"Special" culture is overrated.

"Culture is Ordinary" seemed odd to me, and I'm not sure yet what to make of it. I come from almost the opposite view as his intended audience--I've always seen culture on a lower level. He does mention that the word should have both meanings ascribed to it, so I have to learn to think of high art as culture, too, but that was tacked on to validate his message to those who need to see the lower as culture.

Putting my ambivalence aside and looking at how the text is placed together, I found the beginning mention of how he couldn't get into the library interesting. It could be meant to explain exactly why culture has to be ordinary, in that many would never have a chance to experience it if they had to seek out what's considered the great pieces of art and writings to do so. The bulk of the essay shows what should be added to the high-brow view and how it should be changed, but it spiders out from that initial idea.

The landscapes he described are ordinary, in that most people have either seen something similar personally or in photographs, but he describes them as vividly as one might describe a famous landscape in a museum. It shows his opinion, but subtlely, almost as if to prepare the audience for the fact that culture isn't just the standout, figuratively grabbing you by the collar, time-tested "entertainment", but everything, somehow.

Looking it like that makes it a lot more interesting than it was at first read. I still don't know if I like it, but at least that's something.