Comedian Mike Meyers once said, "there is no high humor or low humor. There is only funny." Critics and social commentators might disagree. But from a comic's perspective that is an essential truth.
The same is true for art from an artist's perspective. There is no high art or low art, there is only art. The distinction between high and low art is best left to the critics and future historians. In time, their judgment is likely to be judged by others as wrong, anyway. The tides of taste are always shifting and fickle.
Artists are doing themselves a grave disservice judging their own or other artist's work as high or low. Hogarth turned vulgar subjects into art centuries ago, as did Caravaggio and a long list of distinguished artists. Daumier's political cartoons are prized museum pieces. And as Walter points out, Rockwell's work, dismissed when created, are now masterpieces of fine art.
As artists we need to do the work, show it, sell it, enjoy it, whatever, just don't judge it on how it fits into a social or historical context. It only leads to self censorship and would be a horrible waste of time and emotion.
-----------
This post was inspired by an an interesting blog by Walter King, BY WAY OF THE DODO: Scott Muskgrove’s Menagerie. In it, among other interesting ideas, he talks about the concept of the line between high and low art - illustration vs. fine art in this case. I encourage you to read it if only for the entertaining writing and art.
1 comments:
As a dealer in "Outsider and Artbrut art". I have to fight the stigma of a "field" named after the type of artist rather than the type of art. The boundaries are thankfully getting blurred, as in the end, art is art. High, low, trained, untrained, who cares!
Post a Comment