Elite culture is a culture of privileged groups of society, characterized by fundamental closedness, spiritual aristocracy and value-semantic self-sufficiency. This is “high culture”, contrasted with mass culture by the type of influence on the perceiving consciousness, preserving its subjective characteristics and providing a meaning-forming function. A type of culture characterized by the production of cultural values, samples, which, due to their exclusivity, are designed and accessible mainly to a narrow circle of people (elite). Its main ideal is the formation of a consciousness ready for active transformative activity and creativity. Elite culture is capable of concentrating the intellectual, spiritual and artistic experience of generations.
Historical origins of elite culture
Historical origin elite culture exactly this: already in primitive society, priests, magi, sorcerers, tribal leaders become privileged holders of special knowledge, which cannot and should not be intended for general, mass use. Subsequently, this kind of relationship between elite culture and mass culture in one form or another, in particular secular, was repeatedly reproduced (in various religious confessions and especially sects, in monastic and spiritual knightly orders, Masonic lodges, in religious and philosophical meetings, in literary -artistic and intellectual circles that develop around a charismatic leader, scientific communities and scientific schools, in political associations and parties, including especially those that worked secretly, conspiratorially, underground, etc.). Ultimately, the elitism of knowledge, skills, values, norms, principles, traditions formed in this way was the key to refined professionalism and deep subject specialization, without which historical progress, progressive value-semantic growth, meaningful enrichment and accumulation of formal perfection are impossible in culture - any value-semantic hierarchy. Elite culture acts as an initiative and productive principle in any culture, performing a predominantly creative function in it; while it stereotypes, routinizes, and profanes the achievements of elite culture, adapting them to the perception and consumption of the sociocultural majority of society.
Origin of the term
Elite culture as the antithesis of mass culture
Historically, elite culture arose as the antithesis of mass culture and its meaning manifests its main meaning in comparison with the latter. The essence of elite culture was first analyzed by X. Ortega y Gasset (“Dehumanization of Art,” “Revolt of the Masses”) and K. Mannheim (“Ideology and Utopia,” “Man and Society in an Age of Transformation,” “Essay in the Sociology of Culture”) , who considered this culture as the only one capable of preserving and reproducing the basic meanings of culture and possessing a number of fundamentally important features, including a method of verbal communication - a language developed by its speakers, where special social groups - clergy, politicians, artists - use special , languages closed to the uninitiated, including Latin and Sanskrit.
Deepening contradictions between elite culture and mass
This trend - the deepening of contradictions between elite and mass culture - intensified unprecedentedly in the 20th century and inspired many acute and dramatic events. collisions. At the same time, in the history of culture of the 20th century there are many examples that clearly illustrate the paradoxical dialectic of elite and mass culture: their mutual transition and mutual transformation, mutual influence and self-negation of each of them.
Elitarization of mass culture
So, for example, (symbolists and impressionists, expressionists and futurists, surrealists and dadaists, etc.) - artists, movement theorists, philosophers, and publicists - were aimed at creating unique samples and entire systems of elite culture. Many of the formal refinements were experimental; the theorists of the manifesto and declaration substantiated the right of the artist and thinker to creative incomprehensibility, separation from the masses, their tastes and needs, to the intrinsic existence of “culture for culture.” However, as the expanding field of activity of the modernists included everyday objects, everyday situations, forms of everyday thinking, structures of generally accepted behavior, current historical events and so on. (albeit with a “minus” sign, as a “minus technique”), modernism began - involuntarily, and then consciously - to appeal to the masses and mass consciousness. Shocking and mockery, grotesque and denunciation of the average man, buffoonery and farce - these are the same legitimate genres, stylistic devices and means of expression popular culture, as well as playing on cliches and stereotypes mass consciousness, poster and propaganda, farce and ditty, recitation and rhetoric. Stylization or parody of banality is almost indistinguishable from the stylized and parodied (with the exception of the ironic author's distance and the general semantic context, which remain almost elusive for mass perception); but the recognition and familiarity of vulgarity makes its criticism - highly intellectual, subtle, aestheticized - little understandable and effective for the majority of recipients (who are not able to distinguish ridicule of base taste from indulging it). As a result, the same work of culture acquires a double life with different semantic content and opposite ideological pathos: on one side it turns out to be addressed to elite culture, on the other - to mass culture. These are many works by Chekhov and Gorky, Mahler and Stravinsky, Modigliani and Picasso, L. Andreev and Verhaeren, Mayakovsky and Eluard, Meyerhold and Shostakovich, Yesenin and Kharms, Brecht and Fellini, Brodsky and Voinovich. The contamination of elite culture and mass culture in postmodern culture is especially contradictory; for example, in such an early phenomenon of postmodernism as pop art, there is an elitization of mass culture and at the same time a massification of elitism, which gave rise to the classics of modern times. postmodernist W. Eco characterize pop art as “lowbrow highbrow”, or, conversely, as “highbrow lowbrow” (in English: Lowbrow Highbrow, or Highbrow Lowbrow).
Features of high culture
The subject of elitist, high culture is the individual - free, creative person capable of carrying out conscious activity. are always personally colored and designed for personal perception, regardless of the breadth of their audience, which is why the wide distribution and millions of copies of the works of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Shakespeare not only do not reduce their significance, but, on the contrary, contribute to the widespread dissemination of spiritual values. In this sense, the subject of elite culture is a representative of the elite.
At the same time, objects of high culture that retain their form - plot, composition, musical structure, but change the mode of presentation and appear in the form of replicated products, adapted, adapted to an unusual type of functioning, as a rule, move into the category of mass culture. In this sense, we can talk about the ability of form to be a carrier of content.
If we keep in mind the art of mass culture, then we can state the different sensitivity of its types to this ratio. In the field of music, the form is fully meaningful; even its minor transformations (for example, the widespread practice of translating classical music into an electronic version of its instrumentation) lead to the destruction of the integrity of the work. In the field of fine arts, a similar result is achieved by translating an authentic image into another format - a reproduction or a digital version (even while trying to preserve the context - in a virtual museum). As for literary work, then changing the presentation mode - including from traditional book to digital - does not affect its character, since the form of the work, the structure, are the laws of its dramatic construction, and not the medium - printing or electronic - of this information. Defining such works of high culture that have changed the nature of their functioning as mass works is made possible by a violation of their integrity, when their secondary, or at least non-primary, components are emphasized and act as leading ones. A change in the authentic format of mass culture phenomena leads to a change in the essence of the work, where ideas are presented in a simplified, adapted version, and creative functions are replaced by socializing ones. This is due to the fact that, unlike high culture, the essence of mass culture lies not in creative activity, not in the production of cultural values, but in the formation of " value orientations", corresponding to the character of the dominant public relations, and the development of stereotypes of mass consciousness of members of the “consumer society”. Nevertheless, elite culture is a unique model for mass culture, acting as a source of plots, images, ideas, hypotheses, which are adapted by the latter to the level of mass consciousness.
According to I.V. Kondakov, elite culture appeals to a select minority of its subjects, who, as a rule, are both its creators and recipients (in any case, the circle of both almost coincides). Elite culture consciously and consistently opposes the culture of the majority in all its historical and typological varieties - folklore, folk culture, the official culture of a particular estate or class, the state as a whole, the cultural industry of a technocratic society of the 20th century, etc. Philosophers consider elite culture as the only one capable of preserving and reproducing the basic meanings of culture and possessing a number of fundamentally important features:
- complexity, specialization, creativity, innovation;
- the ability to form a consciousness ready for active transformative activity and creativity in accordance with the objective laws of reality;
- the ability to concentrate the spiritual, intellectual and artistic experience of generations;
- the presence of a limited range of values recognized as true and “high”;
- a rigid system of norms accepted by a given stratum as mandatory and strict in the community of “initiates”;
- individualization of norms, values, evaluative criteria of activity, often principles and forms of behavior of members of the elite community, thereby becoming unique;
- the creation of a new, deliberately complicated cultural semantics, requiring special training and an immense cultural horizon from the addressee;
- the use of a deliberately subjective, individually creative, “defamiliarizing” interpretation of the ordinary and familiar, which brings the subject’s cultural assimilation of reality closer to a mental (sometimes artistic) experiment on it and, in the extreme, replaces the reflection of reality in elite culture with its transformation, imitation with deformation, penetration into meaning - conjecture and rethinking of the given;
- semantic and functional “closedness”, “narrowness”, isolation from the whole of national culture, which turns elite culture into a kind of secret, sacred, esoteric knowledge, taboo for the rest of the masses, and its bearers turn into a kind of “priests” of this knowledge, chosen ones of the gods , “servants of the muses”, “keepers of secrets and faith”, which is often played out and poeticized in elite culture
Elements of high culture
- The science
- Philosophy
- Specialized (professional) education, especially higher education ( intellectual elite)
- Literature, especially classical, poetry
- Intellectual literature (as opposed to mass literature) and auteur cinema (as opposed to mass cinema)
- art
- Musical art, classical music, opera, ballet, symphonic music, organ music
- Theater
- Etiquette
- Civil service
- Military service as an officer
- Fine cuisine and good wine
- High-fashion
- Expressing yourself as an individual
Elite or high culture long years remains incomprehensible to most people. This explains its name. It is created and consumed by a narrow circle of people. Most people are not even aware of the existence of this form of culture and are unfamiliar with its definition.
Elite, folk and mass - are there any similarities?
Folk art is the founder of any other cultural movement in general. Her works are created by nameless creators, they come from the people. Such creations convey features of each time, the image and lifestyle of people. This type of art includes fairy tales, epics, and myths.
Mass culture developed on the basis of folk culture. It has a large audience and is aimed at creating works that will be understandable and accessible to everyone. It has less value than any other. The results of its activities are produced in large volumes, they do not take into account the refined tastes or spiritual depth of people.
Elite culture is created by professionals for a specific circle of people with a certain level of education and knowledge. She does not seek to win the sympathy of the masses. With the help of such works, masters seek answers to eternal questions, strive to convey the depth of the human soul.
Over time, works of high creativity can be appreciated by the masses. Nevertheless, going to the people, such creativity remains the highest level in the development of any type of art.
Features and signs of elite culture
The best way to see the differences and characteristics of elite works of art is in their comparison with mass ones.
All signs elite art are contrasted with mass or folk ones, which are created for wide range spectators. Therefore, its results often remain misunderstood and unappreciated by most people. Awareness of their greatness and significance occurs only after more than one decade, and sometimes even a century.
What works belong to elite culture
Many examples of elite works are now known to everyone.
The group of people for whom such masterpieces of art are created may not be distinguished by their ancient name, family nobility and other differences that in everyday speech characterize the elite. It is possible to understand and appreciate such creations only with the help of a certain level of development, a set of knowledge and skills, and a pure and clear consciousness.
Primitive mass creativity will not be able to help in developing the level of intelligence and education.
It does not touch the depths of the human soul, it does not strive to understand the essence of existence. It adapts to the requirements of the time and desires of the consumer. That is why the development of elite culture is very important for all humanity. It is precisely such works that help even a small circle of people maintain a high level of education and the ability to appreciate truly wonderful works of art and their authors.
Elite culture
Elite or high culture is created by a privileged part of society, or at its request by professional creators. It includes fine art, classical music and literature. High culture, for example, the painting of Picasso or the music of Schnittke, is difficult for an unprepared person to understand. As a rule, it is decades ahead of the level of perception of an averagely educated person. The circle of its consumers is a highly educated part of society: critics, literary scholars, regulars of museums and exhibitions, theatergoers, artists, writers, musicians. When the level of education of the population increases, the circle of consumers of high culture expands. Its varieties include secular art and salon music. The formula of elite culture is “art for art’s sake.”
Elite culture is intended for a narrow circle of highly educated public and is opposed to both folk and mass culture. It is usually incomprehensible to the general public and requires good preparation for correct perception.
Elite culture includes avant-garde movements in music, painting, cinema, complex literature philosophical nature. Often the creators of such a culture are perceived as inhabitants of an “ivory tower”, fenced off with their art from real everyday life. As a rule, elite culture is non-commercial, although sometimes it can be financially successful and move into the category of mass culture.
Modern trends are such that mass culture penetrates into all areas of “high culture”, mixing with it. At the same time, mass culture reduces the general cultural level of its consumers, but at the same time it gradually rises to a higher cultural level. Unfortunately, the first process is still much more intense than the second.
Today, more and more important place Mechanisms for the dissemination of cultural products occupy a role in the system of intercultural communication. Modern society lives in technical civilization, which is fundamentally distinguished by methods, means, technologies and channels for transmitting cultural information. Therefore, in the new information and cultural space, only what is in mass demand survives, and only standardized products of mass culture in general and elite culture in particular have this property.
Elite culture is a set of creative achievements of human society, the creation and adequate perception of which requires special training. The essence of this culture is associated with the concept of the elite as the producer and consumer of elite culture. In relation to society, this type of culture is the highest, privileged to special layers, groups, classes of the population that carry out the functions of production, management and development of culture. Thus, the structure of culture is divided into public and elite.
Elite culture was created to preserve pathos and creativity in the culture. The most consistent and holistic concept of elite culture is reflected in the works of J. Ortega y Gasset, according to whom the elite is a part of society gifted with aesthetic and moral inclinations and most capable of producing spiritual activity. Thus, the elite are considered to be very talented and skillful scientists, artists, writers, and philosophers. Elite groups can be relatively autonomous from economic and political strata, or they can interpenetrate each other in certain situations.
Elite culture is quite diverse in its methods of manifestation and content. The essence and features of elite culture can be examined using the example of elite art, which develops mainly in two forms: panaestheticism and aesthetic isolationism.
The form of panaestheticism elevates art above science, morality, and politics. Such artistic and intuitive forms of knowledge carry the messianic goal of “saving the world.” The concepts of panaesthetic ideas are expressed in the studies of A. Bergson, F. Nietzsche, F. Schlegel.
A form of aesthetic isolationism strives to express “art for art’s sake” or “pure art.” The concept of this idea is based on upholding the freedom of individual self-display and self-expression in art. According to the founders of aesthetic isolationism, the modern world lacks beauty, which is the only pure source of artistic creativity. This concept was realized in the activities of artists S. Diaghilev, A. Benois, M. Vrubel, V. Serov, K. Korovin. A. Pavlova, F. Chaliapin, M. Fokin achieved high vocation in the musical and ballet arts.
In a narrow sense, elite culture is understood as a subculture that not only differs from the national one, but also opposes it, acquiring closedness, semantic self-sufficiency, and isolation. It is based on the formation of one’s own specific features: norms, ideals, values, systems of signs and symbols. Thus, the subculture is designed to unite certain spiritual values of like-minded people, directed against the dominant culture. The essence of a subculture lies in the formation and development of its sociocultural characteristics, their isolation from another cultural layer.
Elite culture is high culture, contrasted with mass culture by the type of influence on the perceiving consciousness, preserving its subjective characteristics and providing a meaning-forming function.
The subject of elitist, high culture is the individual - a free, creative person, capable of carrying out conscious activities. The creations of this culture are always personally colored and designed for personal perception, regardless of the breadth of their audience, which is why the wide distribution and millions of copies of the works of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Shakespeare not only do not reduce their significance, but, on the contrary, contribute to the widespread dissemination of spiritual values. In this sense, the subject of elite culture is a representative of the elite.
Elite culture has a number of important features.
Features of elite culture:
complexity, specialization, creativity, innovation;
the ability to form a consciousness ready for active transformative activity and creativity in accordance with the objective laws of reality;
the ability to concentrate the spiritual, intellectual and artistic experience of generations;
the presence of a limited range of values recognized as true and “high”;
a rigid system of norms accepted by a given stratum as mandatory and strict in the community of “initiates”;
individualization of norms, values, evaluative criteria of activity, often principles and forms of behavior of members of the elite community, thereby becoming unique;
the creation of a new, deliberately complicated cultural semantics, requiring special training and an immense cultural horizon from the addressee;
the use of a deliberately subjective, individually creative, “defamiliarizing” interpretation of the ordinary and familiar, which brings the subject’s cultural assimilation of reality closer to a mental (sometimes artistic) experiment on it and, in the extreme, replaces the reflection of reality in elite culture with its transformation, imitation with deformation, penetration into meaning - conjecture and rethinking of the given;
semantic and functional “closedness”, “narrowness”, isolation from the whole of national culture, which turns elite culture into a kind of secret, sacred, esoteric knowledge, and its bearers turn into a kind of “priests” of this knowledge, chosen ones of the gods, “servants of the muses” , “keepers of secrets and faith,” which is often played out and poeticized in elite culture.
Elite culture (from the French elite - selected, selected, best) is a subculture of privileged groups in society, characterized by fundamental closedness, spiritual aristocracy and value-semantic self-sufficiency. Appealing to a select minority of its subjects, who, as a rule, are both its creators and addressees (in any case, the circle of both almost coincides), E.K. consciously and consistently opposes the culture of the majority, or mass culture in the broad sense (in all its historical and typological varieties - folklore, folk culture, official culture of a particular estate or class, the state as a whole, the cultural industry of technocratic society -va 20th century, etc.). Moreover, E.k. needs a constant context of mass culture, since it is based on the mechanism of repulsion from the values and norms accepted in mass culture, on the destruction of existing stereotypes and templates of mass culture (including their parody, ridicule, irony, grotesque, polemics, criticism, refutation), on demonstrative self-isolation in general national culture. In this regard, E.k. - a characteristically marginal phenomenon within any history. or national type of culture and is always secondary, derivative in relation to the culture of the majority. The problem of E.K. is especially acute. in communities where the antinomy of mass culture and E.K. practically exhausts all the variety of manifestations of nationalism. culture as a whole and where the mediative (“middle”) area of the national culture, a constituent part of it. body and equally opposed to polarized mass and E. cultures as value-semantic extremes. This is typical, in particular, for cultures that have a binary structure and are prone to inversion forms of history. development (Russian and typologically similar cultures).
Political and cultural elites differ; the first, also called “ruling”, “powerful”, today, thanks to the works of V. Pareto, G. Mosca, R. Michels, C.R. Mills, R. Miliband, J. Scott, J. Perry, D. Bell and other sociologists and political scientists, have been studied in sufficient detail and deeply. Much less studied are cultural elites - strata united not by economic, social, political, and actual power interests and goals, but ideological principles, spiritual values, sociocultural norms, etc. Connected in principle by similar (isomorphic) mechanisms of selection, status consumption, prestige, political and cultural elites, nevertheless, do not coincide with each other and only sometimes enter into temporary alliances, which turn out to be extremely unstable and fragile. Suffice it to recall the spiritual dramas of Socrates, condemned to death by his fellow citizens, and Plato, disillusioned with the Syracuse tyrant Dionysius (the Elder), who undertook to put into practice Plato’s utopia of the “State”, Pushkin, who refused to “serve the king, serve the people” and thereby who recognized the inevitability of his creativity. loneliness, although regal in its own way (“You are a king: live alone”), and L. Tolstoy, who, despite his origin and position, sought to express the “folk idea” through the means of his high and unique art of speech, European. education, sophisticated author's philosophy and religion. It is worth mentioning here the short flowering of the sciences and arts at the court of Lorenzo the Magnificent; the experience of the highest patronage of Louis XIV to the muses, which gave the world examples of Western European. classicism; short period cooperation between the enlightened nobility and the noble bureaucracy during the reign of Catherine II; short-lived pre-revolutionary union. rus. intelligentsia with Bolshevik power in the 20s. and so on. , in order to affirm the multidirectional and largely mutually exclusive nature of the interacting political and cultural elites, which enclose the social-semantic and cultural-semantic structures of the society, respectively, and coexist in time and space. This means that E.k. is not a creation and product of political elites (as was often stated in Marxist studies) and is not of a class-party nature, but in many cases develops in the struggle against politics. elites for their independence and freedom. On the contrary, it is logical to assume that it is the cultural elites that contribute to the formation of politics. elites (structurally isomorphic to cultural elites) in a narrower sphere of socio-political, state. and power relations as its own special case, isolated and alienated from the whole E.K.
In contrast to the political elites, the spiritual and creative elites develop their own, fundamentally new mechanisms of self-regulation and value-semantic criteria for active chosenness, going beyond the framework of the actual social and political requirements, and often accompanied by a demonstrative departure from politics and social institutions and semantic opposition to these phenomena as extracultural (unaesthetic, immoral, unspiritual, intellectually poor and vulgar). In E.k. The range of values recognized as true and “high” is deliberately limited, and the system of norms accepted by a given stratum as obligations is tightened. and strict in the communication of the “initiates”. Quantities, narrowing of the elite and its spiritual unity are inevitably accompanied by its qualities, growth (intellectual, aesthetic, religious, ethical and other respects), and therefore, individualization of norms, values, evaluative criteria of activity, often principles and forms of behavior of members of the elite messages, thereby becoming unique.
Actually, for the sake of this, the circle of norms and values of E.K. becomes emphatically high, innovative, what can be achieved in a variety of ways. means:
1) mastering new social and mental realities as cultural phenomena or, on the contrary, rejection of anything new and “protection” of a narrow circle of conservative values and norms;
2) inclusion of one’s subject in an unexpected value-semantic context, which gives its interpretation a unique and even exclusive meaning;
3) the creation of a new, deliberately complicated cultural semantics (metaphorical, associative, allusive, symbolic and metasymbolic), requiring special knowledge from the addressee. preparation and vast cultural horizons;
4) the development of a special cultural language (code), accessible only to a narrow circle of connoisseurs and designed to complicate communication, to erect insurmountable (or the most difficult to overcome) semantic barriers to profane thinking, which turns out to be, in principle, unable to adequately comprehend the innovations of E.K., to “decipher” it meanings; 5) the use of a deliberately subjective, individually creative, “defamiliarizing” interpretation of the ordinary and familiar, which brings the subject’s cultural assimilation of reality closer to a mental (sometimes artistic) experiment on it and ultimately replaces the reflection of reality in E.K. its transformation, imitation - deformation, penetration into meaning - conjecture and rethinking of the given. Due to its semantic and functional “closedness”, “narrowness”, isolation from the whole national. culture, E.k. often turns into a type (or similarity) of secret, sacred, esoteric. knowledge that is taboo for the rest of the masses, and its bearers turn into a kind of “priests” of this knowledge, chosen ones of the gods, “servants of the muses,” “keepers of secrets and faith,” which is often played out and poeticized in E.K.
Historical origin of E.c. exactly this: already in primitive society, priests, magi, sorcerers, tribal leaders become privileged owners of special knowledge, which cannot and should not be intended for general, mass use. Subsequently, this kind of relationship between E.k. and mass culture in one form or another, in particular secular, were repeatedly reproduced (in various religious denominations and especially sects, in monastic and spiritual knightly orders, Masonic lodges, in craft workshops that cultivated professional skills, in religious and philosophical . meetings, in literary, artistic and intellectual circles that formed around charismatic leaders, scientific communities and scientific schools, in political groups, associations and parties, including especially those that worked conspiratorially, underground and etc.). Ultimately, the elitism of knowledge, skills, values, norms, principles, traditions that was formed in this way was the key to sophisticated professionalism and deep subject-specific specialized knowledge, without which history would be impossible in culture. progress, postulate, value-semantic growth, contain, enrichment and accumulation of formal perfection - any value-semantic hierarchy. E.k. acts as an initiative and productive principle in any culture, performing mainly creative work. function in it; while mass culture stereotypes, routinizes, and profanes the achievements of E.K., adapting them to the perception and consumption of the sociocultural majority of the society. In turn, E.k. constantly ridicules or denounces mass culture, parodies it or grotesquely deforms it, presenting the world of mass society and its culture as scary and ugly, aggressive and cruel; in this context, the fate of representatives of E.K. depicted as tragic, disadvantaged, broken (romantic and post-romantic concepts of “genius and the crowd”; “creative madness”, or “sacred disease”, and ordinary “common sense”; inspired “intoxication”, including narcotic , and vulgar “sobriety”; “celebration of life” and boring everyday life).
Theory and practice of E.k. blossoms especially productively and fruitfully when “broken” cultural eras, when changing cultural and historical paradigms, uniquely expressing the crisis conditions of culture, the unstable balance between “old” and “new”, the representatives of E.K. themselves. realized their mission in culture as “initiators of the new,” as ahead of their time, as creators not understood by their contemporaries (such, for example, were the majority of romantics and modernists - symbolists, cultural figures of the avant-garde and professional revolutionaries who carried out the cultural revolution) . This also includes the “beginners” of large-scale traditions and the creators of the “grand style” paradigms (Shakespeare, Goethe, Schiller, Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Gorky, Kafka, etc.). This view, although fair in many respects, was not, however, the only possible one. So, on Russian grounds. culture (where societies, the attitude towards E.K. was in most cases wary or even hostile, which did not even contribute to the spread of E.K., in comparison with Western Europe), concepts were born that interpret E.K. as a conservative departure from social reality and its pressing problems into the world of idealized aesthetics (“ pure art", or "art for art's sake"), religious. and mythol. fantasies, socio-political. utopian, philosopher idealism, etc. (late Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, M. Antonovich, N. Mikhailovsky, V. Stasov, P. Tkachev and others, radical democratic thinkers). In the same tradition, Pisarev and Plekhanov, as well as Ap. Grigoriev interpreted E.k. (including “art for art’s sake”) as a demonstrative form of rejection of socio-political reality, as an expression of hidden, passive protest against it, as a refusal to participate in society. struggle of his time, seeing in this a characteristic history. symptom (deepening crisis), and pronounced inferiority of the E.K. itself. (lack of breadth and historical foresight, societies, weakness and powerlessness to influence the course of history and the life of the masses).
Theorists E.K. - Plato and Augustine, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, Vl. Soloviev and Leontiev, Berdyaev and A. Bely, Ortega y Gasset and Benjamin, Husserl and Heidegger, Mannheim and Ellul - variously varied the thesis about the hostility of democratization and the massification of culture and its qualities. level, its content and formal perfection, creative. search and intellectual, aesthetic, religious. and other novelty, about the stereotype and triviality that inevitably accompanies mass culture (ideas, images, theories, plots), lack of spirituality, and the infringement of creativity. personality and the suppression of its freedom in conditions of mass society and mechanics. replication of spiritual values, expansion of industrial production of culture. This tendency is to deepen the contradictions between E.K. and mass - increased unprecedentedly in the 20th century. and inspired many poignant and dramatic stories. collisions (cf., for example, the novels: “Ulysses” by Joyce, “In Search of Lost Time” by Proust, “ Steppenwolf"and "The Glass Bead Game" by Hesse, "The Magic Mountain" and "Doctor Faustus" by T. Mann, "We" by Zamyatin, "The Life of Klim Samgin" by Gorky, "The Master and Margarita" by Bulgakov, "The Pit" and "Chevengur" by Platonov, “Pyramid” by L. Leonov and others). At the same time, in the cultural history of the 20th century. There are many examples that clearly illustrate the paradoxical dialectics of E.K. and mass: their mutual transition and mutual transformation, mutual influence and self-negation of each of them.
So, for example, creative. quest for various representatives of modern culture (symbolists and impressionists, expressionists and futurists, surrealists and dadaists, etc.) - artists, movement theorists, philosophers, and publicists - were aimed at creating unique samples and entire systems of E.C. Many of the formal refinements were experimental; theory manifestos and declarations substantiated the right of the artist and thinker to be creative. incomprehensibility, separation from the masses, their tastes and needs, to the intrinsic existence of “culture for culture.” However, as the expanding field of activity of the modernists included everyday objects, everyday situations, forms of everyday thinking, structures of generally accepted behavior, current history. events, etc. (albeit with a “minus” sign, like a “minus technique”), modernism began - involuntarily, and then consciously - to appeal to the masses and mass consciousness. Shocking and mockery, grotesque and denunciation of the average person, slapstick and farce are the same legitimate genres, stylistic devices and expressions, means of mass culture, as well as playing on cliches and stereotypes of mass consciousness, posters and propaganda, farce and ditties, recitation and rhetoric. Stylization or parody of banality is almost indistinguishable from the stylized and parodied (with the exception of the ironic author's distance and the general semantic context, which remain almost elusive for mass perception); but the recognition and familiarity of vulgarity makes its criticism - highly intellectual, subtle, aestheticized - little understandable and effective for the majority of recipients (who are not able to distinguish ridicule of low-grade taste from indulging it). As a result, one and the same work of culture acquires a double life with different semantic content and opposite ideological pathos: on one side it turns out to be addressed to E.K., on the other - to mass culture. These are many works by Chekhov and Gorky, Mahler and Stravinsky, Modigliani and Picasso, L. Andreev and Verhaeren, Mayakovsky and Eluard, Meyerhold and Shostakovich, Yesenin and Kharms, Brecht and Fellini, Brodsky and Voinovich. E.c. contamination is especially controversial. and mass culture in postmodern culture; for example, in such an early phenomenon of postmodernism as pop art, there is an elitization of mass culture and at the same time a massification of elitism, which gave rise to the classics of modern times. postmodernist W. Eco characterize pop art as “low-browed, high-browedness,” or, conversely, as “high-browed, low-browedness” (in English. : Lowbrow Highbrow, or Highbrow Lowbrow).
No fewer paradoxes arise when comprehending the genesis of totalitarian culture, which, by definition, is a mass culture and a culture of the masses. However, in its origin, totalitarian culture is rooted precisely in E.K.: for example, Nietzsche, Spengler, Weininger, Sombart, Jünger, K. Schmitt and other philosophers and socio-political thinkers who anticipated and brought the Germans closer to real power. Nazism, definitely belonged to E.K. and were in a number of cases misunderstood and distorted by their practical. interpreters, primitivized, simplified to a rigid scheme and uncomplicated demagoguery. The situation is similar with communists. totalitarianism: the founders of Marxism - Marx and Engels, and Plekhanov, and Lenin himself, and Trotsky, and Bukharin - they were all, in their own way, “highbrow” intellectuals and represented a very narrow circle of radically minded intelligentsia. Moreover, the ideal. The atmosphere of social democratic, socialist, and Marxist circles, then strictly conspiratorial party cells, was built in full accordance with the principles of E.K. (only extended to political and cognitive culture), and the principle of party membership implied not just selectivity, but also a rather strict selection of values, norms, principles, concepts, types of behavior, etc. In fact, the selection mechanism itself (based on race and nationality) or according to class-political), which lies at the basis of totalitarianism as a socio-cultural system, was created by E.K., in its depths, by its representatives, and later only extrapolated to a mass society, in which everything recognized as expedient is reproduced and is intensified, and what is dangerous for its self-preservation and development is prohibited and seized (including by means of violence). Thus, totalitarian culture initially arises from the atmosphere and style, from the norms and values of an elite circle, is universalized as a kind of panacea, and then is forcibly imposed on society as a whole as an ideal model and is practically introduced into the mass consciousness and societies, activities by any , including non-cultural means.
In conditions of post-totalitarian development, as well as in the context of Western democracy, the phenomena of totalitarian culture (emblems and symbols, ideas and images, concepts and style of socialist realism), being presented in a culturally pluralistic way. context and distanced from modern times. reflection - purely intellectual or aesthetic - begin to function as exotic. E.c. components and are perceived by a generation familiar with totalitarianism only from photographs and anecdotes, “strangely,” grotesquely, associatively. The components of mass culture included in the context of E.K. act as elements of E.K.; while the components of E.K., inscribed in the context of mass culture, become components of mass culture. In the postmodern cultural paradigm, the components of E.k. and mass culture are used equally as ambivalent game material, and the semantic boundary between mass and E.K. turns out to be fundamentally blurred or removed; in this case, the distinction between E.k. and mass culture practically loses its meaning (retaining for the potential recipient only the allusive meaning of the cultural-genetic context).
The product of elite culture is created by professionals and is part of the privileged society that formed it. Popular culture - part general culture, an indicator of the development of the entire society, and not of its individual class.
Elite culture stands apart; mass culture has a huge number of consumers.
Understanding the value of a product of elite culture requires certain professional skills and abilities. Mass culture is utilitarian in nature, understandable to a wide range of consumers.
The creators of products of elite culture do not pursue material gain; they dream only of creative self-realization. Products of mass culture bring great profits to their creators.
Mass culture simplifies everything and makes it accessible to wide sections of society. Elite culture is focused on a narrow circle of consumers.
Mass culture depersonalizes society; elitist culture, on the contrary, glorifies bright creative individuality. More details: http://thedb.ru/items/Otlichie_elitarnoj_kultury_ot_massovoj/
Classic literature
Folk culture consists of two types - popular and folklore. Popular culture describes the current way of life, morals, customs, songs, dances of the people, and folklore describes its past. Legends, fairy tales and other genres of folklore were created in the past, today they exist as historical heritage. Some of this heritage is still performed today, which means that, in addition to historical legends, it is constantly replenished with new formations, for example, modern urban folklore.
The authors of folk works are often unknown. Myths, legends, tales, epics, fairy tales, songs and dances belong to the highest creations of folk culture. They cannot be classified as elite culture just because they were created by anonymous folk artists. Its subject is the entire people; the functioning of folk culture is inseparable from the work and life of people. Its authors are often anonymous; works usually exist in many versions and are passed down orally from generation to generation.
In this regard, we can talk about folk art (folk songs, fairy tales, legends), folk medicine(medicinal herbs, spells), folk pedagogy, etc. In terms of execution, elements of folk culture can be individual (statement of a legend), group (performing a dance or song), or mass (carnival processions). The audience of folk culture is always the majority of society. This was the case in traditional and industrial society, but the situation in post-industrial society is changing.
Elite culture inherent in the privileged strata of society, or those who consider themselves such. It is distinguished by comparative depth and complexity, and sometimes sophistication of forms. Elite culture was historically formed in those social groups, who had favorable conditions for familiarization with culture, a special cultural status.
Elite (high) culture is created by a privileged part of society, or at its request, by professional creators. It includes fine art, classical music and literature. Its varieties include secular art and salon music. The formula of elite culture is “art for art’s sake.” High culture, such as the painting of Picasso or the music of Bach, is difficult to understand for the untrained person.
The circle of consumers of elite culture includes the highly educated part of society: critics, literary scholars, regular visitors to museums and exhibitions, theatergoers, artists, writers, musicians. As a rule, high culture is decades ahead of the level of perception of a moderately educated person. When the level of education of the population increases, the circle of consumers of high culture expands significantly.
Mass culture does not express the refined tastes or spiritual quest of the people. The time of its appearance is the middle of the 20th century. This is the time of proliferation of mass media (radio, print, television). Through them it became available to representatives of all social strata- “required” culture. Mass culture can be ethnic or national. Pop music stands as a striking example of it. Mass culture is understandable and accessible to all ages, all segments of the population, regardless of level of education.
Mass culture has less artistic value than elite or popular culture. But it has the largest and widest audience, since it satisfies the “momentary” needs of people, quickly responding to any new event public life. Therefore, its samples, in particular hits, quickly lose relevance, become obsolete and go out of fashion.
This does not happen with works of elite and popular culture. High culture refers to the preferences and habits of the ruling elite, and mass culture refers to the preferences of the “lower classes.” The same types of art can belong to high and mass culture. Classical music is an example of high culture, and popular music is an example of mass culture. A similar situation with fine arts: Picasso’s paintings represent high culture, and popular prints represent mass culture.
The same thing happens with specific works of art. Bach's organ music belongs to high culture. But if it is used as musical accompaniment in figure skating, it is automatically included in the category of mass culture. At the same time, she does not lose her belonging to high culture. Numerous orchestrations of Bach's works in the style of light music, jazz, or rock do not compromise the very high level of the author's work.
Mass culture acts as a complex social and cultural phenomenon characteristic of modern society. It became possible due to the high level of development of communication and information systems and high urbanization. At the same time, mass culture is characterized by a high degree of alienation of individuals and loss of individuality. Hence the “idiocy of the masses”, due to manipulation and imposition of behavioral cliches through mass communication channels.
All this deprives a person of freedom and disfigures him spiritual world. In the environment of the functioning of mass culture, it is difficult to carry out the true socialization of the individual. Here everything is replaced by standard consumption models that are imposed by mass culture. It offers average models of human inclusion in social mechanisms. A vicious circle is created: alienation > abandonment in the world > illusions of belonging to mass consciousness > models of average socialization > consumption of samples of mass culture > “new” alienation.
a specific sphere of cultural creativity associated with the professional production of cultural texts, which subsequently acquire the status of cultural canons. The concept of "E.K." occurs in Western cultural studies to designate cultural layers that are diametrically opposed in content to “profane” mass culture. Unlike communities of sacred or esoteric knowledge inherent in any type of culture, E.K. represents the sphere of industrial production of cultural samples, existing in constant interaction with various forms of mass, local and marginal culture. At the same time, for E.K. characteristic high degree closedness, caused both by specific technologies of intellectual work (forming a narrow professional community), and by the need to master techniques for consuming complexly organized elite cultural products, i.e. a certain level of education. Samples of E.K. In the process of their assimilation, they imply the need for a targeted intellectual effort to “decipher” the author’s message. In fact, E.K. puts the recipient of an elite text in the position of a co-author, recreating in his mind a set of its meanings. Unlike mass culture products, elite cultural products are designed for repeated consumption and have fundamentally ambiguous content. E.K. sets the leading guidelines for the current type of culture, defining both the set of “intellectual games” inherent in “high” culture and the popular set of “low” genres and their heroes, reproducing the basic archetypes of the collective unconscious. Any cultural innovation becomes a cultural event only as a result of its conceptual design at the level of E.K., including it in the current cultural context and adapting it for mass consciousness. Thus, the “elite” status of specific forms of cultural creativity is determined not so much by their closeness (characteristic of marginal culture) and the complex organization of the cultural product (inherent in high-class mass production), but by their ability to significantly influence the life of society, modeling possible ways its dynamics and creating scenarios of social action adequate to social needs, ideological guidelines, art styles and forms of spiritual experience. Only in this case can we speak of the cultural elite as a privileged minority expressing the “spirit of the times” in their creativity.
Contrary to the romantic interpretation of E.K. as a self-sufficient “bead game” (Hesse) far from the pragmatism and vulgarity of the “profane” culture of the majority, the real status of E.K. most often associated with various forms of “game with power”, servile and/or non-conformist dialogue with the current political elite, as well as the ability to work with the “grassroots”, “garbage” cultural space. Only in this case E.K. retains the ability to influence the real state of affairs in society.
