Geoff; I'm glad you mentioned Tocqueville. He did indeed remark on American rejection of class and "aristocracy" but did say that lawyers took the place of a ruling class because they (with their specialized insider language) could read the law thus effectively protecting/abusing the rights of the minority from mob rule of the majority.
I agree that Americans have had a very odd sort of love/hate toward class issues, with some always aspiring to a high born pretense and others insisting on the practical value that in America there are no guarantees that wealth or status can be passed on passed on as a birthright. Tocqueville said that in America wealth and status are usually depleted in two or three generations. He also made much of the glaring contradiction of slavery in a classless America. He concluded that a slave economy was very inefficient and unsuited to the then emerging Industrial Revolution (1830s). He correctly showed that it held back economic and industrial development in the south. So, if slavery was an outward symbol of American aspirations to an aristocracy, it was doomed by economic reality as much or even more than the moral outrage it fostered. Tocqueville was an amazingly prescient person. Yet he was an aristocrat and was hoping it could be preserved in a post-revolutionary France. This issue is odd for me because my English pedigree is fully documented back to Edward 1, through Dukes, Earls, and three Magna Carta Barons. My American lineage begins with John Alden. So, although I can claim an thick aristocratic English ancestry, my classless Plimouth Plantation Compact heritage is more to my liking. It is worth knowing that George Washington turned down the job of King of America and showed up for his inauguration in a brown dress suit. Pretended or real ommonness is the most basic and cherished value in America and that is an aesthetic -- and vexing -- value as well Although these class issues are not easily seen as relevant to aesthetics, I do think there are the implied as you point out. Yet the American ideal of classlessness may be evident in the force of avant-garde modernism here. If anything the progressive nature of modernism has favored the levelling of the aesthetic norms every generation or two, almost as if to prove the built-in instability of any class oriented symbol-system. The power of mass culture with its parody of class through easily acquired status objects is further evidence of the aesthetics of classlessness. The red blue thing in America is a disgusting trivialization of reality by the media. Toruble is, mass media has created a reality from false simplifications. It has established caricatures of class orders so thoroughly that people have come to believe that the most complexly authentic person is the one most plainly caricatured. This is a great teagedy, akin to the way minority groups are always caricatured by a power majority. The relationships between culture, real and imagined, and aesthetics are very important and revealing. WC GEOFF CREALOCK wrote: > > > William: Re American longings: Robertson Davies is a > dead white > > male (Canadian playwright and novelist). He was > educated partly at > > Oxford and although he was a late 20th century person, > his writing > > and thinking suggested to some (myself included) that > his attitudes > > were more characteristic of English persons of the > early 20th century. > > This could lead to discussion of differences between > our countries > > which might be wide of the mark for this list. > However, I do agree > > regarding what might be called the denial of class > differences > > south of the border, probably observed first by de > Tocqueville. > > (But there are those differences between folks in the > red states > > and blue states ..... not classes perhaps but, > differences - and > > the worship(?) of the latest crop of starlets in > Hollywood by some > > persons). > > I presume that you would add "high-born" to > your list of characters > > absent from America. > > Geoff C > > > >> From: William Conger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: [email protected] > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Comment? > >> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 17:19:31 -0800 (PST) > >> > >> Mr. Davis needs to go back to class. When one > says aristocratic > >> one means privilege by birthright. No one has a > birthright to > >> art. And all art is made for some audience and is > therefore > >> selective, even when the selection is made by the > audience and not > >> the artist or the work. > >> > >> I'd say it's a peculiarly American > longing or hatred for class > >> distinctions to employ the word aristocratic. > There are no Lords, > >> Earls, Dukes, Dutchesses, Princes, Princesses, > Kings or Queens or > >> landed aristocrats in America...at least not yet. > And no art > >> exclusively for them either. > >> > >> As for mass art, popular art, or the imagery of > material culture, > >> it does indeed have a long life. It's the > best way --often the > >> only way-- to gain access to the ideals and values > of a previous > >> society, and it's usually far more accurate in > that regard than so- > >> called high art. > >> > >> Nevertheless, ultimately all art has an audience > of just one > >> person because its quality is uniquely constituted > in the mind of > >> each beholder. It matters not what titles that > person claims. > >> WC > >> > >> > >> --- On Mon, 11/3/08, GEOFF CREALOCK > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > From: GEOFF CREALOCK > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > Subject: Re: Comment? > >> > To: [email protected] > >> > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:28 AM > >> > Robertson Davies: "What I mean when I > say art is > >> > aristocratic is that it is > >> > selective. It's not a mass thing. There > never is a mass > >> > art that lasts very > >> > long or explains very much. But I don't > mean > >> > aristocratic in the sense that > >> > it's produced by high-born people for > high-born people. > >> > I just mean it's > >> > produced by special people for people who can > >> > understand." > >> > Geoff C > >> > > >> > > >> > >From: "Chris Miller" > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >> > >To: [email protected] > >> > >Subject: Re: "Free Market Art" > and otherwise > >> > >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:51:24 GMT > >> > > > >> > >Most undervalued American art today? > >> > > > >> > >I would have said bronze figures from any > period -- > >> > most of which sell for > >> > >less than the current cost of casting > them - but I > >> > really have no idea > >> > >whether > >> > >the auction value of this stuff will > improve in > >> > anyone's lifetime. That's > >> > >something for a professional dealer to > answer -- and > >> > none of them seem to > >> > >promoting this kind of product. > >> > > > >> > >On the other hand -- I have recently seen > dealers > >> > promoting the reputations > >> > >of > >> > >selected artists from the 1930s American > Scene and > >> > 1950s non-expressionist > >> > >abstraction -- so it looks William is > right. The > >> > prices on these things > >> > >are > >> > >still rather low (hardly enough to > support a living > >> > artist) -so maybe these > >> > >genres are currently a good buy. > >> > > > >> > >But dare we ask what kings of things are > aesthetically, > >> > rather than > >> > >monetarily > >> > >undervalued ? > >> > > > >> > >Is such a question possible ? And who > would be > >> > qualified to answer it? > >> > >
