Talk:Highbrow/Archives/2013

Incorrect reference??

I think the ref. to "middlebrow" may be incorrect; Virginia Woolf used the term extensively in an essay written in the 1930's...the answer may (or may not, I haven't checked) be in "The Making of Middlebrow Culture." by Joan Shelley Rubin. ...

VfD

On April 12, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Highbrow for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Picture

What is the relevance of the picture of Melanchthon? His name does not occur in the text, neither does Durer's. JackofOz 06:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What a classic image of the idea of a highbrow Dürer's portrait of Melancthon is, both in its literal sense and its figurative use. To analyze it in words would be superfluous, and would quite likely be criticized as "Original Research" by some dullard. Would you prefer a photo of a phrenologist's model? Why not think of it as just decorative? --Wetman 18:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My only concern was that, people being primarily visual in their way of perceiving the world, they will immediately notice his high forehead. This suggests the word "highbrow" applies to people with such a physical feature. It might do in certain cases, but in general it relates to what's going in inside a person's skull rather than what their skull looks like from the outside. I'm not asking for it to be removed, just wanting clarity about what message the image is intended to convey. JackofOz 22:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's some anonymously contributed text that doesn't seem to add clarity to the generally-understood significance of "highbrow": "Contemporary uses of the word have changed the meaning somewhat, referring less to the interests of a social elite and more commonly referring to pursuits of a (usually art) form which involve focused intellectual study and a large body of knowledge of that subject." --Wetman 23:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"JackofOz" has provided legitimate concerns and you have ignored them. But, to answer your concern, a quick google search to a subject with "highbrow" before it, i.e. "highbrow humor" will see the usage differ grealy from the classical. As an individual you can make no valid claims that a term like "highbrow" is "generally-understood". Outright it is a condescending comment because it implies that the way you define it is universal; a lack of results that conform to what you believe the correct way to perceive "highbrow" will only reinforce that statement, as the results you find that do not conform, being located on the internet, would be contemporary. This attitude is also evident in your previous comments; saying it would be "superfluous" is debatable because the information about the drawing is also noted once one clicks on the thumbnail, effectively listing the same information twice. Analyzing it in words would benefit this article, which does not provide very much information compared to most articles pertaining to sociology. Your following assertion about how this would be categorized is vile because it has no basis nor provides one. (Anonymous User:68.92.156.5).

(Not to respond directly to an anonymous comment, Jack of Oz simply asked "What is the relevance of the picture of Melanchthon? His name does not occur in the text, neither does Durer's." He was given a fully circumstantial response. The "generally understood" usage is not universally understood, needless to say... "Vile" is inappropriate.) --Wetman 05:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--Wetman 05:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Not to respond directly to an anonymous comment". How arrogant and rude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.198.137 (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you have ignored other points such as current usages of the term. Masking a rebuttal in (what seems to be) condescension by refusing to "respond directly" is not only inappropriate but counterproductive, as it could start a seperate debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of anonymity and privacy. I don't know if this was intentional, however, so my apologies if it wasn't. As for your usage of the term, "generally" still implies "majorily" or "more frequently" (source: dictionary.com, "widely", "usually"), and it is much easier to prove the case of "contemporary usages" (direct, available google results) than to prove yours, which seems to support the classical usage, evident by how most writings that contain it have aged significantly, thus, obviously not being contemporary.

I have read all of this section and I still have no idea what relevance the image has to the article. Am I missing something? Remy B (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Philipp Melanchthon was, by the synonym "intellectual," definitely a highbrow. He also has a high forehead; however, that particular painting makes him look like a worker-class man to me. Perhaps this is what was meant by the Latin caption, translated on the image's page as "Dürer was able to draw Philipp (Melanchthon)’s face, but the learned hand could not paint his spirit." PhilippMelanchthon.jpg may be a more accurate likeness. --Jesdisciple (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous dubious quote

"it consists of people who are hoping that some day they will get used to the stuff..." The barely literate phrase "it consists of people" and the revealing post-modern usage of "stuff" seem to betray an American public education rather than Punch in 1925 being quoted in OED. My OED is the Shorter, however: can someone verify the authenticity of this "quote"?--Wetman 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The OED (online; "DRAFT REVISION Mar. 2002") says:

<quote>

middlebrow, n. and a.

[...]

A. n. A person who is only moderately intellectual or who has average or limited cultural interests (sometimes with the implication of pretensions to more than this); a thing regarded as intellectually unchallenging or of limited intellectual or cultural value.

1925 Punch 23 Dec. 673/3 The B.B.C. claim to have discovered a new type, the ‘middlebrow’. It consists of people who are hoping that some day they will get used to the stuff they ought to like.

</quote>

Archelon 10:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

Finding this sentence incomprehensible (and thus unverifiable), Archelon has moved it here:

Recent work by Lawrence Napper has established a distinct middlebrow culture and aesthetic prevalent in Pre and interwar British film.

Archelon 12:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad reference?

According to the message board post linked by one of the two items in the References section, the book referred to in the other one makes an assertion about the origin of the word 'middlebrow' which is entirely incorrect (to wit, that it was coined by Life magazine in the 1940s). The reliability of this book may not be sufficient. Archelon 17:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

To "Highbrow, Middlebrow, and Lowbrow", perhaps? Archelon 11:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Archelon. Text at Middlebrow and Lowbrow needs to be drawn together with this: the ones defines the others, and encyclopedic treatment needs to see the complete picture.--Wetman 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur; why has this not been done? However, that's a pretty long title (any suggestions for abbreviation?), and only the first word should be capitalized. --Jesdisciple (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The OED's definitions of 'highbrow' (for convenient reference)

highbrow, high-brow, n. and a.

[Back-formation from HIGH-BROWED a. 2.]

A. n. A person of superior intellectual attainments or interests: occas. with derisive implication of conscious superiority to ordinary human standards.

B. adj. Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a highbrow; intellectually superior.

So highbrowish a., fairly, or extremely, highbrow; highbrowism, the condition of being highbrow, intellectual superiority.

high-browed, a.

1. Having a lofty forehead.

2. = HIGHBROW a. orig. U.S.

Archelon 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To add to the above, and at least for now correct what the main article says, the earliest use of the term, according to OED, is 1884, not 1875. I'd not cite anything earlier than 1884 unless contradiction to OED can be proven.

dlester@boisestate.edu 132.178.155.77 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary?

I don't understand why this is too broad of a topic for Wiktionary to cover. (I know I just concurred with the above three-part merger, implying that I consider this encyclopedic. However, that was for similar reasons: This article is too darn short to stay here by itself.) --Jesdisciple (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this has already been transwikied. Then I propose that all three articles be deleted unless someone shows that Wiktionary can't cover everything. --Jesdisciple (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh #2. But has any of that potential been realized in the past 3-4 years? --Jesdisciple (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A cultural category always benefits from discussion rather than definition: cf radical. When official definition substitutes for discussion we have an orthodoxy, one particular POV. These concepts have histories, during which they may become transformed: they are part of the history of ideas. Anyone who thinks this article is "too darn short" is encouraged to give it added stregnth and depth. --Wetman (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

New York Sun?

According to the wiki page--

"The term was popularized in 1902 by Will Irvin, a New York Sun reporter who adhered to the phrenological notion of more intelligent people having high foreheads.[5]"

However, the new york sun's wiki page states that the publication was started in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.147.224 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Jesdisciple (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)