Robert Arneson
California Artist. 1982
Robert Arneson said, "I want to make 'high art' that is outrageous, while revealing the human condition which is not always high." What did he mean by "high" art? Why would he make this statement? Do you think that art can be taken seriously when it is humorous? Defend your position.
Pure examples of ‘high’ or ‘low’ art
by Jahsonic
The Intellectuals and the Masses was one of the more enlightening reads of 2006:
I’m currently reading John Carey’s What Good Are The Arts?, a book designed to provoke all art-lovers into a steaming maelstrom of outrage. …
Carey will ultimately dismiss the distinction between high and low art as impossible to maintain, but I think we can do something better than that with it. First of all we have to stop seeing the categories of high and low as being mutually exclusive. Quite a lot of operas, for instance, will include elements of farce, or romance, or pantomime, just as a television cartoon ostensibly for children, like The Simpsons, is a fantastic example of relentlessly subversive, parodic, allusive elements disguised under a sugary outer coating. So it’s incredibly rare, in my opinion, to come across a pure example of ‘high’ or ‘low’ art. What we get is far more complex and mixed up than that. The way I would distinguish between those high and low elements, is to see ‘low’ or commercial or mass media art as being formulated in order to satisfy the desires and expectations of its audience. Take Mills and Boon/Harlequin romance books, for instance. … The whole point of these books is that they comfort and reassure readers by providing them with exactly what they want. By comparison, we might define those ‘high’ elements of art as the ones that challenge or question our expectations, whether they be about the world we live in, or the way that an artwork ‘ought’ to be put together [...]
I like litlove’s analysis of what makes the difference between high and low culture:
Low art comforts, satisfies and reassures audiences’ expectations
High art challenges and questions audiences’ expectations
found on website: Jahsonic 2006 -2009
A vocabulary of culture, or wanting connections, we found connections.
http://jahsonic.wordpress.com/2007/01/20/pure-examples-of-‘high’-or-‘low’-art/
I’m currently reading John Carey’s What Good Are The Arts?, a book designed to provoke all art-lovers into a steaming maelstrom of outrage. …
Carey will ultimately dismiss the distinction between high and low art as impossible to maintain, but I think we can do something better than that with it. First of all we have to stop seeing the categories of high and low as being mutually exclusive. Quite a lot of operas, for instance, will include elements of farce, or romance, or pantomime, just as a television cartoon ostensibly for children, like The Simpsons, is a fantastic example of relentlessly subversive, parodic, allusive elements disguised under a sugary outer coating. So it’s incredibly rare, in my opinion, to come across a pure example of ‘high’ or ‘low’ art. What we get is far more complex and mixed up than that. The way I would distinguish between those high and low elements, is to see ‘low’ or commercial or mass media art as being formulated in order to satisfy the desires and expectations of its audience. Take Mills and Boon/Harlequin romance books, for instance. … The whole point of these books is that they comfort and reassure readers by providing them with exactly what they want. By comparison, we might define those ‘high’ elements of art as the ones that challenge or question our expectations, whether they be about the world we live in, or the way that an artwork ‘ought’ to be put together [...]
I like litlove’s analysis of what makes the difference between high and low culture:
Low art comforts, satisfies and reassures audiences’ expectations
High art challenges and questions audiences’ expectations
found on website: Jahsonic 2006 -2009
A vocabulary of culture, or wanting connections, we found connections.
http://jahsonic.wordpress.com/2007/01/20/pure-examples-of-‘high’-or-‘low’-art/
What do I think High Art is?
I really like the definition above: High art challenges and questions audiences' expectation.
According to this definition, California Artist is most definintely High Art. Humor in art is wonderfully depicted in this piece and yes, it does make the audience smile. No matter from what walk of life a person comes, there is something about the sculpture which sparks some sort of humorous response, even if it is just in thought. For example, the cigarette butts, the marijuana leaves, the expression in general all are seen as light hearted. When I look at this, and then knowing it is a self-portrait, I immediately suspect this artist to be rebellious against the status quo. He wants to challenge many beliefs about artists, our culture (i.e. smoking weed or cigarettes), the stereotypical drunk artist. This piece made me think of my own beliefs about artists. I used to qualify the stereotypical drunk and mentally unstable artist of the 19th and 20th century the ONE which produced the most prolific and interesting great work. As my own journey into sobriety and the reading of The ARtists Way by Julie Cameron, my entire position changed and I realized I could still call myself an artist even if I didn't fall into the category many associate with good artists.
All of these thoughts actually ran through my mind when I viewed this piece! My own "yes, I like it" or "no, i don't like it" expanded into a whole dialogue within my mind.
To me, that is absolutely High Art.
According to this definition, California Artist is most definintely High Art. Humor in art is wonderfully depicted in this piece and yes, it does make the audience smile. No matter from what walk of life a person comes, there is something about the sculpture which sparks some sort of humorous response, even if it is just in thought. For example, the cigarette butts, the marijuana leaves, the expression in general all are seen as light hearted. When I look at this, and then knowing it is a self-portrait, I immediately suspect this artist to be rebellious against the status quo. He wants to challenge many beliefs about artists, our culture (i.e. smoking weed or cigarettes), the stereotypical drunk artist. This piece made me think of my own beliefs about artists. I used to qualify the stereotypical drunk and mentally unstable artist of the 19th and 20th century the ONE which produced the most prolific and interesting great work. As my own journey into sobriety and the reading of The ARtists Way by Julie Cameron, my entire position changed and I realized I could still call myself an artist even if I didn't fall into the category many associate with good artists.
All of these thoughts actually ran through my mind when I viewed this piece! My own "yes, I like it" or "no, i don't like it" expanded into a whole dialogue within my mind.
To me, that is absolutely High Art.