Did Ms Harris forget about Elton John when she wrote this about Lady Gaga? " ...black and brown queer communities in the ’80s and ’90s laid for everything from Madonna’s “Vogue” to Lady Gaga’s entire career." I dare say she overshot on describing what influenced Lady Gaga.

I'm white. I saw Daughters of the Dust when it first came out and thought it was surpassingly beautiful. Period. I don't care if the filmmaker is black, or about Beyonce or "the canon". It's a gorgeous and moving film. I also adore Bach. It's beautiful and moving composition. I don't care about his maleness or "the canon". Good art is good art.

OK, Ms. Harris you make some good points. But I find your "racializing" of absolutely everything to be tedious. It can't *all* be about race. Sometimes music is just... good. And sometimes films are... just films. Not all statements are about about race. There are other kinds of statements, wonderful and abhorrent, that also make contributions to our cultural cannon.

There is no cultural cannon. But to the extent that there exists a collection of beloved pop artists, women and POC have always been a part of it. Are we saying Beyonce is the first black female to become part of American music history? Please. With regards to the literary cannon (which is, actually, unrelated): Nothing has changed. Despite the conviction that white men choose what we read, it's actually readers and tradition that decide. Plus, any talk about a canon is invariably a discussion about the future. We can't decide what people 200 years from now will read. Whatever they keep around from 2005 will be part of the canon whether you like it or not. I hope that anti-Semite A. Walker won't be in that canon. Not just bc she's an open admirer of anti-Semite David Icke, but bc she's a writer of 2nd-rate prose. The Color Purple was a fine film—but bad books often make great movies. I have a solution for those upset about the, admittedly, largely white/male canon. Go get a PhD and do literary research. Build up the canon from the backend. Don’t tell us to stop reading Keats and Melville only to hand us junk from the bestseller list. I’m thrilled that Equiano is part of the canon now. His story as an ex-slave is essential and poignant. If you want more works like that, you have to go do the work to uncover them. It’s not going to be as easy as you pointing to Beyonce and declaring the canon woke. No, no. If it matters to you, get off your behind and do the work.

Here's an idea, why not allow works of art to be evaluated on their own merit without deep dives into the ethnic, racial, sexual, ideological, chronological or even criminal aspects of the creator of the work? Among the many examples for this theses, just consider Caravaggio. He was a braggart, he beat people up, and people beat him up. He lacked any sense of nobility, he welshed on everybody, and was reputed to be a murderer. But he was also a genius, a painter with few equals. Just look at his 1601 work. The Taking of Christ, it's breathtaking as are many of his works. To think, that a man of so few if any redeeming values could produce work like this. Four hundred years later we are still taken by his genius, with few knowing or caring about his serious failings. Measured against this criteria how many of the contemporary works mentioned here will be appreciated or known in 400 years, not to mention 40?

Thinking about quality dilution can feel depressing, but the right lens can reverse that feeling into joy, appreciation and optimism. Whatever your perspective, "Lemonade" is a poor alternative to "Hamlet", just as Kehinde Wiley is greatly inferior to Rembrandt. To say otherwise is to let your agenda blind you. No backstory, no context can promote a narrow focus to a universal truth. No matter. The canon took a millennium (or more) to create, and the artists memorialized in that canon were selected from the best over that millennium(s). That they were overwhelmingly white, European and male is unremarkable - they had to come from somewhere, and that, by random chance, is where. There is no reason to expect that homogeneity to continue; indeed, quite the reverse. We do not complain about East African "hegemony" over human evolution, nor should we about European cultural and technological development. In each case, we should be grateful it happened (modern medicine, for example, helps us all), and not cavil over location. For Black artists to ascend to the canon, they must first start and be appreciated in a context they know well, can master and to which they can contribute uniquely. That is happening, even accelerating and we can all cheer and take cheer for and from it. God bless and god speed!

Likely as not no one, a decade or two from now, will be playing or listening to today's pop music, Beyonce, et al. Predictably, cutting edge folks who see artistic merit in pop art forms step forward, as the author has done, to blather "this time it's different, namely we are on the cusp of "democratizing " the canon. What that really means is that its gonna be dumbed down so that ephemeral artistes can be discussed with the same seriousness as the olde dead white dudes, who have, together, produced a literate (for how long?) culture. We've heard this song before, the singer will vanish along with the peeps she/he happens to be touting.

Harris is making several important points. Her primary point may have been proven by the publication of Harold Bloom's posthumous "The American Cannon," which examines and includes several female authors, including Toni Morrison. Emily Dickinson isn't the only woman Bloom recognized as making an extraordinary artistic contribution to American Literature.

I remember "Daughters of the Dust" in a film class, a long time before it was 'rediscovered'. I think that identification from the top (academics, insiders, critics - the 'canon') will be less important going forward thanks to greater democratized distribution channels for movies and music, as mentioned here (the "gatekeepers"), but I'm not sure it will change too much in the long-run, but just an opinion. I didn't like the association implied by "suddenly took on a sinister light in the face of renewed allegations". It is true that some of Woody Allen's life choices are arguably detestable, but at the time of this writing, he is innocent of any criminal conduct, despite significant scrutiny, including many investigative articles and prosecutorial investigation(s). He has not been charged with a crime as of this writing. It may change, or may not, but that is the current status. I am hoping that artists who face accusations, whoever they may be, are given fair treatment in the future, since media is arguably now faster and harsher. For example, this article could have also stated that Allen, presently, was never formally charged with any wrongdoing despite investigations and scrutiny. Critics and others would be aided by a sense of impartiality and balance that would also improve the strength of their essays.

I'm 40, grew up in the Bronx, loved (and love) Wu-Tang, Tribe, etc. To think that Biggie's "Kick in the Door" is music the same way Chopin's Preludes are music is just not defensible. There's only one perspective on that.

Maybe the Canon should include Dolemite. The Murphy movie presented a positive (if wacky) view of a coherent black culture of the late 60s, based in LA. It was eye-opening for me. I especially liked the scene where Dolemite wants to go see a movie, and he and his posse go to see a ‘white movie’ with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. They are completely befuddled when they come out - experiencing culture shock.

What on earth?! The "canon" debate was a cultural clash of the late 70's and early 80's over whether supposedly timeless works of Western literature -- from Homer and the Bible to Proust and Kafka --still comprised an essential foundation for what every serious reader and educated person should know. That clash ended on university campuses more than a generation ago, and the outcome was a resounding no. No more canon. No more required readings. English lit departments must surrender to cultural studies programs. Old white males, symbols of privilege and oppression, are to be shamed and displaced. Goodbye Chaucer, Milton, Swift, and Melville. Make way for Alice Walker. The canon as a measure and repository of lasting literary value is kaput. Perhaps it is just as well. But to argue, as the author does, that we now have a new and better “canon” consisting of masterworks by Beyonce, Jay-Z, and the latest Emmy, Grammy, and Golden Globe winners is both laughable hyperbole and wishful thinking.

Most of the criticisms in these comments are incoherent. Harris is neither arguing against aesthetic value nor for cultural relativism. She IS arguing that the canon has been weighted toward white male achievement, and that this weight has been shortsighted--even oppressive. That is not to say that Shakespeare or Eliot is culturally oppressive, but the way in which they have been presented is. That's a major concern for the whole of a culture. It should be added that most of the great literary achievements in the western canon have come about because of cultural cross-pollination, not despite it. Embracing cultural diversity is only going to make our literary/cinematic/musical/artistic achievements greater. Moreover, Since romanticism, all of the works in the white western canon are explicitly critical of the west. Even before romanticism, most of them are. I do not believe, btw, that Beyoncé is a great artist. I think that she and Jay-Z are ultimately quite conservative and both contribute to the hegemony of American capitalism. But whatever you think about Beyoncé, it's no reason to reject the thrust of Harris' argument, which is ultimately not contingent on the example of Beyoncé. I'm a white male and I love a lot of the white western canon, but I teach literature to students who are mostly not white. Those classes become much more rewarding and meaningful to my students when I lay off the white canon and embrace some of the experiences that my students can relate to.

I beg to differ with Ms. Harris’ perspective that “the cultivating and maintenance of artistic canons — in literature, fine arts, even pop music — has been the province almost exclusively of white men.” This idea just seems too cliched of a statement. I do think it true that western cultural systems have perpetuated outcomes that privilege an elitist aesthetic. Further, this aesthetic has been a white and muscular one. But the answer to this concern is not to dismiss the idea of cultural value when it comes to literature, fine arts, and pop music. Some system WILL keep the gate. For literature, never underestimate the impact of the “academy” (English departments at colleges) for cultivating taste in literature and cultural value. But, it is not just college professors who perpetuate the canon. High school English departments! And let’s not forget libraries and librarians. There is a problem with the dismissive attitude toward gatekeepers: “No longer do we have to take the word of the gatekeepers as a given.” Outsourcing this awesome (in the truest since of that word) responsibility to “social media and digital publications” can be seen as a dereliction of cultural duty. I vehemently agree that more different types of voices should have been and should be a part of our cultural canon. Dash, Morrison, and Beyonce's cultural output has been monumental because through innovation they disrupted cultural narratives. So did and does Shakespeare.

Combine minority, LGBTQ and gender grievances with sincerely held philistine preferences -- for Beyonce, Alice Walker, et al. -- and you might as well reduce the arts to identity politics. It's this crude practice which puts Woody Allen ludicrously on the side of Shakespeare, and "Hamilton" preposterously on the side "Daughters of the Dust". Must absolutely everything conform to the administrative mind?

"No longer do we have to take the word of the gatekeepers as a given." As someone who studied film and worked in the Los Angeles documentary business for several years, getting something unique or with an appeal to "a limited audience" was very difficult. It is not just about getting on Netflix or HBO. It is about getting your voice out there. In 2004 I learned to whitewater kayak with the Sierra Club. It became an obsession, and I fantasized about creating a film about my passion. Fast forward 10 years: I have a $2000 computer that is exponentially more powerful than the $100,000 system my company had in 2004. I was able to crowdfund on Indiegogo, promote on social media and put it up on Youtube and Vimeo. Is it perfect? No. Will it every be a hit? No. But I was able to do it because there were no roadblocks. And there are numerous others who have created Youtube series on language (Nativlang is a favorite of mine), history, culture, music theory (Rick Beato) etc. Not to mention instructional videos for just about everything. For those who cannot afford high-end computers, a growing number of libraries offer recording and editing facilities. In addition, many creative applications, like the high-end digital animation program Blender, are free. Because creation has become less expensive and because there are platforms to get your work out there, the gates have been pushed open. It is a wonderful change.

Culture and the preservation of it are what manipulators talk about. Cultures are simple and often benign cults, but not always. I prefer to be without a culture. That way I can think for myself. I wouldn't spend any effort to maintain a culture.

Harris has a comprehensive mind to pull all the cultural icons together for us to appreciate. Nicely done. She has enlightened me at least for the current times. But Shakespeare remains number one on my list of writers, and Mozart remains number one on my list of composers, and Michelangelo and Picasso on my list of artists. However, my list is very long with hundreds filling the list with writers, composers, and artists of every race, gender, religion, language group, and culture. It's impossible to know them all and appreciate them all.

I suspect the artists so vital and influential to Ms. Harris are only of a passing interest to many of us. And I'm sure if I ranted about the eclectic group of writers, musicians and filmmakers who shake me to my core, the most typical response would be a sustained yawn. That's fine, I don't need people to like what I like or think how I think. In this age of almost infinite art and culture, I'm not sure the notion of a canon really exists outside of academia. Most of us just watch, listen and appreciate what we like and ignore the rest.

I'm listening to Bach right now on WKCR's wonderful annual box festival, and I'm sorry, but Beyonce does not hold a candle to Bach. Only Beethoven does, with Mozart and Brahms on his heels. And yes, they're white European males -- German and Austrian European males, to boot. Opportunities for others were, sadly, limited. None of this is to belittle or deprecate the works of contemporary artists, whether of color or not. Their works deserve to be read, and 100 years from now -- not now -- some of them will undoubtedly be deemed canonical. But equating Beyonce to Bach or Alice Walker to Shakespeare is just silly, and I suspect that both artists would be embarrassed to be so. If we're still reading a work 100 years from now, when the merely excellent has been forgotten, then we can say that they belong in the canon -- not now.

When "the people" choose and institutions follow: A lesson. The CSI TV crime shows became enormously popular. What happened? Thousands and thousands of young, impressionable children went off to college to study crime scene investigation. Universities coddled them and changed their curriculum to tailor to their TV-inspired whims. No adults ever told them these jobs didn't exist in the real world. Universities made bank, students went into debt to "follow their dreams" and then crashed into reality. Shakespeare's plays still teach universal truths to people across the world. That's why they have sustained. Go ahead. Emote. Wail. React. Twit. Insta on your moment. You have defined the Artist As Childish Outburst. Grab a baseball bat. Leave it to the adults to build the world while you throw fits.

Lemonade was a cynical, but successful, attempt by both Beyoncé and Jay-Z to milk their marriage for cash. While it attempted to say something beyond their marital difficulties, ultimately it was just a middling album with a lot of pretty videos. Lemonade is not going to be something people are talking about ten years from now.

These changes are not, at bottom, changes in a continuous “canon,” but changes in authority: changes in who or what gets to define & determine what is important. Instead of scholars or critics, with all their advantages & limitations, we now have markets & money, which are the sole sources of authority whether in the arts, politics, morality or truth. We may argue that they have made the wrong choices (could anything be more patently ridiculous than comparing Beyoncé to Shakespeare?), but only arguments that accept their authority, such as this essay, are relevant.