The Distinction Between High Art and Low Art, Essay Example

Cohen (1993) contended that instead of utilizing the terms “high art” and “low art,” critics should perhaps describe these two art forms using the words “fine art” and “popular art,” respectively. He further argued that high art is, in actuality, art, whereas low art is not art at all. Furthermore, Adorno theorized that, when analyzing music, high music referred to serious music, whereas low music referred to popular music, which used repetition to amuse the larger culture. High art therefore represents music that is aurally pleasing and beautiful, whereas low art is music that is intended simply to entertain the masses. That being said, it is apparent that there is an obvious discrepancy between what constitutes high art and what constitutes low art, and this distinction is relevant to performance. If one is performing a serious piece for a sophisticated crowd, he or she must consider aesthetics; on the other hand, if the purpose is merely to entertain the mass culture, aesthetics are less important. Two musical performances, West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet, help to delineate this distinction.

Specific Differences between High and Low Art

Gracyk (2008) has asserted that “art is the product of genius” and that “the value of art is aesthetic.” He also explained, “Whatever is true about fine art is true about music.” Grayck (2008) believed that high art was concerned with progress and that aesthetic value required autonomy. To be high art, then, a piece of music must be self-sufficient. It does not rely on entertainment value to be successful; it is inherently a success because it is aesthetically pleasing. This is a major distinction between high art and low art. Low art relies on entertainment value for its success and is therefore not self-sufficient. Without the approval of popular culture, low art would have no place in society, because its aesthetic value is indubitably limited. Kaplan (1966) has described low art as “lacking the interplay of ideas and formal experimentation that characterizes fine art.” Kaplan, too, believed that low art existed solely to entertain. Gurney and Hanslick, when comparing popular music to classical music, explained that popular music is low art, whereas classical music, which requires an intellectual response, is high art. They believed that popular music was low art because it was simply visceral and therefore not intellectual.

In a comparison of classical music, which is considered high art, and rock music, which is considered low, popular art, Davies (1999) explained that classical music is valued for its form. He also contended that the effort put into producing classical music outshines the actual performance of the music. Furthermore, he argued that classical music is more formal, whereas, “In rock music, the performance is the object of attention and it is enjoyed and valued for its non-formal properties” (Davies, 1999, p. 193). Davies (1999) also argued that classical musicians use score to guide their performances, whereas rock artists do not. Supporting the convictions of Gurney and Hanslick, Davies (1999) contended that the sounds used to play rock music “produce a response that is visceral or somatic” (p. 193). Classical music, on the other hand, is evaluated according to “sheer beauty of tone” (Davies, 1999, p. 194) and produces intellectual and emotional responses. Davies seems to suggest that classical music, or high art, is concerned with the actual content of the music, whereas rock music, or low art, focuses on performance. This reinforces the theory that low art serves merely as entertainment and provides additional support for the assertion that there exists a clear division between high and low art.

Adorno and Standardization

Adorno provided relevant arguments in his standard criticisms, and these arguments outline the divide between high and low art in the world of music. In his theories, Adorno separated serious, or high, music from popular, or low, music and looked into the differences between these two. Adorno primarily emphasized the concept of standardization.

Adorno claimed, “The whole structure of popular music is standardized, even where the attempt is made to circumvent standardization” (2002, p. 438). The majority of popular music is created using the same arrangement that consists of a standard verse, typically of thirty-two bars, with a repetitive refrain. Furthermore, in popular music, the range consists solely of one octave and one note. Perhaps the most significant assertion that Adorno made was that popular music contained “harmonic cornerstones.” These harmonic cornerstones are seen in popular songs, which place emphasis on the schemes, especially at the beginning and the end, thereby leading the music back to an auditory experience that the listener recognizes. Adorno continued to clarify the implications of standardization, recognizing the existence of a complete terminology that included ”break,” “blue cords,” and “dirty notes.” This terminology, he said, “Provides a rough, preliminary setting for the effect upon the listener” (2002, p. 439). The chief impact for the listener is that he or she is more attentive to the detail of the music than to the work as a whole. The effects of standardization are certainly conspicuous in today’s popular music. For a closer look at the repetition that characterizes popular music, see photo 1, which is a depiction of the music to Katy Perry’s popular hit “Firework.”

On the other hand, Adorno considered that, in serious, or high, music, “every detail derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece which, in turn, consists of the life relationship of the details and never of a mere enforcement of a musical scheme” (2002, p. 439). Adorno used “Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony” (see photo 2) to exemplify this viewpoint, explaining, “Only through the whole does it acquire its particular lyrical and expressive quality” (2002, p. 439). If the piece were measured in isolation, it would become insignificant. This would never occur when listening to popular music, as there would be no effect if any detail were considered out of context.

When considering social aspects, Adorno insisted that popular music is controlled by moneymaking forces, which both appease and manipulate the mass audience that responds to it. Serious music and popular music also place different demands on audiences. Popular music involves entertaining low art, which is produced to please large groups of people. Popular music is therefore created for audiences with a basic understanding of acceptable structure. Serious music is the opposite; it is complex and created for sophisticated audiences. Its value is in its beauty and its emphasis on the totality of its structure, instead of in the comfort of the mere repetition of familiar sounds.

Through explaining Adorno’s ideas about the differences between serious music and popular music, it becomes apparent that there are a number of distinct aesthetic variances between popular music, which is considered low art, and serious music, which is considered high art. High art is complex and aesthetically pleasing, whereas popular music is merely catchy and repetitive. In summary, a clear division exists between high and low art, and music resembles this difference.

The Opera House and Musical Theatre

In order to delineate the division between high and low art in performance, it is important to look at the differences between the opera house and musical theatre. Music theatre is a type of musical presentation that, according to Stempel (2010), involves singing and dancing, speaking, and music that emanates from concealed instruments. Opera is more intricate in nature, as there are two distinct types of opera: opera seria and opera buffa (Grout and Palisca, 1988). According to Grout and Palisca (1988), opera seria was influenced by the Enlightenment movement and was characterized by a clear, rational portrayal of a tragedy. In terms of music, opera seria contains recitatives that are typically written in versi sciolti (Sadie, 1990). The recitatives consist of “freely intermixed, unrhymed seven- and eleven-syllable lines” (Sadie, 1990, p. 72). According to Grout and Palisca (1988), a recitative is used to portray the action occurring in an opera seria, and characters use arias to express their feelings to the audience after actions occur. Arias, according to Grout and Williams (1988), are typically accompanied by an orchestra. The opera buffa, in contrast, is brighter and more humorous than the opera seria (Grout and Palisca, 1988). European scholars at times viewed opera buffa as a mediocre, substandard form of art when compared to the opera seria (Sadie, 1990). Opera buffa, in its infancy, was meant to be easier for commoners to understand than was opera seria, and it involved simpler language than that which characterized opera seria (Wikipedia, 2012). One might conclude that opera buffa was meant merely to be a form of comical entertainment, whereas opera seria was valued for its aesthetic qualities. In this way, the opera seria serves as a representation of high art, whereas the opera buffa represents a form of low art.

Just as there are distinctions between opera buffa and opera seria, there is a division between opera seria and musical theatre as well. Though both opera seria and musical theatre include singing and dancing and are a type of theatre music, they have different characteristics. For example, opera seria can be defined as classical theatre, because it primarily uses serious, instrumental music. Musical theatre, on the other hand, uses mostly popular styles of music. It can therefore be defined as popular theatre. Opera seria, a form of classical theatre, represents high art, whereas musical theatre, or popular theatre, is low art.

In terms of performance, opera always includes acting and singing, whereas dancing may not always be present. In music theatre, singing, dancing, and speaking are all present and important. The performance in musical theatre is more abundant and more important, because its goal is to provide entertainment. Opera seria, on the other hand, is concerned with musical form. It involves dramatic, serious themes, whereas musical theatre is typically concerned with everyday themes that an audience may experience in real life.

History has supported that assertion that serious opera represents a form of high art. According to Zelechow (1991), opera is thought to be more elitist than any other type of art. Historically speaking, opera seria is especially elitist, as it began in Florence during the Renaissance and was favored by aristocrats (Zelechow, 1991). When referring to opera, Zelechow (1991) contended, “It is perceived as a plaything of the rich and the stamping ground of cultural snobs” (p. 91). Popular theatre, on the other hand, does not cater to the rich, as it is enjoyed by the masses. It portrays everyday themes and is enjoyed by individuals from all social classes, as they attend performances at high schools, community centers, and local playhouses.

Romeo and Juliet vs. West Side Story

O’Connor, R., 2009. Romeo and Juliet. [Electronic print] West Side Story. [Electronic print] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org Available at: http://www.mlive.com.

To understand the differences between opera seria and musical theatre, one can compare two musical performances: Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story. Romeo and Juliet, which was adopted from Shakespeare, was written by Charles Gounod and performed as a romantic opera in 1859. Aruthur Laurents authored the musical theatre West Side Story in 1957. These two works took place in different situations. Romeo and Juliet are set in Italy in the 16^th century, whereas West Side Story takes place in the western part of New York in the 20^th century. This reflects that West Side Story is more relevant to present life, leading audiences to be able to better understand and relate to the story.

In terms of musical style, West Side Story used mostly the popular style of music, and the tunes were standardized and repetitive, making them easier for audiences to understand. West Side Story used many solos. In Romeo and Juliet, there were fewer solos. Serious music and elements such as aria and recitative were primarily used in juxtaposition with a symphony orchestra. The symphony orchestra increases gorgeousness when compared to popular, repetitive music. Such a performance typically requires a more sophisticated, elite audience.

As far as musical element is concerned in these two works, Romeo and Juliet used orchestra music, which served to significantly form the atmosphere and influence the development of the story. For example, the orchestra music often accompanied the actors’ arias and conveyed a sense of emotion. In musical theatre, elements are used more freely. For example, West Side Story utilized numerous musical foundations, including jazz (Jet Song and Cool), blues, and Latin music. Jazz in particular is considered more of a low form of art, especially by Adorno. As explained by Witkin (2000), “Adorno’s jazz essays have attracted considerable notoriety not only for their negative and dismissive evaluation of jazz as music but for their outright dismissal of all the claims made on behalf of jazz by its exponents and admirers” (p. 145). Witkin (2000) also indicated that Adorno’s essays on jazz suggested that he was snobbish toward jazz music, finding it to be devoid of novel, technical qualities that distinguish music as being fine art. That being said, Adorno would certainly consider West Side Story, and the music used in its presentation, to be low art.

By analyzing serious opera and musical theatre, one can conclude that these two types of performances are both similar and different. Although both contain singing and speaking, serious opera is less likely to include dancing than musical theatre. Furthermore, one of these performance types represents high art, whereas the other represents low art. To distinguish between high and low art, one most look at the type of music presented in each type of performance. Musical theatre uses mostly popular music, making it a form of low art, whereas serious opera tends to use classical symphony music, rendering it a form of high art. That being said, classical music and popular music can be defined as high art and low art, respectively.

Divisions between High and Low Art: Impact on Performance

According to previously discussed theories, there is a discrepancy between what constitutes high art and what constitutes low art. This separation may affect musical performance. As indicated previously, serious opera and classical music should be labeled as high art, whereas popular music and musical theatre are low art. Therefore, there are different considerations when we perform a high form of art like serious opera than when we perform a low form of art, such as musical theatre. When performing a high form of art, like serious opera, we must consider the style of music to be used. Certainly, classical music or a symphony orchestra would be far more appropriate in this case than would be popular music. Furthermore, if we are performing a low form of art such as musical theatre, repetitive popular music is suitable.

We must also consider differences in audiences when performing high art versus low art. For example, if we are performing a high art form like serious opera, we must consider that we are catering to a sophisticated audience with a keen ear for musical beauty. These audiences will appreciate holistic music forms in which the entire piece works together to create a unified whole. Such audiences may also be responsive to more complex language and thematic elements. On the other hand, if we are performing a musical theatre, which is a low form of art, we must consider that audiences expect merely to be entertained. They will prefer popular, catchy jingles that are repetitive and that can be understood when broken down into parts. Audiences who attend musical theatre performances may better respond to simpler, everyday language. The social situation clearly dictates how we must perform; therefore, audience plays an important role in how we select music and in how we go about presenting a musical performance. Accommodating differences in audiences is essential. Cohen (1999) has supported this assertion, explaining that an artist must consider whom a work of art is for prior to creating the work of art. He specifically argued, “There are high audiences and low audiences, and there are works appropriate to each, called, perhaps, works of fine art and works of popular art” (Cohen, 1999, pp. 137-138). In his case, Cohen uses the term “fine art” to refer to high art and “popular art” in reference to low art. Cohen (1999) also clarified that viewers of high art may be snobbish, whereas viewers of low art tend to be more pedestrian. These sentiments support the arguments made throughout the present paper.

Conclusion

According to the analysis and explanation provided, aesthetics is understood as the “philosophical study of art,” and it is utilized to assess the beauty and value of music. After considering relevant theories, the basic distinctions between the aesthetics of high art and low art become evident. The difference between high and low art is akin to the distinction between serious music and popular music. Serious music, with its beauty and emphasis on entirety of structure, is appropriate for sophisticated, elite audiences, whereas popular music, which is characterized by repetition and entertainment value, serves to amuse the mass culture. Furthermore, serious music is used in high art forms such as the serious opera, whereas popular music is present in low art forms, like musical theatre. There is certainly a division between high and low art, and when it comes to music, this division is expressed in terms of both musical structure and social requirements.

High art presents different social demands than the low art. The difference between high art and low art is therefore important when one is performing a musical piece. If performing a piece of low art, one must be prepared to provide amusement to mass audiences that may consist of lower class individuals who do not have an understanding of or an appreciation for fine art. If performing a piece of high art, on the other hand, one must face the challenge of impressing a more sophisticated, hard-to-please audience. Audiences who choose to analyze high art likely have knowledge of musical form, and they want more than to be merely entertained. They desire to be enlightened.

References

Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony. [Electronic print] Available at: http://www.rc.umd.edu.

Cohen, T., 1999. High and low art and high and low audiences. Journal of Aesthetics of Art & Art Criticism, 57(2), pp. 137-143.

Cohen, T., 1993. High and low thinking about high and low art. Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, 51(2), pp. 151-156.

Davies, S., 1999. Rock versus classical music. Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, 57(2), pp.193-302.

Firework. [Electronic print] Available at: http://www.tradebit.com.

Grout, D.J. and Palisca, C. V., 1988. A history of Western music. Fourth Edition. New York: W.W Norton & Company.

Grout, D.J., and Williams, H.W, 1988. A short history of opera. Third Edition. New York: Columbia University Press.

O’Connor, R., 2009. Romeo and Juliet. [Electronic print] Available at: http://www.mlive.com.

Sadie, S., 1990. History of opera. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

West Side Story. [Electronic print] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org.

Wikipedia, 2012. Opera buffa. [Online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_buffa [accessed 2 April, 2012].

Witkin, R. W., 2000. Why did Adorno ‘hate’ jazz? Sociological Theory, 18(1), pp. 145-170.

Zelechow, B., 1991. The opera: the meeting of popular and elite culture in the Nineteenth Century. Journal of Popular Culture, 25(2), pp. 91-97.