Home

 

An insight into the High Art and Popular Culture Debate

By Michael Moor MA

 

Popular or rather Mass culture is identified and concerned with Entertainment and Commercialisation, rather than intrinsic worth. Popular culture tends to exploit or 'market' the arts. For example the performing art of 'Acting' is commercially exploited by the Film Industry (Hollywood is a good example).

 

Hollywood tends to make films in response to mass tastes in order to make a commercial return.  Hence, particularly in recent years we have had 'sequels' to any number of popular films, Lethal Weapon 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on.  These sequels were made not on 'artistic' merit but because of their popularity with the public. It makes good financial sense to 'sell' a popular product.

 

 Popular culture is clearly linked with mass industry and mechanical reproduction.  Performing Arts such as acting become part of the Entertainment Industry.  Music becomes a part of the mechanical reproduction industry selling records, tapes, CD's etc.  Art, graphics and photography become an extension of the printing press and an 'arm' of the Advertising Industry.

 

The Affluent Society

The Popular Culture and High Art debate/ discussion only becomes relevant in the context of  'the affluent society'. (A term made famous by J.K Galbraith in his 1958 book of the same name.) That is a society where (a) the 'conventional notions' of poverty have been irradiated: and (b) in a capitalist democracy.

The 'affluent society' within a 'democratic, free enterprise' system is central to understanding the concerns of 'High Art'.  That is Art, which is seen as having intrinsic worth. (Art that is for example, concerned with ideas and communication.  A good example may be Michael Angelo's paintings for the ceilings of the Cestine Chapel.  These works were not painted to cater to 'public taste'.   Michael Angelo was not concerned 'entertaining' the congregation of the Chapel.  He was concerned with  form, content and the communication of ideas, in this case Christian ideas, we can see the purpose of this work as educative and indeed the result of viewing it as educative.

 

High Art differs from popular culture in that it is often sponsored by a patron or produced on 'spec' by the 'artist' and is not concerned with mass production (generally speaking)

 

High Art can be seen as positioning itself on the 'outside' of society and as such reflects the 'avante garde' and other 'elitist' positions rather well. High Art, many would argue leads while popular culture is more likely to follow trends.

 

However in practice both popular culture and High Art are interdependent and at present it seems that they are becoming almost indistinguishable at times.

 

I would suggest however that a philosophical difference remains   Despite the shifting debate about what is or is not High Art or Popular Culture the concerns of the two remain very different.

 

High Art is concerned that the involvement of commerce in the production of Art is not for the edification of the population but for the profit of commerce. Since the 1960's there has been a particular concern about the use of 'art' in the Advertising Industry, which many in the sphere of High Art would consider immoral.

 

On the other hand Popular Culture tends to criticise High Art because it is elitist and artificial and often non responsive or reflective of the popular mood. This position was strongly put forward in the 1960's by a group of critics associated with the American publication PARTISAN REVIEW (SUSAN SONTAG, Richard Poirier). This group of critics became advocates of the 'New Sensibility'. They argued at the time that the music of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones was as important as that of classical musicians such as Schonberg for its evocation of popular responses.

 

To some extent we can suggest that popular culture is in fact in support of High Art. It has been suggested by sociologists such as Edward Shils that mass production and mass exposure to 'art' has 'upgraded' public taste. Many purists would disagree ….  the debate goes on and is further complicated by the new media and digital technology.