intelligent life?

my current favorite lifestyle magazine is the economist intelligent life. the title of the magazine is slightly pompous, but nonetheless pretty much at even with my previous choice, the monocle. the follower of wallpaper* in the promotion of brûléian world of modernist interiors, sleek exteriors, bespoke fashions and exclusive lounges with cool music, the monocle offered interesting viewpoints into countries one hardly heard nothing of, in addition to a coup or a natural disaster. unfortunately, the world of tyler was still slightly too luxurious for me to relate.

the economist to the rescue. intelligent life offers quality writing, insightful reviews and a variety of topics to fit a lifestyle magazine worthy of buying repeatedly. it's highbrow enough to be taken seriously as a magazine and, simultaneously, entertainment rather than challenging.

in every number there is something baffling, though, such as the main article, the age of mass intelligence by john parker in the latest winter 2008 issue. while reading it, i was constantly bothered by the equation of intelligence with (any kind of) consumption of high culture, i.e. the author assumes that reading plato and listening to mozart will increase the intelligence of whoever does the deed while this clearly is not the case. reading a book that one does not understand (anyone? hands up! i'm here waving admission...) does not make one any smarter. it may inspire thoughts, but the capacity and skills one has for dealing with them is another case altogether, and some of these you're born with, some you can learn and cultivate.

moreover, the distinction between high and low culture was not questioned which seems incredibly ignorant in this day and age: what a simplistic and anachronistic claim to think enjoying classical music and the canon of western novelists are "high" culture and popular culture is not and cannot be intelligent! the author used statistics which inform us that an increasing amount of people attend classical music concerts and museums than ever before as proof for mass intelligence growth.

to put it simply: if i visit the prado and walk around enjoying the art, am i smarter as a result? no. i have additional experiences. if i get a great curator telling me about the paintings of hieronymus bosch and i have more information as a result, am i smarter? no, unless we use a very limited sense of the word. does the fact that i've been trained in classical violin and can discuss bach's sonatas and partitas for solo violin at length imply that i am smart? no. i have a skill and some knowledge that may impress someone, but it does not suggest intelligence on my part. and since when was it more than a simplistic question begging assumption that being interested in dvořák was a sign of higher intelligence than being interested in, for example, krautrock? oh, please.

a few days ago i realized i was not alone with my disapproval of the thesis of the article. plenty of people had been engaging in a heated debate with some pretty intriguing ideas going as far as wanting to restrict access to high culture only to members of the intelligentsia and their heirs. the preposterous idea of limiting access to cultural events and establishments to protect the elite from the banality of lower classes feels quite out of place to someone in scandinavia. or anyone believing in equal rights to participate in culture... interestingly, somebody suggested the article was written only to provoke, which is a thought that did occur to me, too. at the same time, several commentators suggest the claim of the article does not seem as implausible to everyone.

there's more in a blog entry by emily borrow on the same site, and a continued debate on the economist site. go enjoy.