Devil's Advocate: Is 'High Culture' the most valuable form of art?

YES: Arnaz Mallick

Valuable things demand work. Not necessarily manual labour, academic drudgery, or great suffering — but consistency and commitment. ‘High culture’ is seen as detached from everyday, pop culture, and that which is easily accessible because it demands our time and effort. The first things that spring to mind — opera, classical music and literature, renaissance paintings — carry connotations of elitism, exclusivity, and remoteness. Yet no matter how out of touch they might appear, the products of ‘high culture’ are rooted in reality. That they stand the test of time is evidence enough of their relevance and defends their survival. 

High culture reflects the consciousness of a people or society, and without it, our cultural identities would be compromised. Those who create high culture are influenced by those creating ‘low culture’ and vice versa; the rise of the sensational nineteenth-century novel went hand in hand with the publishing of works of ‘high literature’ like Anna Karenina, works that go beyond entertainment to furthering what we understand about the world.

Why is it that, upon the rise of authoritarian regimes, the censorship of art, literature, and ideas, is so quick to take place? Undoubtedly, it is because they have power, serving not only as accomplished works of art, but instruments which change the very nature of our thought. Our ideas and actions are defined by what we engage with, and therein lies the potency of great literature, music, and art.

A repeated criticism of high culture is that it involves a degree of discrimination — cultures which prize often wealthy and patriotic artists from the upper echelons of society will always be, to an extent, elitist. But if we are to simply disregard everything that has, at some point in time, been seen as controversial or offensive, we would have no culture at all. ‘Low culture’ itself is not immune to this either — countless TV shows, films, and other aspects of pop culture from the last several decades have reflected racism, misogyny, and a plethora of other problematic behaviours. High culture at least gives us the guarantee of greater meanings and morals attached to these works of art.

It is valuable because, as well as meaningful, it is beautiful. Several of the greatest architectural monuments and structures have been products of aristocracy — the Taj Mahal, commissioned by the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, Versailles built by Louis XIV — now visited by millions of tourists every year. These may be steeped in the past and its implications of elitism and monarchy, but they never cease to fascinate and appeal to us. It is for this reason that we lament the rise of modern architecture at the expense of its traditional counterpart — any object’s origins do not change its intrinsic nature, and therefore an appreciation of high culture should not carry with it implications of disdain for other cultures or classes.

I began this defence of high culture and its value by stating that valuable things demand work. Yet I concede that art is slightly different from work — it brings pleasure, too. That, perhaps, is one of its most striking qualities, and why it has had a hold on human civilisation from its earliest moments to the present day. However, the products of high culture do not really need defending — their very persistence throughout time is evidence enough of their sophistication and relevance.

NO: Georges Toulouse 

I am tempted to remind you that sculpture used to be the highest art, while murals were no more than simple decoration on the walls of one’s house — today we visit Pompeii and marvel. Canvas paintings were once the poor man’s tapestry — so very impractical, your Leonardo doesn’t even capture the moisture of your stone house — now, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone able to cite the name of any tapestry other than the Bayeux. In his lifetime, Van Gogh was deemed a mediocre artist with a childlike style, and now he is known by even the most uncultured similar evolutions could be found for the Impressionists, Picasso, the Delaunays, Pollock, I would continue but I wish to get to my point: don’t listen to the snobs.

These people, self-proclaimed kingmakers in arts and culture, change their minds with the fashions, with what is deemed ‘acceptable’ — they have no more claim to deciding which art has value and which does not than anyone else. That power belongs to humanity as a whole. We forget that theatre used to be no more than entertainment, actresses likened to prostitutes, and many of its pioneers deemed too ‘impure’ to be buried according to Catholic rites. Nowadays, who would dare say Molière or Shakespeare are not worthy of acclaim, praise, and did not make ‘valuable’ contributions to humanity’s artistic production? Are we to let the snobs of today, once the censors of yesteryear, declare what has value and what does not? 

Perhaps you think that calling it snobbishness is a bit harsh, but think about it: artistic productions deemed too ‘popular’, too “proletarian“ always go unvalued until it is embraced and overtaken by the snobs, and only then are they deemed ‘high’ art. TV shows used to be seen as low-quality entertainment in the pejorative sense. Nowadays, they have managed to get out of the pits of the ‘unserious’,  and the quality of productions such as Mad Men or Normal People are recognised — yet it’s almost a given that they are the lesser brother of moving pictures. The slow evolution of mentalities from the self-proclaimed clergy of intellect and good taste might one day apply to YouTube videos or, God help us, TikToks. We just don’t know. 

If the value attributed to art relies so much upon format, upon how ‘high’ or ‘low’ it is labeled, I say we should revolt against this disconnected elite. Why should we accept the diktats of the few when art belongs to us all? There is such a wealth of beauty to be found in what mankind has made, and will continue to make, with our hands and mind — it seems blatantly stupid to limit the amount we can take in because of an elitist hierarchy in art. Anything that makes you feel or think a certain way, is art, whether that thing is a movie, an opera, a TV show, or even a painting.

Illustration by Magdalena Yiacoumi