Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Sun, 28 Oct 2001 09:27:19 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
[log in to unmask] writes:
>"Pretty" pictures in the Museum Of Fine Arts are judged not on
>artistic merit but, whether it appeals on a mere casual level. A suburban
>school committee person I know is continually astonished at how little even
>college educated middle class parents care about what goes for learning in
>the public schools. Discussions about fundamental changes in curriculum
>attract barely half dozen people to school committee meetings but, the
>controversy about a hockey coach not playing a kid during a game brings out
>the public in droves. Why does the general public not give a damn about
>quality?
Whinging about "quality" only elicits the predictable response that you
are being an elitist snob and round and round you go. However, I think you
may have hit on something that I have thought about recently. About two
weeks ago I had an interesting conversation with a passenger on an airline
flight. The lady that I spoke to grew up in Amsterdam and had a different
way of looking at things than many Americans do. It was her belief that
life was more pleasant when people took an interest in public spaces for
the common good such as parks or museums. Everyone is happier if we all
chip in and have a nice place to walk the dog instead of having your dog
doing its business on my lawn. However in America, the attitude is that
I shouldn't be forced to "subsidize" things such as museums and parks.
The end result is that life is more unpleasant for all of us.
I think that this is certainly one factor in why the general public seems
to be so hostile towards CM and the arts in general. I don't think that
people see the issue as being quality vs. non-quality, there seems to be
something else at work. Otherwise, it would be like saying that you are
choosing the worse of two options deliberately.
Steve
|
|
|