Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It is possible or impossible — in this case, a rather useless topic, since art is divided into high and low simply anthropologically.
Here is a little-known fact: almost all art museums are unprofitable, even the most famous ones like the Louvre and the Hermitage. The only parts of the museum that generate any income are cafes and souvenir shops, while visitors cost the museum two or three times the ticket price, which, of course, cannot be raised: no one will go to the Louvre for 50 euros. As a result, the museum's life is almost a constant struggle for state funding and donations from private individuals.
Here's a well-known fact: discos, amusement parks, and movie theaters, unlike art museums, are profitable.
It is not surprising that at some point museums decided to become a bit of discos and cinemas themselves: just over a decade ago, many major museums were flooded with a whole wave of exhibitions and attractions: a roller coaster at Guggenheim New York, an installation with rain at MoMA, a literal disco at MOCA in Los Angeles, and so on.
Perhaps it would be interesting to compare the museum's financial statements for this period and see if this experiment made any significant difference in attendance — I did not undertake this. Anyway, it ended pretty soon: MOCA quickly lost the entire curatorial staff, including artists of the first magnitude-Barbara Kruger, Ed Ruscha, John Baldessari and others; MoMA and Guggenheim were subjected to prolonged criticism in the press. For the most part, the experiment has not been repeated, although major galleries continue to experiment with this in a more commercial form.
Why is none of this surprising? Why do we intuitively expect something different from the museum, and perceive the violation of this as inappropriate? It is one thing to speculatively say that the Hands Up group has no place in the Palais Garnier, and it is another thing when the leadership of a real institution tries to capitalize on popular culture, and embodies it in a better way, but as a result finds itself in a worse position than it was before.
One might assume that this whole situation was created “from above” — but a relatively low culture protects its borders in the same way as a relatively high one. Hitchcock famously said that puns are the highest form of writing — at this level.
In addition, absolutely all successful examples of the intrusion of one into the other work precisely at the expense of contrasts (see, in particular, the example from Elkins in a recent answer about design). As if-the intersection of contrasts always emphasizes their reality: Duchamp's urinal cannot be removed from the Tate Modern and put back in the men's room, and folk jokes about Duchamp's urinal do not make a joke.<url> is a branch of the museum literary fund.
All these things-the differences, the boundaries, the friction between one and the other – are neither good nor bad, they are an anthropological fact. This is part of art as behavior.
And this is great — because it also illustrates the diversity, flexibility, and interpenetration of different layers of culture. This means that a person has the ability to look at different things in different ways – and talk about them as different.
With this approach, much depends on what is considered art in principle. How to divide into art and “non-art”. Once you have decided on the entry point, you can proceed to your question.
There can be a lot of criteria for determining high/low, but in my opinion, one of the priority aspects is the uniqueness of the experience: high art cannot be repetition and all sorts of remakes/homages/compilations.
If we consider according to the principle that we consider art , that art is everything that is created artificially by man . Not just pictures , museum exhibits, and architectural monuments . There is also a concept of industrial art , such as industrial design, artistic construction, and so on . Where did the division into high and lowland come from?Like all human nature, there is a concept of earthly passions, domestic use and high matters . And this division, since the advent of religion , that is , everything that used to be connected with a religious cult, the spirit, and often with an afterlife cult, has been a high art . It's just that now the funeral cult is more of a household purpose . Most of the classics were written for churches or temples in one way or another, if you take Ancient Greece or Rome . You can also consider more ancient religions . That is, it is not a fact that this work is listed as high quality , according to its collector's principle . Most museums are private collections, and the phenomenon is rather Soviet . Yes, French museums appeared earlier , but they also had a revolution earlier . That is, how almost any museum began before the 20th century . There was a private collection, often royal or princely, but then it was made the property of the people . GIM is a rare example of a museum created for the sake of a museum and for educational purposes , but this is the end of the 19th century . High art is not always represented in museums . There are museums and exhibitions of quite everyday topics . A museum is like a repository of some important works . Their significance is determined by their relevance to the public or to the collector for a given period of time . It will not necessarily be an academic painting , nor will it necessarily be some outstanding canvas . Modern museums with installations are more an attempt to express their ideas . As far as these ideas are high or low, so will art be high or low .
Dear author, let me clarify the question…In the sense of dividing art into “High” and “Low” ? I think the answer to your question lies in a different plane, and there the answer will be found by itself……
Let's understand the terminology.
Art is a form of creativity, a way of spiritual self-realization of a person through sensory and expressive means.
The sublime is one of the central categories of aesthetics, which characterizes the inner significance of objects and phenomena that are incommensurable in their ideal content with the real forms of their expression.
Unchangeable — the extreme degree of ugliness, extremely negative value, having negative significance for humanity; the sphere of unfreedom.
I will answer with a counter-question : can “lowly” be considered “art”?
Definitely yes, there is high and low art. Let's ask ourselves: Are there any highs and lows at all? (Cowardice, greed, betrayal, degradation, cruelty, etc. – does it exist? Compassion, love, justice, honesty, loyalty, development-does it exist?)
Obviously, all of this exists. And we see that the high is antagonistic to the low. High and low serve different poles. Let's call them the side of light and the side of darkness.
Well, the high serves the light, the low serves the dark. This is a criterion.
Why divide art based on the criterion of whether it serves the dark or the light? I think this question has already been answered.
Why should we do this? I think because each of us has already chosen one side or another, or sooner or later will face this choice. Therefore, he must divide everything into high and low, including art. Simply put, not to eat something that isn't edible. Well, it's like kosher and clubs or halal and haram.
High art is: the music of Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff and their equal geniuses. Ballet. For people with a musical ear and musical self-education and not only.
Low art is: rap, hip-hop. Mumbling to technical sounds that have nothing to do with the concept of a poem or music. For people without a musical ear, who only understand the sounds of the drum and usually have low intelligence. I would also write about painting and literature, but there is little room to express my opinion.
In my opinion, such a division cannot be made, since art is a process or result of the creator expressing his emotions in an object (material or non-material) that can provoke emotions and experiences in the minds of other people. The form of emotion transmission may differ, as well as the emotions themselves. And many people are inclined, based on the analysis of these emotions or the form of their transmission, to distinguish art into “high” and “low”. Such people refer to some types or genres as “high”, while disparaging others. However, this approach is often the result of snobbery, hypocrisy and arrogance. Dividing art into low and high is ridiculous. Each person is unique. Everyone's worldview, internal moral system, sense of beauty, and emotional perception are different. Whether a particular genre is considered low-level or high-level art – everyone evaluates it according to their own criteria, formed on the basis of external and internal factors. But they are all subjective.