ABSTRACT
At this juncture, it would perhaps be of some interest to discuss the relationship between the arts and culture, as the terms are not necessarily synonymous, although Lippard (1990: 14) suggests that they are inextricably linked: ‘When culture is perceived as the entire fabric of life – including the arts with dress, speech, social customs, decoration, food – one begins to see art itself differently.’ Proponents of the ‘Culture and Civilisation’ movement of the nineteenth century argued that Culture (with a capital ‘C’) should be ennobling or civilising, leading to personal advancement or enlightenment. Although cultural critics like Matthew Arnold declared that this cultural enlightenment would transcend social divisions such as class, gender, religion or ethnicity, Jordan and Weedon (1995) argue that the basic tenets of such Liberal Humanist theories were quintessentially Eurocentric. Not only did they advocate the high culture and grand narratives of white, European males, but they took little account of the barriers to access to cultural education and the accumulation of cultural competence required to appreciate such dominant cultural forms. Although in countries like Britain a form of liberal, mass education had developed towards the end of the nineteenth century, the definitions of what constituted ‘worthwhile’ culture were (and still are) largely tenuous and essentially elitist. As argued by Bourdieu, ‘artistic value’ is normally placed upon forms or objects for which a high degree of cultural competence is required. Artistic value systems therefore become somewhat arbitrary.
