EVERYTHING is part of a class system, bummer

"A work of art has meaning and interest only for someone who possesses the cultural competence, that is, the code in which it is encoded." (499)

I'm starting to notice that so many things bring me back to "The Educated Imagination" by Northrop Frye, and because it was happening so frequently, I thought about why. I guess it's because Frye was kind of spot on. I think that his essay has a great deal to do with what we talk about in class, and thats because it contains a very valuable and universal message. We honestly don't have much, if ANY, originality. To create, we must learn, and as we've learned from Bourdieu's piece, to consume we must learn. If we did not understand the 'code' of what we are consuming, of course it would seem like nonsense. I honestly had a hard time understanding a lot of Bourdieu's essay, but I think I got the main point (?) that because we must learn to consume, and because what we learn is influenced by our social status, what we ultimately end up consuming reflects said status. So I guess if I had any questions to ask about this, it would be what is the solution to escaping this subliminal class system of culture? Do we need to make everything much more accessible? Is this even possible? And most importantly, IF it's possible, why has it not been accomplished?

can they stand alone?

"An art which ever increasingly contains reference to its own history demands to be perceived historically," (500)

This quote from the Bourdieu excerpt piqued my interest because to me, it looks like a counterargument to my opinion about remaking stories over and over again. I'm of the opinion that recreating stories makes it far more accessible to people, and is an excellent way to keep around some stories that might otherwise be lost to time. Had Romeo and Juliet not be re-worked so many times, would it still be as prominent as it is? I tend to believe that you don't necessarily have to compare a re-worked story to the original--it should be created to stand on its own. I don't compare the Lion King to Hamlet every time I watch the Lion King, I just watch the Lion King because it's a good movie.

This quote, however, challenges my belief. From my understanding, it says that as a work is recreated and recreated over and over, you must continue to look at where it came from. My question here is, where do you stand on this? Is it alright for a remix to stand on its own, or is it important to remember the origin of said remix?

Romeo&Juliet same as R&Julie?

I am unsure if this will be the popular opinion, but I cannot seem to make enough connections between Warm Bodies and Romeo & Juliet for it to make sense to compare them. I can see the resemblance in the names, and the two opposing worlds colliding, but other than that I am lost. If someone could help me out with this I would appreciate it. 

I can clearly see the connection between West Side Story and Romeo & Juliet, that seems much more apparent than Warm Bodies and Romeo & Juliet.
So my question is: how do you connect Warm Bodies and Romeo & Juliet other than the name similarities and the opposite worlds coming together via two people?

What makes "Great Art"?

I chose to watch Warm Bodies(2013) along with West Side Story(1961).  I found this version(Warm Bodies) of Romeo and Juliet to be entertaining.  The story was modified to fit pop culture and the intense interest in zombies and the apocalypse.  As I was reading Bourdieu's piece, he included a quote by Suzanne Langer that said, "But now that everyone can read, go to museums, listen to great music, at least on the radio, the judgement of the masses about these things has become a reality and through this it has become clear that great art is not a direct sensuous pleasure.  Otherwise, like cookies or cocktails, it would flatter uneducated taste as much as cultured taste." As I read this quote, I understood it to mean that great art is not something that can just be consumed, you have to be educated to understand the deeper meanings behind it.  Is Romeo and Juliet still a product of high culture?  Especially in the Warm Bodies adaption of the story, I feel like the story has been adapted to fit popular culture and has created new ideas that did not exist in the original story.  Besides R, the zombie, Romeo and Julie being the human, Juliet they were not really star cross lovers and there was less of a focus on the other characters except for the role of Nora as the best friend/advisor.  The major theme seemed to be that love and understanding can change even the toughest of hearts.  That seems to be quite different from the original Romeo and Juliet.

 Image Source: http://rebloggy.com/post/nicholas-hoult-warm-bodies/43178547120

Image Source: https://www.rappler.com/entertainment/20992-warm-bodies-tops-us-box-office

Perspectives across time

West side story in 1961 New York shows us New York in transition. After the war but before the upheaval of the 1970s the hedonism of the 1980s and the optimism of the 1990s. The Dodgers and the Giants are gone the Mets do not yet exist. The World Trade Center Towers will not dominate New York’s skyline for another 12 years. Addition of Puerto Rican characters culture and ideas is very important because 1961 is just before the lifting of immigration quotas based on race. To take the story of Romeo and Juliet and put it in New York in transition allows us to see through the telescope of musical comedy What the stresses of the postwar transition looks like two neighborhoods in families. By making the rivalry between the two families based on raise rather than historical misgivings this is a production for about and during the 1960s.

The 1985 version is fascinating the original language set in Pete Wilson’s California With the Montague and Capulet clans transformed into gang France for the mafia. The setting is very much 1990s California brimming with optimism before to.com and housing bubbles would change the state forever just beginning to experience the neighbors at eight that Pete Wilson is trying to head off in his second term as governor. Obviously adapting swords and daggers Two pistols and revolvers is simply a modernization but the ability to keep the original mail log and pacing and cadence as intended by Shakespeare is remarkable considering that DiCaprio and Danes were so young in 1995.
There are flashes of more overt Catholicism in this version which suggests an audience and director were comfortable with the role of Catholicism in modern American life. The illusions to Catholicism in west side story are there but their carefully disguised as to not alienate a protestant audience.

Who Decides What is Art?

While watching the two reboots of Romeo and Juliet in the 1996 Baz Luhrmann and the 1961 film version of West Side Story, I'm struck by two things:  How well they've both aged (although the casting of Natalie Woods is a different discussion. .  ), and how they were created to be accessible for their culture/audience to create their own meaning and relevance.  I chose the above picture because I think Banksy is an excellent, current day example of creative people pushing the arts in a direction that makes it challenge the authorities of what should be considered art, just as those two films did during their time period.  The division between "high" culture and "low" culture is being destroyed even as we speak.  As an example, I remember when Lin Manuel-Miranda went to a White House dinner in 2009 to celebrate "poetry, music, and spoken word."  At this performance the opening of his new project, Hamilton was performed for the first time.  Here's a link to watch on your own. It is interesting to watch the crowd!  At first laughter, then realization of pure genius. All done at the White House in front of the President of the United States. In many ways, it's an example of how suddenly the culture and background of "old, white men" can be transposed/transferred for the rest of us.  Like Romeo and Juliet the story doesn't change, just the intended audience.  I see this as a source of a power grab by the "folk," the "popular culture" takes the material, then shapes it as necessary for their own meaning in their own life.   

Baz Luhrmann more like Bad Luhrmann

"Even in the classroom, the dominant definition of the legitimate way of appropriating culture and works of art favours those who have had early access to legitimate culture, in a cultured household, outside of scholastic disciplines, since even within the educational system it devalues scholarly knowledge and interpretation as 'scholastic' or even 'pedantic' in favour of direct experience and simple delight." (499)

This "early access" to legitimate culture, whether at home or in school, that is mentioned in this quote from Pierre Bourdieu reminded me a lot of our class conversation from last week. Today, less and less children are reading Romeo and Juliet seemingly than ever before. If they're exposed to this story at all, it is likely through one of the adaptations produced in the twentieth or twenty-first centuries, whether it be West Side Story or Romeo and Juliet the film, or something of the like. I still find these adaptations to be less enriching of an experience than reading the original play, or seeing a live performance of it. But less enriching doesn't make these films or only seeing this story through the lenses of these films any less "legitimate" or favorable, rather they are just...not as aesthetically good, in my opinion. There were some choices made in both West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet (1996) and phew were they something. But I guess they are not any less legitimate...although we really should continue to challenge our children with what they read.