This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/aug/15/are-you-a-comedy-snob-edinburgh-festival

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Are you a comedy snob? Are you a comedy snob?
(about 5 hours later)
Do the comedians you like indicate who you are? Or indeed – how good a person you are? I went to a fascinating presentation the other morning on "the rise of the comedy snob" – the subject of a book by Sam Friedman, the sociologist (and publisher of the excellent Fest magazine. Friedman offered up a short precis of his research: an absorbing – and sometimes shocking – overview of the schism between "highbrow" and "lowbrow" comedy, and the assumptions people make about what our comedy loyalties say about ourselves.Do the comedians you like indicate who you are? Or indeed – how good a person you are? I went to a fascinating presentation the other morning on "the rise of the comedy snob" – the subject of a book by Sam Friedman, the sociologist (and publisher of the excellent Fest magazine. Friedman offered up a short precis of his research: an absorbing – and sometimes shocking – overview of the schism between "highbrow" and "lowbrow" comedy, and the assumptions people make about what our comedy loyalties say about ourselves.
Friedman's research draws on the idea of cultural capital developed by the French scholar Pierre Bourdieu. The idea is that some of us – the middle classes, mainly – are brought up to engage with culture in detached, analytical, "disinterested" ways, whereas those with "low cultural capital" respond instinctively, emotionally or non-intellectually. Traditionally, those distinctions drive some of us towards "high culture" art forms and some towards "low culture", although those hierarchies are breaking down. In comedy, they drive some of us towards Stewart Lee, and some towards Michael McIntyre. But they also incline us to react to the same comedy shows in different ways – and to base our appreciation of comedy on opposing priorities.Friedman's research draws on the idea of cultural capital developed by the French scholar Pierre Bourdieu. The idea is that some of us – the middle classes, mainly – are brought up to engage with culture in detached, analytical, "disinterested" ways, whereas those with "low cultural capital" respond instinctively, emotionally or non-intellectually. Traditionally, those distinctions drive some of us towards "high culture" art forms and some towards "low culture", although those hierarchies are breaking down. In comedy, they drive some of us towards Stewart Lee, and some towards Michael McIntyre. But they also incline us to react to the same comedy shows in different ways – and to base our appreciation of comedy on opposing priorities.
Friedman conducted interviews with a wide range of comedy show audience members. He found that low cultural capital (LCC) respondents and high cultural capital (HCC) respondents both enjoyed Eddie Izzard, for example – but the former because he was "silly" and the latter because he was "surreal". (Is that a genuine difference, or a semantic one?) More profoundly, he discovered that LCC respondents liked comedy that was light-hearted, easy to understand, avoided "difficulty" and made them laugh. HCC comedy fans, by contrast, wanted to "work" at their appreciation, objected to comedy that was "just" funny, and – I was astonished by this – believed that "laughter contaminated the aesthetic experience."Friedman conducted interviews with a wide range of comedy show audience members. He found that low cultural capital (LCC) respondents and high cultural capital (HCC) respondents both enjoyed Eddie Izzard, for example – but the former because he was "silly" and the latter because he was "surreal". (Is that a genuine difference, or a semantic one?) More profoundly, he discovered that LCC respondents liked comedy that was light-hearted, easy to understand, avoided "difficulty" and made them laugh. HCC comedy fans, by contrast, wanted to "work" at their appreciation, objected to comedy that was "just" funny, and – I was astonished by this – believed that "laughter contaminated the aesthetic experience."
Comedy ruined by laughter? I probably fit the profile of a comedy snob – in that I often like artistically ambitious comedy that makes me think as well as amuse me. But I've never wanted my comedy to supercede laughter; I want it to make me laugh. I was equally surprised – appalled, in fact – by the snobbery Friedman's interviews revealed: quote after quote in which respondents used people's comedy tastes to negatively judge their character. ("Class racism," Friedman called it.) The same people use their own tastes to assert their sophistication and gain "social profit". Depressingly, Friedman's LCC interviewees often assented to this arrangement, describing highbrow comedy in vertical metaphors – "over my head"; "beyond me" – that seemed to concede its superiority.Comedy ruined by laughter? I probably fit the profile of a comedy snob – in that I often like artistically ambitious comedy that makes me think as well as amuse me. But I've never wanted my comedy to supercede laughter; I want it to make me laugh. I was equally surprised – appalled, in fact – by the snobbery Friedman's interviews revealed: quote after quote in which respondents used people's comedy tastes to negatively judge their character. ("Class racism," Friedman called it.) The same people use their own tastes to assert their sophistication and gain "social profit". Depressingly, Friedman's LCC interviewees often assented to this arrangement, describing highbrow comedy in vertical metaphors – "over my head"; "beyond me" – that seemed to concede its superiority.
You might say that this happens across art forms and cultural activity in general, which is true. But Friedman argues that comedy has a particular utility when it comes to distinguishing oneself culturally. Because what makes us laugh is more personally revealing than, say, what films we like, and because humour is integral to social bonding and relationship-building, our comedy tastes are uniquely useful in classifying ourselves. (The closest parallel, I suppose, is with music, with which we also identify profoundly and which also lends itself to cultural and character judgments.)You might say that this happens across art forms and cultural activity in general, which is true. But Friedman argues that comedy has a particular utility when it comes to distinguishing oneself culturally. Because what makes us laugh is more personally revealing than, say, what films we like, and because humour is integral to social bonding and relationship-building, our comedy tastes are uniquely useful in classifying ourselves. (The closest parallel, I suppose, is with music, with which we also identify profoundly and which also lends itself to cultural and character judgments.)
I could go on; you should read Friedman's book, and so should I. As I discussed when I wrote about Jim Davidson earlier in this festival, we critics (whom Friedman discusses in his book) need to be aware of our own prejudices and cultural conditioning, and make sure that – to as large an extent as possible – our reviews aren't written exclusively through that lens. At one point in his presentation, Friedman suggested that critics "tell audience what to laugh at," which I don't consider remotely to be in my job description. Comedy snobbery is no more appealing than any other kind of snobbery. I'm passionate about what I like in comedy, and it's my job to tell you why. But if you disagree, vive la difference. Why would you denigrate anyone for having a different sense of humour?I could go on; you should read Friedman's book, and so should I. As I discussed when I wrote about Jim Davidson earlier in this festival, we critics (whom Friedman discusses in his book) need to be aware of our own prejudices and cultural conditioning, and make sure that – to as large an extent as possible – our reviews aren't written exclusively through that lens. At one point in his presentation, Friedman suggested that critics "tell audience what to laugh at," which I don't consider remotely to be in my job description. Comedy snobbery is no more appealing than any other kind of snobbery. I'm passionate about what I like in comedy, and it's my job to tell you why. But if you disagree, vive la difference. Why would you denigrate anyone for having a different sense of humour?
More Edinburgh festival coverage
Harriet Gibsone: The sketch show isn't over, it's just waking up
Paul Fleckney: The best audience-participation comedy shows
Tim Key reads a poem about siblings at the Edinburgh festival – video
The Pin introduce their Edinburgh fringe show