High and Low Art

Sandy Skoglund- Revenge of the Goldfish, 1981

Definition found at ArtLex.

high art - Fine art, also known as beaux-arts, art that is of universal transcendence, having withstood the test of time and representing the epitome of artistic achievement, as opposed to low art, which is also known as mass culture. Until recently, a distinction was typically made between high and low art. Traditionally, high art consists of the meticulous expression in fine materials of refined or noble sentiment, appreciation of the former depending on such things as intelligence, social standing, educated taste, and a willingness to be challenged. Low art is the shoddy manufacturing in inferior materials of superficial kitsch, simply catering to popular taste, unreflective acceptance of realism, and a certain "couch potato" mentality. Although many earlier artists took inspiration from popular and folk art, the most systematic approaches towards blurring the differences between high and low art were taken by Cubism, Dada and Surrealism. Pop Art further weakened the distinction, and artists as various as Jean-Michel Basquiat (American, 1960-1988), Jeff Koons (American, 1955-) and the Guerrilla Girls (American), influenced strongly by the different branches of postmodern thought, have dealt it the further blows.

My definition of low art:

Low Art- Recently made art that relies solely on conventions and art forms of the past. Conforms to universal standards of beauty and does not challenge ideas of normality. Example, Thomas Kinkade.



The art lex definition would pretty much classify Thomas Kinkade's "Blessing of Christmas" high art. It uses sturdy time tested materials, oil on canvas, and would universally be considered 'attractive', which makes paintings like these a facet of dentist waiting rooms and offices alike. It my opinion, Thomas Kinkade should be considered low art. It's uber conventional, boring, bland, and doesn't reflect culture at all. But, to each their own.