Egalitarian societies lead to cultural degeneration?

Question

Do aristocratic societies produce greater art, literature, architecture and music than egalitarian ones?

My question was prompted by the realisation that the relative egalitarian balance of the society in which I live means that there really are very few even moderately impressive buildings (though everyone lives fairly comfortably).

I regret that I hadn't restricted my question to architecture, because the field otherwise becomes far too wide for easy comparasions to be made.

Answer 1

The time when the 'aristocratic' system as you put it was in force did produce great art and so on, especially in Europe. But you must rememebr a couple of things...

1 This was due to the renaissance, where a flood of intellectuals came over Europe thereby injecting the art 'scene' with 'fresh' ideas (rather a reacquaintance with old ideas so they could develop then). The systrem might have helped via patronnage (or could have hindered, how many unknown intellectuals didn't receive patronnage and are today forgotted despite ther merits?)

2 Most of the great art and so on came from non-aristocrats; aristocracy was involved via patronnage.

In today's 'egalitarian' society, the place of the nobility has been taken by 'new aristocrats'. Patronnage is still alive and well, but instead of having blue blood, the new aristocrats have green blood for the dollars flowing in their veins.

On the other hand the systems in place to promote new talent have developed so that we have professional 'talent scouts' or say gallery owners who try and find the next-hot-thing. This casts the nest wider than before.

SImilarly, developments in the media and information technology such as the internet is really levelling the playing ground in terms of access and allowing exchange of ideas and cross-pollination on levels unknown before. But this can also be said to be an 'external' event, although the spirit of the internet nowadays is egalitarian although it started in governemnt and academia.

To sum up, I'd say no, 'aristocratic' societies do not necessarily produce greater art than 'egalitarian' ones.

After all, great is what stands the test of time; how can we say that what is around us today is not great. Only our grandchildren would be able to tell us. For example look at the enduring popularity of The Beatles, of Elvis, of Queen (the revival among the young who are rediscovering Queen)..



P.S. As for great buildings, I'd say that there are great architecturalprojects being undertaken nowadays, the new louvres, the sydney opera house, the KLCC... And remember, most of us have no idea what the houses of say Bill Gates and so on look like :) The 'aristocrats' in their society relied of force and a moat to protect themsleves from the rabble; today's 'new aristocrats' surround themsleves with huge private inaccessible residences and electronic protection too.

Answer 2

Egalitarian society's build out of necessity and practicality ,Aristocratic society's built out of prejudice and a need to separate themselves from the working class , and because they were wealthy were able to indulge themselves to prove they were superior because of that a new breed appeared artisans and musicians to indulge there Passions , and fill there idle days , when you have to fill your days with hard work to survive, you have little time to sit down and play your flute or paint great works of art if nobody is there to pay for it,a painted canvas does not feed your children

Answer 3

I don't think so. Since aristocracy means a system of government "ruled by the best". Ideas from people who are not considered aristocratic (or the "best") might be judged on the social level of the artist/writer.... rather than the work itself.

Answer 4

i dont know, but someone just asked if a condom splitting can cause aids.....maybee your in the wrong neighbourhood?