,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This week saw the demise of two contrasting artists
Girish Karnad - an epitome of "high culture" and "establishment" taste
Crazy Mohan - a purveyor of mass culture and ingenious comedies
Who will age better?
I suspect in 2100, MMKR will still have more viewers than Utsav
Girish Karnad - an epitome of "high culture" and "establishment" taste
Crazy Mohan - a purveyor of mass culture and ingenious comedies
Who will age better?
I suspect in 2100, MMKR will still have more viewers than Utsav
"High culture" always tends to look down upon mass culture
E.g. In the 1940s, an author like John Steinbeck was more seriously regarded than a "suspense" film maker like Alfred Hitchcock
E.g. In the 1940s, an author like John Steinbeck was more seriously regarded than a "suspense" film maker like Alfred Hitchcock
But today, nobody really reads Steinbeck. Nor is he regarded as an indispensable read for students of American literature. Important yes. But hardly a Mark Twain
Whereas Hitchcock is indispensable. Taught in film schools. Amenable to both serious study and mass consumption
Whereas Hitchcock is indispensable. Taught in film schools. Amenable to both serious study and mass consumption
Hitchcock is regarded as being among the top dozen artists of the 20th century by many fine judges
Steinbeck has no such reputation
Nobody could've guessed that back in 1940s
Steinbeck has no such reputation
Nobody could've guessed that back in 1940s
Let's take another example - Shakespeare
No doubt a "popular" artist
By most accounts he lacked the same reputation that great litterateurs like Philip Sidney, Ben Jonson, and Francis Bacon enjoyed in the 16th century
Shakespeare was not in that league
No doubt a "popular" artist
By most accounts he lacked the same reputation that great litterateurs like Philip Sidney, Ben Jonson, and Francis Bacon enjoyed in the 16th century
Shakespeare was not in that league
Today Shakespeare is regarded as the greatest playwright in the English language
Who reads Philip Sidney? Or Francis Bacon?
Some specialists do. But not a huge readership
Who reads Philip Sidney? Or Francis Bacon?
Some specialists do. But not a huge readership
The larger point one is making is -
We ignore popular art at our peril
And we consistently tend to overrate the influence of "high culture" - works that tick all boxes of what a "serious" work ought to be, but yet are much less profound than we think
We ignore popular art at our peril
And we consistently tend to overrate the influence of "high culture" - works that tick all boxes of what a "serious" work ought to be, but yet are much less profound than we think
Sport is sort of immune from such miscalculations and mis-ratings. Because it has objective measures built into it
E.g. Sure, in the 1930s many regarded Archie Jackson or Walter Hammond to be technically more correct than Don Bradman
E.g. Sure, in the 1930s many regarded Archie Jackson or Walter Hammond to be technically more correct than Don Bradman
But the objective measure (99.94) ensured they were not taken seriously in their own time
Art lacks such objective measures. So what we get is a persistence of skewed, misguided elite opinions for decades, in defiance of popular reception of the art.
Art lacks such objective measures. So what we get is a persistence of skewed, misguided elite opinions for decades, in defiance of popular reception of the art.
If sport were like art, you would have connoisseurs rating "wonders" like Sanjay Manjrekar and Mark Ramprakash extremely highly - marvelling their technical virtue
While looking down upon Virendra Sehwag or Adam Gilchrist
But sport doesn't let such nonsense prevail
While looking down upon Virendra Sehwag or Adam Gilchrist
But sport doesn't let such nonsense prevail
