Who are the top culture vultures of Europe?
Mar 25th 2005 | 6:59 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Who are the top culture vultures of Europe?
Surprisingly, the Brits are if you believe the results of a recent survey
carried out by the Touring Club Italiano (TCI)
Here is an interesting and mildly amusing article which appeared in this
weeks " Spectator"
The article starts here:
Smarter than the Italians
Petronella Wyatt
Ask any European what he or she associates with the British and their
answers may include beer, football, yobbishness, a troubled monarchy and
slavish support for President Bush. One of the replies they will not give,
however, is 'cultural life'. For it is indubitably true that we have, fairly
or unfairly, the reputation as the Thick Man of Europe.
Our newspapers continually reinforce this notion with lightweight features
on 'celebs' and mock horror tales about how few schoolchildren know who won
the Battle of Trafalgar or who took part in the Battle of Hastings. Worse
still, we read, many adults believe Shakespeare fought Hitler. Now an even
more shocking truth has been thrust upon us.
According to a new survey, commissioned in Italy, the ignorant British are
more cultured than the natives of the homeland of Michelangelo and Verdi.
Commissioned by the Touring Club Italiano (TCI), the survey's findings
include the startling fact that we British go to more serious concerts,
films, plays, galleries, museums and libraries than the Italians: 34.3 per
cent of Britons went to the opera, ballet or theatre last year compared with
just 22.7 per cent of Italians. We even visit more ruins and monuments.
Indeed, we score higher than Italy in every category except sport. Almost a
third of us have visited a gallery or a museum in the past year, compared
with barely 20 per cent of Italians.
All this is hardly to be believed. Can our dire education system really have
produced a nation of cultured thinkers? And if so, whence comes our
reputation for philistinism? It is part of our national temperament, of
course, to run ourselves down. George Orwell and the Bloomsbury group were
scathing in their assessment of the British intellect. Sir Thomas Beecham
famously remarked that the English may not like music but they love the
sound it makes. Yet as H.L. Mencken pointed out, most intellectuals and
artists denigrate their countrymen. They see it as their role to provoke,
insult and create controversy. They exist to challenge the complacent status
quo.
On the other hand, could this survey be some sort of joke? I telephoned John
Julius Norwich, the historian and fund-raiser for Venice. He assured me that
the Touring Club Italiano was a distinguished organisation which is
responsible for all the most detailed guide books on Italy. But could he
give credence to the idea that the British are more cultured than the
Italians? Surprisingly, he could. 'I'm always amazed by the number of
well-dressed Italians I see in first-class train compartments reading comic
strips,' he told me.
This is not to deny that Italy is abnormally rich in culture, but it appears
Italians care little for it. One of the few organisations dedicated to
restoration in Italy is Fondo per l'Ambiente Italia, founded in 1975. But
many people, including Guido Venturini, the director-general of TCI, argue
it was all too little, too late. 'We are sitting in the most beautiful
country in the world, but the Italians appear to be wholly unaware of it.'
There is no equivalent of the National Trust. As Lord Norwich points out,
Italy's preservation bodies do not own their properties 'which makes it
difficult to make long-term plans about restoration'. Nor do they have the
money. The Italians are now appealing for foreign funds to excavate
artefacts buried under the ash at Heraculaneum.
So why are we British regarded as stupid? Lord Norwich believes that the
British reputation for philistinism derives from the fact that most of the
English tourists Europeans see are football hooligans. 'We are the worst
ambassadors for our country, when actually we do go to more museums.' He
adds, 'Our middle classes are generally cultured. You follow your parents
and your grandparents.'
This is borne out by David McNeill of the Arts Council. 'There is a
perception that we are uncultured. But it is a myth,' he insists. 'There is
increasing participation in the arts in this country. Gallery and theatre
attendences are rising. They are on the up all the time. The British are
also much more open to new things.'
Since 2001 four out of five people have attended at least one arts event,
compared with two out of five in Italy. Christopher Millard, the director of
communications at the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden, points out that
326,000 people attended the opera or ballet last year. He also points to the
huge success of country house opera - not only Glyndebourne, but Garsington
and Grange Park.
John Allison, the editor of Opera magazine, believes Italy is going through
'a cultural trough, Berlusconi-style'. The Royal Opera House puts on more
performances than La Scala. During the 1960s Harold Wilson's subsidising of
the arts made opera a popular art form with every socio-economic class. Then
there was the great opera revival of the 1980s, fuelled by a rapidly growing
economy. Regional companies like Opera North and the Welsh National Opera
have enjoyed a remarkable success. Outside London there is a real cultural
interest in the art form, which is strangely lacking in its birthplace.
One of the foremost historians of Italy, Denis Mack Smith, believes the
Italians often take their culture for granted and are 'less educated
musically than the English'. Italy's cultural consumption is falling
dramatically and is a source of concern to many Italians. Part of the
problem is that Italy's stagnant economy has caused the government to cut
art subsidies to a lower level than those in Britain. Yet that is not the
only reason. After the death of Puccini in 1924, many opera houses were
turned into cinemas. Good films were made by Visconti, Fellini and De Sica,
but Italy never created a home-grown cinematic industry. Thus the staple
cinematic diet was poor Hollywood fare. More and more opera houses closed as
the population turned to pop music, television and football.
Now Italians are more likely to burn down their opera houses than visit
them. The destruction of La Fenice in Venice was found to be arson. The
government pledged to rebuild this jewel by 2000. It failed. Other than La
Scala there are 13 subsidised opera houses - the financing of which
Berlusconi intends to stop. They remain dark most nights of the year, while
monuments and museums are left to crumble or are turned into fast-food
outlets. Not since the Renaissance have the Italians been in the cultural
forefront. Cicero and his peers would not recognise the modern Romans - who
are not their descendants, in any case, but the descendants of barbarians
and slaves who overran an empire. They are more interested in cutting a
bella figura in a new suit or a flashy car than listening to bel canto.
We British, meanwhile, read 15 per cent more books than the Italians and buy
22 per cent more classical CDs. (There is no Italian Classic FM.) Lord
Norwich believes this is partly due to the proliferation of regional
universities, there are 50 per cent more here than in Italy. David McNeill
believes we are no longer 'nervous about culture'. He adds that the British
have been 'too hard on ourselves and we have the tendency to take the mick
out of pretension. Yet the barriers are being eroded all the time.'
But is it the case that the British have for centuries been more cultivated
than our European rivals, especially the French, give us credit for? Roy
Porter's book The Enlightenment, published in 2000, claims that the British
have always had their thinking caps on. In the 18th century, the British
avant-garde was admired not only at home but abroad. Nor did Britain
constitute a network of persecuted rebels or underground authors, as in
France and Germany. Our contribution to the Enlightenment was immense,
fuelled by the thoughts of such men as Newton, Hobbes, Locke, Burke, Hume,
Hutton and, later, Jeremy Bentham. Not for nothing did Dr Johnson call the
period 'an age of authors'.
Culture flourished partly because formal censorship in Britain had ceased in
1695. Ambrose Philips's magazine the Free-Thinker was launched in 1718. The
French philosophes looked to us as the birthplace of contemporary culture.
Voltaire in his Lettres saluted England as a 'nation of philosophers'.
Francis Bacon was the prophet of modern science, Newton had revealed the
laws of the universe, Locke had demolished Descartes and rebuilt philosophy.
Later, Diderot remarked, 'In England, philosophers are honoured, respected,
they rise to public offices, they are buried with kings.... In France
warrants are issued against them.'
A constitutional monarchy and increasing social mobility contributed to the
dissemination of culture. England in the 18th and 19th centuries experienced
profound population growth, urbanisation and a commercial revolution marked
by rising disposable income. Foreigners were astounded to see how the
'quality' mingled with the rest at places like Vauxhall and St James's Park.
The Abbé Prevost marvelled at the coffee-houses, which he called 'the seats
of English liberty and thought'. London had ten times more coffee houses
than Vienna and more clubs for the cultured middle classes - such as Johnson's
Literary Club - than any other European nation. We also built more theatres
and more art galleries. Founded in 1769, the Royal Academy held annual
exhibitions whose appeal was enormous: 1,680 visitors jammed into Somerset
House one Friday in 1769 for the RA show. In 1753, the British Museum was
the first public museum in Europe intended for the use of the masses.
Nor should we forget the role of the rise in print culture. Between 1660 and
1800 over 300,000 pamphlets and book titles were published. Even the poor
country people, commented James Lackington in the 1790s, 'shorten the winter
nights' by reading Fielding and Richardson. The annual total sale of
newspapers in 1801 had reached 16 million. Increase in general prosperity
buoyed up the market and helped the spread of British literacy.
We must not ignore the part played, however, by the maligned English
aristocrat, usually portrayed as a buffoon who preferred claret and horses
to art. The British upper classes were, in fact, the best-travelled in
Europe. Some, surprisingly, went abroad specifically to hear opera. In 1733
Earl Stanhope wrote from Milan, 'Opera is the chief entertainment of all
English strangers here.'
Sir Francis Dashwood, builder of one of the finest Palladian houses in
England, was moved to form the Dilettante Society for the discussion of
culture. Sir William Hamilton's art collection was one of finest in Europe.
Most Canaletto views of Venice were bought up by the British - among them,
those now at Woburn.
It is an irony, therefore, that it is Italy that should have commissioned
this survey of European culture, and an even greater irony that the country
of blue-painted savages it once subjugated should come out on top. It might
also have the added advantage of silencing the French un peu. The Italian
embassy in London, incidentally, declined to comment. No one there even
knows the name of one of their country's cultural bodies. A case of finita
la musica?
carried out by the Touring Club Italiano (TCI)
Here is an interesting and mildly amusing article which appeared in this
weeks " Spectator"
The article starts here:
Smarter than the Italians
Petronella Wyatt
Ask any European what he or she associates with the British and their
answers may include beer, football, yobbishness, a troubled monarchy and
slavish support for President Bush. One of the replies they will not give,
however, is 'cultural life'. For it is indubitably true that we have, fairly
or unfairly, the reputation as the Thick Man of Europe.
Our newspapers continually reinforce this notion with lightweight features
on 'celebs' and mock horror tales about how few schoolchildren know who won
the Battle of Trafalgar or who took part in the Battle of Hastings. Worse
still, we read, many adults believe Shakespeare fought Hitler. Now an even
more shocking truth has been thrust upon us.
According to a new survey, commissioned in Italy, the ignorant British are
more cultured than the natives of the homeland of Michelangelo and Verdi.
Commissioned by the Touring Club Italiano (TCI), the survey's findings
include the startling fact that we British go to more serious concerts,
films, plays, galleries, museums and libraries than the Italians: 34.3 per
cent of Britons went to the opera, ballet or theatre last year compared with
just 22.7 per cent of Italians. We even visit more ruins and monuments.
Indeed, we score higher than Italy in every category except sport. Almost a
third of us have visited a gallery or a museum in the past year, compared
with barely 20 per cent of Italians.
All this is hardly to be believed. Can our dire education system really have
produced a nation of cultured thinkers? And if so, whence comes our
reputation for philistinism? It is part of our national temperament, of
course, to run ourselves down. George Orwell and the Bloomsbury group were
scathing in their assessment of the British intellect. Sir Thomas Beecham
famously remarked that the English may not like music but they love the
sound it makes. Yet as H.L. Mencken pointed out, most intellectuals and
artists denigrate their countrymen. They see it as their role to provoke,
insult and create controversy. They exist to challenge the complacent status
quo.
On the other hand, could this survey be some sort of joke? I telephoned John
Julius Norwich, the historian and fund-raiser for Venice. He assured me that
the Touring Club Italiano was a distinguished organisation which is
responsible for all the most detailed guide books on Italy. But could he
give credence to the idea that the British are more cultured than the
Italians? Surprisingly, he could. 'I'm always amazed by the number of
well-dressed Italians I see in first-class train compartments reading comic
strips,' he told me.
This is not to deny that Italy is abnormally rich in culture, but it appears
Italians care little for it. One of the few organisations dedicated to
restoration in Italy is Fondo per l'Ambiente Italia, founded in 1975. But
many people, including Guido Venturini, the director-general of TCI, argue
it was all too little, too late. 'We are sitting in the most beautiful
country in the world, but the Italians appear to be wholly unaware of it.'
There is no equivalent of the National Trust. As Lord Norwich points out,
Italy's preservation bodies do not own their properties 'which makes it
difficult to make long-term plans about restoration'. Nor do they have the
money. The Italians are now appealing for foreign funds to excavate
artefacts buried under the ash at Heraculaneum.
So why are we British regarded as stupid? Lord Norwich believes that the
British reputation for philistinism derives from the fact that most of the
English tourists Europeans see are football hooligans. 'We are the worst
ambassadors for our country, when actually we do go to more museums.' He
adds, 'Our middle classes are generally cultured. You follow your parents
and your grandparents.'
This is borne out by David McNeill of the Arts Council. 'There is a
perception that we are uncultured. But it is a myth,' he insists. 'There is
increasing participation in the arts in this country. Gallery and theatre
attendences are rising. They are on the up all the time. The British are
also much more open to new things.'
Since 2001 four out of five people have attended at least one arts event,
compared with two out of five in Italy. Christopher Millard, the director of
communications at the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden, points out that
326,000 people attended the opera or ballet last year. He also points to the
huge success of country house opera - not only Glyndebourne, but Garsington
and Grange Park.
John Allison, the editor of Opera magazine, believes Italy is going through
'a cultural trough, Berlusconi-style'. The Royal Opera House puts on more
performances than La Scala. During the 1960s Harold Wilson's subsidising of
the arts made opera a popular art form with every socio-economic class. Then
there was the great opera revival of the 1980s, fuelled by a rapidly growing
economy. Regional companies like Opera North and the Welsh National Opera
have enjoyed a remarkable success. Outside London there is a real cultural
interest in the art form, which is strangely lacking in its birthplace.
One of the foremost historians of Italy, Denis Mack Smith, believes the
Italians often take their culture for granted and are 'less educated
musically than the English'. Italy's cultural consumption is falling
dramatically and is a source of concern to many Italians. Part of the
problem is that Italy's stagnant economy has caused the government to cut
art subsidies to a lower level than those in Britain. Yet that is not the
only reason. After the death of Puccini in 1924, many opera houses were
turned into cinemas. Good films were made by Visconti, Fellini and De Sica,
but Italy never created a home-grown cinematic industry. Thus the staple
cinematic diet was poor Hollywood fare. More and more opera houses closed as
the population turned to pop music, television and football.
Now Italians are more likely to burn down their opera houses than visit
them. The destruction of La Fenice in Venice was found to be arson. The
government pledged to rebuild this jewel by 2000. It failed. Other than La
Scala there are 13 subsidised opera houses - the financing of which
Berlusconi intends to stop. They remain dark most nights of the year, while
monuments and museums are left to crumble or are turned into fast-food
outlets. Not since the Renaissance have the Italians been in the cultural
forefront. Cicero and his peers would not recognise the modern Romans - who
are not their descendants, in any case, but the descendants of barbarians
and slaves who overran an empire. They are more interested in cutting a
bella figura in a new suit or a flashy car than listening to bel canto.
We British, meanwhile, read 15 per cent more books than the Italians and buy
22 per cent more classical CDs. (There is no Italian Classic FM.) Lord
Norwich believes this is partly due to the proliferation of regional
universities, there are 50 per cent more here than in Italy. David McNeill
believes we are no longer 'nervous about culture'. He adds that the British
have been 'too hard on ourselves and we have the tendency to take the mick
out of pretension. Yet the barriers are being eroded all the time.'
But is it the case that the British have for centuries been more cultivated
than our European rivals, especially the French, give us credit for? Roy
Porter's book The Enlightenment, published in 2000, claims that the British
have always had their thinking caps on. In the 18th century, the British
avant-garde was admired not only at home but abroad. Nor did Britain
constitute a network of persecuted rebels or underground authors, as in
France and Germany. Our contribution to the Enlightenment was immense,
fuelled by the thoughts of such men as Newton, Hobbes, Locke, Burke, Hume,
Hutton and, later, Jeremy Bentham. Not for nothing did Dr Johnson call the
period 'an age of authors'.
Culture flourished partly because formal censorship in Britain had ceased in
1695. Ambrose Philips's magazine the Free-Thinker was launched in 1718. The
French philosophes looked to us as the birthplace of contemporary culture.
Voltaire in his Lettres saluted England as a 'nation of philosophers'.
Francis Bacon was the prophet of modern science, Newton had revealed the
laws of the universe, Locke had demolished Descartes and rebuilt philosophy.
Later, Diderot remarked, 'In England, philosophers are honoured, respected,
they rise to public offices, they are buried with kings.... In France
warrants are issued against them.'
A constitutional monarchy and increasing social mobility contributed to the
dissemination of culture. England in the 18th and 19th centuries experienced
profound population growth, urbanisation and a commercial revolution marked
by rising disposable income. Foreigners were astounded to see how the
'quality' mingled with the rest at places like Vauxhall and St James's Park.
The Abbé Prevost marvelled at the coffee-houses, which he called 'the seats
of English liberty and thought'. London had ten times more coffee houses
than Vienna and more clubs for the cultured middle classes - such as Johnson's
Literary Club - than any other European nation. We also built more theatres
and more art galleries. Founded in 1769, the Royal Academy held annual
exhibitions whose appeal was enormous: 1,680 visitors jammed into Somerset
House one Friday in 1769 for the RA show. In 1753, the British Museum was
the first public museum in Europe intended for the use of the masses.
Nor should we forget the role of the rise in print culture. Between 1660 and
1800 over 300,000 pamphlets and book titles were published. Even the poor
country people, commented James Lackington in the 1790s, 'shorten the winter
nights' by reading Fielding and Richardson. The annual total sale of
newspapers in 1801 had reached 16 million. Increase in general prosperity
buoyed up the market and helped the spread of British literacy.
We must not ignore the part played, however, by the maligned English
aristocrat, usually portrayed as a buffoon who preferred claret and horses
to art. The British upper classes were, in fact, the best-travelled in
Europe. Some, surprisingly, went abroad specifically to hear opera. In 1733
Earl Stanhope wrote from Milan, 'Opera is the chief entertainment of all
English strangers here.'
Sir Francis Dashwood, builder of one of the finest Palladian houses in
England, was moved to form the Dilettante Society for the discussion of
culture. Sir William Hamilton's art collection was one of finest in Europe.
Most Canaletto views of Venice were bought up by the British - among them,
those now at Woburn.
It is an irony, therefore, that it is Italy that should have commissioned
this survey of European culture, and an even greater irony that the country
of blue-painted savages it once subjugated should come out on top. It might
also have the added advantage of silencing the French un peu. The Italian
embassy in London, incidentally, declined to comment. No one there even
knows the name of one of their country's cultural bodies. A case of finita
la musica?
Mar 25th 2005 | 7:53 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who are the top culture vultures of Europe?
Anzov wrote:
> Surprisingly, the Brits are if you believe the results of a recent
survey
> carried out by the Touring Club Italiano (TCI)
> Here is an interesting and mildly amusing article which appeared in
this
> weeks " Spectator"
> The article starts here:
> Smarter than the Italians
> Petronella Wyatt
snip
We must not ignore the part played, however, by the maligned English
aristocrat, usually portrayed as a buffoon who preferred claret and
horses
to art.
snip
LOL, that will be Boris Johnson then.
> Surprisingly, the Brits are if you believe the results of a recent
survey
> carried out by the Touring Club Italiano (TCI)
> Here is an interesting and mildly amusing article which appeared in
this
> weeks " Spectator"
> The article starts here:
> Smarter than the Italians
> Petronella Wyatt
snip
We must not ignore the part played, however, by the maligned English
aristocrat, usually portrayed as a buffoon who preferred claret and
horses
to art.
snip
LOL, that will be Boris Johnson then.
Mar 25th 2005 | 8:36 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who are the top culture vultures of Europe?
"Anzov" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Surprisingly, the Brits are if you believe the results of a recent survey
>carried out by the Touring Club Italiano (TCI)
>Here is an interesting and mildly amusing article which appeared in this
>weeks " Spectator"
<snip>
The whole piece is predicated on an elitist view of culture. That's
reason enough not to take it seriously. If you still have any doubts,
then bear in mind that it was written by Petronella Wyatt.
The Spectator has gone a long way downhill since the heady days of
Addison and Steele. Perhaps it has something to do with the culture of
the management and editorial team.
PS: the music I like is better than the music you like.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
>Surprisingly, the Brits are if you believe the results of a recent survey
>carried out by the Touring Club Italiano (TCI)
>Here is an interesting and mildly amusing article which appeared in this
>weeks " Spectator"
<snip>
The whole piece is predicated on an elitist view of culture. That's
reason enough not to take it seriously. If you still have any doubts,
then bear in mind that it was written by Petronella Wyatt.
The Spectator has gone a long way downhill since the heady days of
Addison and Steele. Perhaps it has something to do with the culture of
the management and editorial team.
PS: the music I like is better than the music you like.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
Mar 25th 2005 | 8:41 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who are the top culture vultures of Europe?
Padraig Breathnach <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Anzov" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Surprisingly, the Brits are if you believe the results of a recent survey
> >carried out by the Touring Club Italiano (TCI)
> >
> >Here is an interesting and mildly amusing article which appeared in this
> >weeks " Spectator"
> >
> <snip>
>
> The whole piece is predicated on an elitist view of culture. That's
> reason enough not to take it seriously.
It seemed to me that it was simply taking certain benchmarks and
comparing them- and it would certainly be of interest here I'd have
thought as such elitist cultural institutions such as theatres, museums
and monuments come up frequently. If they had also taken what you might
consider (I don't know) less elite forms of culture, you'd probably find
that quite vibrant in the UK too. Live bands, folk music, you name it-
my impression is (and I'm prepared to be proved wrong, because it's not
my main sphere of interest) that they all do very well here.
That said, I'm not really interested in how the UK compares with country
X. There were flaws in the article anyway in its assessment of the
cultural scene here. Yes, WNO does very well where it performs, yet the
Scottish Executive doesn't care a damn about Scottish Opera, and the
company is basically going to be dead for the next 12 months.
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
> "Anzov" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Surprisingly, the Brits are if you believe the results of a recent survey
> >carried out by the Touring Club Italiano (TCI)
> >
> >Here is an interesting and mildly amusing article which appeared in this
> >weeks " Spectator"
> >
> <snip>
>
> The whole piece is predicated on an elitist view of culture. That's
> reason enough not to take it seriously.
It seemed to me that it was simply taking certain benchmarks and
comparing them- and it would certainly be of interest here I'd have
thought as such elitist cultural institutions such as theatres, museums
and monuments come up frequently. If they had also taken what you might
consider (I don't know) less elite forms of culture, you'd probably find
that quite vibrant in the UK too. Live bands, folk music, you name it-
my impression is (and I'm prepared to be proved wrong, because it's not
my main sphere of interest) that they all do very well here.
That said, I'm not really interested in how the UK compares with country
X. There were flaws in the article anyway in its assessment of the
cultural scene here. Yes, WNO does very well where it performs, yet the
Scottish Executive doesn't care a damn about Scottish Opera, and the
company is basically going to be dead for the next 12 months.
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Mar 26th 2005 | 5:11 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who are the top culture vultures of Europe?
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:41:47 +0000, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
>That said, I'm not really interested in how the UK compares with country
>X.
Italy is really not comparable to the UK at all in the realm of
popular participation in the culture scene. Italy is the home of the
Renaissance, opera, much great art, Virgil, and many other great
artists and poets, but it was also pratically a feudal society until
about 50 years ago. There is a very large percentage of the population
who began their lives in a condition little better than serfdom, and
you really wouldn't expect them to visit art galleries or attend opera
openings.
Many societies have supported great art or culture without mass
participation. At the height of the renaissance, how many people do
you think participated in the art scene even as spectators?
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
>That said, I'm not really interested in how the UK compares with country
>X.
Italy is really not comparable to the UK at all in the realm of
popular participation in the culture scene. Italy is the home of the
Renaissance, opera, much great art, Virgil, and many other great
artists and poets, but it was also pratically a feudal society until
about 50 years ago. There is a very large percentage of the population
who began their lives in a condition little better than serfdom, and
you really wouldn't expect them to visit art galleries or attend opera
openings.
Many societies have supported great art or culture without mass
participation. At the height of the renaissance, how many people do
you think participated in the art scene even as spectators?
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
Mar 26th 2005 | 7:38 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who are the top culture vultures of Europe?
B Vaughan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:41:47 +0000, [email protected]
> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
>
> >That said, I'm not really interested in how the UK compares with country
> >X.
>
> Italy is really not comparable to the UK at all in the realm of
> popular participation in the culture scene. Italy is the home of the
> Renaissance, opera, much great art, Virgil, and many other great
> artists and poets, but it was also pratically a feudal society until
> about 50 years ago. There is a very large percentage of the population
> who began their lives in a condition little better than serfdom, and
> you really wouldn't expect them to visit art galleries or attend opera
> openings.
Well no, I agree, but I think expectations can be confining. In the kind
of area where I grew up (working class housing estate) there wasn't the
expectation that you'd go to an art gallery or an opera either, and
there certainly wasn't that much available locally. Nowadays, many art
galleries go out of their way to try and get people from the backgrounds
that you don't traditionally 'associate' with visiting art galleries
inside the doors. I think that's a good thing.
> Many societies have supported great art or culture without mass
> participation. At the height of the renaissance, how many people do
> you think participated in the art scene even as spectators?
Not many- but that's not necessarily important. I _am_ interested in the
shift in cultural genres though. Opera is interesting. Given Italy's
contribution to the genre, why is it relatively dormant now? (The
recently deceased Berio did write some important work, but isn't
considered an opera composer- and his work was mostly produced _outside_
Italy.) Why does England, with no significant opera output (people cite
Purcell, but well, that was a long time ago!) produce a Britten (among
the most performed 20th century opera composers) and a whole list of
others (Tippet, more recently Turnage, Ades, with many international
performances.) What are the conditions that enable this to happen?
Personally, I think it's almost impossible to see these trends as being
the result of any particular change in policy or social situation, but
figuring out the trends is interesting nevertheless.
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:41:47 +0000, [email protected]
> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
>
> >That said, I'm not really interested in how the UK compares with country
> >X.
>
> Italy is really not comparable to the UK at all in the realm of
> popular participation in the culture scene. Italy is the home of the
> Renaissance, opera, much great art, Virgil, and many other great
> artists and poets, but it was also pratically a feudal society until
> about 50 years ago. There is a very large percentage of the population
> who began their lives in a condition little better than serfdom, and
> you really wouldn't expect them to visit art galleries or attend opera
> openings.
Well no, I agree, but I think expectations can be confining. In the kind
of area where I grew up (working class housing estate) there wasn't the
expectation that you'd go to an art gallery or an opera either, and
there certainly wasn't that much available locally. Nowadays, many art
galleries go out of their way to try and get people from the backgrounds
that you don't traditionally 'associate' with visiting art galleries
inside the doors. I think that's a good thing.
> Many societies have supported great art or culture without mass
> participation. At the height of the renaissance, how many people do
> you think participated in the art scene even as spectators?
Not many- but that's not necessarily important. I _am_ interested in the
shift in cultural genres though. Opera is interesting. Given Italy's
contribution to the genre, why is it relatively dormant now? (The
recently deceased Berio did write some important work, but isn't
considered an opera composer- and his work was mostly produced _outside_
Italy.) Why does England, with no significant opera output (people cite
Purcell, but well, that was a long time ago!) produce a Britten (among
the most performed 20th century opera composers) and a whole list of
others (Tippet, more recently Turnage, Ades, with many international
performances.) What are the conditions that enable this to happen?
Personally, I think it's almost impossible to see these trends as being
the result of any particular change in policy or social situation, but
figuring out the trends is interesting nevertheless.
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Mar 27th 2005 | 3:01 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who are the top culture vultures of Europe?
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:38:46 +0000, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
>B Vaughan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:41:47 +0000, [email protected]
>> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
>>
>> >That said, I'm not really interested in how the UK compares with country
>> >X.
>>
>> Italy ..... was also pratically a feudal society until
>> about 50 years ago. There is a very large percentage of the population
>> who began their lives in a condition little better than serfdom, and
>> you really wouldn't expect them to visit art galleries or attend opera
>> openings.
>Well no, I agree, but I think expectations can be confining. In the kind
>of area where I grew up (working class housing estate) there wasn't the
>expectation that you'd go to an art gallery or an opera either, and
>there certainly wasn't that much available locally.
Likewise in my case; I was the first person in my father's family to
finish high school and the first in my mother's family to attend
university. However, we were still light years ahead in terms of
opportunity to many Italians I know. Many of my neighbors attended
school for all of three years. I think it's been several generations
since the UK has had such a low level of mass education. My father,
from a poor family in Glasgow in the second decade of the 20th
century, attended school for eight years, and started high school. He
left because he felt like an outsider among his classmates, but there
was nothing but his insecurity to prevent him from continuing his
studies. Here in rural Italy, there was little access to secondary
education until the 1950s or even later.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
>B Vaughan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:41:47 +0000, [email protected]
>> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
>>
>> >That said, I'm not really interested in how the UK compares with country
>> >X.
>>
>> Italy ..... was also pratically a feudal society until
>> about 50 years ago. There is a very large percentage of the population
>> who began their lives in a condition little better than serfdom, and
>> you really wouldn't expect them to visit art galleries or attend opera
>> openings.
>Well no, I agree, but I think expectations can be confining. In the kind
>of area where I grew up (working class housing estate) there wasn't the
>expectation that you'd go to an art gallery or an opera either, and
>there certainly wasn't that much available locally.
Likewise in my case; I was the first person in my father's family to
finish high school and the first in my mother's family to attend
university. However, we were still light years ahead in terms of
opportunity to many Italians I know. Many of my neighbors attended
school for all of three years. I think it's been several generations
since the UK has had such a low level of mass education. My father,
from a poor family in Glasgow in the second decade of the 20th
century, attended school for eight years, and started high school. He
left because he felt like an outsider among his classmates, but there
was nothing but his insecurity to prevent him from continuing his
studies. Here in rural Italy, there was little access to secondary
education until the 1950s or even later.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
Mar 27th 2005 | 10:01 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who are the top culture vultures of Europe?
"B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:38:46 +0000, [email protected]
> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
> Likewise in my case; I was the first person in my father's family to
> finish high school and the first in my mother's family to attend
> university. However, we were still light years ahead in terms of
> opportunity to many Italians I know. Many of my neighbors attended
> school for all of three years. I think it's been several generations
> since the UK has had such a low level of mass education. My father,
> from a poor family in Glasgow in the second decade of the 20th
> century, attended school for eight years, and started high school. He
> left because he felt like an outsider among his classmates, but there
> was nothing but his insecurity to prevent him from continuing his
> studies. Here in rural Italy, there was little access to secondary
> education until the 1950s or even later.
My Italian-born mother-in-law was illiterate--in both Italian and English.
Her American-born son, my husband, has a Ph.D. Big leap in one generation.
Marianne
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:38:46 +0000, [email protected]
> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
> Likewise in my case; I was the first person in my father's family to
> finish high school and the first in my mother's family to attend
> university. However, we were still light years ahead in terms of
> opportunity to many Italians I know. Many of my neighbors attended
> school for all of three years. I think it's been several generations
> since the UK has had such a low level of mass education. My father,
> from a poor family in Glasgow in the second decade of the 20th
> century, attended school for eight years, and started high school. He
> left because he felt like an outsider among his classmates, but there
> was nothing but his insecurity to prevent him from continuing his
> studies. Here in rural Italy, there was little access to secondary
> education until the 1950s or even later.
My Italian-born mother-in-law was illiterate--in both Italian and English.
Her American-born son, my husband, has a Ph.D. Big leap in one generation.
Marianne
Mar 27th 2005 | 1:09 pm
#9
Homebody
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,190
From: HOME
Re: Who are the top culture vultures of Europe?
Originally Posted by B Vaughan
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:41:47 +0000, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
>That said, I'm not really interested in how the UK compares with country
>X.
Italy is really not comparable to the UK at all in the realm of
popular participation in the culture scene. Italy is the home of the
Renaissance, opera, much great art, Virgil, and many other great
artists and poets, but it was also pratically a feudal society until
about 50 years ago. There is a very large percentage of the population
who began their lives in a condition little better than serfdom, and
you really wouldn't expect them to visit art galleries or attend opera
openings.
Many societies have supported great art or culture without mass
participation. At the height of the renaissance, how many people do
you think participated in the art scene even as spectators?
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
>That said, I'm not really interested in how the UK compares with country
>X.
Italy is really not comparable to the UK at all in the realm of
popular participation in the culture scene. Italy is the home of the
Renaissance, opera, much great art, Virgil, and many other great
artists and poets, but it was also pratically a feudal society until
about 50 years ago. There is a very large percentage of the population
who began their lives in a condition little better than serfdom, and
you really wouldn't expect them to visit art galleries or attend opera
openings.
Many societies have supported great art or culture without mass
participation. At the height of the renaissance, how many people do
you think participated in the art scene even as spectators?
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
Also, much of pre-renaissance and renaissance art was found in churches were, one would assume, even poor and uneducated people would have seen the works of Giotto, Duccio, Botticelli, Raffael et cetera. It would be interesting to know, though, the extent to which they saw these marvellous altar pieces and frescos as art, as opposed to mere illustrations of the bible.
