High and Low Art is there a difference?

Click to edit Master subtitle style

Kat OKeeffe

Ted Cohen
Arguments for this discussion are based on the ideas of Ted Cohen, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Chicago. His specialist area of study is Philosophy of Art I read 2 articles by him published in the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. High and Low Thinking about High and Low Art (1993) High and Low Art and High and Low Audiences (1999)

 There is a common assumption that some art is highbrow and serious and can only be appreciated by certain groups of people. An example might be the opera The Magic Flute by Mozart? (is it better than other music because its high)? Other art appeals more widely and is said to be popular (or easy to access). A film like Hitchcocks The Birds might fall into this category? (is it of less worth because so many people like it)?

Examples of High and Low terms? What do we mean by theseArt

Questions about this?

You may already be disagreeing with my examples and wanting to offer some of your own? You might think that the distinctions of high and low are rather simplistic and general? What about everything in between! Is it easy to define what art is how do we decide when something can be called a work of art or when it isnt art at all? This presentation will attempt to debate these contentious issues..

What makes a piece of art? Ted Cohen wonders if using the terms High and

Low in relation to art is really the same as talking about Art and non Art? In other words is Art only something appreciated by specialist audiences who have superior knowledge and insight? A Shakespeare play is a good example as the language and depth may be off-putting to some. If this is the case, then trying to grade works of art on a scale of high to low is unnecessary?

 if you think Shakespeare is better

Ted Cohen High and Low Thinking about High and Low Art (1993)

or deeper, or something, than the Simpsons, why do you feel a need to say anything more than that? And if you do, why do you need to distinguish the kind of thing Shakespeare is from the kind of thing the Simpsons is?

 This is a term he uses to describe art that is made with specialised specific audiences in mind it could be high or low. Examples are electronic classical music or avant garde performance art What is common to the audiences is a feeling that only they can really enjoy the work and this is a feature of some art appreciation He feels it adds an extra dimension to the enjoyment of the piece in that it is not available to others However, this can apply to all art and not just highbrow stuff..

Parochial Art (not to be confused with High art)

How do you decide if something is high or low art?

There is an problem with the descriptions, Cohen feels it is this: 1. Art is often defined as either fine or popular. However, one person can like both types, for example, Wordsworths poetry and Leonard Cohens songs 2. A popular work of art can be liked by both high and low audiences, for example, the film Doctor Zhivago.

How do you decide what is high and what is low art?

So, if a film like Doctor Zhivago is enjoyed by one person as good entertainment and by another as a reflection on the Russian Revolution where does that leave us in trying to decide if its high or low?

Can art be high and low at the same time? same Two people can really like the
person but in different ways. I like her because she is a good artist and very intelligent. You like her because she is funny and plays tennis well Cohen feels its the same with art, the divisions are not about high and low, though If you love some art you want others to like it too but does it matter if you like it for different reasons?

 One way of making the distinction, Cohen suggests would be to ask the artist if the piece of art was intended to be high or low? He argues that an artist must include themself in any intended audience otherwise the art is fraudulent. In other words, it is very unlikely that an artist would deliberately set out to create a low piece intended to be superficial. What would be the point?

Maybe the artist could tell us if its high or low?

The joker
He gives the example of telling a joke Would you tell a joke if you thought it wasnt funny or you didnt really understand it? Cohen likens the artist to the joker. There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating popular art that appeals to many people What he does object to is an artist producing something that has no personal conviction in it He thinks someone who sets out to make something that is not important to them, but will appeal to a certain audience is not really an artist at all.

decision to visit Auschwitz while on a lecture tour in Poland some years before this article was written. He felt he ought to go, but this was a purely personal decision as a Jew, not imposed by a theory or moral obligation belonging to someone else. To him this decision was linked to the way he lives his life.

Moral and aesthetic Cohen likens his appreciation of art to his sensibilities

Aesthetic Sensibility
In the same way Cohen doesnt want his aesthetic sensibility dictated by superimposed categories such as art/non art or high and low art. To him these categories just wont stand up they just blur and blotch

Some examples of what he regards as Art King Lear by William

Shakespeare Pasternaks Doctor Zhivago The Simpsons Hitchcocks North by Northwest Hoagy Carmichael Hebrew Bible Mozarts Marriage of Figaro Paintings by Rembrandt

ARE ALL THESE ART? ( Ted Cohen thinks they are but adds he isnt sure if he cares)!

 Instead Cohen puts forward a very different way of looking at art that helps him to define if something has artistic merit or not.. He says that if it matters to him that others have a high regard for something, then he regards it as Art In other words art to him is about the worth and appeal of artistic experience to groups of people who feel as he does about particular things

Collective response is a measure of artistic merit

Collective response
He is not going to base his preferences on whether a piece is high or low art, or if it even classed as Art at all If enough people of similar taste get pleasure from something artistic he feels that is a good measure of its worth

Collective aesthetic response Some of these objects link me to my

fellows, some of the objects link me to other people. Some lead me into rather smaller groups, some lead me into large and varied groups. And it is my membership in these groups that locates me aesthetically as I think of it, that reflects the dimensions of my sensibility

Back to High and Low Art

If we agree with him then notions of high and low art become irrelevant because groups can be linked by art like Shakespeare play or a Marx Brothers movie. The common factor is the appeal of the group The link is not made by how deep or superficial something is. It is the way the piece connects groups of people that defines it as art

Collective response to art

Could you make your own list of what you consider to be your favourite pieces of art, if we had the time this afternoon? The lists would all be different and that is important He feels that in defining what art is one should ask the question: Why I (or anyone, for that matter) would ever seriously care to assert or deny that something is art

Collective response
When deciding on what makes something into a piece of art he feels the most important thing is:

to explain the significance of the thing in my life I must suppose that is also has a place, or deserves to have a place in the lives of others

Collective response Cohen gives intimacy as an example a

memorial service for a friend where a string quartet played music that the dead person loved

We were finding one another and our friend in that music of Mozart and Haydn. Does it matter that Mozart and Haydn are high art (very high art indeed)?

Collective response
He feels art should be trans-personal and appeal to a wide range of different people, however, just because something has breadth of appeal it can still be taken seriously As he says Hamlet is popular because it is a deep and meaningful play and Dallas is popular because it is superficial and trashy so using popularity to define art is problematic.

Art as the focus of a community

Cohen feels it is useful to define art in terms of a focus of a community, or a group whose intimacy is underwritten by their conviction that they feel the same about something and that, that thing is art is their bond. They feel that one another respond in the same way, and for the same reasons

Cohen asks these questions to conclude his reflections:

1. What makes high art high? Is it that it appeals to a snobbish audience? What makes them snobbish about it is it that they have a taste for snobbish art? 2. When a work of art appeals to a high and low audience is it both a high and low work? 3. Is someone likes both high and low art does it mean they are refined and superficial at the same time? 4. How many works can a single work of art be? How many people can one person be? 5. 6.

Questions to finish