Lesson 2: What is Art? Some Theories about Inclusion

Although it is often an intuitive exercise to categorize high art from low – it is more difficult to state what principles were used to make that distinction. One position is that the only or main consideration is between traditional, established art vs. newer modem art. The older the piece, the higher, more elevated we place it on the scale of true art. There is more to it. Newer works have a higher potential to be mass-produced for commercial gains. Therefore, some critics have advanced that newer forms of art are created to be more familiar, created from an intolerance of ambiguity, tend to be simpler rather than embracing complexity, and are created for emotional indulgence rather than growth (see Fisher, 2005 and Kaplan, 1972). Are all modern, mass-produced works disposed to this kind of simplicity and dearth of emotional enrichment?

Consider these positions, outlined by Fisher (2005):

Intolerant Hierarchical View: This view posits that there are 2 classes of works: high art vs. popular art but popular art is ‘essentially flawed’ or in some views not really art at all. Beethoven will always be better than Taylor Swift.

Tolerant Hierarchical View: According to this view, again there are 2 classes of works, art and popular art. Art is superior to popular art but popular art does have its place. For example, you probably don’t play Beethoven at your pool party to liven things up. You are more likely to play Taylor Swift. This view holds that the emotional and psychological impact of popular art is real and important. However, the impact of Art itself has more significance.

Pluralistic Hierarchical View: Again, according to this view, there are 2 classes of works but one is not superior to the other. Each group meets important, yet different aesthetic needs (see Cohen, 1999). Beethoven is clearly high art whereas Taylor is clearly popular art but popular art is not really viewed a lower than high art.

Conventionalist view: According to this view, there are no ‘substantive aesthetic differences” (Fisher, 2005, p. 531) between high and popular art. The distinction is mere matter of social convention (see Novitz, 1992).

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE: Take this Short Quiz