In the first section of Highbrow / Lowbrow, Levine suggests, somewhat squeamishly at first, that the works of William Shakespeare were once integral parts of nineteenth-century American popular culture, familiar and available to all Americans regardless of race, class or gender. He points out that those attending Shakespeare performances at the theater represented a “microcosm of American society” of which Shakespeare spoke to every segment (25). The production of various farces and parodies of Shakespeare’s plays suggested that not only were Americans familiar with the work, but also understood and made some connection with its content. The great transition of Shakespeare’s works from entertainment to “classics” is a matter of perception rooted primarily in a class hierarchy led by elite intellectuals, and regardless of their effort to preserve the literary genius of Shakespeare’s creations, all that remained was William Shakespeare the creator.
Increased consumption was more than likely another explanation for the gradual demise of theater popularity that Levine alludes to but does not expand upon. With the increasing availability of alternate forms of entertainment—i.e. television, film, radio—consumers delighted themselves in other venues, leaving the theater no longer a main site of social interaction, which could spark the argument that society abandoned Shakespeare rather than vice versa. However, I’m on the advocating end of this blog and more interested in Levine’s discussion of changing social conventions within the theater, drama, literature, and refined, “cultured” taste.
While the division of the theater highlights an already existing class hierarchy, Levine seems to suggest that the tension between the boxes and the gallery heightened into and throughout the latter half of the century, possibly as a result of shifting tastes, refinement, and construction of appropriate social behaviors. Simultaneously, two very separate ways of viewing and appreciating Shakespeare were developing. The nineteenth-century audience related to Shakespeare’s characters’ values “that seemed real and came to matter the audience (who also enjoyed the action, entertainment, comedy, and great actors). The refined intellectual audience sought the deeper meaning, “the subtleties” (35), in Shakespeare’s verse, analyzing the literary merit, and deeming it Literature. (Of which I am not critical since, of course, drama is literature and certainly worthy of literary analysis) Yet, when the elite abandoned the common theater for more upscale renditions, they took Shakespeare with them, (which seemed like an intellectual colonization of the theatre) making him “the possession of the educated portions of society” (31). Shakespeare plays became something the viewer or reader had to understand, not merely enjoy, which removed them from society at large.
I’d like to take up Levine’s question from the prologue in which he briefly mentions the shift in social conventions during the nineteenth century into the twentieth and asks “what was lost to our culture in their demise?” (9) Because of this shift to understand, particularly in the 20th century when flowery poetic language was on the decline, it seems to me that a question arose as to who was even trained and worthy of analyzing or discussing Shakespeare. I don’t think this is uncommon today and Levine himself comments in the prologue that as a historian he questioned his authority to comment on Shakespeare. Similarly, does a chemist have the authority to comment on a painting or sculpture; a financial advisor on the Italian opera? Or better yet, to create art? While I’m certainly not advocating for the de-intellectualizing of Shakespeare’s work, or any other form of art, I think Levine’s question of what was gained and what was lost is one that warrants further contemplation. Levine informs us that the average Joe in nineteenth-century America was randomly reciting verses of Shakespeare in the streets, that it was a part of everyday culture, that Americans were familiar with and knowledgeable of not only Shakespeare the creator, but Shakespeare’s creations.
Increased consumption was more than likely another explanation for the gradual demise of theater popularity that Levine alludes to but does not expand upon. With the increasing availability of alternate forms of entertainment—i.e. television, film, radio—consumers delighted themselves in other venues, leaving the theater no longer a main site of social interaction, which could spark the argument that society abandoned Shakespeare rather than vice versa. However, I’m on the advocating end of this blog and more interested in Levine’s discussion of changing social conventions within the theater, drama, literature, and refined, “cultured” taste.
While the division of the theater highlights an already existing class hierarchy, Levine seems to suggest that the tension between the boxes and the gallery heightened into and throughout the latter half of the century, possibly as a result of shifting tastes, refinement, and construction of appropriate social behaviors. Simultaneously, two very separate ways of viewing and appreciating Shakespeare were developing. The nineteenth-century audience related to Shakespeare’s characters’ values “that seemed real and came to matter the audience (who also enjoyed the action, entertainment, comedy, and great actors). The refined intellectual audience sought the deeper meaning, “the subtleties” (35), in Shakespeare’s verse, analyzing the literary merit, and deeming it Literature. (Of which I am not critical since, of course, drama is literature and certainly worthy of literary analysis) Yet, when the elite abandoned the common theater for more upscale renditions, they took Shakespeare with them, (which seemed like an intellectual colonization of the theatre) making him “the possession of the educated portions of society” (31). Shakespeare plays became something the viewer or reader had to understand, not merely enjoy, which removed them from society at large.
I’d like to take up Levine’s question from the prologue in which he briefly mentions the shift in social conventions during the nineteenth century into the twentieth and asks “what was lost to our culture in their demise?” (9) Because of this shift to understand, particularly in the 20th century when flowery poetic language was on the decline, it seems to me that a question arose as to who was even trained and worthy of analyzing or discussing Shakespeare. I don’t think this is uncommon today and Levine himself comments in the prologue that as a historian he questioned his authority to comment on Shakespeare. Similarly, does a chemist have the authority to comment on a painting or sculpture; a financial advisor on the Italian opera? Or better yet, to create art? While I’m certainly not advocating for the de-intellectualizing of Shakespeare’s work, or any other form of art, I think Levine’s question of what was gained and what was lost is one that warrants further contemplation. Levine informs us that the average Joe in nineteenth-century America was randomly reciting verses of Shakespeare in the streets, that it was a part of everyday culture, that Americans were familiar with and knowledgeable of not only Shakespeare the creator, but Shakespeare’s creations.
No comments:
Post a Comment