How do you perceive middlebrow?

[Alexandra]

On another thread, Bart linked to an article that's in today's NY Times by political commentator David Brooks about (among other things) middlebrow art, and it's made me think about exactlly what that is. When I was in high school, I remember reading an article in the Sunday Times called something like "High Brow, Low Brow and No Brow" (the No Brows were the Beatles, since their hair obscured their brows, and which is why I read the article) comparing various aspects of the "British Invasion" at that time: Burton's rehearsal dress "Hamlet," "Beyond the Fringe" (I have no idea which brow that was) and the Beatles. I don't see a middlebrow in there -- although some might say the Beatles were.

ANYWAY. Middlebrow art was once art accessible to and enjoyed by the middle class. In America, this was an ideal -- the New England Lyceum movement, as I posted on that other thread, provided educational leisure time activities and becoming part of the middle class meant going to those lectures, as well as subscribing to the symphony, ballet, and theater -- not sure about opera. Was that high brow? Part of middle class urban life was taking family trips on Sunday to museums or performing arts events.

When I entered college, middlebrow was still okay. I went to a women's college, and was told by several professors that they were here because they believed that educating women was more important than educating men, because women educated the next generation. (Now, that could be discussed....) And they tried their best to expose us and help us understand art and "culture." But by the time I was a senior, this was beginning to change, and "middlebrow" became a term of derision -- part of the counterculture movement that rejected suburban life. "That's middlebrow" would be enough to keep someone from attending a lecture or concert. I THINK that's how the term is perceived today, although I wouldn't bet the farm on that.

I'm curious about people's experiences with art generally, and what your take on middlebrow is. I have more questions, but I'll save 'em.

[bart]

The old "middlebrow" culture is looking better and better. I know that I owe my love of the arts, as well as higher levels of involvement, to lots of organizations that were eventually stigmatized as middlebrow -- organizations like Time Magazine, the Book of the Month Club, Andre Eglevsky's suburban ballet studio, a public high school that put money into orchestra, band, chorus, and theater, and even stodgy (to me) TV cultural-highlight shows like Voice of Firestone and Bell Telephone Hour.

These institutions, didn't aim for the highest level of artistic or intellectual expression themselves. But they posted signposts about (a) why the arts are essential and (b) how to seek them out.

David Brooks describes the middle-brow culture of the 50s and early 60s as "really high-toned popular culture. It was popular, at least where I grew up, and most people I knew shared the belief on some level that "culture is good for your character, and that a respectable person should spend time absosrbing the best that has been thought and said."

Some of that still exists in many communities -- especially, I think, where ballet and dance are strong. One of the impressive aspects of the network of ballet studios and local/regional companies around the country is that they embody a residual and touching faith -- the belief that the art of ballet (and the tradition, discipline, and elegance that it embodies) is hugely important. Even people who "prefer modern" or would rather buy a ticket to Cats, Fosse or Movin' Out recognize that ballet is the foundation and prerequisite for most of these forms of dancing.

There's still a vital role for ballet in the land where, as Brooks opines, people are are being told that the work of art is marginally relevant to their lives and that they should be "more interested in exploring and being true to the precious flower of their own individual selves."

[Natalia]

Just my perception, not founded on any facts or conversations:

'Middlebrow' is somewhere between High Brow ('Aida' and 'Swan Lake') and Pure Commercialism/No Brow (standard MTV). It's a somewhat-commercial, quasi-'artsy' endeavor or presentation that often masquerades as High Brow. For example, I consider the majority of prime-time PBS television programming nowadays to be Middlebrow at best, e.g., "Antiques Roadshow," "Three Macedonian Tenors," "John Tesh Live from Las Vegas," "Fiftieth Anniversary Reunion of Peter, Paul and Mary." That's about as 'artsy' a schedule as American audiences can be expected to digest, according to marketing experts. [You & I know that such generalizations are rubbish.]

In the world of 'Middle America' -- as defined by marketing people -- Middlebrow is the outer limit of comfort and, hence, as arty as something can be before it becomes totally unprofitable and/or esoteric. Marketers think that most Americans will be satisfied by 'Three Tenors' for their highbrow entertainment.

Middlebrow is the dumbing-down of previously higher-brow entertainment, such as "A&E Breakfast with the Arts" and the BRAVO network. Reruns of Cirque du Soleil are fed to audiences as if they were High Brow art.

Like Bart, I can thank yesteryear's Middlebrow institutions for fostering an initial appreciation of the fine arts. Heck, we could even count on the Ed Sullivan Show (variety hour) for some ballet or opera every two or three weeks! Had I not been exposed to those TV shows as a kid would I have made it a goal to travel the world to see quality arts live? I doubt it. I feel sorry for today's kids...and tomorrow's arts. Who will buy the tickets?

[Leigh Witchel]

Perhaps the definitions are best tied to the audience and the intention rather than the art itself. Middlebrow art would be middle class art. It looks upwards in the class structure for its inspiration, but with the sense of industry, duty (and envy!) that's also part of the class.

As Alexandra said, the point of middlebrow art was to "better" the person. I assume "Omnibus" was classic middlebrow, and so were parts of Masterpiece Theater. I think Balanchine (or perhaps I should say NYCB) was mostly gloriously middlebrow rather than highbrow - the vast part of the NYCB repertory was directed at a vast audience that came to learn about art and through Baum and Kirstein got to do it at prices they could afford. The great middlebrow works came especially in the post-Stravinsky Festival years. Union Jack, Vienna Waltzes . . . but Stars and Stripes was certainly another one.

[Paul Parish]

Leigh's right about Stars and stripes and Vienna waltzes -- they're well-made (as Matisse said of HIS art) "for the tired businessman." but the difference between middle and high-brow is not social class but intellectual class -- the real issue is how hard they make you think; Kipling is middle-brow, TS Eliot is high-brow. Stars and Stripes is middle-brow, Moves and Don Quixote are high-brow.

except that I'm not sure the term means anything much nowadays. It used to refer to novelists like James Michener, Pearl Buck, Edna Ferber, Leon Uris -- writers of "epics' with large swaths of history/sociology looped up in romance, without much of an argument to them, or light social comedy like "The Egg and I" or "Cheaper by the Dozen." Novelists like George Orwell, William Faulkner, Thomas Mann, EM Forster, Virginia Woolf, James Joyce were maybe harder to read (certainly the last-mentioned were) but above all they had a rigor to them that made you feel you were in contact with a mind of distinction. Orwell's "1984" was very widely read, maybe as popular as "Hawaii" -- but you could tell the difference; 1984 was a book that made it necessary for you to DO something.

Brooks is a conservative columnist at the Times--and he's smart. I often find he's turned over a rock and found a topic that nobody else is talking about but IS a pretty big deal. He nailed the Democrats' problem early in the election when he pointed out that Kerry had a real problem: Clinton had been able to convince most of the public that he really DID care about religious matters and understood how religious people felt. He correctly said that many Democrats were mildly embarrassed by this but didn't hold it against Clinton, but that many others DID have religious feelings and they felt connected to Clinton because of it. But this time, Kerry did NOT make those people feel that way, and that would be the margin of loss -- and he was absolutely right. The margin was very small, but....

Brooks also had a very interesting column about "exurbia" -- new settlements beyond the old suburbs to which the midle-of-the road prosperous folks who could afford it moved to, to raise their children in an environment as emotionally similar to the one they'd grown up in as they could. "Normalcy" all over again. Brooks is nostalgic for the days when school-kids respected their teachers. He's got some truth on his side. But I'm not sure we can go back there.

[kfw]

the difference between middle and high-brow is not social class but intellectual class -- the real issue is how hard they make you think;

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, but I also think it's useful to distinguish between highbrow and middlebrow -- curious and thoughtful and educated vs. relatively passive approaches -- to the same work of art. The highbrow can find more in Vienna Waltzes than the middlebrow can.

[redbookish]

Fascinating conversation! Here are two European takes on the Highbrow/Middlebrow debate: this lovely funny essay by Virginia Woolf Middlebrow. A defence of Highbrow culture but not a pretentious defence! For a more scholarly investigation, I'd recommenmd Pierre Bourdieu's Distinction. It's a big book, and sometimes rather densely sociological, but you can dip in, and find very thoughtful analyses of both qualitative research (with lots of transcripts of interviews) and quantitative research - including diagrams which map visual arts appreciation habits against income - fascinating! He brings together a lot of evidence to look precisely at Paul Parish's sense that it's as much intellectual class as social class that's at stake here. Bourdieu actually comments that there's an inverse relationship between economic capital and cultural capital, but also delivers lots of evidence to show that (in the French bourgeoisie at least) cultural pursuits and cultural production are part of the intricate webs of social and economic capital that constitute people's self-identity in terms of class (he says it much better).

But I'm interested in the US defence of the middlebrow - here in the UK, in academia and parts of the performing arts, the attitude to the middlebrow is generally one of resigned tolerance, with outbursts of Woolf-like defence of the highbrow, as well as very deliberate slumming it with popular culture (so bad it's good ...)

Kate