November 02, 2002
How the Muppet Show got it wrong

It was last week when I happened across a rerun of the Muppet Show on Dutch TV. It had been ages since I'd last seen an episode and I was getting tired of flipping through channels anyway, so I watched it. This was the episode where the ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev. Since a representative of High Art was going to be on the show the Muppets dressed in formal evening dress, and Sam the Eagle was especially excited to get some Real Culture on the program instead of the low-brow demotic frivolity that so he looked down upon. This of course set up a running joke throughout the program, with Sam ending up sorely disappointed as Rudolf did "Top Hat, White Tie and Tails" complete with Astairesque tapdancing routine.

Sam was the Muppets' token caricature conservative on the show. Choosing a bald eagle for their caricature was also telling. Aside from this one episode I have just seen, I haven't seen any in decades, so I don't remember what Sam really was like in the other shows and I'm not going go off on that tangent. Instead what struck me on reflection is that the light-hearted amalgamation of High and Low culture on this Muppets episode was quintessentially American. Sam's haughty attitude was more akin the European condescension towards American culture than a reflection of America. Instead of a bald eagle, a stinky weasel would have been a better character.

It's not just the Europeans of course. The lefty pomo intelligensia in the US fawns over the haughty Europeans and joins them in lusty self-flagellation. Bad TV! (Whip!) Bad Consumerism! (Whip!) Shallow cowboys! (Whip!) Uncultured brutes! (Whip!)

I guess it makes them feel better. And boy, does it ever feel good to proclaim self-righteously that you never watch TV. Every moment not watching TV brings additional karma. But the conservative right has representatives that share at least part of these sentiments. Much like the caricature Sam, they look down on popular American culture and pine for the days when everything was better. I still have such tendencies too in my weaker moments when I get nostalgic for an age I never even knew. But the imagined Golden Age is always better than the one the people at the time had to live through. I prefer to live in the present, thank you very much.

It's not that I actually like pop culture very much, but I wouldn't want to be without it. Countries that lack a strong pop or counterculture have always been terrible places to live. Sure, the Soviet Union had endless productions of Swan Lake and a Shostakovich or Tchaikovsky festival every year, but the culture was sterile. It was ritual veneration of the past without creating any new. The creative process is messy. Most of the stuff that is created will be crap. Sturgeon's Law states that 90% of anything is crap. And it's universally valid. (This blog is of course in the other 10%, that goes without saying).

Having sometimes execrably crappy pop culture, silly game shows on TV and all the rest is a good thing. It's a good thing because it's a reflection of freedom. No freedom comes without a price. The First Amendment means that people will be able to say things you find offensive, or practice a religion you find repugnant. But it means you're free to speak your mind, to assemble peaceably and seek redress of your grievances. The Second Amandment means that people will use guns to commit crime, but also means guarantees your right to defend yourself against criminals and the government, should it become too oppressive. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments mean that those guilty of crimes will walk free sometimes, but they also give you a fair shot at a trial and acquittal if you're innocent. In each of these instances, the benefit of having these freedoms far outweighs the negative corrolary effects they have. So hooray for consumerism and pop culture. I would not want to live without it.

Posted by qsi at November 02, 2002 09:17 PM | TrackBack (0)
Read More on USA
Comments

The tension between High Art and Low Art goes back a long way in America. You can see some of it in the writings of culturally conservative figures as widely varied as H. P. Lovecraft (in his non-fiction), H. L. Mencken, and Ayn Rand (in The Fountainhead). There's High Art, which can only be created by the truly gifted and appreciated by the cultured few, and Low Art, commercially produced hackwork for the masses. But that was the view in the Thirties (say). I've seen commentary since then arguing that High Art has either lost its bearings or has been corrupted by the cultural Left, so that Low Art has become the last stronghold of important elements like coherency, plot, and beauty that High Art now derides as "kitsch" but which are psychologically necessary for human enjoyment.
By the way, there was a short Disney cartoon made in the '30s that shows a war between the island of classical music and the Island of Jazz (presided over by the King of Jazz, a caricature of a then popular bandleader named Paul Whiteman, who really did bill himself "the King of Jazz"). The war ends when the two sides compromise and more or less learn to live together.
Sam the Eagle always bothered me as a Muppet character. Most of the major Muppet characters stand up on their own as personalities, but he doesn't: he's too targeted, too obviously a caricature with a satiric purpose that goes beyond the usual lunacy of the Muppet theater. Otherwise, the show holds up very well a quarter-century after the episodes were made.

Posted by: Dwight Decker on November 3, 2002 02:29 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?