This was easily one of the wittiest and funniest articles I've ever read from a British author...
But why shouldn't vampires be more lauded than Victorians? Why should Jane Austen, with her painfully circumlocutions, be more academically welcome than that woman (forget her name) who wrote 50 shades of gay? In many ways, old "classical" works are telling the exact same stories as modern "trash novel" works, except the modern "trash novel" works are doing it in such a way that is clear, simple, relevant (to today's audience), and thus free of misunderstandings. From them, through clever literally mental contortions, one can still elucidate all the themes, lessons, and humanities like you could from confounding classics - just less obfuscated like "there is no place like home" instead of "lost is my homecoming", "...and then they had sex and fell in love..." instead of "... I profane with my unworthiest hand this holy shrine, the gentle fine is this...", etc.
And who says the arts are dying? The arts are vibrant and alive in today's web-comics, video games, movies, and tv-shows. The medium has changed from a completely closed system of ink and paint to a modular, copyable, and distributable one of .mdl files, computer images, and carrier streams. It's just intentionally confusing junk like cubism, poorly drawn junk like medieval art, and inhumane junk like pyramid building that's gone away.
The pressure to have to constantly monetize, I'll admit, is painful... but that primarily hurts the large institutions who have bottom lines that must be covered. And in my opinion as a flexible small business kind of guy, that's a good thing. Large institutions were necessary for centuries for individual survival at the cost of individual self-actualization, but in today's flexible scale era, it's entirely possible to just be good at something and survive without having to give up your soul to a large corporation. In that case, going small, lean, and individual is the way of the bright future.
In asking the question of why modern things such as "things that are currently fashionable to today's 20 year old's" are less worthy for study than traditional subjects, these phrases were given:
>free of misunderstandings
>less obfuscated
>clever literally mental contortions
>intentionally confusing
I imagine you would be seeking to understand the difference, and seeking to understand why some things that may appear obfuscated and confusing to a modern person are thought of by many to be better. I hope I can help the understanding via this comment.
Pretty much all poetry for example is full of misunderstandings, obfuscated, with clever literally devices and it is intentionally so. Consider poetry then! Think about why many people value poetry over a clear concise newspaper article. Why do humans like art, why do people like these confusing things? Do they actually enjoy the confusion, or is it something else that they enjoy?
Your example is Jane Austin vs 50 shades of grey. Perhaps other comparisons would help. How about Dan Brown vs Shakespeare? How about Beethoven vs Bananarama? How about Turner vs Bob Ross? Do these comparisons help in understanding what defines a quality piece of work? Do you think that a university that for two years examines Dan Brown in it's literature department will continue doing so when Dan Brown no longer becomes popular and Game of Thrones becomes popular? What does that say about the educational and artistic value of an author when they are forgotten a few years later?
Should the subjects of universities be decided by the consumers, the young students? Or should they be decided by the academic establishment? What difference would that make to education, to critical thinking? This is some of what the article was about.
But why shouldn't vampires be more lauded than Victorians? Why should Jane Austen, with her painfully circumlocutions, be more academically welcome than that woman (forget her name) who wrote 50 shades of gay? In many ways, old "classical" works are telling the exact same stories as modern "trash novel" works, except the modern "trash novel" works are doing it in such a way that is clear, simple, relevant (to today's audience), and thus free of misunderstandings. From them, through clever literally mental contortions, one can still elucidate all the themes, lessons, and humanities like you could from confounding classics - just less obfuscated like "there is no place like home" instead of "lost is my homecoming", "...and then they had sex and fell in love..." instead of "... I profane with my unworthiest hand this holy shrine, the gentle fine is this...", etc.
And who says the arts are dying? The arts are vibrant and alive in today's web-comics, video games, movies, and tv-shows. The medium has changed from a completely closed system of ink and paint to a modular, copyable, and distributable one of .mdl files, computer images, and carrier streams. It's just intentionally confusing junk like cubism, poorly drawn junk like medieval art, and inhumane junk like pyramid building that's gone away.
The pressure to have to constantly monetize, I'll admit, is painful... but that primarily hurts the large institutions who have bottom lines that must be covered. And in my opinion as a flexible small business kind of guy, that's a good thing. Large institutions were necessary for centuries for individual survival at the cost of individual self-actualization, but in today's flexible scale era, it's entirely possible to just be good at something and survive without having to give up your soul to a large corporation. In that case, going small, lean, and individual is the way of the bright future.