Among the reasons that proponents of this "little theater" from the "poetic" wielded as need to get the poetry books and return to people to poetry that is to whom it belongs (fallacies evident) is the premise of origin shown that, on the one hand, everyone must admire the poetry and also they, as elected, they will know in good doses administered. On the other hand, consider the problem is education, ie the problem that we do not like poetry because they do not teach us, instruct us not into it. I will focus on how the second premise. The first think you do not need too much added. This second assumption leads to the erroneous conclusion that they "teach the people" poetry portrays not only the small theater but usually cut to a certain point illustrated well established today. The problem of mass culture, low culture, take much more ground than high culture, where it would be poetry. The solution: poetry for those who do not read poetry, poetry by themselves attractive media of mass culture, children and poetry, we must train with poems, etc. All this is fine, but do not think that is the solution. Obviously my position is not illustrated, not from the picture but rather is materialist. Let's see. No one, at school teach Bisbal music or teach the history of Barça, not the Journal of Patricia, but music of Mozart, Baroque, Plato. And yet, after years and years to teach these things, we still prefer to get home culture of mass entertainment culture. Turn on the television. And there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is not in the educational system that teaches what needs to be taught, but elsewhere. In 1939 Clement Greenberg already pointed to the rise of mass culture, what he calls kitsch. Stated: "The alternative to Picasso is not Michelangelo, but kitsch. Second, neither in backward Russia nor in the advanced West, the masses prefer kitsch simply because their governments to push it. Where state educational systems take the trouble to speak of art, to mention the old masters, not kitsch, and yet we hang on our walls a Maxfield Parrish or his equivalent, instead of a Rembrandt or a Michelangelo . Moreover, as Macdonald himself points out, by 1925, when the Soviet regime encouraged a garde film, the Russian masses continued to prefer Hollywood movies. No "conditioning" explains the power of kitsch. " Ie, that the fault does not lie, I think, in the education system. Would require a radical change in our material universe to be given a change of consciousness. And this is impossible. As much as we teach poetry in schools in most of the time people get home to prefer anything else. And there's nothing wrong with that, on the contrary, this is a sign of freedom. Say chance alone (a fact x) can cause someone to approach poetry: no education or the government system or polypoetry, even the authors can do more of what they do. And better that way.
0 comments:
Post a Comment