Is there a distinction between high and low art? This question has been a topic of discussion from the day art was born until today.
It should be said that from the nature of art and the social attributes of art, there is no distinction between high and low in art. Art comes from life, and art feeds back to life. Everyone has the right and freedom to create art, and everyone has the right and freedom to appreciate art. Theoretically speaking, there is no distinction between high and low art, and there is nothing wrong with this.
However, in actual operation, especially in ancient times when productivity was backward and material and cultural and artistic products were scarce, art was distinguished between high and low. Otherwise, how could the terms aristocratic art and civilian art appear? In ancient times, art in many cases served the aristocracy and was an exclusive "welfare" for the aristocracy. It was difficult for most ordinary people to appreciate art.
With the development of the economy and the progress of society, art has gradually become the "first enjoyment" of the public. The essence and social nature of art have been revealed, and there is no distinction between high and low in art.
However, the old contradictions were resolved and new ones emerged. From the perspective of art itself, there is indeed no distinction between the poor and the humble. Art has never been as open to society and the public as it is now. However, there are also some people who are engaged in art and those who "circle" around art, who artificially distinguish between "high and low" art. Mainly manifested in the fact that these people are full of utilitarian ideas and regard works of art as pure commodities, either through hype, wholesale production, or plagiarism from others, etc., which changes the taste of works of art that are originally holy and noble in people's eyes. , how can such a work of art be called noble?
Therefore, from the perspective of art itself, art is art, and there is no distinction between high and low. However, because people engaged in art have different practices and behaviors, art is artificially distinguished between high and low. This is the case.
Since the birth of human civilization, art has followed. What is certain is that art has become more and more perfect with the development of creative skills and the times. The art that started thousands of years ago was in a completely different state than the art it is now. But from a broad perspective, art is called art from beginning to end. Is there any distinction between high and low art? This is another controversial topic.
The reason why it is said that there is no distinction between high and low in art is because art is formed by culture. For example, language is a kind of culture, and the way of expressing language is visualized. The art of writing becomes the art of music; words are the symbol of culture, and the visualization of written words becomes the art of calligraphy. Of course, the earliest writing was painting (hieroglyphs), and the art of painting also became the art of calligraphy.
We all know that "art comes from life". Life is not only three meals a day, eating, drinking and having fun, but also an experience of ups and downs, bitterness, spicy and various emotions. Life is full of emotions, any kind What art should reflect is the true face of life. Since all art comes from life, and everyone is a family, we cannot say who is rich and who is poor. Naturally, there is no distinction between high and low, especially in art.
Since ancient times, art itself has had cultural value, social value, and commercial value. There is not much explanation about the cultural value and social value of art. The commercial value of art is immeasurable, precisely because it is In this way, many so-called artists regard art as a tool to gain fame and fortune, which violates the purpose of art, and the works they create tend to be commercialized.
Art works have some commercial value. This There is nothing strange at all. It is mainly because of the artificial hype of art and the behavior of plagiarizing art that such works of art gradually lose their artistic authenticity. Let me ask, an artist without correct artistic values ????has no art. A valuable work of art, is it noble or humble? Therefore, the artistic behavior of artists can be divided into noble and inferior.
Art is the same to everyone, but it is different when it comes to your hands and how you blow dry your hair. Similar products can be sky-high prices or so cheap that no one will believe them. I think natural art is the most realistic!
Yes!
I think the quality of art mainly depends on character and has nothing to do with price.
It is not surprising that even the works of the same artist can have very different looks due to different motivations.
It may seem difficult to tell whether a work of art is good or bad, but there is a simple way. Divided into the following categories:
1. What you want is not what you want. The skill is not enough, the appearance is unclear, the language is immature, and the style is uncertain, but it has feelings and pursuits, and is a work that is reaching the peak.
2. It’s beyond your reach. As the reputation grows, the entertainment becomes more frequent, the techniques are skillful, the style is clear, and the impression becomes less, it becomes a standard for style copying. With commercial success, artistic quality becomes inferior.
3. Heaven’s secrets flourish, and the heart and hand complement each other. How many masterpieces of noble character can a true artist have in his lifetime? It's not much, and you can't deceive people.
4. There is nothing left, only the garbage of fame. They are everywhere, so mean, so mean! It’s just pretending to be art and destroying art!
When will you be able to admire and be amazed by someone’s work at a certain stage? And he explained several reasons for liking him in one breath. Only then can we enter the aesthetic level, and only then can we feel noble.
Art with character is more expected from noble readers.
I see how charming the green mountains are, and I don’t expect them to be like this when they see me.
There are rich and colorful types of art. It is the essence of human spiritual civilization. It actively affects people's lifestyles and improves people's quality of life. There is no distinction between high and low in art. For the rational general public, there is no such discrimination. Art only has appropriate relativity.
Artistic creation itself is the condensation of people’s wisdom in life. This condensation is a kind of sustenance, aesthetics, pursuit, etc. Because different countries and regions have different cultural backgrounds, religious beliefs, and living habits, the concepts of their respective artistic works are also different.
There is no distinction between high and low in these arts. If there is a distinction between high and low, it goes against the mainstream modern humanistic thoughts and the legal and moral principles of equality for all. We cannot say that the films and television works produced by Americans are superior to others, while the films and television films produced by Vietnamese are inferior. This is unfair and immoral.
In order to show their so-called superiority, people sometimes irrationally evaluate the dignity of others based on their own economic status and social status. This concept is also brought to art. field, brought into the works of art. This concept goes against basic human morality and the equality of human society.
Some people think that piano works of art are noble and elegant, while ordinary people's erhu and suona are difficult to enter the elegant hall. In fact, they are all music and art, and there is group suitability. There is no difference between high and low.
Some countries like to use ballet to express their humanistic thoughts, and some countries like to use primitive dance to express their life. The two are only different in form. There is no distinction between high and low. If there is discrimination, there is something wrong with the quality and cultivation of the person.
Furthermore, nobility and despicability are only criticisms of people’s moral levels, and they refer to the level of a person’s character. When we praise a person for his good moral character, we call him noble; when we criticize a person's conduct that violates public morality, we call him a cheap person. Even so, it can only be a moral discussion, and it cannot reflect the equality of people in society. of trampling.
In fact, I think there must be no distinction between high and low art. If someone insists that there is, then I would like to ask what is noble and what is cheap art.
A long time ago, most nobles, rich and powerful people, advocated that the art they admired was noble. It's just what they think. The beautiful life described by the folk genius with a casual movement of his hands. In theory that would be noble. But in the mouths of some powerful people, it is impossible to reach the level of elegance.
Therefore, the author believes that there is no distinction between high and low in art. What is high or low is the appreciation of art. For example, someone pursues body art that they really like. Do you think she is noble? It all depends on the heart of the person looking at art.
In today's era where everything is based on economic interests, how many people are really doing art? Maybe he himself is not sure whether he is making goods or art. A good piece of art can, depending on some people’s money concepts, turn into a pile of money that smells like copper, or it can also turn into a rights transaction. A victim, then do you say this is a noble work of art?
No, there is actually no room for change on this issue. The reason why it has been debated for thousands of years is not a problem with art itself, but a problem with some people who engage in art.
First of all, what is art? Art is a process of perceiving, conscious, thinking, operating, expressing and other activities on observable or competent objects through capturing and excavation, feeling and analysis, integration and application, etc., or a staged conclusion that stands out through the form of feeling< /p>
From the original meaning of art, there is no distinction between high and low. As long as the above requirements are met, it is a work of art. The reason why art has distinctions between high and low, vulgar and elegant is entirely due to the pretense of elegance by rich and powerful people. This behavior is called the Veblen effect.
To give some common examples in life, similar shoes can be sold for dozens of dollars in ordinary shoe stores, but can be sold for hundreds of dollars at the counter of a large shopping mall. There will be more people than in ordinary shoe stores. A similar watch with a price of 6W8 will sell better than a watch with a price of 680... and so on
The utility of such items to the owner is not mainly Their intrinsic value lies in the fact that comrades-in-arms or consuming such items can increase honor and eliminate shabby, humble and dirty lives. As economist Johns said, "When we see the face of Dr. Gachet painted by Van Gogh, we no longer see a common portrait of sadness and regret, but a pile of glittering money."
In fact, in daily life, when people learn that someone is engaged in collecting activities, they will feel that this person is very tasteful. When people learn that someone has collected precious works of art, they will feel that this person is very tasteful. People are very valuable, so many collectors’ motivations for buying art have nothing to do with the art itself. One of the important purposes of collecting is for social prestige and to give people the impression of being culturally accomplished. This is why art can sell for astronomical prices.
There is no distinction between high and low works of art
There is still a distinction between high and low common works
A work It has been recognized by the world
or recognized by peers
This work is really art
Picture
Ming Tombs Deling Bridge
Pay attention to the design of the water inlet and outlet of the bridge
Art is a collective term for talent and technology. The word has a broad meaning. Later, various high-quality ideas were gradually added to evolve into a pair of beauty. A term for thought and realm.
Arts include literature, calligraphy, painting, photography, sculpture, architecture, music, dance, drama, film, folk art, electronic games (ninth art), etc. Art is an important supplement to language. Just like when speaking, we use loudness to represent anger, laughter to represent happiness, dancing with hands to represent anxiety or other emotions to convey to the other party.
Therefore, every work of art should have its own unique appeal, and this appeal is the vitality of art. Art activities are human spiritual and cultural activities that use a unique artistic language system as a medium and aim to create images or artistic conceptions. It is condensed into aesthetic ideology. Therefore, from a macro cultural perspective, art does not distinguish between high and low!
From the perspective of wealth, there is a distinction between "high and low". Every artistic skill has its price tag. If more people pursue an artistic product or artistic skill, it will have a standard. How to measure this standard? It seems that it can only be measured by money. The ancients said that gold has a price but jade is priceless. Is jade really priceless? No matter how precious it is, it still has to have a price! The same goes for art. Things that are born out of the beauty of art can mostly be measured in money! Which one is more expensive and which one is cheaper?
This varies from person to person!
The above is my personal opinion! What do you think? Welcome to discuss and exchange!
My point of view: Different "arts" may not have high or low levels in expressing emotions, but there must be high or low levels in terms of the threshold of appreciation.
The arts mentioned here include all literature, painting, music, drama, film, etc.
Musical Score
For example, in literature, I think the contents of some masters’ works are elegant and of high quality. The content of some online articles is vulgar and the level is low, such as the domineering president fell in love with me. But I also think that work A is better than work B, which does not mean that people who like work A are better than people who like work B. I cannot agree with that sense of superiority that despises what others like.
Some people believe that art itself is not distinguished by high or low, but only by different audiences and the quality of the people who appreciate it.
Legend of the Phoenix
For example, as a court musician, Liszt’s audience was basically members of the royal family, so people took it for granted that his music was also gorgeous and noble. The music of Phoenix Legend appears more often as disturbing music in squares, so many people think it is vulgar and brainwashing when they are mentioned. But there is nothing wrong with the music itself.
As the saying goes, no one is high or low, no profession is high or low, and no art is high or low.
The wave of democracy since the mid-20th century has given almost all walks of life the opportunity to come into contact with art categories that once belonged to a small group of people, and also allowed everyone to comment on artworks.
The right to speak in art no longer belongs to the so-called elites. Everyone can express their own opinions, and the moral kidnapping of "political correctness" no longer allows to evaluate everything in terms of "elegant" and "vulgar" things, including art.
People are not superior or inferior, culture is not superior or inferior, and art is not superior or inferior either. No one has the right to set an established "classic list" for others.
Traditional Chinese Painting
On the other side, some insiders who have the right to speak began to sell various poisonous chicken soups, such as "classical music is easy to listen to" and "a book teaches You learn photography”, “Shakespeare that ordinary people can understand”. . . . I have to wonder if these people have any ulterior motives for business purposes. After all, the more novices you have in your circle, the more profitable it will be.
Literature has never been without barriers. It is hard for me to imagine that people without some background knowledge of British history, no understanding of early modern English, and no certain professional training in literature can read even Shakespeare's scripts. One of the subtleties comes.
Similarly, I don’t think that people who have no knowledge of music theory at all, but who just listen to it as background music while writing PPT, can understand the greatness of Bach’s mathematically ordered fugues.
Take novels as an example. A great novel is not only about the fascinating story, but also about its succession, transition, perspective, structural balance, and intertext. It cannot be accomplished by a thin story-telling article. Comparable.
I see many people discussing the story when they review novels (or movies). However, the story has always been only a component of the novel, and even this component does not play a decisive role in the overall excellence of the novel. This is why many mature readers will dissect and analyze when reading novels, because great novels have too many things that require readers to explore and ponder carefully, except for stories that can be summarized into one paragraph, while mediocre novels have nothing but stories. Nothing is left.
Some people also say that without the soil of the masses, all these "elegant" arts will inevitably decline. The first element of art is to have a mass foundation. The art of "self-esteem" means being eliminated in today's society. I slightly disagree with this.
At least as of the middle of the twentieth century, our "recognized" art has never been for the masses, but has always belonged to a few people. Classical music is not the pop music of the past, and poetry is not an art category popular with working people. Workers in the Victorian era would not go to the theater to listen to operas without anything to do, and Kun Opera was never as popular as everyone boasted in ancient times. It was a popular form of entertainment for the working people.
The most elite culture of mankind has always been inherited by a small group of people. An illusion after the spread of democracy is that everyone shoulders the important responsibility of cultural inheritance and development.
For example, restoring traditional Chinese characters. Some people say that mainlanders have lost the inheritance of their ancestors. In fact, our traditional Chinese characters were only used by a small number of people in ancient times, and the working people did not even know the characters. Today, the proportion of people who use and study characters in our universities and professional departments will only be greater than the proportion of the elites in ancient times. The general public can just send WeChat in simplified characters. If they have time, it is enough to read popular science books on philology. Do you really think that ordinary people can carry forward traditional culture if they know traditional Chinese characters?
Goethe
In the same way, there is no need to worry that no one listens to classical music, and it needs to be popularized; no one reads Shakespeare, and it needs to be popularized; I believe that the current classical music audience is better than those in the 1770s In the eighteenth century, the mass base was not twice or twice as large.
Thank you!