High Art vs. Low Art

[SwordoftheVistula]

These things made general information and, ergo, thought provocation more wide-spread. However, how the general information was utilised and what thoughts were provoked by the increase of available intellectual datum ought not be eliminated from the assay. The question being, "did art, and aesthetics more generally, experience an ascension or declination with the advance of technology?" I think the answer is clear; indeed, it follows necessarily: the degradation of aesthetic Aristos runs in perfect chronological concomitance with the march of increased information availability. So, I agree in the sense that these (photography, the phonograph, motion picture, radio, and television) all were vehicles for increased availability of thought provocation as a result of novel informational stimuli.

It certainly changed. Declination/ascension and degradation/progress would depend on point of view. The modern 'aristocratic' types view society as having 'progressed' since the middle ages, or even the 19th century, and view what was considered as 'aristocratic' in past times as 'primitive' and produced only because those time periods lacked the insights available to modern thinkers.

[regarding the development of abstract art]...which is, with respect, historically and etiologically inaccurate.

On what do you base this? Do you think it is coincidence that realism ceased to be valued in art at the same time that photographic reproduction and mass production became available?

A poster of a Rodin has the aesthetic qualities of an actual (right before your eyes, within touching distance) Rodin...?

Full & complete statues, right before your eyes, not only within touching distance but within your own home, mass produced in China and on sale now in Home Depot.

Have you been to the Lovre, might I ask? Or the Museum of art in New York or Chicago?

To the museum of art in New York city as part of a tour organized by the StormFront forum. Also to many museums in Europe on my own, particuarly those in Vienna, Florence, Rome, Krakow, Danzig, and Budapest. I'm not overly impressed by paintings of bowls of fruit or portraits of some dude. The blurry paintings of a ship at sea are pretty lame too.

The Memling painting I posted above, or any others from the same time period and dealing with the same subject matter, if you placed it on the cover of a metal CD or a Dungeons & Dragons book, it would be labeled as 'degenerate', 'garbage', 'satanic', 'worthless', 'keep it away from our children'.

[SuuT]

It certainly changed. Declination/ascension and degradation/progress would depend on point of view.

Therein we have our distinction, methinks: the point of view of the masses; and the point of view of the aesthete. In other words: the mob, and the Aristocracy.

The modern 'aristocratic' types view society as having 'progressed' since the middle ages, or even the 19th century, and view what was considered as 'aristocratic' in past times as 'primitive' and produced only because those time periods lacked the insights available to modern thinkers.

I think if you replace "academic" with your use of the word "aristocratic" your point gains profundity.

On what do you base this? Do you think it is coincidence that realism ceased to be valued in art at the same time that photographic reproduction and mass production became available?

I base it on many things, not the least of which is Art History. Bear in mind that "innacurate" does not mean "false": the things you mentioned were tertiary to the culmination, which is my concern, of the degeneration of High Art/Aesthetics. I.e. Contributory factors, but not the tipping-point.

Full & complete statues, right before your eyes, not only within touching distance but within your own home, mass produced in China and on sale now in Home Depot.

( I hate Home Depot...) And these mass produced replicas possess the same Aesthetic, conjure the identical apprehension, duplicate an exacting aesthetic agency as the original? If your answer is yes (I hope it isn't), then has the art, itself (the original, High art), been degraded; or, has its availability to the masses impressed a degradation upon it?

To the museum of art in New York city as part of a tour organized by the StormFront forum. Also to many museums in Europe on my own, particuarly those in Vienna, Florence, Rome, Krakow, Danzig, and Budapest.

Superb.

I'm not overly impressed by paintings of bowls of fruit or portraits of some dude. The blurry paintings of a ship at sea are pretty lame too.

And that is fine. But the issue is not whether you, SwordoftheVistula, have been immpressed; but, and rather, whether or not you recognise the distinction between a monet and a mickey mouse.

[Psychonaut]

There is still a distinction, wealthy/educated people are really the only ones who go to broadway plays and art galleries and listen to jazz music for example, whereas the lower classes tend toward such things as metal music, comic books, and star wars movies.

However, the distinction is not great enough that there is art being produced that specifically caters to an upper class. Jazz was created by poor people for the benefit of other poor people. Broadway is just as populist of an art style as is film. Wealthy people are probably somewhat more inclined to be fans of classical music and such, but not enough to act as patrons.

I think if you replace "academic" with your use of the word "aristocratic" your point gains profundity.

I would definitely say that academia is among the last bastions where those capable of appreciating High Art. However, since there's a dearth of it now, much of these people tend to be very backwards looking, like myself.

[SwordoftheVistula]

If your answer is yes (I hope it isn't), then has the art, itself (the original, High art), been degraded; or, has its availability to the masses impressed a degradation upon it?

The art itself is largely unchanged-although mass production has in some cases put in place what would generally be regarded as a "degradation" in order to make the piece more easily mass produced.

whether or not you recognise the distinction between a monet and a mickey mouse.

A difference-but what difference? Monet was perhaps one of the early trendsetters in abstract art ('impressionism'). Were he alive today, he might be full out abstract, or maybe he'd be a graphic designer somewhere. Had Disney lived a couple hundred years in the past, he probably would be a 'renowned playwright'.

[Revenant]

a) Yes but not as it's been defined.
b) Yes.

I think this has been touched on a bit here already and is probably stating the obvious but since the advent of modern electronic entertainment devices Art, of all kinds has been transformed.

Comparing pre TV and radio era art with the post stuff is going off the beaten track a bit (considering back then, everyone, class and social status aside, used art as much for entertainment as we use our TV for example). Taking into account the new mediums, I think traditional styles of art are going along exceptionally well.

I'll also add that I spend some time in the gallery on my lunch break, the best people to talk too about Art are the owners, a close second would be intellectually disabled people, my local University Arts lecturer would be without a doubt somewhere around the worst. One trap that many people fall into is over intellectualizing Art, nothing is a surer spoiler.

[arted1]

I am very much interested in joining this group as I have and am excited to have a place to express my opinions.

Bev

[Arrow Cross]

Went with the third, but I do agree it's on a sad decline... dark ages tend to produce less pieces of splendid art.

[arted1]

I have returned to school to gain the credentials to push for the arts back in our schools. I disagree that the lack of a segregated elitist group within our society is going to be the death of High Art. With a strong aesthetic training within our schools we would develop a society that was able to discern High Art from Low Art and they would have the freedom to watch, create, or participate as they or their circumstances chose. In some cities (St. Louis is one I am familiar with) we have art museums, outdoor plays etc. that are free. In many large towns in this country you can go to the ballet, opera, art museum, classical outdoor concert, or jazz concert for free.
So the question is open--if there still exists a distinction between High Art and Low Art where do we draw the line today.

[arted1]

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/high+art

Regarded as raised up or elevated; distinguished;
remarkable; conspicuous; superior;

Assuming that one would consider aesthetically strong work of art as High Art then we could define low art as lacking asethtic merit. An educated populace could determine what was aesthetically strong within their societies as well as others.

[SwordoftheVistula]

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/high+art

Regarded as raised up or elevated; distinguished;
remarkable; conspicuous; superior;

Assuming that one would consider aesthetically strong work of art as High Art then we could define low art as lacking asethtic merit. An educated populace could determine what was aesthetically strong within their societies as well as others.

Wouldn't it still depend on who is doing the 'educating', 'raising up', and 'determining'?

I have returned to school to gain the credentials to push for the arts back in our schools. I disagree that the lack of a segregated elitist group within our society is going to be the death of High Art. With a strong aesthetic training within our schools we would develop a society that was able to discern High Art from Low Art and they would have the freedom to watch, create, or participate as they or their circumstances chose. In some cities (St. Louis is one I am familiar with) we have art museums, outdoor plays etc. that are free. In many large towns in this country you can go to the ballet, opera, art museum, classical outdoor concert, or jazz concert for free.
So the question is open--if there still exists a distinction between High Art and Low Art where do we draw the line today.

Jazz is a perfect example. When it first came out, it was considered 'degenerate', especially in Europe. Now, many people claim it to be 'high art'.