--- On Wed, 7/23/08, Joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> few were obese. And yet, and yet, the quality of the
> dancing was a level
> of magnitude better than at the private HS. For one,
[WS:] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Hot_Ballroom
>
> So, why am I saying all this. Because I think the ruling
> class of this
> country is putrefying right in front of our eyes and though
> they can
> give their kids all that money can buy, that's all they
> can give them.
> This class will not produce a Tolstoy, or a Diaghilev.
> Maybe, if they're
> lucky, a Toulouse Lautrec.
[WS:] Ditto. However, historically elites played an important role in the arts as sponsors and even more importantly - as cultural trend setters. Elites, including priests, are surely parasites that bask in the reflected light of art created by the work of artisans, artists etc. However, the elite wrapping themselves in the work of art increases the social status of the arts and the cultural expectation of excellence. By contrast, "democratically" created art for the mass market strives to the lowest common denominator and reinforces the social status of mediocrity.
This, I believe was one of finest point made by Alexis deTocqueville about American democracry - it has many virtues but it can lead to a "tyranny of the majority," while teh aristocratic system has at least one virtue - the culturally sanctioned striving for excellence.
Wojtek