What Does The Art You Like Say About You?

    Does the art you enjoy automatically classify you into a category? For example, if you enjoyed Mozart over Taylor Swift, does that make you pretentious? 

     John Fisk wrote, "The challenge of highbrow texts, then, is always offered primarily within the realm of the aesthetic and any social dimension never crosses class barriers and thus never challenges the economic base of society, nor its differential distribution of power." What does Fiske mean? Let dissect what Fiske is saying. Earlier in his essay, he says, "The popular text must align itself with the tastes and concerns of its readers, not its author, if the readers are to choose it from the wide repertoire of other texts available: it must offer inviting access to the pleasures and meanings it may provoke." That is to say that the lower class values something that is practical. Works of art that are purely aesthetic, for social purposes, do not appeal to the lower classes. For instance, quoting Shakespeare is of no value to the lower class unless it can appeal to them practically. So what does Fiske believe the lower class values? Fiske suggests the "proletarian tastes are for artworks that are functional...family histories or help one make sense or....subordination in society." The lower classes want functionality. 

    But why does the lower class want functionality? Why can they not enjoy the high-brow art? Fiske argues, "The ‘difficulty’ of highbrow texts functions less to ensure or measure the ‘quality’ of the text itself and more as a social turnstyle: it works to exclude those who have not the cultural competence." In other words, Fiske is saying that the purpose of highbrow text is to keep the lower class out. For one to enjoy Shakespeare, one is required to be within a system that is conducive to understanding Shakespeare. That system is not built on functionality, but is self-contained. A person does not need to know Shakespeare in order to survive; therefore, it is a luxury that exhibits itself in class divide. Again, Fiske argues that lower-class art "should be functional and thus should be of use in meeting the challenges of which their daily lives are comprised." In short, Fiske believes the lower class does not, or cannot, find enjoyment in certain types of art. 

    What if one were to guide the lower class in understanding highbrow text? Fiske argues against Leavis, who believed that a person could be refined by higher art. Fiske argues, "individuals who were most likely to develop these fine sensibilities were already members of the dominant class." Simply put, those who are refined by high art, through understanding the art, are already in a dominant class. 

    Fiske ends his essay by stating that, "It is the social use of the text rather than their essential qualities that determines their 'brow' level." In other words, how the art is used within social circles is more important in determining the "brow level" than the qualities of the art. One can quote Shakespeare in lower circles, but only if it meets the functional needs of the people. 

So, does the art you enjoy make you pretentious?