Oh, don’t get me wrong, I think Shakespeare’s Titus is Shakespeare at his worst. It is sheer barbarity and I’d not pay to see it on stage. However, it is still Shakespeare—the incredible language, the tricky psychology, the irony, the unpredictability, and the moral lessons. Critics have struggled to find the moral lessons in Titus. I have my opinions. I think there is a lesson or two to be learned from Titus. But it is no Hamlet or King Lear.

And I think that none of us should hold the view that fine art is not for or can’t speak to the average person, especially if the average person we are thinking of is an average American citizen. We are all very wealthy relative to our worldmates; we have access to all the fine art we could consume; and most of us have many hours of leisure time to spend each week. Who should be consuming fine art if not us? Fine art speaks to all of us and can improve all of us. More in our community should learn how to understand it and reap its rewards. More of our children should be exposed to it early.

I am familiar with Burke’s Enquiry. I read bits of it for a philosophy of art course. There are two books that I would recommend that you consider reading instead of Burke’s Enquiry: a good anthology we used for the abovementioned course, Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: The Analytic Tradition, edited by Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen, and Hugh Blair’s classic Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres.

Your points are excellent. I’d contest none of them, except your opinion about Shakespeare’s Titus. While it may very well be his weakest tragedy, it is hardly forgettable, in my opinion.

I use a large group of critics, lists, and canon’s as guides and helpers. However, I am not led by them. No one should let another person’s canon, list, criticisms, or philosophy of aesthetics dictate his or her consumption of art. Yet most would be wise to seek out trustworthy guides until they have been exposed to a wide range of artwork in the genres that interest them and their tastes have been well cultivated.

As far as tastes go: I do believe I owe my friends and family whatever guidance or suggestions I could give them regarding the cultivation of their tastes. I don’t like terms such as high brow and low brow. These terms are often used to insult people. I prefer terms such as fine art and art. These terms help us differentiate the qualities of artworks.

For me, everything a human being does, that can be observed, could be justifiably classified as art. Indeed, I would agree with Montaigne that the very act of living is art. But, there is also fine art. Fine art does different things for us than mere art does. I’ll not bore you with an essay about my philosophy of aesthetics. I will say that art that does not improve me, or that does not awe me, or that does not challenge me, or that does not offer evidence of inventive or creative genius, is not fine to me.

Tyler Perry’s art does not improve, awe, or challenge me. I doubt it improves, awes, or challenges most of my friends and family. His art is superior to Flavor of Love, all the recent rap videos I’ve caught glimpses of, and many television shows, but it is not fine art. I think it does my folks little good. So I’ll continue to help my folks expose themselves to what I believe is finer art—art that has improved me and would improve them. I’m convinced that even if we all were to live 200 healthy years as members of the leisure class, we still would not have enough time to consume all the fine art that awaits us, and to be improved by it. Time is limited and precious. So, if we’d want to be improved by art as much as our time here would allow, we’d need to cultivate our tastes and prioritize our consumption of the available art, using some guidelines. I hope many of my friends and family will all soon make the transition that I have made—from one who once thought there was enough time for Tyler Perry’s art to one who doubts that there is enough time to squeeze much of his stuff in to a life that might last only a few decades.

I never argued that there is no place for Tyler Perry’s art. I wrote his characters are unidimensional. What theater-goer would argue against me on this? I wrote his play is corny. I don’t think ‘corny’ is derogatory; I think it is simply descriptive. The word is synonymous with trite or banal. Some might argue that Tyler Perry’s plays aren’t corny. These people might find his plays unpredictable and novel. They might even be improved by Tyler Perry’s art. I just don’t know any people like this. Even my friends and family would admit that Perry’s art is corny and does not improve them. They watch his stuff because Madea is absurdly funny, most of the actors are very sexy, and the singers normally flaunt amazing vocal skills. But none of this stuff is genius; it is all mere talent. It is art, but it is not fine art. His art is not even the best available source for uncomplicated gut-busting comedy.

It is my opinion that Perry’s art is so inferior to the art that we have available to us, within or without the genres he uses, that I suspect as my friends and family are exposed to more of the finer art available to them, they will set aside fewer and fewer of their leisure hours for Perry’s art. At this time, most of them have not yet spent enough time cultivating their artistic tastes in order to evaluate Perry’s art relative to other finer artworks. Nor do most of them have an adequate level of cultural literacy to help them evaluate Perry’s art with respect to its intellectual potency. I’ll help them cultivate their tastes and become culturally literate to the extent that I can; I owe that to them.

I’m not trying to be come across as elitist. I’m not trying to denigrate, disparage, or discard. I believe I know the difference between Perry’s art and fine art. And, I believe even Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus would improve my folks more than all of Tyler Perry’s joints combined. I’m trying to look out for my folks, and to be honest about my opinions of the quality of Perry’s art. It’s popular, but it’s hardly fine.

Another sticking point for me is that you omitted the fact that even great writers produced forgettable works that were wildly popular with their contemorary audiences, for example Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus.

My basic point is that the boundaries of human experience are ever expanding and to think that an elite group of thinkers, historians, critics or whatever could gather up all that’s worth reading, listening or watching and put it in a collection is wrong. For example, I think that the character of Omar in HBO’s The Wire is as compelling and complex as any of Shakespeare’s creations. Many works that we consider great were initially overlooked by the critics and public and other works that were much celebrated in their time faded into obscurity. Artists must be free to create and the public must be free to consume. Sometimes great artistic acheivements are appreciated at the moment of creation and sometimes they’re beyond our early reckoning. Even recent history gives us many examples of jazz and blues musicians like Miles Davis and visual artists like Norman Rockwell whose greatness as classic icons derived from popular appeal to broad audiences. Some forms of high brow art, with similar counterparts in haute couture and grand cuisine, initially had vulgar appeal to the masses and eventually worked their way into acceptance by the ruling classes. Other forms of artistic expression, such as body art or tattooing in Europe, first became fashionable among aristocrats and then were filtered into the province of the lower classes. There are many examples of such artistic cross-pollination. Therefore, don’t be too ready to discard a Tyler Perry or Omar Tyree. Although they may not appeal to or inspire you there are many educated folks with good taste that enjoy them (but I have to confess that I can’t mount up the urge to read Zane or Tyree:).

I’m not fond of titles or boxes. Besides, culture warrior hardly suits me. I am also a structural warrior; so, if I must be labeled, I’d prefer a hybrid title. Structural-Cultural Warrior might work. Well, actually that title is also bad. It too would put me in a box.

And I certainly did not mean to denigrate or disparage, only to describe. I do wonder which part of my quoted passage you think is an incorrect description? Perhaps we would disagree over the proper definition of cultural literacy? Perhaps of fine art? Aesthetics? Perhaps we have different opinions concerning the artistic merits of television shows or popular music?

Maybe there is something special about Tyler Perry’s work that I am missing? Maybe it does improve or inspire those who consume it? Maybe Perry’s art is better than the art of some of the playwrights I mentioned?

Please do not fight your urge to correct my thinking. You took the time to quote me and to write something. Why not share more? “Opposition is true friendship,” according to the poet William Blake. If you, or any one else, believes I am on the wrong side of something, then I would appreciate any wisdom you might offer.

I do not know exactly what your problem with my comment is based on your comment. So, if you or tootsie have enough time to school me, you will find in me an attentive and read-up student, one who will assent to persuasive arguments, and one who is ready to learn from those who are ready to teach.