Ms. Ghazaal Zare was inclined to publish an article of mine for her exhibition that is about the popular taste, an attitude towards it through the evolution of people's view of melamine dishes. I suggested this piece, a part of which comes here. The debate is whether being ‘high’ and even ‘professional’ can be a key indicator in artistic evaluation and critique or not. I believe the question is answered to some extent in this article.
Do we have something called ‘high art’ and ‘vulgar art’?
"The line we draw so decisively between what is called ‘high’ culture and what is called ‘popular’ culture no longer exists in culturally developed systems," Nasser Fakouhi said.
Fararu – "The line we draw so decisively between what is called “high” culture and what is called “popular” culture no longer exists in culturally developed systems. It means that people in a democratic society respect each other's tastes and tolerate them without trying to impose their own on each other, but at the same time they try to bring their tastes closer together,” Nasser Fakouhi said.
In his analysis of ‘high culture’ and ‘vulgar culture’, Nasser Fakouhi, professor of anthropology at the University of Tehran and director of anthropology and culture, in an interview with Fararu, referred to three types of music that people like. "People in Iran are interested in three types of music: local-ethnic music, pop music and traditional Iranian music. It seems that most of our young people and even the elite in the first place are fans of the second group, pop music (in its broad sense, which includes singers and musicians from before the 1979 Islamic Revolution to the present day), and then like a few figures in the traditional music (Shajarian, Alizadeh, Nazeri ...). However, they do not mention their interest in such music in the society and instead talk about classical music. Lack of literature on Western classical music, lack of concerts and lack of fans for these concerts are signs that are self-explanatory,” he said.
Read the full interview with Dr. Nasser Fakouhi here:
A critical look at the relationship between ‘high’ culture and ‘vulgar’ culture
"For example, today, someone says: “I ‘only’ listen to the music of masters such as Banan, and another person says: ‘I am interested in pop music’. Depending on the case and place in which he speaks, the first person may be given some privileges. As in Europe, top business owners and top executives tend to say they listen to Wagner, while workers consider their favorite musician to be Vivaldi. In a sense, the difference is not only in the difference between Wagner’s and Vivaldi’s music (which, of course, exists), but also in the difference in social and aristocratic privileges that this declaration brings about,” he continued.
Asked if the conflict between elite and popular art has disappeared, Fakouhi said: "There has always been a conflict. Pierre Bourdieu, the French sociologist, has explained the reason better than any other theorist: ‘The reason is not necessarily that the elite art has superiority over the popular art in terms of aesthetics and even technology and complexity. Rather, it is the possibility that these two types of attitudes towards art or the claim of having such attitudes give individuals to distinguish themselves from each other in the social hierarchy and overtake each other like in a competition”.
He pointed to the differences between popular and elite tastes in choosing their favorite music and said: “In the history of Iran, at least in the post-Islamic era, we have always seen a group of ordinary people in the society rise and overthrow rulers of the time and replace them. In other words, we have always faced a new political era that has been the result of instability in that field. This new era, which can be compared with the conditions of an upstart, was complemented by a new era of cultural and later artistic manifestation. That is, the new power was trying to show its superiority over its predecessors in terms of art, aristocracy, and aesthetics.
Modernity and the growing Western influence since the beginning of the 20th century together with the increase in oil revenues and other governmental revenues since the 1960s, were two important events that greatly intensified this process. Interfering with people's lifestyles in general (not humiliating or insulting them) is completely impossible in the West.
In the discourse of the intellectual system, the discourse of the upper classes is seen. In Iran, as in Europe, there are two intellectual and academic fields. Although in Iran these two fields are both severely damaged, academics distance themselves from "journalists" by emphasizing that they do not say or write anything in public. This is while intellectuals call themselves "literate" and them "illiterate", emphasizing that academics are in the service of the power and government. Of course, both judgments are nothing but baseless claims”.
"Iranian intellectuals censure the university, but use academics in the West as their references, like the references they constantly give to Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard, and so on. However, our intellectuals often forget to mention these figures’ academic affiliation, and they talk in a way as if Foucault, Derrida and others never went to university. This is while these Western thinkers, like all academics, have taught, interacted with the students, and done research,” Fakouhi continued.
"In Iran, when someone in an intellectual atmosphere differentiates his tastes, in fact, wants to separate himself from systems such as the university and the public. In the United States and Europe, however, this distinction is no longer made through bragging and changing tastes. On the contrary, if somebody says they only listen to classical music and not to rock music, it brings him nothing today but a grin at this pretentious upstart. This is because the hierarchy of differentiation in these countries has changed,” the university professor added.
Regarding today's intellectuals’ point of view, Nasser Fekouhi explained: “The viewpoint of a modern intellectual in the world is different from that of an intellectual in a Third World country, and especially Iran. The line we draw so decisively between what is called ‘high’ culture and what is called ‘popular’ culture no longer exists in culturally developed systems. It means that people in a democratic society respect each other's tastes and tolerate them without agreeing with them. They try to bring their tastes closer together or introduce others to their own culture to help the society get away from the cultural tensions and distances that are the first steps to social and violent distances and tensions.”
"One principle of modernity is that as long as the rights of all are respected and important social norms are not violated, no one has the right to tell anyone else what to enjoy more and why, or not enjoy and why. There is no doubt that a symphonic work requires thousands of hours of practice, while a motherly lullaby may seem like a simple rhythm. But this is also a superficial view, because the lullaby may be the result of thousands of years of evolution of human thought. So things are not that simple,” he noted.
Elaborating on what the biggest problem among our intellectuals and the public is, he said: "The biggest problem seen among our intellectuals as well as ordinary people is ‘cutting off from the outside world’. Our view is a closed and local one. If we knew the world, if we knew the ‘West’ and the ‘East’ in the past and today, even if we knew ‘ourselves’ well, we would know that one of the ways to make classical music popular is fusion music, that is bringing together different music styles. We should not let our social and intellectual system be a reactionary system, because this reaction creates a cycle of more futile reactions and will lead to more irrationality among us”.
بدون دیدگاه