Andrea Deagon
New member
I think the transfer of any kind of entertainment from culture to culture can create interesting contradictions. One of the better known of these: in the US Jerry Lewis is thought of as slapstick, unsophisticated, even vulgar entertainment. In France he is considered a comedic genius, much closer to high art. Same with Edgar Allan Poe -- thought of as a hack writer in the US, in France, as a brilliant writer, and eventually, English-speaking peoples came to agree.
Also, the social element can change across cultures. In the 1880's professional actresses, despite the fact that some of them achieved stardom, were not the kind of person to be admitted in polite society. One of the biggest stars in France was Sarah Bernhardt, who did in fact live an unconventional life, including a child out of wedlock. She was amazed, though, when she toured England and found that she was invited into polite drawing rooms, which she was not in France. It wasn't that England was any less conservative than France, but her foreignness (in combniation with her fame) apparently mitigated the shamefulness of her profession.
In terms of art, every age has its own social conditions and we are well aware of the ones that led to the creation of raqs sharqi in the early 20th century, but we have less instinctual understanding of the high art that was produced in the Ottoman Imperial harem (for example), or among the troupes of dancers who performed for the 18th-19th century Turkish elite. The social position of the dancers (essentially slaves) did not interfere with there being high standards and an elite level of refinement attached to their art. They worked hard to attain it and were appreciated as performers if they did.
I think our post-modern ideas about art and our expectation that it must always be new and not necessarily palatable or easy to appreciate, has not generally been shared by the world's populations. Since there are cultural differences in the very definition of art, and different answers to the question of what art and entertainment even are or whether there is a contrast, it is hard to address this issue cross-culturally.
As an aside, Lucy Duff Gordon mentions several well-known singers and dancers by name, who apparently were well-known and appreciated as offering a particularly valuable and pleasing performance in the 1880's. Maybe it's art if some people can do it really, really well, a lot better than others. Which is quite a broad definition when you think about it ...
Also, the social element can change across cultures. In the 1880's professional actresses, despite the fact that some of them achieved stardom, were not the kind of person to be admitted in polite society. One of the biggest stars in France was Sarah Bernhardt, who did in fact live an unconventional life, including a child out of wedlock. She was amazed, though, when she toured England and found that she was invited into polite drawing rooms, which she was not in France. It wasn't that England was any less conservative than France, but her foreignness (in combniation with her fame) apparently mitigated the shamefulness of her profession.
In terms of art, every age has its own social conditions and we are well aware of the ones that led to the creation of raqs sharqi in the early 20th century, but we have less instinctual understanding of the high art that was produced in the Ottoman Imperial harem (for example), or among the troupes of dancers who performed for the 18th-19th century Turkish elite. The social position of the dancers (essentially slaves) did not interfere with there being high standards and an elite level of refinement attached to their art. They worked hard to attain it and were appreciated as performers if they did.
I think our post-modern ideas about art and our expectation that it must always be new and not necessarily palatable or easy to appreciate, has not generally been shared by the world's populations. Since there are cultural differences in the very definition of art, and different answers to the question of what art and entertainment even are or whether there is a contrast, it is hard to address this issue cross-culturally.
As an aside, Lucy Duff Gordon mentions several well-known singers and dancers by name, who apparently were well-known and appreciated as offering a particularly valuable and pleasing performance in the 1880's. Maybe it's art if some people can do it really, really well, a lot better than others. Which is quite a broad definition when you think about it ...
