Chris Blattman

Search
Close this search box.

We have so much cultural capital there are geniuses on the street

A man of his talents in 1700 would have been celebrated as the prodigy of his province or nation. In 2013 he is scraping by streetside.

Even though globalization has brought more wealth and the ability to sell and consume more culture, people like him now compete with the very best of every society. Is he a net loser, enjoying less status and acclaim? I often think the same thing of academia.

Then, of course, I remember our actual counterfactual is feudal serfdom rather than minstrel-hood, and I feel slightly better.

8 Responses

  1. I’m with Jonathan –
    Bach could improvise a 4 voice fugue with counterpoint on a theme given to him on the spot. There is almost certainly no living musician today able to do that.
    We know of Mozart because he was that brilliant and that successful (his poverty is wildly exaggerated by popular accounts – he was just bad with money), but he was part of a whole circuit of child prodigies in his age, many of them less successful.
    And talking about Mozart: The glass harp and its sister, the glass harmonica, were actually popular instruments in the 18th and early 19th century. Mozart composed several works for them (including a quintett with flute, oboe, viola, and cello) and it’s featured in Donizetti’s Lucia di Lammermoor – so presumably there were a fair amount of players back then.

  2. Not really sure if that’s true. Throughout most of history musicians and artists, with a few exceptions, have been regarded merely as tradesmen.

Why We Fight - Book Cover
Subscribe to Blog