in need of a constant source of new funding.

It's more the patrons who support the opera/symphony/ballet who I think are more inclined to be exclusive and downright snooty. I was, myself, a member of the standing room community for many years since that was all I could afford (and I met some of my best friends on the planet in the standing line and along the rails in the uppermost balcony). The "patrons" who paid $14 for their last row balcony seat (to my $10 standing ticket) never ceased to look down their noses at the riff raff behind them. So it goes.

As for what excites me, gosh the list is a mile long. Any art from any era, from Ancient Greece on up to the modern age is exciting. I can take delight from the caves at Lascaux (how do you spell that anyway) to a Monet, a Keith Haring to a Warner Brothers cartoon. Photography is a special love, too.

I love many many forms of music and consider any deficiency on my part in appreciation of newer music to be simply my lack of exposure. Right now I live in the sticks and I don't find the annual Jimmy Buffett concerts worth my time, sorry.

Ballet on it's own bores me, except the short ones! Don't get me wrong, I love the music of Tchaikovsky and Glinka, but some of the old warhorses just make me snooze, especially after a good meal. I'm sure with prolonged exposure to Ballachine and other choreographers I'd find it less dull. Then again, some of the new stuff I have caught in passing on PBS I find irritating.

To make this answer all that much longer, I'm excited by just about anything in the arts. It stimulates the mind and feeds the soul. I may not like it all once I get to know it, but I'll appreciate the experience.

Donna
who is in a rambling mood today, sorry guys

Count me as one who just doesn't get the appeal of opera and ballet. Certainl I appreciate the skill involved, and I can even appreciate some of the beauty of ballet. But vague appreciation is where it ends for me, it's not enough to get me to enjoy it. Why? I don't know that I can really express why. The closest I can get is to say that I don't see in those forms of expression anything that adds anything emotionally significant to a story. Like Alex said in the opera thread, I've read the stories for several operas and they seemed like good enough stories...but seeing them performed did nothing for me. Operetic vocals just don't express anything to me.

As for classical music in general...hit or miss. I appreciate it more than I appreciate dance and opera, that's for sure. I, on occasion, enjoy listening to it as background music. I'll rarely sit down for the express purpose of listening to it, and attending a symphony is a huge yawn for me, unless there's something more to it (a-la the Disneyland music show at the Hollywood Bowl last year).

None of this is due to lack of exposure. My parents, if they listen to music, listen to almost exclusively classical music. I went to many symphony concerts growing up. They bored me then, they bore me now.

I suppose the closest thing to "culture" that I truly enjoy is jazz. But I suppose that's too modern to fit in with the other forms in this conversation.

I can understand how classical ballet may miss the mark for a lot of people, but Dance itself is one of those things I've found I have a growing passion for. There is something so elemental about it as a foirm of communication - it's the first "language" we ever know. I've seen some increadible dance pieces. One's that tell delightful narative stories, to expressing ranges of emotion, irony, and raw sexuality.

Of course I've seen some duds - a Japanese Bhuto group whose skill was holding these painfully long slow movements - amazing to be sure, but dull to this spectator. Or classical Ballet that just plays it straight (I think when this happens, it's really just a musical performance). But give the same piece to someone like Mark Morris or Mathew Bourne and it's a spectacular new show.

Not at all, I think there are plenty people who don't "get" jazz, or find it boring or annoying (especially that free-form experimental stuff). For that matter, the Pop Culture of today is just tomorrow's "Classical Culture."

HAHA! Culture.

Considering that most of the "culture" I enjoy is of the here and now - created in our time for our viewing - I would consider Jazz to less than modern. It has been enjoying a retro-driven resurgence lately, but it is definately not what I would consider highly contemporary.

Of course, there are hibred forms of Jazz that would fit in with the comtemporary definition, but I think the cutting edge days of jazz are long gone.

When I think over most of the dance performances I've seen over the past 10 years, about 90% of them were created recently or are very modern interpretations of an older work. I think the same goes for the art I tend to seek out. I don't often see the "blockbuster Impressionists" shows that have been popular lately. I tend to want to see what people are thinking about here and now and expressing it in their art. I find it a fascinating look at where I fit in and how I interract with the world.

There is a definite line between pop culture and high culture and I think it is somewhat created by the consumers.

For many people, something being too popular is a drawback. I'm suspicious of novels that are two widely read. We've all heard of things that are labeled as "too commercial" (read: it appeals to too many people). Or you loved a band when they were local and only 45 people knew who they were but by the time enough people caught on that they were on MTV you lost interest. There is an appeal to feeling your part of a small club of the enlightened.

Part of it is that art, to really connect frequently relies on something that isn't common within all people but rather something that is relatively rare. Thus Jon Waters is a genius to a very small group of people while the majority don't get it at all.

Personally, I'm an overly rational and under emotional person. Art works best for me when it works me intellectually instead of emotionally. There are emotional topics that get to me but for the most part I'm more interested in the literal than the subtextual (subtext isn't bad but when there is no overlayer of literal as is common with post-modern literature then you've lost me, almost guaranteed).

I also want to be clear that when I say "I don't like opera" I'm not really condemning the entire art form. Mostly it just means that I haven't liked the opera I've seen and didn't see anything about the form that has prodded me to persue more. I'm sure I'll end up seeing more opera in my lifetime and wouldn't be surprised if I find something I enjoy.

My consumption of "high culture" is relatively limited but that is mostly because I don't enjoy the venues in which it is consumed. I really enjoy looking at paintings and photography but strongly dislike the musuems in which they're displayed. I hate interpretation. When I look at paintings I don't care who painted them. I don't care what else they painted. I just want to look at this particular painting and photograph and take it in.

I'm also turned off by many of the people who frequent such places. I'm equally turned off by the person who says with pride "I don't watch TV" as I am by the person who says "I'd never read a book not found a the grocery store checkstand."

I'm willing to experience pretty much anything, even those things that I have little reason to expect I'll particularly enjoy (Natalie Merchant, chamber music) but I'm most excited about it when I am allowed to just interact with something directly on my own with a lot of baggage piled on.

It's very rare that I enjoy dance for dance's sake. And when I do enjoy it, it's usually because the music that goes along with it is good enough to hold its own. I know that that kinda sounds like a no brainer ("well duh you're not gonna like it if the music suck"), but I think it's telling of my personal tastes that I can enjoy music without good dance, but I can't enjoy dance without good music. I do tend to enjoy Bob Fosse stuff, but of course Fosse always worked with the best music.