@Rachel — You raise the issue of taste, which is different, I think, from evaluating whether something is “art” or a masterpiece. But it’s an interesting point. I find the ability to accept and appreciate the impact of an artist, writer, or composer (architect, lyricist, etc) but not like his work to be something I appreciate in individuals. Rather than offhandedly dismissing ALL of someone’s work, or a movement, appreciating the contribution is equally important, though you may never own a copy of whatever the masterpiece is. I feel that way about Picasso. I can name a total of 3 (possibly 4 on a good day) of his works that i find aesthetically pleasing. I hate cubism. I think most of his stuff is ugly and wouldn’t pay for any of it, let alone millions.

@Anthony — I’m using “modern” dance as a classification like hip-hop and tap, but that’s only because fo the performances I attended at conservatories where I taught. Whether it’s widely accepted as such, I can’t tell you. I’m just not that invested. If it’s interpretive, or floppy or completely random, I’m not for it. As for film, I’m much the same way with John Hughes. For the record, I love your statement about Dali. It made my day. I look forward to your example about architecture… I hadn’t considered it in this argument before. Thanks for bringing that to the table!

@Jack - I’m with you on that, and with you on the whole American authors issue. For the most part, I have difficulty stomaching most American lit, save for a select few authors. I’m not a Hemmingway fan, and I can name exactly one Steinbeck novel I enjoy enough to read more than once. Perhaps it’s left over academic elitism.

@Will - I don’t necessarily like Warhol’s work, but his approach to art, and that “the joke’s on all of you” mentality is rather impressive to me. but I wouldn’t pay for his work either. I’m not surprised that you didn’t liike Catcher in the Rye… Especially after our conversations about it.

@Eric — you raise yet another question from me (and perhaps the original question underneath it all)… Why?

It’s perfectly fine to disagree with the canon and with intellectual “authorities” but I guess I’m more curious as to why there is disagreement. Should expertise in a field, or mass appeal dictate what is “classic” and what is not? For that matter, should there be a call for a reevaluation of canon and classics?

I don’t have an answer (yet… ), but It makes me wonder…

Expertise in literature ludicrous?! Forgive me for being offended.

Literary historians do something far different from literary scholars. And for a great number of works, without those scholars, most individuals would never be able to translate, let alone understand some “classics.” (There have been estimates that in order to have students study Shakespeare, for example, within 30 years a whole seperate class in Early Modern english will be required because of the distance from our own contemporary language structure. But that’s a whole different argument). And it’s not someone in an ivory tower somewhere waving a stick and proclaiming something “valuable…” Canon is established through social consciousness and percieved importance, tradition, and status of cultural capital. Is that correct? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But to summarily dismiss works because academics have noted their importance to the genre, or social consciousness is, itself, a form of pomposity, in my opinion.

As for works being relevant or not, that, ultimately, is up to the individual. Scholars can make a case for relevance, but to assume that something written over 50 years ago is no longer applicable or relevant is short sighted. I’ll give you two cases in point: the Bible (for a certain number of individuals) and The Art of War. Both were written quite a bit longer ago than 50 years, and both can be viewed as relevant as much today as they were when written.