High and Low Thinking About High and Low Art
Mary Cassatt. Mother and Child. Oil on canvas, 1890. Wichita Art Museum.
Film still from Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989).
Book cover of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead.
Volume comprehend of Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities.
Beethoven, composer.
Incubus, alternative stone band.
To a higher place I have listed a few images of artworks and artists that I accept mentioned in the terminal newspaper I wrote for my Philosophy of Art seminar, in which I gave my take on the topic of high versus depression art. If I asked a group of people to sort the above artists/works into the categories of high and low art, I retrieve the categories would look pretty similar among everyone. Incubus, the movie Crimes and Misdemeanors, and Ayn Rand'south novel would all probably fall in the low art category, while Cassatt, Beethoven, and Dickens would all be placed in the high fine art category. It is natural for united states of america to suspect that if nosotros wanted to feel smarter for an afternoon, nosotros are much more than likely to spend that mean solar day looking at Cassatt's artwork, listening to Beethoven, and reading Dickens than we are to have Woody Allen movie marathon, heed to Incubus, and read Ayn Rand. Merely why do we naturally assume that one category is like healthy encephalon nutrient while the other is mental junk food, consumed only for pleasure? Why have we decided that Cassatt'due south status every bit a painter, a woman artist, and every bit an Impressionist whose work we notice in art museum'southward is improve for us than Woody Allen, or (for a more comparative example) graffiti or tattoo art? In my newspaper, I talk over the reasons that philosophers take given over the past several centuries to not only defend the need for a distinction betwixt high and low art, only why high fine art is better for us than low fine art. Then I volition also argue against these reasons, positing mainly that the high/low art stardom serves zero, and that it is in fact harmful to culture and community considering it preserves a sense of snobbery and elitism amid those who engage in the traditionally designated high art forms over and confronting those who engage in traditionally low art forms.
High Art versus Low Fine art: A Distinction That Harms More than Than It Helps
Introduction
I have a low opinion of some artworks that are typically considered worthy plenty to exist exhibited in museums, which Richard Shusterman claims, in his analysis of the history of how nosotros regard entertainment and pleasure, "have replaced churches as the place where one visits on the weekend for cultural edification." [1] For example, I observe Mary Cassatt to take by and large produced terrible artwork, in the sense that she achieved nothing that other impressionists she admired, such equally Monet and Degas, had not already washed, and furthermore, numerous other artists with similar styles and motivations did what she did and then much better. I personally detect the art of the filmmaker Woody Allen, whose pic Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) stands out every bit an especially excellent example of Allen'south souvenir, to be infinitely more unique, well-crafted, and thought-provoking than anything Cassatt ever created. I would also say that I take always regarded Ayn Rand novels much more highly than anything by Charles Dickens or Shakespeare, although information technology is far rarer to find an institution defended to the study of literature that would take Rand as as seriously as Dickens or Shakespeare, let alone more than seriously. Am I incorrect in having this stance? Should I take Cassatt, Dickens and Shakespeare more seriously and with deeper appreciation than I practise Allen and Rand?
It is no secret, whether in everyday life or in the report of philosophy, that in that location are notions of "high" versus "low" art, or "art" versus "popular art" or pop culture. Cassatt, Dickens and Shakespeare would certainly be placed in the high or fine art category more oftentimes than Woody Allen or Ayn Rand would. It means something to us whether we phone call something a piece of work of high or fine art rather than low or popular fine art. High usually refers to what John A. Fisher calls "paradigms of art: Hamlet, Eliot'due south The Waste product Land, Beethoven's Eroica, Swan Lake, the paintings of Cézanne—indeed, museum paintings by and large, classical music generally, verse more often than not and so forth." [2] Fisher suggests that a work is called high fine art depending on whether its form is traditionally or historically considered to be high art. When we refrain from giving a work the status of high art, Fisher reasons, "it is natural to recall of the term that contrasts with high art as denoting objects that are not really art." Because of this, the loftier or low art distinction "approximates" the art or non-fine art distinction. [3]
Why the High-Low Fine art Stardom Has the Result of Creating a Hierarchy of Forms
While Fisher claims that we should not assume that the high-depression stardom is the aforementioned equally distinguishing between good and bad fine art, [4] the fact that this distinction functions essentially like the art—non-art stardom does in fact advise that at that place is a hierarchy of forms of expression, with the high forms existence art and thus better for us to pursue while the low forms are non art and therefore a lark at best, a pernicious tool at worst. In his analysis of how philosophers accept treated entertainment, Shusterman points out that the ranking of art forms has been a common do by philosophers since Plato, who at the farthermost finish on his views of fine art thought that mimetic arts provided "corruptive pleasures of amusement through imitations of the existent that pretend to truth and wisdom merely lack the cognitive legitimacy of true noesis" which the art of philosophy has. [5] In more modern times, philosophers such as Theodor Adorno gave specific requirements for what true fine art, or the best art, does for humanity, which in Adorno'southward case would exist "to provide a disquisitional perspective on society; its goal should be liberation from the social, economic, and political realities. To that end, information technology should exist free from commercial pressures." [half dozen] Here Adorno draws a sharp line betwixt art and non-art, suggesting, in the words of Noël Carroll, that "18-carat art is an attempt to gratis itself from the social condition in which it finds itself." [7] The very fact that we tend to call up the person who reads Pride and Prejudice at the embankment is more sophisticated, more intelligent, or has better taste than the person who reads The Da Vinci Code demonstrates that there is an implicit association of high art (or even but fine art) with superiority and low art (or non-fine art) with inferiority. In short, whether we call a work fine art or not matters considering information technology affects how much we value it and the way in which we appreciate it.
Why the High-Low Distinction Matters, and Why It Is Incorrect
Calling something art implies that it is a product of our culture, and that it is something worth studying in guild to learn something about our civilization. If aliens from another planet decided they were going to visit World but wanted to become acquainted with its inhabitants earlier visiting, our Globe ambassadors would surely propose them that 1 of the best ways they could learn nigh u.s. is past studying our art. If these aliens but studied the paintings in museums, classical music, the "great" works of literature, and other forms that are usually considered either high art or the only true forms of art, they would not merely develop an incomplete moving-picture show of human life, only the picture would besides exist wholly inaccurate. They would need to study a much broader, less specific array of works in society to become a better understanding of humanity, including television, rock music, and other forms that are usually considered either depression art or not art at all. In response to this, one might say that just because these aliens should study all of these things, it does not follow that they should all be called fine art. Responding to this counterargument would likely dissolve into an apologetics for why these forms are just every bit adept as high forms. But the question to which I practice non encounter an objective [8] respond is why they should not be chosen works of fine art, no thing how awful they might be in certain cases. Even more than and then, I cannot find a reason to distinguish on the basis of form or genre betwixt high fine art and low art.
Information technology is perplexing to me that we take decided that certain forms, or forms which fulfill narrowly specific aims, are the only ones which can be considered high art or art at all. When it comes to defining art, it is important to have some boundary as to where art ends and products of culture brainstorm. It is simply as of import, still, not to create boundaries that are excessively limiting.
Simply past upholding a high-low distinction in art, nosotros open ourselves up to defending certain works as high art and certain works every bit low art on bases that are ultimately of personal stance. Ted Cohen, when asking himself why it is important for him to affirm or deny that a work is an artwork, realized that "When I feel similar insisting or denying that something is fine art it is because I wish to insist on or resist the idea that the thing is to be taken seriously, that in that location is kind of obligation to recognize the thing as a significant item in my life." [nine] Cohen has recognized that what he calls fine art matters personally to him, and his nomenclature of works as artworks is not every bit objective an analysis as some philosophers nowadays information technology to be in their claims to define art. This recognition Cohen has humbly observed is a realization I would invite Adorno to have about his own definition of what art should be and how it should serve u.s.a..
As stated earlier, Adorno claims that art should be critical of gild and that is the principal function it serves. His view conspicuously comes from a Marxist orientation, and yet he makes universal claims about what art should practise in a world that is not necessarily inherently Marxist. What if an artist does non want to be critical of society, or not be disquisitional in the way that Adorno is critical of society? His thought of what art should be seems to derive also much from his personal political goals, which make up one's mind what he desires out of his own experience of art. By asserting his personal preference for what the best art accomplishes, Adorno denies the multiple functions that art tin can serve for others, some of which could certainly be opposed to his. It seems overly exclusive and limiting that no matter how much an creative person thinks seriously about what he creates, no matter how much he says through the work he produces, that work is non as valuable equally some other creative person's work merely because his piece of work is not disquisitional of society while the other'southward work is, if we follow Adorno's theory.
While in Adorno'southward case his dismissal of low or popular art forms appears to be overly motivated by personal political goals, other philosophers have warned against the perils of low art with reasons that brand sweeping generalizations about art forms and do not stand up to scrutiny. In his book nigh mass art, Carroll discusses iv general arguments that philosophers of aesthetics have used to support non only a distinction between art and mass art, simply also to stigmatize mass art equally a destructive force in club which decays our minds and distracts united states of america from engaging with loftier art, the only kind of art that is nourishing for us. I will focus on the first two arguments Carroll discusses, namely massification and passivity, in this paper. Carroll, in his discussion of mass fine art, distinguishes mass art from popular art equally a unique historical phenomenon created by the industrial era's unprecedented capabilities of mass production. [ten] Popular fine art, past contrast, is a term that is harder to ascertain considering what has been considered popular art in one century becomes fine art in some other.
I will utilize the term low art as Carroll defines mass art considering low art, in today's world, is mass art. Broadly speaking, all of the forms mostly considered to be low art can be and are reproduced and widely distributed, one of the conditions that Carroll considers necessary to classify a work as a mass artwork. The other necessary condition for something to exist called a mass artwork, every bit Carroll argues, is that the "artwork is intentionally designed to gravitate in its structural choices (for example, its narrative forms, symbolism, intended affect, and even its content) toward those choices that promise accessibility with minimum attempt, virtually on commencement contact, for the largest number of untutored (or relatively untutored) audiences." [xi] The idea that mass art is more accessible both logistically and intellectually is one of the characteristics theorists have used to distinguish high art from depression art, and so there is no conflict with using low art the way Carroll uses mass fine art on the basis of this condition, either.
The massification argument, which Carroll introduces as having its origins in Dwight MacDonald's work, "is symptomatic of a number of the recurrent biases exhibited past American cultural critics through virtually of the twentieth century with respect to mass art." [12] I believe information technology is this bias which causes u.s. to sneer (or feel pressured to sneer if we desire to announced intellectual and sophisticated) at those who practise not appreciate high art in the way we might recall they should. Massification describes depression fine art's trait of being mass produced and meant for mass consumption. The fact that low art is easily reproducible marks its impersonal and alienating nature compared to high art's intimate expression of a single creative person'southward vision. The reason that depression art is so impersonal and indistinctive is because it is impurely motivated by the desire to make large profits on it, which can just exist accomplished if the art is homogenous enough to exist able to be consumed by the largest and most diverse corporeality of people possible.
This argument makes several assumptions that these qualities of low art are necessarily negative. The fact that low art tin can oft exist mass produced is a trait that, in certain ways, gives information technology an advantage over high art forms that cannot exist easily reproduced, such as painting or sculpture. Accessibility to art is a topical political upshot in the discussion of education and diff admission to educational resources. Many cities are trying harder than ever to brand their high art scene as accessible as low art. Increased accessibility was one of the reasons given by the Barnes Foundation for why it should motion its art drove to Middle City Philadelphia despite the brake in Albert Barnes' will that the art could non go out the Merion building. For many people, especially those located in rural areas where the nearest art institutions are hundreds of miles away, high fine art's lack of accessibility is a detriment rather than an asset. If we want more people to capeesh art and accept an arts education, why would we remain in the mindset that accessibility is to be avoided? Lack of accessibility also serves to highlight socioeconomic inequality, where one's knowledge of art and the number of museums and concert halls they tin boast to accept visited is direct correlated to the ability that their wealth gives them to travel easily. Similarly, a disdain for low art forms whose creation was motivated partly or solely past money also ignores the societal benefits of this trait of low fine art. In an economy where the job marketplace is increasingly competitive, wouldn't it be a expert thing that the arts manufacture is assisting enough to contribute to chore creation? And if careers in the arts can offer a way to brand a living to those who are passionate almost art, doesn't that merely help them to spend more of their time engaging with art and to provide opportunities for others to practice so?
The second statement fabricated against low art as identified by Carroll, which he calls passivity, is that low art makes few intellectual or emotional demands on us. Different loftier art, which requires us to have more education in club to empathize and appreciate information technology, depression fine art can be consumed and appreciated without any effort. It cannot be denied that loftier art does require didactics in order to exist fully appreciated. As an art history major, I know that I savor and appreciate visual fine art now much more than I did earlier I began to report art history. I likewise know that it is possible I might appreciate high literature more if I took more English language classes. Only information technology is too dismissive to suggest that we do not demand an didactics to fully capeesh low fine art forms. While I had always enjoyed Crimes and Misdemeanors, I appreciated information technology in a much deeper, more thoughtful way when I studied it alongside Kant's Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals in a course I took on political theory. It would exist much more difficult to fully appreciate the television prove American Dad! if one did not empathize the American political system upon which the prove draws for much of its political satire. Furthermore, loftier and low art forms tin can benefit from a common understanding and appreciation of each other, a view that I am supporting in my choice to report Edward Hopper alongside the film American Beauty (1999) for my Swarthmore College Honors thesis. Whether an art form, high or depression, makes demands on us is ultimately entirely up to us. We can decide for ourselves whether we want to study art history so that we can have a nuanced perspective on a painting, or whether nosotros desire to written report Indian culture in order to more fully appreciate Bollywood films. Whether an artwork is loftier or depression, nosotros are the ones who determine how piece of cake and passive our feel will be with them, not the artwork.
Many philosophers have extolled the positive effect that art can have for u.s.a., sometimes using these effects to contrast high art with depression fine art and merits that low fine art does not have the same positive effects on us which high art provides. Cohen most compellingly suggested, for example [13] , that art requires us to engage in metaphors of personal identification, a skill which we use in our attempts to understand and capeesh others. What is perhaps about discouraging about some philosophers' insistence that nosotros stay away from depression art and must pay as much attention as possible to high art is that such a focus fails to be pragmatic. It will ultimately fail because it stubbornly clings to an idealistic vision of how people should human activity and feel.
To demonstrate this point, let us accept for a moment that Beethoven is better than Incubus, or that Milton is amend than Shel Silverstein. Now imagine yous have a friend who personally does not experience the benefits of a life filled with Beethoven and Milton in the ways that theorists who champion loftier art over depression art promise we would. Instead, this friend claims that he has overall become a better, more thoughtful and insightful person considering of his time spent with Incubus and Silverstein instead of Beethoven and Milton. What would we tell this friend, especially if for united states of america we take the taste for Beethoven and Milton over Incubus and Silverstein? If nosotros insist on upholding the stardom between loftier and low art and as well maintain that high art is meliorate than low fine art, we would take to say that this friend of ours is mistaken. He must need more education or more than exposure to high art. Or he needs to approach or exist taught high art in a different way that would make him realize the error of his ways. Unless we can prove that loftier art serves a distinct purpose that depression fine art cannot serve, which would require united states to deny our friend'southward claim that low fine art did for him what only high art can supposedly do, at that place is no reason that, as Cohen puts it in his essay "Liking What's Good: Why Should Nosotros?", it is ameliorate to like better things. [14] Merely it seems clumsily egotistical and presumptive to think that we know improve than someone else enough to claim that we tin can deny their feel of art and affirm that we know better than him to which fine art it is good for united states to pay the nearly attention.
To back up the idea that we tin can deny individual experiences if they do not correctly interpret fine art, we might plough to Kant. Kant's theory of the beautiful posits that all humans take the cognitive faculties of imagination and agreement, and that these faculties, along with a disinterested mental attitude in which no preferences influence our judgment, are what help united states of america to decide that a work of art is cute. Since we all determine beauty through the same process and without partiality, genuine judgments of dazzler, and of art, volition take intersubjective validity. This means that we volition come up to our judgments of beauty independently and autonomously, but we will so discover that our judgments are in universal agreement with everyone who used this process.
Kant's theory of intersubjective validity is difficult to decisively disprove, because we will never know whether we are truly making a disinterested judgment. Just if we gathered one hundred people together and asked everyone to brand a disinterested judgment of beauty nearly a particular work, what if all but i person disagreed? It is not implausible to say there will always be disagreement in the area of gustatory modality. No matter what the artwork is, there volition always be at least one person on Earth that you'll find who disagrees about whether the artwork in question is beautiful. But for that ane person who disagrees with anybody, does that ane person's opinion simply not matter? Is his experience and stance denied validity just because he did not agree with the majority of the grouping? The answer to this seems to come down to how much value one puts in the collective versus the individual. And mayhap for those who hold collectivist values over individualist ones, I might never be able to convince them that it is wrong to ignore that single person'south view fifty-fifty when it comes in the face of ninety-nine unanimously opposing views. But if ane values the individual at all, surely the idea that we can deny i person's experience does not sit well. And for that matter, why do we think that nosotros have the potency or the qualifications to privilege our taste over someone else'south?
How Practice We Care for Art Without the High-Depression Distinction?
At this point, I have defended why there should be no distinction between high and low art, merely I accept not explained why this distinction, fifty-fifty if we turn down to discard it, should not exist the same equally the distinction betwixt art and non-fine art. It may seem as if the difference between broadening the definition of art and while allowing that some fine art is good and some is bad, as I am arguing nosotros should, compared to simply calling the proficient things art and the bad things non-fine art, seems nonexistent. Considering whether y'all believe the movies to be non-fine art or really bad art, you volition still not take them seriously, or at least yous will still non value them. The fact that y'all do not have them seriously is fine by itself. But it is important that you recognize that moving-picture show, however negatively you may think of them, is notwithstanding art [xv] , because to do then is to admit that you have your own biases, your perspective is uniquely your own, and that y'all are non the absolute authority of taste or artful judgment, no matter how qualified y'all might think you are. Past virtue of your individuality, you are subjective [sixteen] , and because you practice non have all experiences and cannot know everything, yous cannot claim to know truth for a fact. You cannot merits to know that truly, a moving-picture show is not a piece of work of fine art, or that David Copperfield is an excellent piece of work of art. We should all admit that our views can be aught more than opinions and that information technology is unfair to guess 1 person to have improve taste merely because of their opinions, preferences, or expertise.
Another indicate I call up I should clarify is that there is a divergence between calling an fine art form expert or bad and calling information technology high or low. As I have said, I am happy with critics decrying television as foul fine art and praising painting every bit wonderful art. The reason that this is not the aforementioned as calling television low fine art and painting high art is considering the ways that philosophy has used those distinctions in the by, for reasons which I have discussed earlier, have given the forms which fall under high or low art inherent characteristics which are inherently good or bad. Only non all of the forms which accept typically been considered high or low have had these characteristics, and these characteristics are not necessarily skillful or bad, equally I have tried to demonstrate in a higher place. And even if we believed they did, we should recognize that our behavior equally such are not accented truths nearly these forms, as the high-art stardom implies they are.
So with this in mind, how exercise we distinguish art from non-fine art? I would say that something is art as long every bit it is expressive, that the creative person made it with the intention of expressing something that is true for them. How practise we distinguish art from other expressive works, such equally academic papers or paper articles? I think the difference hither is that artworks cannot merely report what is observed or researched. What the piece of work expresses has to be something across a unmarried upshot or situation, an idea that the artist arrived at independently which could non be replicated by someone else. In the case of academic papers, articles, advertisements, or other expressive works, with plenty research and expertise, someone could reasonably create on his own what the other person created on his own.
The other feature that distinguishes artworks from regular works is that artworks do not directly, plainly limited what they want to express. An bookish paper or article tells the reader directly what it is trying to express, whereas art forms do not. Literature creates an entire world with characters and stories to limited an underlying bulletin. Paintings utilise paint and through that pigment create compositions, figures, and color patterns, among other elements, to give the viewer a certain message. The same tin exist said of television, picture, trip the light fantastic, music, sculpture, and other forms which do not state outright what they want to express. Fine art uses a medium in tandem with abstract, intangible devices (such equally limerick, light, rhythm, dialogue, allegory, etc.) to express something through the medium and its devices, rather than simply stating, "in obviously English," what it wants to express. Certain works of art do a amend job of expressing something than others, or some may do it more than cleverly than others. Merely how well an artwork does its chore does not justify determining whether it is even an artwork on that basis.
Conclusion
My master focus in this paper has been to fight confronting the hierarchical nature of the high-low fine art distinction. Although I have introduced my way of distinguishing between art and non-art, I realize that this is a brief introduction and would crave elaboration in social club to develop it into a noun theory. Instead of extending this paper into a much longer work to accomplish that need, I will instead offer a lovely thought that Cohen presents on how we should engage with others as we appoint with fine art. [17] If we are no longer going to spend fourth dimension trying to convince others that form A is high art while course B is low art or not-art, how should we form communities of artistic engagement with different fine art forms? And if we are no longer going to be critical of ourselves or others apropos the character of our taste, how should we recollect virtually our taste? Cohen begins to answer these questions by imagining two circles of sense of taste. In the center of one circumvolve lies the Wedlock of Figaro, with people of various groups who love it, such as Cohen himself, fans of opera, or fans of Mozart, situated around the circumvolve'south eye. The other circle Cohen imagines is i in which he is the center, and all the artworks he loves environment him. Cohen asks himself, what practice all the people who love the Marriage of Figaro accept in common? And what do all of the works that Cohen loves have in mutual?
Cohen's answer is that these people and these works have nothing in common. Nosotros do not have anything in common with others who love similar things, nor practise the things we honey have anything in common with each other. In Cohen's
Unabashed, romantic declaration: each piece of work, each object of appreciation and affection is unique, and equally unique are those of united states who are the appreciators, and, in addition, those bonds that link us to our loves may also be unique, or virtually. It is critical to appreciate this uniqueness, and the way to do this is to exercise away with, one past one, all the temptations to recollect we are not unique, that we are just similar one another. In doing this, we have a chance to observe two things we absolutely need to know, namely just how much nosotros are indeed like i another, and how much nosotros are not. [18]
Instead of focusing on how to be better than other people by liking ameliorate fine art than others, an aim which the loftier-low distinction pressures us towards, I remember nosotros might spend our time more than fruitfully if we let ourselves to be fascinated and perplexed by the way that life stories shape 1 person'south love of Pollock and some other person's love of the band My Morning Jacket. And it is when we enter dialogues of taste and critique with curiosity and openness rather than a competitive attitude tinged with a sense of superiority that nosotros volition have the hope for a much broader, and more than vibrant artful community of engagement.
[1] Richard Shusterman, "Entertainment: A Question for Aesthetics," British Journal of Aesthetics 43, no. 3 (2003): 302.
[two] John A. Fisher, "Loftier Art Versus Depression Art," in The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, eds. Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes (New York: Routledge, 2005), 527.
[three] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 528.
[5] Shusterman, 291.
[6] Fisher, 533.
[7] Noël Carroll, A Philosophy of Mass Art (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 72.
[8] By objective as I use the word here I mean without being ultimately subjected to personal desires or preferences.
[9] Ted Cohen, "High and Low Thinking nearly High and Low Art," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51, no. 2 (1993): 154.
[x] Carroll, 185.
[11] Ibid., 196.
[12] Ibid., 16.
[13] That my description of Cohen's thought lies next to my ascertainment that philosophers take contrasted high art with low art based on its uniquely positive furnishings is not meant to imply that Cohen participates in that line of idea. Cohen, whose view of high versus low art Fisher describes equally "pluralistic hierarchicalism" (531), believed in the high versus low art stardom, merely did not believe that either group was superior to the other.
[fourteen] Cohen, "Liking What's Good: Why Should We?" in Philosophy and the Interpretation of Pop Culture, eds. William Irwin and Jorge J.E. Gracia (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 118.
[15] But of grade you are entitled to retrieve that motion-picture show is categorically terrible art.
[16] By subjective I hateful that you are inextricably tied to your particular partialities as determined by your life experiences. I do not believe as Kant does that nosotros can make truly disinterested, impartial judgments.
[17] Cohen, in Philosophy and the Interpretation of Pop Civilisation, 126-129.
[18] Ibid., 128.
Works Cited
Carroll, Noël. A Philosophy of Mass Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
Cohen, Ted. "High and Low Thinking nearly High and Low Fine art." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51, no. 2 (1993): 151-156.
—. "Liking What's Good: Why Should We?" in Philosophy and the Estimation of Popular
Civilisation, edited by William Irwin and Jorge J. E. Gracia, 117-130. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2007.
Fisher, John A. "High Art Versus Low Fine art," in The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, edited by Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes, 527-540. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Shusterman, Richard. "Entertainment: A Question for Aesthetics." British Journal of Aesthetics 43, no. 3 (2003): 289-307.
Source: https://aestheticapperceptions.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/high-art-versus-low-art-should-we-have-this-distinction-what-purpose-does-it-actually-serve/
0 Response to "High and Low Thinking About High and Low Art"
Post a Comment