The Fisher reading is a useful survey of the general high
vs. low art topic, but as such, he never advocates a specific approach to the
question. Consequently, the task of deciding which perspectives on the issue
are most important, be it for your specific essay topic or the debate in
general, is left to you.
1. An important point that Fisher makes early on is that the high vs. popular art distinction must be seen independently from the good vs. bad art binary. In other words, this debate is about more than our individual, subjective metrics of quality. Rather, as Fisher touches upon in a number of instances, these understandings of high and popular art have "been influenced by our tendency to grade the types of cognition and character involved in appreciating various genres and forms. As such, it appears to presuppose questionable traditional ideas about the value of various mental states and attitudes" (530). For example, the difficulty that sometimes accompanies 'reading' high art, a difficulty that we typically understand as just part of what it takes to fully appreciate its complexity, could be seen as reflecting a broader cultural belief that anything worth having must be worked for, that the greater the work, the greater the reward.
As I did in the example above, please isolate a trait you feel we typically associate with high or popular art (difficult to understand, worth a lot of money, mass-produced, age or historical precedent, cultural impact, and so on), and speculate upon what implicit cultural values, assumptions, or ideologies may be at play in our ascribing that trait to "high" art or "popular" art.
2. Briefly discuss an object that you believe should be reconsidered as 'higher' or 'lower' art than it is typically understood to be, or assert a similar categorical classification for an object that currently occupies an uncertain place in this conversation (not unlike our inability to unanimously place the Obama “Hope” poster, for example).
3. Respond to one of your classmate's classifications for #2. This does not mean a simple, knee-jerk, one-liner contradiction (e.g., “Dave says the Obama poster is low art, I say it’s high art). Rather, raise an issue that complicates this artistic classification, that reinforces it (“another element Dave neglected to mention that actually supports his classification of the Obama poster as popular art is...), or contradicts it, but explain your reasoning while taking into account whatever rationale your classmate utilized in their original post.
For those of you posting first, you can respond to one of the classifications we discussed in class on Thursday with the PowerPoint, or you can post your response to #1 and #2, then come back later after others have made their posts to answer #3.
1. An important point that Fisher makes early on is that the high vs. popular art distinction must be seen independently from the good vs. bad art binary. In other words, this debate is about more than our individual, subjective metrics of quality. Rather, as Fisher touches upon in a number of instances, these understandings of high and popular art have "been influenced by our tendency to grade the types of cognition and character involved in appreciating various genres and forms. As such, it appears to presuppose questionable traditional ideas about the value of various mental states and attitudes" (530). For example, the difficulty that sometimes accompanies 'reading' high art, a difficulty that we typically understand as just part of what it takes to fully appreciate its complexity, could be seen as reflecting a broader cultural belief that anything worth having must be worked for, that the greater the work, the greater the reward.
As I did in the example above, please isolate a trait you feel we typically associate with high or popular art (difficult to understand, worth a lot of money, mass-produced, age or historical precedent, cultural impact, and so on), and speculate upon what implicit cultural values, assumptions, or ideologies may be at play in our ascribing that trait to "high" art or "popular" art.
2. Briefly discuss an object that you believe should be reconsidered as 'higher' or 'lower' art than it is typically understood to be, or assert a similar categorical classification for an object that currently occupies an uncertain place in this conversation (not unlike our inability to unanimously place the Obama “Hope” poster, for example).
3. Respond to one of your classmate's classifications for #2. This does not mean a simple, knee-jerk, one-liner contradiction (e.g., “Dave says the Obama poster is low art, I say it’s high art). Rather, raise an issue that complicates this artistic classification, that reinforces it (“another element Dave neglected to mention that actually supports his classification of the Obama poster as popular art is...), or contradicts it, but explain your reasoning while taking into account whatever rationale your classmate utilized in their original post.
For those of you posting first, you can respond to one of the classifications we discussed in class on Thursday with the PowerPoint, or you can post your response to #1 and #2, then come back later after others have made their posts to answer #3.
Please finish responding to this post by 5pm on Sunday. (Earlier is fine, too.)
Jesus Herrera
ReplyDelete1. High art usually requires people to know about the history depicted in the actual artwork or the historical context of the time when the artwork was made. For example, Edvard Munch’s “The Scream” is better understood if we comprehend that at the time it was made many countries were shifting from a predominantly rural lifestyle to an urban lifestyle. Urban life, thus, became associated with modernity. Munch’s “The Scream” depicts pain and anguish associated with the urban lifestyle of late 19th, early 20th century. Most likely, if one did not know this fact, then the “high” artwork would not serve its purpose. Michelangelo’s sculpture of David also requires one to understand the history of the Biblical hero David. If people do not know who David is (or how others artists have depicted him), then they will not understand why Michelangelo’s sculpture is so famous.
A knowledge of history is probably ascribed to “High” art because the upper class of a society is more likely to understand the references (or even view the art piece) than the lower class. Hence, it is expected that wealthier individuals will gain/pursue a better education than poorer individuals. Unlike mass art, the examples of art I used do not “gravitate toward the lowest level of taste” (533). This means that one cannot simply go to a museum and both understand and like all the art. And that is, theoretically, what makes it high art.
2. According to Noel Carroll’s three conditions of mass art that John Fisher mentions, it looks like the films we discussed in class (Dark Knight, Gone with the Wind, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Inception) would be considered mass art and, therefore, “low” art. They all contain multiple instances, were produced and distributed by mass technology, and contained plots (and symbolism) directed at attracting a large number of audiences. That being said, the class can probably agree that those films may be considered low art, but represent examples of very good low art. Maybe, that is why some of us had trouble placing these films in one category versus the other because they are “really good,” but are “technically” low art. According to Fisher, what makes these movies “low art” as well is that they provide entertainment accessible to “unsophisticated consumers” and produce “frivolous pleasures (fun) of entertainment” (538). Whatever the case, it cannot be disputed that films are a form of art.
3. I agree with Summer when she states that art (and its classification) is dependent on “personal opinion.” People know the type of art they like best and what works they consider as art. Hence, what may be high art to someone may be low art to someone else. For example, although Summer sees “nothing” in the films we discussed in class to make them high art, someone who is a film expert or infatuated with movies may believe they are a form of high art. However, I would contest her statement about “sequel films” not being considered art because they follow “a story line that people already know.” Sequel films may be following a story line, but each new film is its own creation. It is not like the first part of the movie is made and then the following ones are done as well. Furthermore, the success of one part of a story line does not guarantee the success of others, so sequel films actually have to work harder to keep people interested (or attract others) to view the film. This may be driven by a desire to make profits, but then that starts another discussion: do people create art because they want to make money and be renown as artists or because they truly love art? In the end, I agree with Summer because people and artists individually decide what to consider as art and why they make it (or like it).
Delete1. I feel that high art is mostly defined by complexity. When a piece of art cannot be easily comprehended this means there is only a limited audience who is able to appreciate it. Typically, when a work of art is mass produced, it cannot contain to complex of qualities or else it would lose its marketability. Such works may make a great deal of money. However, this is why in my opinion monetary worth does not play an integral role in a work being deemed high art.
Delete2. I would argue that although it is a television show, AMC's Breaking Bad should be considered high art. The primary reasoning behind this is how the show portrays morally ambiguous characters but does in a manner where the audience is unsure how to feel about them. For example, the main character, Walt, begins cooking meth to ensure a financially secure future for his family after he has just been diagnosed with Cancer. He participates in questionable acts, yet, the audience sympathizes with him. On the other hand, there is his wife, Skylar, who begs him to stop before he ruins their family or gets himself killed. Most viewers disagree with Skylar when she actually is the voice of reason.
3. Although they both raised valid points, I disagree with Summer and Jesus that the Dark Knight and the Lord of the Rings are low art. Despite the fact much of their merit is derived from their technological achievements, they were critically recognized and this is a form of art. The Academy Award has categories for this type of art and each of these films nominated for just about all of them. The Return of the King in the Lord of the Rings franchise was the last of the trilogy and won the Best Picture Oscar. This film is high art due to the fact it was popular and still was able to be critically acclaimed through its story, character, and cinematic devices
According to Fishers' reading it seem high and low art in a way could be associated with social class from the examples of high art and low art he used in comparison. Such as Beethoven being an example of High art and rap being an example of low art. Beethoven is art that only high class citizens view, while rap is an art for generally the lower class of citizens.
ReplyDeleteFishers question to whether high art should be the only art considered art while low art is just non-art. I feel all art should be considered art because to some person out there it is indeed art. Although it won't be considered art by everyone, to someone it will. So to the question if high art should only be considered art i believe that should not be the case.
1. When we discuss “high or popular art” we typically associate it with money. I feel as though we have been raised to understand that high art is geared towards people who have lots of money. We see expensive art galleries in very wealthy parts of the nation. The first place that comes to mind is in New York. I remember being in New York and walking by an art gallery and thinking, “there is no way I would ever spend that amount of money on a piece of art.” This being said I don’t necessarily feel it means that people with lots of money are smarter or have more knowledge of the piece of art; they simply just have the money to be able to buy the expensive piece of art. In the Fisher article it states, “No doubt the implied value between high and low disturbs modern egalitarian thinkers. Where does the hierarchy come from?” (530) This is very true, where does the hierarchy come from? There could be a young art major student that has just as much knowledge about the piece of “high art” but just simply not have the money to buy the art. The assumption made with high art often sometimes comes from the fact that the painting or piece of art is so detailed and “odd” that it is immediately classified as “high art.” I feel like all of the art pieces I have seen that are worth a lot of money are some of the most random and awkward images and paintings; to the point that you think why would anyone want to buy that, it makes no sense.
ReplyDelete2. As we briefly discussed in class last Thursday, I feel that even though it is not legal; graffiti should be classified as high art. Now to be clearer, not graffiti like gang members tagging something, but actual artwork murals that are done with spray cans. Even though I don’t necessarily agree with people who tag random buildings and what not I will have to admit that it is very creative and artistic. When I think of high art I think a piece that is unique and one of a kind. For example, the few times I have been to Venice Beach I have been amazed by some of the art work and pieces that I have seen vendors selling. From the paintings to the jewelry it is very creative and unlike anything you could buy at Target or at a mall. High art to me should include not only paintings you would find at a art gallery, but jewelry, and sculptures, vintage clothing, etc. I feel like people automatically put down graffiti or classify the people who sell pieces in Venice because they think it is weird, but high art you see in galleries in major cities is often time just as weird and can be worth thousands of dollars.
3. Jesus states that the films we discussed in class are considered to be low art. I have to agree with Jesus on this, I too consider movies like Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, etc to be low art. I feel like people would confuse them for high art in the sense that they were each very technologically advanced but to me that is not art. For instance, Dark Knight was an amazing film; but that was all it was, a popular film. There is nothing that makes it “ high art.” Personally for me I classify high or popular art as something unique, something that hasn’t been done before “thinking outside of the box.” Movies like Dark Knight and Lord of the Rings are not unique. Sure, the movies were creatively produced and special effects were on point, but there is nothing that would make it stand out as high art. Jesus made the comment that, “it cannot be disputed that films are a form of art” to one extent in my opinion I feel like you could argue that they are not art. I can see where you may say they are art, but really it’s a personal opinion. I do not feel like sequel films should be considered art. The films are following a story line that people already know; it is nothing new or different. I feel like from my background and major of study a film like Dark Knight for instance would strictly be just a movie that was made to make lots of money and franchise the name out to make even more money. It really depends on how you classify art and how you look at it.
1.When something is considered to be high art it usually is due to its popularity or its worthiness. Most people are not extreme art lovers or experts in art, so that’s why today people judge art based on the background info of a piece rather than the quality. An example of this is a typical art gallery. When a person walks in an art gallery and look at the different pieces, he or she just doesn’t immediately think all of the pieces are great. When they read the description of the piece their view can easily be altered if the piece has a prestigious background or is worth a lot.
ReplyDelete2.I feel that Picasso’s painting of the Dove of peace should be considered lower art. The painting is not a really good or exquisite painting. The painting is only considered high art, because of the artist who created it. I feel like art should be judged based on quality and nothing else. There is no quality whatsoever to the piece, and I think that I can draw it so it definitely doesn’t have the rare factor to it either.
3. Jesus and Summer stated how they felt that the films we talked about in class are low art. I agree with them on this, but I also feel that even though the Lord of the Rings movie is low art the book franchise is not. The movie is a piece of art created out of the shadow of another piece of art which makes it not original. The books were creations produced in the authors mind, and not altered to please readers like the movie was. The books were original works of art that a lot of people like.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) "High" art typically presupposes that the audience already have a level of knowledge about that particular medium. The knowledge gives you the resources to gain pleasure from that art form, because you understand the complexities of the issue. Take Monet's paintings of his pond in Giverny: on one level, you might be a painter that realizes the immensity of painting so many fine details that, while individually may be nothing more than a quick brush stroke, but holistically form this surreal painting. Does this mean that if you aren't aware of these techniques firsthand then you don't enjoy it as much? Furthermore, what does it mean when an art form can be enjoyed by both laymen and the skilled? Music seems to speak to all people, regardless of prior knowledge. All other traits aside, would the symphony still be high art just because it is at once emotive and sonically complex? Or take math. Would math be a "high" art form because only those who have the basic knowledge to understand the complexity (and simplicity, often) of equations can enjoy it? Does it merit being high art if you always have to explain it?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the steeper the learning curve, the easier it is to deem something as "high" art in the eyes of society. But is something MORE of a high art the more complex it is? Conversely, is something closer to "low" art the greater it can relate to laymen but still hold its appeal to intellectuals?
2) In class on Thursday, many people took the stance that graphic novels would be "mass" art. By Carroll's definition, graphic novels meet all three conditions; I would argue, however, that it doesn't meet the third condition. This is because while graphic novels have an appeal to the most amount of people, it is the medium through which the message is told that is being criticized. As Professor Park pointed out, "Maus" is an award-winning graphic novel, yet is still considered "mass" art. I feel as if people will never lose the connotations that exist with comic strips and graphic novels as being "mass" or "low."
3)To play devil's advocate to Summer's comment, I have to ask about what you meant by tagging random buildings to be creative, but not "high" art, based upon the motives of the individual. Is it not "high" art because its only purpose is to claim territory? Or could it be that a gang is really attempting to get its presence known? Because then, graffiti art is not unlike any other street artist who is also supporting a group by plastering their name everywhere. I guess what I'm saying is that is street art strictly art on its own, or can there be an image that is itself art but serves another purpose?
1. I believe that art is in the eye of the beholder. I recently looked at some of Picasso's work and don't believe it was his work that he is truly famous for. I believe that it was his name he probably had some high powerful connections on his side. Many people would value some of Picasso's work over Bob Kane's work who is the artist for the old Batman Comics. I wouldn't say that people buy art for the price because comics books also have a very high price. Batman comics are considered high art to only few people. Same goes for those who love Picasso. I believe that if they were the same price that more people would buy Batman comics if it was all about money and the appearance of wealth. Art is more than money it depends on the viewer and what it means to you.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that people do respect Nature as an art. Nature is high art one because it is natural and not man made. Most of the Earth greatest treasures aren't Picasso's pieces it is objects such as lions, Niagara Falls, and rare trees. We can reproduce the grand canyon and it is one of the most beautiful pieces on Earth. Art doesn't have to be man made. Nature should be considered higher art because of how beautiful it is and how it can't be reproduced.
3. I don't believe that any recent film can be considered high art, because it hasn't passed the age test. However, they are great films but some have a certain standard to reach. To go against summer, how can you say which tagging is art and what isn't. Art can be language, numbers, and words to depict feelings. I believe graffiti lets you know whose area it is in an Artistic way. Yes it is illegal, but if it wasn't would it be art?
1) Fisher mentions high art versus low art in entertainment, and Shusterman’s perspective on the subject. Shusterman states that “entertainment works might be regarded as lower because they were made for unsophisticated consumers or because they tend to be elementary in form and content or because the intended effects of a product qua entertainment are viewed as worthless or even undesirable”.
ReplyDeleteShusterman seems to believe that entertainment arts are ‘frivolous pleasure’, and negatively affect their audience. What Shusterman neglects to mention are examples like Fisher’s – The General, David Copperfiled and Sergeant Pepper, works of art that came from entertainment and are now viewed as high or important art.
I disagree with Shusterman, because high art does not always come from non-entertainment roots. Examples like the orchestra and the ballet are also considered high art that came from entertainment. Fisher does acknowledge this, and mentions that artists and theorists are taking entertainment arts a lot more seriously.
2) http://www.redjellyfish.com/images/STREET%20ART%2011.jpg
I would most definitely consider street art to be high art. To me personally, I believe high art should be art that conveys emotion, and provokes thought. A lot of street art pass on messages that the artist is trying to convey, be it about society, politics or the environment. Not only does street art convey meaning, it also takes a lot of technical skill to create something worth putting out in the public, and there’s history and reason behind its creation.
3) Some people pointed out that the Lord of the Rings series is considered low art and I personally disagree with them. Jesus and Summer both talk about art classification as a personal bias, and they definitely have a point. I personally would consider the book series ‘high art’.
As I mentioned in class, some consider Tolkien to be the ‘father of the high fantasy genre’. His works spawned and influenced a lot of the material that are considered popular culture in current day publishing. Not only that, he wrote whole new languages that are used by a score of other modern day writers.
In terms of books and literature, I don't believe that just because a piece of art is popular, it should be labeled ‘low art’. Within it’s genre, many popular books are considered high art. For those who consider price to be a defining quality, the first edition of Tolkien’s The Two Towers is currently priced at thousands of dollars ($85,000).
1. While I believe that the high/low distinction is determined by several factors across many different art forms--from price to popularity to accessibility, etc.--I think the number one factor is its longevity, or relevance over time.
ReplyDeleteI believe that is why we had such a difficult time over Shepard Fairey's "HOPE" poster. Very soon after the poster was released, the image as huge. Everybody knew about it; the campaign was symbolized by the poster (whether Obama's camp wanted it to or not). However, since it has only existed since 2008, we cannot tell down the road if it will be memorable or stand the test of time. Since it's tied to a winning campaign, I think it is highly likely that it will become an iconic political image. I feel like our class largely felt the same way which is why we were on the fence for such a recent image. If that picture existed since 1950 and was still memorable, I think there would be no doubt it was high art.
I think this says that society automatically assumes that something is high art or places higher value on art that has stood the test of time. I'm sure there were many, many well-received books from 8 B.C. But the only one most of society (not, you know, specialists in 8 B.C. literature or something) know is the Odyssey, and if it's lasted over the years then it MUST be a good read or worthwhile or somehow valuable, society assumes.
With all of the art that we were unsure about in terms of where they were on the high/low spectrum, I think it's because its longevity over time was unclear. If something lasts in a world that is constantly inundated with new artwork, then it must have been better than the ones that didn't, in our eyes.
2. I would argue that Jean-Luc Godard's "Masculin, féminin" is low art. For a film student, Godard and François Truffaut are often high-regarded. For starters, their films were landmarks of the French New Wave movement and are still studied today in film studies classes when they were made in the 1960s. So they have stood the test of time. However, when regarding Fisher's other qualifications for being high or low art, the film definitely veers into the low art category. One famous intertitle from the film is "This film could be called 'The Children of Marx and Coca-Cola'." While the film used innovative techniques at the time, the content of the film is really a series of disjointed interviews of French youth discussing sex, Bob Dylan (and other tidbits of popular culture), and French life. It was meant to be accessible, uncomplicated entertainment for a wide audience of teenagers, who the film was made for. Instead since the film was a part of an entire movement of new cinema techniques the film became immortalized.
3. While I definitely agree that the street art we saw in class, in Exit Through the Gift Shop, and just in real life are really amazing and creative works of art, I would categorize street art itself as low art. Perhaps it's because I still feel like the "longevity" factor is big in determining something's value over time, but as Banksy said, street art just isn't meant to last, which is why he had Thierry film some of it. However, I would argue that these street artists' exhibitions and artworks that can be sold are high art because their art, especially those of artists like Banksy and Shepard Fairey, can be purchased and kept in existence, shown in galleries, etc. for a much longer time. Banksy in particular already has a mystery and popularity about him that I think will make his work over time in the vein of popularity as Andy Warhol's.
-Celine
Sullivan Brown
ReplyDelete1. When discussing "high art" it is usually associated with social status. Works that appeal to people of power are usually considered high art, since they have the ability to push there ideas onto others moreso than their lower class counterparts. Take Vincent Van Gogh for example. During his lifetime he was not considered the genius that he is today. Only after prestegious art critics praised his work was his art considered "high art". Additionally, after an artist has recieved praise from a credible source, all their art is considered "high art" no matter the quality. Artists such as Andy Warhol and Kaws were able to mass produce their art, making nearly copies of previous work, and still recieve the same praise and money, as they did from their better works.
2. Many films are considered low art, when really many of the m could be considered high art. however I believe their low art classification has to do with their original intention: to entertain and make money. While the film industry at its core is a business, the storytelling and visual design of these films can be comparable with literture and paintings that are considered high art. Additionally many films are based off of praised literature. The Godfather, for example, is based off of the novel written by Mario Puzo. It is considered one of the greatest films of all time, yet in many peoples minds is not considered high art. Is this because it is not entirely original? Doesn't it take a high level of artistic ability to turn something that is literature into a more consise visual interpretation?
3. I agree with summer saying that some graffiti should be considered high art. I also agree that high art graffiti should be based on its intention. A simple gang member tag is more of an intention of vandalism, rather than trying to make an artistic statement in my opinion. However many graffiti murals I counsider very beautiful. Another aspect about high art graffiti is its use of the urban environment as a canvas. It enables graffiti artists to make artistic statements that would be impossible using any other sort of medium. The combination of graffiti as a illegal form of vandalism only adds to the statement.
1. The distinction between "high" and "low" art is a complicated one since it is based not only on the style of the artist(s) creating it, but also on the way it is perceived by its audiences. The culture of the audiences has led to the formation of this high-low distinction in every genre of art from sculpture and painting to film and photography. This has created a social divide between the artists belonging to a particular genre, because of which the audience tends to create expectations from the artist and the art then produced. These expectations are usually strong enough that they trap a work of art, or sometimes an artist, in a particular category. If a work of art, such as a play, a movie or a painting, is labelled as high art, then the artist is expected to be associated with high art. Once this association becomes more accepted among greater audiences, the art produced by an artist is constantly viewed through a biased lens and does not remain independent of that identity. A painting by Pablo Picasso will always be a "Picasso" and, hence, high art, regardless of whether it would fall on the same side of the spectrum independently. Such expectations can create biases strong enough that audiences stop assessing or understanding the art and instead only see what they want to see.
ReplyDelete2. Sufi music is a genre in which the poems of Sufi saints are recited in soothing harmony accompanied by traditional Middle-Eastern and Indian instruments. The poems sound almost like love songs devoted to God. While the style is still recognized in India, it is not being preserved or propagated. The songs of these Sufi saints are now heard only in certain Sufi temples and mosques as popular music has taken over everyone's iPods and radios. Sufi is the "soul" music of India. It is a powerful genre of music that allows an artist to use his distinctive style while offering devotion towards God. Popular culture has tried to reproduce various Sufi poems in the style of popular Bollywood songs and has butchered the meditative power of the lyrics, along with the culture and heritage that it represents. Instead of popularizing this unique artform, it has to be bred from the roots and needs to become a greater part of the Indian culture.
3. I agree with Celine's perspective that longevity or relevance over time is an important factor that determines its high or low status. High art does stand the test of time, while low art faces a challenge. The transformation of low art to high art can happen over time as the work of art becomes increasingly associated with the existing culture. Low art could even have last through decades simply because it was popularized and then mass-produced and distributed. But along its existence, it created for itself a legacy that would resonate with the public even in the future, much like the "HOPE" poster campaign for President Obama.
ReplyDelete1. Fisher argues at some point that high art is relative to low art and low art is relative to high art. One attribute that we place on high art is its historical origin to give it value. While this is always not true (some consider movies to be a high art form even though they are relatively new compared to theatre or sculpture), the fact that we value poems and paintings as high art demonstrates that we tend to like older things. We like older things because they tend to give us wisdom or knowledge from past events. My looking at high art, we are looking to learn from the past. The search for past knowledge displays humans as individuals hungry to learn and not fall into past mistakes. It is also an attempt to improve themselves to a level exceeding the person that created the artwork by understanding it and consuming it.
ReplyDelete2.The problem with tackling a traditionally viewed "high" art form is that they are almost universally categorized as high art. But I will give it a shot. The art that has always bothered me that I think should be considered "lower" than it is on the arbitrary artistic value scale is sculpture, particularly Michelangelo's David. From Fisher's last point about entertainment being a determinant of art, the fact that the David was probably constructed to be a form of entertainment, admit a high one, makes it seem like lower art. It can also be seem as popular art because of the wide audience and fame. What most defines art as having value is its ability to evoke a strong emotion from its audience, which the David fails to do. Yes, it is a large, grand structure that has a certain intrinsic appeal but it also does not have a lot of interpretive value that isn't surface deep if you know the story of David and Goliath. Just as high art doesn't have to be popular, popular art does not have to be high art. The David is still a piece of high art bur it deserves a slightly lower value when its emotional significance is considered.
3. I would like to argue against Summer's point that graffiti is high art. The illegality of the action is one point but anything can be made illegal. One, graffiti is mass art but it is not popular art because of its destructive quality. One would have to ask if anything that destroying something else and doesn't necessarily add any value is valuable. Another measure to art that must be considered is the intent behind it. Many many many forms of graffiti have the intent to mark territory, very few are made to specifically improve a space. Some graffiti have artistic quality but not all are art because of what they are set up to do. Within our social construction of high art, they needs to be some form of complexity of ideas that can be interpreted.