Jim Tobin Writes:

>After looking it up, in the Oxford English Dictionary," it seems clear

A simpler way of looking at it is this.

Resources for high art are limited, and prestige is one of these resources.
Naturally there is a constant fight over who should allocate these
resources.  Any group wanting to do so without having to take into account
the wishes of others needs a rationalisation.  The "we know better than you
do, we are better people than you are." has the advantages of being time
honoured and easily implementable.  Its the rare person who can't be
convinced that he is better than other people who don't see the obvious
superiority of his group and its tastes over all others.

Beyond this, the rest is largely static as different groups grope for
different standards which buttress their claims.

In the end the proof is in the doing.  The rep is what gets played.
And the canon is that which people really draw their thoughts from.  Of
course chattering about the process of making a culture is part of culture
building, but in the end it is subsidiary to other parts of that process.

Recently in Commentary magazine Teachout tried to formulate a canon of
20th century music.  His article fails badly, first because he sets up
rules which are self-serving, then because he breaks them to include his
favorites and exclude works he does not like, then because he takes cheap
shots at works he doesn't like.  But most damningly, his words, thought
process, methods and stance owe nothing to classical music, and everything
to the activity of punditry and list making for popular magazines.  He
could have made a list of 50 important authors, 50 important fashion
designers, 50 favorite greasy pizza joints...  The list would have read
exactly the same.

Stirling S Newberry
[log in to unmask]