[lindyhop]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

I'm not sure about the whole highbrow/lowbrow thing. I understand that there are communities, disciplins, and institutions that can make certain cultural elements forboding - but by and large most "good" art was popular in some way.

Now, I guess there are books and works that make reference to others, and the enjoyment of those works are enhanced by having that knowledge, but I think any work despite it's brow-level usually can stand on it's own.

When I was attending the Long Beach Symphony I always took advantage of the pre-concert lectures. Just about every symphony orchestra offers these programs but Long Beach is unique because so many people attend (guest conductors are always stunned by the crowd). Usually they talk about the composers and preview some of the main themes of the music and that's helpful when you're hearing something for the first time. But when there was a piece of music that really connected with me it never depended on what I knew about it ahead of time because I wasn't hearing it with my conscious mind, instead my whole body "heard" it. That's not going to happen with every piece of music (no matter what style) but the more open you are the more likely it will.

So I can read Candide and not know about Leibnitz, logical postitivists, or the history of the Porteguese earthquake of whatever date it was. Granted if I do, I may get a bit more out of it - but it's still a pleasure to read none-the-less - or I think so anyway.

A great piece of art should be accessible without knowing all the background, that's what makes it timeless. Of course there may be language or culture issues that we have to get past.

I suppose another element of great works is that people like to talk about them, speculate, theorize, draw connections, etc. Often that is what the "art" community is all about - much like the fan base of a popular work.

I was a literature major at one point but I never quite fit in because I read for enjoyment and I never enjoyed the analysis of symbolism and all that other stuff. I read Dante's Inferno for a class and later read Purgatorio and Paradiso on my own. I loved Purgatorio, I thought it was the most human of the three and honestly I thought parts of it were hilarious. Later when I went back to school I had a chance to take a class where we were going to read Purgatorio and I was so excited to be able to share it with a group of people. But the way we had to read and interpret the book pretty much killed it for me. If your only exposure to the classics has been through school then I can understand why you might never want to try them again.

Similarly, I can't read music or play an instrument but I enjoy lots of different forms of music, including classical. I listen and either I respond, or I don't. Sometimes my response evolves over time.

When I first heard Philip Glass, I couldn't get past its repetativeness but over time I found his music stuck with me and I started seeking him out and ultimately found his work quite compelling. Maybe I wasn't ready for him when I first heard him, but I nver went out of my way to study minimalism or his musical predicessors - rather I think over time my way of listening changed.

This so true, sometimes we just aren't ready for something. I read The Great Gatsby in college and it was a big yawn. I read it again a few years ago and I was amazed how much the book had improved in that time. It was the book that changed, right?