Stumpokapow said:
A more apt example would be Shakespeare who rather successfully bridged the gap from the lowest of the low art to the highest of the high art. Early oral tradition does not neatly fit into either of the two categories specifically because in both cases there were no prior archetypical works from which to derive new art.
In a more contemporary context (say, this side of the BCE/CE divide) folklore and low culture has been largely eradicated or at the very least lost to time while high art has been preserved in our cultural memory. In the post-enlightenment times this has changed slightly, simply because the newly developed human reflexivity has created an increased emphasis on "what is out there--who we are" rather than "what is worthwhile--who we ought to be" in terms of the focus of academic and cultural study.
In a modern context, Eminem is not generating any ideas or forms of discourse or information that impact anyone other than those with direct exposure to him. Friends is even less relevant because at its most academic and worthwhile it's merely a subcultural study of a subculture that is unlikely to have much historical relevance.
It's important to know Eminem and Friends because they profoundly shape our world today. But it's more important to understand those forces that shape our world historically and are likely to pave the road to the distant future. As I conceded earlier and as charlequin summarized quite well, the line between high and low cultures has been blurred recently--but it's still there.
Let me put it in an oddly meta-analytic way... that fact that most gaffers think of "ethelred" as a gaffer rather than any of the many important historical figures with that name is troublesome.
I firmly believe that everybody should strive to know as much as they can... but if they can't do that, they should at least know the really important stuff that has fundamentally shaped our reality.
I find no contradiction with what I said in relation to what you are saying now. You say that Eminem/Friends profoundly shape our world today, you then follow up and say it is more important to know the forces that shape our world historically. What I was arguing was that the simple notion that a particular literary work must be known or someone is uneducated will likely lead to current pop culture works to be lauded equally, in the far future.
Also, I do not believe any culture has shown any ability to truly gauge what will and will not be revered by generations to come, and your own sources cite the increasing difficulty in marking what is high art and what is low. Though I would argue that it is not the new variety of media that confuses that distinction, it is the ease of availability of these somewhat new areas of expression that makes it much harder to dictate high art. Anyone can express themselves in a reproducible capacity, and practically anyone can enjoy that expression. No longer is art only available to the upper class.
Basically, I merely stated that to show the absurdity of taking the knowledge of one particular work as a criteria for education. Furthermore, simple knowledge of any work means absolutely nothing without insight into the context of the work, its importance, and the ability to act as one's own critic and offer analysis of said work on one's own.
I believe you have shown the ability of doing so, however, I feel others have merely fallen into the trappings of believing knowing of a work constituents anything of any relevance. Thus I challenged 1001 Nights with Eminem, because I am confident enough in my abilities to offer literary analysis to blur the line of what is and isn't paramount to any notion of education. Yet no one took me on that challenge.. which given the historical relevance of 1001 Nights should have been easy for my opposition.
