High culture is products, people, creations or buildings that hold high status ie/ Opera (Beethoven, Mozart) the paintings of artists such as Leonardo Di Vinci, buildings such as Cathedrals, Castles and literature by Jane Austen, Shakespeare or John Milton. These types of work are seen as superior as opposed to popular culture, but how can people say that – when soap operas could be seen just as superior or justified by the people who value them?
Advocates of high culture are in firm agreement that high culture is superior. Matthew Arnold, a headmaster of a public school said “The pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know… the best which has been thought and said in the world.”
He had a fear of a collapse in standards, his thoughts were high culture is special and should be looked after by ‘educated people.’
T.S Elliot shared his sentiments. He felt that high culture is created by superior individuals and should be kept safe and special from the working class.
These elitist views feel that popular culture is less worthy than high culture. The arguments of those with less than sympathetic views towards popular culture believe high culture should be owned by ‘sophisticated’ people who can appreciate it and protect it from harm.
I am totally against what they have to say. They want to exclude people – popular culture involves everyone. It does not exclude because of social status, age, race or sex. So whilst these educated critics do see popular as shallow, dumb or harmful, others including Strinati and Wagg argue that it is just as valid and just as worthwhile as high culture.
So if popular culture is so mindless and awful, how does the media survive? Something popular attracts a large audience or has a continually growing market share. Tabloid newspapers, hits singles, hot new bands, be it whatever.
So whilst there may be a clear divide of what is high culture and what is popular culture, people have a choice and there is room for overlap. Influential figures such as Tony Blair might read the ‘Independent’ as opposed to ‘The Sun’ but may prefer ‘Harry Potter’ to ‘John Milton.’ ‘The Queen’ may enjoy attending the opera or reading critically acclaimed literature but perhaps may need a weekly ‘Eastenders’ fix. Who knows?
High culture may exclude those who don’t regularly visit cathedrals or read Jane Austen as opposed to Mills and Boon, but popular culture embraces everyone from an 88 year old pensioner in hospital to the Prime Minister’s wife.
A raging theoretical culture debate of our time is the ‘dumbing down’ issue. This is the idea that Britain’s cultural heritage is being lost as those responsible for producing and promoting media and culture in this country are increasingly forgetting the distinction between ‘high’ and ‘popular’ culture and are instead chasing huge profits and viewing figures – and as this means catering for large numbers, so anything stimulating or challenging is being overlooked. Schools, universities and museums are all being accused of dumbing down. But is this true? Is Pop Idol really less worthy of a prime time TV slot than News night? Or is placing a fast food chain in a museum taking away what the museum stands for?
As I said before popular culture involves everyone. The type of culture you are associated with helps to make you the person who you are. If you identify with popular culture you will have a very different self image, attitudes and beliefs to an 18 year old who identifies themselves with high culture. Neither type of culture is irrelevant, each is just as valid and there is probably scope for blending of the two. So in answer to the set question in my opinion Strinati and Wagg’s claims are valid to a great extent and whilst popular culture is very important we must not forget that so is high culture.
