Arts & International Affairs: Volume 2, Number 2 | Page 33

The Case for High Art
Zach Marschall
Zach Marschall is a PhD candidate in the Cultural Studies program at George Mason University. His
dissertation project, “The Democratization of Art,” examines criticism, curation and policymaking
in the United States and Great Britain after World War I. A trained multimedia journalist,
Zach currently serves as Director of Publishing and Program Development at the Policy Studies
Organization. Zach earned a bachelor’s degree from NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts and received
his master’s degree in Arts Journalism from the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at
Syracuse University.
Each summer the Public Theater in New York City stages Shakespeare
productions in Central Park’s Delacorte Theater for free. The audience
enjoys these first-rate productions, known as Shakespeare in the Park,
staged by first-rate talent. The barriers to attend these events could not be
lower for city residents; Central Park is easily accessible by foot or cheap
subway fares, and everyone can afford the ticket price. And yet these plays
are written by William Shakespeare, whose prose must not only be learned,
but also constitute the foundation of the Western canon. Consequently, this
dichotomy between free access and acquired taste presents a conundrum. Is
Shakespeare in the Park an example of high or low?
The answer is not straightforward. High and low are tenuous terms to describe
elements of Western culture, to which this article limits its scope—specifically
American and British cultures—to avoid the implication of universal claims
through a Eurocentrist viewpoint. They are used metonymically to describe
traditional and popular cultures, respectively. Furthermore, the labels
highbrow and lowbrow may ascribe levels of refinement to an individual’s
artistic and cultural taste. Popular culture speaks to a conception of the arts
and cultural practices as functions of ordinary life. Consequently, lows are
tied to popular culture because they are grounded in everyday experiences,
as opposed to high culture’s emphasis on the few examples of great
achievement that can only exist as exceptions to the ordinary. The pinnacles
of achievement—the best—can be understood metaphorically as highs.
However, there is not necessarily always a clear distinction between high
and low in cultural programming or works. Relatively recently, American
32
doi: ��.�����/aia.�.�.�