In his book Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, Pierre Bourdieu makes a compelling argument that suggests that in fact, the social conditions we have been raised in are intrinsically linked to our understanding of culture and art. Bourdieu writes, "Whereas the ideology of charisma regards taste in legitimate culture as a gift of nature, scientific observation shows that cultural needs are the product of upbringing and education . . . preferences in literature, painting or music, are closely linked to educational level, and secondarily to social origin." For Bourdieu, the culture in which we are raised does not solely impact our cultural appreciation, but instead, determines our cultural appreciation.
Bourdieu's idea is an interesting one. I've long been interested in what determines one's appreciation of art, music, and literature, and have strove in vain to understand why certain works have been praised by the cultural elite, while other works are frowned upon. I'm reminded of my immediate reaction to Henri Matisse's painting The Snail (at right), a painting which has been fairly universally praised by art critics and, I'm told, exemplifies Matisse's understanding of color in his work. While I appreciate that others can appreciate and enjoy the painting, I confess that I'm at a loss to understand the significance of the work. To me, it looks like something I could have done in my elementary school art classes, and I'm no Matisse.
This brings me back to Bourdieu. In his book on this so-called "intellectual distinction" he writes, "A work of art has meaning and interest only for someone who possesses the cultural competence, that is, the code, into which it is encoded. " Is it possible that I do not possess the cultural code needed to understanding the significance and meaning of Matisse's The Snail? The theory is an intriguing one. Certainly, I agree with Bourdieu's assertion that no person is autonomous in their understanding and appreciation of art and culture, but I must also admit that I question the totality of his argument.
I wonder how Bourdieu would respond to the dissimilarities in cultural appreciation even among those with similar cultural backgrounds. In my time at Messiah, I've come across those who have a very similar background to my own, in terms of cultural exposure and education, yet still cannot understand why the novels of Ian McEwan are so powerful or how significant the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins is to English literature. I'm often told by friends who are not in the English department that they just don't get poetry, and no matter how hard I might try to dissuade them of their initial impressions, nothing ever seems to change.
Similarly, my siblings and I tend to appreciate different types of art, despite our identical upbringing. I tend to favor Impressionist works, while my brother is able to discern the significance of current artists like Damien Hirst and Banksy. While I tend to agree with much of Burdieu's argument, I believe he fails to account for these distinctions in cultural appreciation, which perhaps, do act as evidence for the belief in cultural autonomy.
No comments:
Post a Comment