Definitions of CultureSociologists have focussed on behaviourist definitions of culture as “the ultimate system of social control where people act appropriately and monitor their own standards and behaviour,” as the “learned ways of group living and group responses to various stimuli,” or have described its content as “the values, attitudes, beliefs and customs of a society.” These definitions overlook the importance of cultural objects which have a symbolic value in creating a collective memory for a nation or a civilisation. Psychologists and psychiatrists who have tried to reduce artistic expression to universal aspects of consciousness have fallen into reductionist traps of trying to impose simplistic evolutionary laws on culture which undermine its enduring aspects. They overlook also that the universal appeal of great culture lies in its particulars. The the tomb of Nefertari is precious as a particular monument, not for its tombness in general and as such is as precious a cultural monument today as it was in Egyptian times. Marxist analyses of culture typically emphasise relativistic aspects, frequently focus on low culture and try to explain everything in terms of economics, which is of limited value. Many painters who were financially successful in their lifetime are not remembered as the greatest painters, whereas numerous artists who had little or no economic success in their lifetime, are remembered as the greatest masters (e.g. Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh. Media theorists have explored the interplay of culture and technology, which has led to emphasis of some aspects of culture. For instance, Marshall McLuhan became fascinated by new media through his studies in English literature. He noted that there were shifts in emphasis within the trivium: i.e. one period gave a greater emphasis to grammar (structure), than to dialectic (logic), and rhetoric (effect), while other periods focussed on rhetoric (effect). He explained these changes through shifts from one media to another: from written manuscripts to printed books to radio and television. This became the focus of his Centre in Culture and Technology and inspired his phrase “the medium is the message.” Subsequent commentators often became so fascinated by the phrase that they focussed on technology in the form of mass media and gave less attention to culture.Armand Matellart (1991), in a fundamental book, explored the history of communications and demonstrated that contemporary authors focus too narrowly on the mass media aspects of communications. He stressed the importance of an historical viewpoint and argued that culture provided a key this larger view of communications. Ironically, one could apply the same criticism to his own definition of culture, which emphasises only dimensions of language, labour, and power (in the tradition of Habermas). It focuses too narrowly on isolated aspects of culture. In the minds of some, culture is simply content and of interest only if it sells well. This tendency towards the “commoditisation” of culture has been explored by Innis andaddressed by Babe. This approach overlooks one of the fundamental paradoxes of high culture. The greater the cultural objects or monuments, the less they are subject to socalled market realities. Saint Peter’s in Rome, the church of San Francesco in Assisi, Leonardo’s Last Supper are not for sale nor will they be. Indeed Italian culture, to the extent that it is defined by such towering examples of art and architecture, depends on their not being sold. A business is judged by how much it sells: the culture of a country isjudged by how much it does not sell. Its greatness is measured by how much it collects and keeps intact. The reason why cities such as Florence and Rome are infinitely fascinating to tourists is precisely because they have kept so much. Towns such as San Sepolcro, which chose to sell their paintings to London have found that tourists now go to London to see Piero della Francesca rather than to San Sepolcro.More recently Babe (1997) has provided a useful survey of cultural ecology, citing work in systems theory (Von Bertanlaffy), linguistics (De Saussure), literary criticism (Barthes), to distinguish between three meanings of objects: i) intrinsic, ii) as psychic experiences and iii) as social constructs. Babe has pointed to the importance of meaning in objects through their roles as symbols. Culture is many things. Since the Renaissance we have used media to separate the different products of culture. Hence, paintings are stored in art galleries, drawings in drawing cabinets, objects in museums, and books in libraries. As a result the connections between them have often been lost. If all these media are translated into a common digital form, they will be accessible within a single framework. Scholars will thus be able to recontextualize objects and show their interconnections. This is one major contribution opened by computers. Within these institutions of culture, organisation was typically on nationalistic grounds. Galleries such as the Louvre, the Prado and “national” galleries organised their paintings by countries: French, Spanish, Italian, German etc. Libraries classed their books in terms of national literatures. Museums classed their objects in terms of civilisations which usually stemmed from a given country (Egypt, Greece, Rome). This pattern of organisation arose partly from the limitations of physical space, which required a commitment to a single linear arrangement of objects. It arose also from nineteenth century traditions which linked culture closely with nationalism and served in some cases to make (supposedly) superior national cultures a premise for international imperialism.Most art historians have continued to focus on the evolution of these national schools and styles. As a result the development of French art has typically been told in terms of its general spread around the world, and the rise of impressionism sounds like merely another aspect of cultural imperialism. There is a danger that the Internet will simply see a replay of these trends. For instance, many persons who speak of virtual museums, have assumed that these will simply be electronic facsimiles of existing museums, and have therefore been worried whether virtual museums might undermine the value of or even threaten continued attention to the originals. This danger is not an inevitable consequence. -Adapt from
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Definition Of Culture
Definitions of CultureSociologists have focussed on behaviourist definitions of culture as “the ultimate system of social control where people act appropriately and monitor their own standards and behaviour,” as the “learned ways of group living and group responses to various stimuli,” or have described its content as “the values, attitudes, beliefs and customs of a society.” These definitions overlook the importance of cultural objects which have a symbolic value in creating a collective memory for a nation or a civilisation. Psychologists and psychiatrists who have tried to reduce artistic expression to universal aspects of consciousness have fallen into reductionist traps of trying to impose simplistic evolutionary laws on culture which undermine its enduring aspects. They overlook also that the universal appeal of great culture lies in its particulars. The the tomb of Nefertari is precious as a particular monument, not for its tombness in general and as such is as precious a cultural monument today as it was in Egyptian times. Marxist analyses of culture typically emphasise relativistic aspects, frequently focus on low culture and try to explain everything in terms of economics, which is of limited value. Many painters who were financially successful in their lifetime are not remembered as the greatest painters, whereas numerous artists who had little or no economic success in their lifetime, are remembered as the greatest masters (e.g. Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh. Media theorists have explored the interplay of culture and technology, which has led to emphasis of some aspects of culture. For instance, Marshall McLuhan became fascinated by new media through his studies in English literature. He noted that there were shifts in emphasis within the trivium: i.e. one period gave a greater emphasis to grammar (structure), than to dialectic (logic), and rhetoric (effect), while other periods focussed on rhetoric (effect). He explained these changes through shifts from one media to another: from written manuscripts to printed books to radio and television. This became the focus of his Centre in Culture and Technology and inspired his phrase “the medium is the message.” Subsequent commentators often became so fascinated by the phrase that they focussed on technology in the form of mass media and gave less attention to culture.Armand Matellart (1991), in a fundamental book, explored the history of communications and demonstrated that contemporary authors focus too narrowly on the mass media aspects of communications. He stressed the importance of an historical viewpoint and argued that culture provided a key this larger view of communications. Ironically, one could apply the same criticism to his own definition of culture, which emphasises only dimensions of language, labour, and power (in the tradition of Habermas). It focuses too narrowly on isolated aspects of culture. In the minds of some, culture is simply content and of interest only if it sells well. This tendency towards the “commoditisation” of culture has been explored by Innis andaddressed by Babe. This approach overlooks one of the fundamental paradoxes of high culture. The greater the cultural objects or monuments, the less they are subject to socalled market realities. Saint Peter’s in Rome, the church of San Francesco in Assisi, Leonardo’s Last Supper are not for sale nor will they be. Indeed Italian culture, to the extent that it is defined by such towering examples of art and architecture, depends on their not being sold. A business is judged by how much it sells: the culture of a country isjudged by how much it does not sell. Its greatness is measured by how much it collects and keeps intact. The reason why cities such as Florence and Rome are infinitely fascinating to tourists is precisely because they have kept so much. Towns such as San Sepolcro, which chose to sell their paintings to London have found that tourists now go to London to see Piero della Francesca rather than to San Sepolcro.More recently Babe (1997) has provided a useful survey of cultural ecology, citing work in systems theory (Von Bertanlaffy), linguistics (De Saussure), literary criticism (Barthes), to distinguish between three meanings of objects: i) intrinsic, ii) as psychic experiences and iii) as social constructs. Babe has pointed to the importance of meaning in objects through their roles as symbols. Culture is many things. Since the Renaissance we have used media to separate the different products of culture. Hence, paintings are stored in art galleries, drawings in drawing cabinets, objects in museums, and books in libraries. As a result the connections between them have often been lost. If all these media are translated into a common digital form, they will be accessible within a single framework. Scholars will thus be able to recontextualize objects and show their interconnections. This is one major contribution opened by computers. Within these institutions of culture, organisation was typically on nationalistic grounds. Galleries such as the Louvre, the Prado and “national” galleries organised their paintings by countries: French, Spanish, Italian, German etc. Libraries classed their books in terms of national literatures. Museums classed their objects in terms of civilisations which usually stemmed from a given country (Egypt, Greece, Rome). This pattern of organisation arose partly from the limitations of physical space, which required a commitment to a single linear arrangement of objects. It arose also from nineteenth century traditions which linked culture closely with nationalism and served in some cases to make (supposedly) superior national cultures a premise for international imperialism.Most art historians have continued to focus on the evolution of these national schools and styles. As a result the development of French art has typically been told in terms of its general spread around the world, and the rise of impressionism sounds like merely another aspect of cultural imperialism. There is a danger that the Internet will simply see a replay of these trends. For instance, many persons who speak of virtual museums, have assumed that these will simply be electronic facsimiles of existing museums, and have therefore been worried whether virtual museums might undermine the value of or even threaten continued attention to the originals. This danger is not an inevitable consequence. -Adapt from
Definitions of CultureSociologists have focussed on behaviourist definitions of culture as “the ultimate system of social control where people act appropriately and monitor their own standards and behaviour,” as the “learned ways of group living and group responses to various stimuli,” or have described its content as “the values, attitudes, beliefs and customs of a society.” These definitions overlook the importance of cultural objects which have a symbolic value in creating a collective memory for a nation or a civilisation. Psychologists and psychiatrists who have tried to reduce artistic expression to universal aspects of consciousness have fallen into reductionist traps of trying to impose simplistic evolutionary laws on culture which undermine its enduring aspects. They overlook also that the universal appeal of great culture lies in its particulars. The the tomb of Nefertari is precious as a particular monument, not for its tombness in general and as such is as precious a cultural monument today as it was in Egyptian times. Marxist analyses of culture typically emphasise relativistic aspects, frequently focus on low culture and try to explain everything in terms of economics, which is of limited value. Many painters who were financially successful in their lifetime are not remembered as the greatest painters, whereas numerous artists who had little or no economic success in their lifetime, are remembered as the greatest masters (e.g. Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh. Media theorists have explored the interplay of culture and technology, which has led to emphasis of some aspects of culture. For instance, Marshall McLuhan became fascinated by new media through his studies in English literature. He noted that there were shifts in emphasis within the trivium: i.e. one period gave a greater emphasis to grammar (structure), than to dialectic (logic), and rhetoric (effect), while other periods focussed on rhetoric (effect). He explained these changes through shifts from one media to another: from written manuscripts to printed books to radio and television. This became the focus of his Centre in Culture and Technology and inspired his phrase “the medium is the message.” Subsequent commentators often became so fascinated by the phrase that they focussed on technology in the form of mass media and gave less attention to culture.Armand Matellart (1991), in a fundamental book, explored the history of communications and demonstrated that contemporary authors focus too narrowly on the mass media aspects of communications. He stressed the importance of an historical viewpoint and argued that culture provided a key this larger view of communications. Ironically, one could apply the same criticism to his own definition of culture, which emphasises only dimensions of language, labour, and power (in the tradition of Habermas). It focuses too narrowly on isolated aspects of culture. In the minds of some, culture is simply content and of interest only if it sells well. This tendency towards the “commoditisation” of culture has been explored by Innis andaddressed by Babe. This approach overlooks one of the fundamental paradoxes of high culture. The greater the cultural objects or monuments, the less they are subject to socalled market realities. Saint Peter’s in Rome, the church of San Francesco in Assisi, Leonardo’s Last Supper are not for sale nor will they be. Indeed Italian culture, to the extent that it is defined by such towering examples of art and architecture, depends on their not being sold. A business is judged by how much it sells: the culture of a country isjudged by how much it does not sell. Its greatness is measured by how much it collects and keeps intact. The reason why cities such as Florence and Rome are infinitely fascinating to tourists is precisely because they have kept so much. Towns such as San Sepolcro, which chose to sell their paintings to London have found that tourists now go to London to see Piero della Francesca rather than to San Sepolcro.More recently Babe (1997) has provided a useful survey of cultural ecology, citing work in systems theory (Von Bertanlaffy), linguistics (De Saussure), literary criticism (Barthes), to distinguish between three meanings of objects: i) intrinsic, ii) as psychic experiences and iii) as social constructs. Babe has pointed to the importance of meaning in objects through their roles as symbols. Culture is many things. Since the Renaissance we have used media to separate the different products of culture. Hence, paintings are stored in art galleries, drawings in drawing cabinets, objects in museums, and books in libraries. As a result the connections between them have often been lost. If all these media are translated into a common digital form, they will be accessible within a single framework. Scholars will thus be able to recontextualize objects and show their interconnections. This is one major contribution opened by computers. Within these institutions of culture, organisation was typically on nationalistic grounds. Galleries such as the Louvre, the Prado and “national” galleries organised their paintings by countries: French, Spanish, Italian, German etc. Libraries classed their books in terms of national literatures. Museums classed their objects in terms of civilisations which usually stemmed from a given country (Egypt, Greece, Rome). This pattern of organisation arose partly from the limitations of physical space, which required a commitment to a single linear arrangement of objects. It arose also from nineteenth century traditions which linked culture closely with nationalism and served in some cases to make (supposedly) superior national cultures a premise for international imperialism.Most art historians have continued to focus on the evolution of these national schools and styles. As a result the development of French art has typically been told in terms of its general spread around the world, and the rise of impressionism sounds like merely another aspect of cultural imperialism. There is a danger that the Internet will simply see a replay of these trends. For instance, many persons who speak of virtual museums, have assumed that these will simply be electronic facsimiles of existing museums, and have therefore been worried whether virtual museums might undermine the value of or even threaten continued attention to the originals. This danger is not an inevitable consequence. -Adapt from
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment