ozric9

.

Unregistered

Ozric9,

Your question is appropriate, but a potential quagmire. I'll have a crack at it, though.

First, let's define low and high art, if we can. I'd begin by saying that context plays a major role in our judgment on this and other matters. For instance, van Gogh was mostly unrecognized in the 1880s, being seen as an amateur, which he was for most of that time, but that same body of work brings international recognition today. So, any would-be arbiters of taste should be appropriately humble -- few, if any, are likely to spot the next van Gogh.

Two other factors in determining high and low art are technical merit and originality. Low or middling technical skill appears as nails on a chalkboard to a seasoned artist or critic, I imagine, but I would be willing to overlook this, to some extent, if the artist was progressing and had something to say. Warhol, for instance, had both the technical skill and the originality (and relevance) to place him at the top of his generation.

Well, let's look at film. Yes, I believe it's the equal of the other art mediums. It contains the movement of dance, the composition, color and light issues (among other things) of painting, issues of literature, and more.

One film professor once said that a great (or was it "good") film is a film that contains three good scenes and no bad scenes. As a collaborative effort, involving many disparate elements, it's possible for a film to be noteworthy even if only some of those elements shine (when I'm not enjoying a film, one can always key on camera work, props, etc.).

Hollywood has always been respected for its technical mastery, and that tradition continues today. For instance, Indian or French cinema could not have produced something on the order of King Kong, as much as they might like to in some respects. And I have no complaints about the acting talent in this country, either, or the writing -- Capote and American Beauty were both Hollywood films.

There is the matter of The Long Tail, a curve that helps explain distribution and other things. It helps explain the dynamic of "popular" films (even some of these may qualify as high art, if not now, then at some point in the future). Long Tail theory may also help explain how art comes to be seen as either high or low.


-Bernardo

Bernardo

You use the term "low brow" several times, and in conjunction not only with Hollywood film, but with Modernism. Indeed, you peg the beginnings of "low brow material" around the time of the Impressionists.

You may wish to reexamine your attitudes about Modern art and film -- they're not necessarily low brow or populist -- indeed, they're often just the opposite.

Reading about Charles Dickens recently, one finds that he was advised against serializing his works out of populist and low brow concerns, but the move proved a huge popular and commercial success. And we all benefit from the literature that resulted.

-Bernardo

Unregistered

I might add, too, that, in defining high and low art, that there are constants or universalities. There are matters of composition and color and such. People from any time, for instance, can appreciate a noted work from ancient Egypt, or Polynesian designs, or stone axes and arrowheads.

I imagine that there is some primal sense of proportion, composition, movement and such. Our ancient ancestors, for instance, noticed the blade of grass that was out of place, because that blade of grass might suggest a tiger or other danger close at hand.

-Bernardo

Bernardo

I think Apocalypse Now at MoMA would be a great idea. The museums here run films regularly, so you might look into what is offered at MoMA and other museums in your area.

dcardillo

I hate to invoke the term "postmodern" regarding this thread, but the oppositional notion of "low brow/high brow" seems to be a cultural condition made irrelevant some time ago... (or has it?)

Unregistered

dcardillo,

Yes, if you take Postmodernism at face value.

High brow/Low brow are not terms that I would use, but artists that I respect use terms like "academic" and "arbitrary." So, most people (artists and viewers) are still using some sort of criteria in their judgments about art.

I'm also interested in how the original question was phrased.

-Bernardo

Unregistered

dcardillo,

My painting teacher just told me tonight that Postmodernism is over.

-Bernardo

dcardillo

post-postmodernism? As I mentioned before, the highbrow/lowbrow distinction has been replaced...today we have "nobrow."

Unregistered

dcardillo,

Does this apply to politics and science as well?

-Bernardo

dcardillo

yes, I think it applies to science and politics, since both are tied ultimately to economics, which is at the core of "nobrow."

Unregistered

Could you explain this concept of nobrow economics further, and the science and politics that is derived from it?

-Bernardo

pabloart4

Hi, I think most of Hollywood cinema art is low brow and a bad influence on many people everywhere.There have been some great pieces of high art from there like:--"Citizen Kane" and "To Kill a Mocking Bird" to mention just two, but in the main it is garbage dished out to get big money in return.It panders to the lowest drives of the human psyche and does so in a formula. But when it is high art it is great art.www.fredherbert.com

Bernardo

pabloart4,

I think you've stumbled into a philosophical conversation here (and so have I). You might do a search on "nobrow" or look up books on the subject. You might also look up "Postmodernism." Let me know what you think, and if it changes your understanding/opinion of Hollywood cinema, and everything else.

pabloart4

Hi Bernardo,
I have a background in philosophy actually. No intended bragging of course.
Yes I'll look up what you've suggested. I know a bit on post modernism, But I hadn't heard of "nobrow". We live and learn. It might take a weeks of so---but I'll be getting back to you re:--what you've suggested.
By the way my main education is in the visual arts.www.fredherbert.com

dcardillo

Think of nobrow as a replacement for the hierarchical, "veritical" organization of "high" and "low" culture--a notion that was fostered by the aristocratic regimes, and later, barons of the industrial age.. art was patronized by and made for the edification of the elite of those systems. In the post-industrial age, technology has given birth to "Nobrow," which is indifferent to the old notions of cultural stratification--think of it as an expansive, horizontally oriented grid where capital is accrued at all its interstices regardless of cultural precedent..hip hop music at one sector, art galleries at another sector... kitsch and class are now on the same playing field, all interconnected by technology, commodification, and capital. Science and politics are handmaidens to the process--both driven and shaped ultimately by economic forces.