S and I have just had the most interesting hour in the office in a long while - challenging each other to write words relating to “high” and “low” art on post-it notes and survey the mess and paper wastage… (don’t ask, long story)
We spent about 10 minutes just writing one word per note and sticking them on the wall (“high”) or floor (“low”) – crude I know but effective. Then we read them out one note at a time, by category, and looked at them to see what they might say, whether they could be grouped, challenge each other on why, etc. Fascinating!
Here’s ten sample words from both camps:
Opera, Ballet, BBC, Sound art, Obscure, Expensive, Site specific, Literature, Haute Couture, Commercial/ independent
Craft, Channel 5, Rap, The Charts, Ring tones, Cartoons, Karaoke, Understood, Folk, Film
Other observations…
There are some words that are genuine crossovers for whatever reason – folk, books, film, celebrity, animation, photography, craft, commercial, independent, self-publicising.
Some of the sames/ differences are about language – books/ literature, comic/ cartoon, video/ film.
Some of the sames/ differences are about “motive” – statement/ idea/ money/ public and self/ value/ expression/ private.
There’s something in all of this about being opposite and equal? Or fringe, edge, subversion, counterculture?
Plus this gem: popular art + time = high art/ heritage/ "national treasure" status.
Try it!
Damon Albarn + a decade = Gorillaz
Labour protest songs + a century = Billy Bragg
Icons + centruies/ millenia = UNESCO'd cathedrals
Folk music + all time = niche music
A recommended activity.
3 comments:
I have just watched the episode of Yes Minister where Jim Hacker plans to close an art gallery to raise funds to save a football club. It sparks outrage from Sir Humphrey who insists public money should only be used for 'proper' culture and how can something popular be art. In Sir Hump's words: "Subsidy is for art, for culture. It is not to be given to what the people want, it is for what the people don't want but ought to have."
This could be another definition for the difference between low and high art. I'm not sure where DJing fits in, but surely some of the stuff I play is avant garde enough to stickered on the ceiling and not the floor. Do I bat for both sides, I wonder?
I would dispute the BBC being high art. Maybe once, but not these days. I would dispute rap being just low art. Beyond the obvious bitch-gun rubbish there is a lot of complex and challenging creativity. Check out Anti Pop Consortium for an example of this.
Statement: the last Sanctus service used 'low' art in quite a 'high' art way. Discuss...
I think there's something about exclusivity as well. Much 'high' art requires either money or a certain type of education to appreciate it, I would argue. To go to the opera, you need to buy a ticket, to dress appropriately and to feel educated enough to know what is going on. For this money and education, you get a feeling of being cultured.
I'm also thinking about the idea of distinction - distinction from the masses - but will work on that one.
The high/low distinction is, perhaps, another us and them classification.
> Statement: the last Sanctus service used 'low' art in quite a 'high' art way. Discuss...
Hmmm. To be honest I'm still reflecting on the last service and processing it (and that's coming from someone who was integrally involved in its planning and execution!).
For instance, was it a huge pile of arty, self-indulgent idiocy or a brilliant, genre-bending, challenging piece of worship? Discuss... maybe more from me on that soon.
As for everything else, I'm certainly not saying that I like the high/ low art divide, and Nadine (one of my work mates) said it very concisely when she said that audience development is not about getting people who wouldn't normally to like galleries/ museums/ etc, but giving them the chance to actively *not* like them.
Also to throw into the mix, I'd like to differentiate between "art" and "culture" - but maybe that is just too arty...
Post a Comment