A few weeks ago, I posted a
response to an article in the
New York Times which asked, “Why Not a College Degree in Sports?” I had no problem with the idea itself, since a sports program could be structured in a way that introduces students to the humanities. I
did quibble over Roger Pielke, Jr.’s misconceptions of Victorian culture. Recently, the
Times published a
response from the President of The Juilliard School, Joseph W. Polisi, which serves as the basis for another installment in my
series on snobbery.
 |
Thanks to Eric Saylor for this
splendid image of Elgar playing golf. |
As I also did, Polisi attacks Pielke’s assumption that sports are for the masses while the arts are for high society. He points out that buying tickets to a sporting event can cost more than attending an opera, which is a casual conflation of money and class. (The two are related, but they’re not exactly the same issue.)
But if Polisi is willing to admit that this imagined class barrier between sports and the arts doesn’t actually exist, doesn’t that work
in favor of Pielke’s point? I think they’re talking past each other. Both are arguing against the perception that “arts = highbrow, sports = lowbrow.” Polisi probably wants to assure people that the arts are for everyone, whereas Pielke’s original article hinges on whether sports deserve a higher cultural status.
