Highbrow/Lowbrow

Finished the Lawrence Levine book, Highbrow/Lowbrow, which I mentioned earlier. He carried the thesis through opera, Shakespeare, and classical music: in all cases before the Civil War the audience was composed of a mixture of classes, was boisterous and participative (22 people died in the Astor Place riot, where class, religion, and nationality came together over an issue of Shakespearean acting). After the Civil War the arts became "sacralized"--treated more solemnly and religiously, with more exclusive audiences behaving more mannerly. Levine seems to say it was the elite and the purveyors who enforced this separation. In his epilogue he argues against Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind, who was very much in favor of elite arts and for the idea that the arts should be more popular.

I think this is a limited interpretation. Using a different perspective, one of a growing economy with more ecological niches, after the Civil War the number of people in urban places grew, the number who had the leisure and the dollars to participate in recreational activities also grew. So I'd see more of a process of differentiation of a market. In other words, I suspect a number of different sports and recreations grew--professional baseball I know, horseracing, college sports. From Putnam's work, Bowling Alone, the number of local theater and opera groups also grew. So those people who enjoy participation, booing and cheering, found outlets. Those who liked to focus intently on a performance found their outlets.

(I write this as someone who was raised to treat "culture" with great respect so I'm obviously prejudiced. But I still think my thesis is better than Levine's, by explaining more.)