High Art vs. Low Art
Today I watched two. One was on IFC and it was about Chinese sweatshop workers that made Mardi Gras beads and the other [which I LOVED!] was called "My Date with Drew" and was about this guy who won $1,100 on the game show pilot for "Taboo" with the winning answer "Drew Barrymore." He had always had a crush on the star so he gave himself a 30 day deadline to meet her, taking the answer as a sign from God and the $1,100 as seed money for the documentary. I highly recommend it.
Anyway-- I digress, while I was watching it, I got really into it. Similarly to how I feel when I am watching a really good episode of "The Real World" or even "The Bachelor." I was trying to figure out why this documentary is given the pretentious, and kind of offputting title of "documentary," while the shows I like to watch are slapped with the title "reality tv" and not particularly taken seriously by anyone in the ritzy art community [TANGENT: I know this community fairly well. All through college I straddled the line as being an art kid. I never was able to turn in a pile of bent sticks smeared with guacamole and human hair and say in some way it dealt with all the injustice in the world. That is just not how I am. I get symbolism and I respect people's work, but my vision sometimes is just too mainstream. DAMN THE MEDIA!] . I started thinking about what my Survey of Popular Culture teacher Dr. Dunne taught us-- the difference between High Art and Low Art. The example I remember is the Mona Lisa is high art...while the mona lisa wearing sunglasses on a greeting card at Spencers would be low art.
I cannot be elitist. I have tried and frankly, its just not as much fun. I love sushi, but I also like sonic. I would have to say that this documentary satisfied both those cravings.
1 comment:
Forgive me for happening upon this if it bugs you when strangers leave comments. However, I’m totally not a stranger.
My two cents: the lines between high art and low are certainly being blurred in the 21st century. My recent years focusing on modern and contemporary art have driven this point home. One of the most influential things I have learned in my recent feminist art course is that the abstract postmodern concept of not being able to compartmentalize something by virtue of the fact that you cannot say what it IS, but CAN say what it is NOT. Take feminism for example: we can all say what feminist art will not be, but when you start to outline what feminist are will or must encapsulate, you fall short because there will be the inevitable exception to the rule that goes and botches it all up. Which leads me to what I’ve learned to focus more on, and that what you believe to be intrinsically true, or axiomatic. Personally I often look at older art as high art, even cross-culturally. It’s not expensive, commissioned Renaissance paintings that are high, but rather works that took skill, held meaning, bear secrets, and so on. The so-called “Pan-African” masks and messy paintings are typically called low by the laymen, while in reality they are powerful. So I guess in the end all I really know is that some things appear to be low art axiomatically to you, you are probably right. Perhaps its simply based upon the value you place on it. For example, I like Mark Rothko and other minimal color users, but one could easily say “my kid could do that …” I still think it’s high are.
Eh. I’m rambling. It’s a Tuesday and my roommate and I are drinking gin and tonics and watching Weeds, and I somehow came across you blog and I figured I’d comment fo you.
Hope to see you around.
Yours – Chris Langley
Post a Comment