Week 10

While reading "Danced politics and quebradita aesthetics," the quote that stood out most to me whas when Hutchinson said, "When I first began to study the quebradita, I was struck by how many people were moved to express disapproval of my topic. A Mexican police officer who stopped me as I drove across the border wanted to know why I didn't study something 'nice' instead, like ballet folklorico." It made me think about the difference between "high" and "low" culture and their respective values. I find it interesting that though "low culture" has a reputation for being lawless, disorganized, and embarassing, it is often, on the flipside, empowering. For example, when I went to Lah Tere's talk as my cultural event, she talked about how hip-hop music essentially saved her life as a teenager growing up in the barrio. The same goes for the quebradita, as Hutchinson discusses its effectiveness in keeping teenagers out of gangs. I see that as central to the reason why things seen as low culture are worth studying. Though we may want to ignore such art forms and focus on the polished, shiny aspects of a culture, young people growing up in difficult circumstances may have trouble accessing or relating to what we consider respectable (ballet, the fine arts, and orchestra come to mind when I think of this idea). If they cannot have things like hip-hop, rap, and the quebradita, they have even fewer forms of self-expression to turn to, making falling into drug and gang culture far easier. Therefore, I think it can be interesting and meaningful to analyze the history behind low culture, why it is viewed as such, and how it can possibly make positive contributions to society. What do others think about the quebradita article and the upsides and downsides to high and low culture and the distinctions between them?