What constitutes high art ("serious art")? Low art ("bad art")?

Consensus of the elite. ;-)

High and low art are pretty much a very good example of arbitrary categorization. But, you can generalize it by looking at what are the newer forms of media. The newer the media form, the more likely it will be relegated to “low art.”

The novel in Western culture, for instance, was considered frivolous – long fiction accounts were thought to be distractions, whereas one interested in high art writing should read philosophical treatises, etc. Film was low art before TV. TV is still considered low art – but now that the internet is around, it’s been gaining cache.

If it’s a for that is consumed, available, and producible by more of the general population, it’s going to be considered more likely as low art. The more democratic, unfortunately – the less respected.

Art is beauty, and as beauty goes, it’s in the eye of the beholder.

Price.

High art and low art are not synonymous with being “good” or “bad” art. I don’t think thateven people who use the terms would think of it that way. For example, I’m sure many people would consider classical music “high art” and The Beatles “low art” but would still admit that they’re both good music.

The standards change all the time but generally it’s some sort of high society club that decides what is High Art. For example in Rousseau’s time it was the Academie des Beaux Arts which was all about technical mastery and classical themes. Nowadays the emphasis for high art is on being “avante-garde.”

But really it doesn’t matter what is considered high art or not. Whatever has the biggest impact on the world or on subsequent artists is what ends up being remembered as “high art” later on. In my opinion the idea of “high art” is an upper class concept to keep the lower classes away from “real” art and vice-verse.

It has gotten to the point that pop culture is essentially the only culture. There is no longer a clear delineation between different levels of art. Pop art is where the money is and it attracts the best talent.

As far as I can see, it’s a largely capricious decision based on what happens to be fashionable at the time.

In broad terms, it seems to come down to accessibility. How knowledgeable does one have to be to appreciate the work? “High art” would tend to demand some work on the part of the viewer, in terms of knowledge of the context of the art (the culture from which it arises and its relation to other art) and in terms of effort (reflection and analysis). “Low art” would be that which requires little in the way of knowledge or reflection to fully appreciate. Its pleasures are right there on the surface and don’t require any digging to get at.

High and low art in our postmodern era (this is a society and time in which we can find old sneakers in MOMA on display and watch a pig wallow in the mud in the theater exhibit [again at MOMA—last year, I think in February, actually]) are actually broken down along the lines of good and bad art—at least if good art is memorable and something of substance and “bad” art is not.

High art gives something to the viewer—it’s not necessarily hard to grasp, but it’s at least a mental handful to grasp as it were. It encapsulates society as it stands; it answers some higher question of existence in some way. It gives something of merit and substance to the world in a fresh way.

Low art is like mental fast food—it may provide a cheap thrill but it’s not memorable or of lasting important you will forget it within a few days, perhaps a few hours.

In the case of my example from MOMA—the pig and the mud were beautiful and memorable, the way they were enacted in the art film / exhibit I recall. They gave me a moment of peace and oneness with nature that went beyond, say, a moment’s amusement while watching Beavis and Butthead.

Calvin’s perspective: http://i.imgur.com/PCiXk.gif

Wait. How can you equate high art with serious and low art with bad? You’re loading the question. I’d rather hear a good country singer than a bad jazz musician any day. My measure of “good” in art is sincerity. If you believe in what you’re doing, you’ll perfect your craft and express a heart-felt sentiment. But if you’re just putting together a commercial product that you’re not committed to, well that’s another story.

I don’t like to see art used for privilege. “I’m playing Beethoven on the violin, therefore what I’m doing MUST be more important than that country fiddler.” Not so. You might stink on the violin. I which case you’re wasting everybody’s time.

@jazzticity It’s the art community that assigned those definitions.

Low art isn’t necessarily bad art of its type—it can be quite thrilling. It just isn’t something that people are drawn back to more than once, typically.