Art

Problems with the hierarchy of arts

Originally posted on a twitter thread by me.

These days I cannot help but think how “better” art pieces are understood.

“Higher” art is understood to be slower, harder to grasp than “low” or “pop” art. It’s more obscure, and oftentimes requires deep cultural understanding of the field to be effective. It rarely means art that is effective in conveying an emotion or an idea, which is what art really is. The definition of “higher” art relies in how hard it is for the common spectator to engage with it. It speaks more about the receiver than of the creator.

“Higher” art is slow, so people with anxiety / trauma cannot engage w/ it in a proper manner, since one of the many symptoms of these conditions are inability to concentrate in anything that does not engage the brain instantly.

“Higher” art also requires education and research to get into. This much free time is pretty much exclusive of upper class people , who enjoy better working conditions, paid vacations, etc.

Works of art rarely benefit from those classist/ableist artificial barriers. Especially in videogames that stretch out to be 80hrs long, 4 hour movies or 1000 pages books that just drag endlessly without exploring deeper into the subject.

This is why I think “higher” art is just a codeword for “art for the rich and abled” and it automatically is held to a higher standard than “pop” art.

It is always assumed that something consumed by the privileged is automatically better than their counterparts. Many other oppressions also come to play here: white supremacy, with white art being automatically regarded as superior, patriarchal oppression, that distorts the representation of other genders in media, and a long etc.

In conclusion, I don’t care about high art. It is not inherently better or worse than pop art, it’s just a signifier of privilege to be able to consume and enjoy it. I will never strive for my art to be regarded as “high” or more worthy than others.