Strictlywatch 2008: The Guardianista View

From the letters page of today's Guardian:

The Strictly Come Dancing affair (Quick, quick, slow - and stop, as Sergeant quits Strictly, November 20) throws up some interesting issues with regard to the evaluation of culture - should its public value be assessed by a group of experts or more democratically? Experts often find accommodation of Joe (or Jo) Public and the democratisation of decision-making processes problematic as they reckon that there are important educational and aesthetic meanings underpinning worthwhile art which can be learned, a legitimate culture that they represent which reflects their expertise and understanding, hence they literally know best.

Firstly, this fails to accommodate how culture changes and how meaning cannot be controlled by experts. Secondly, although traditionally art has been seen as in opposition to entertainment, it has always appropriated aspects (from Niccolò Paganini's virtuoso displays on the violin in the early 19th century to Carsten Höller's slide installation in the Tate Modern in 2006) muddying differentiation and clarity. Thirdly, to assume that entertainment is not serious art and therefore of lesser importance fails to appreciate its subversive and humbling qualities, which can be likened to carnivalesque parody, which in this particular instance may be Jo Public's understanding of its role. And who is to say that this is not legitimate use of public money?

Dr Paul Clements

London

So we're all clear now? Excellent. Let that be the final word on the subject.