Hipsters annoy me. Well, not generally. Just the snobby ones. Those are the kids who so wholly hate the mainstream that they’ll go to great lengths to make sure that nobody listens to the bands they like, reads the authors and poets they read, or enjoy the same artists as they do. Best of all, they have the audacity to trust their own tastes well enough to discern what materials have worth and what does not, which is fine, but they also happen to scoff at everyone else. The frequency at which they make sweeping qualitative judgments based on their own personal whims is always astounding, yet it has ceased to amuse me.
Within the art community, there has long been this somewhat controversial aspect of “high art” and “low art.” High art refers to almost any manifestation of traditional art that was created in the periods of high art, like the High Classical periods of Greek antiquity or the High Renaissance works widely commissioned by the power-grabby fingers of the Catholic institution at the time. Low art refers to pretty much any art that has mass appeal, which, to my understanding covers pretty much everything made after about the 13th-ish century. The appeal of high art and high culture lies heavily in the technical mastery of those creating the works, especially considering that everything was done the longest way possible. The refinement was in the clear mastery every artist had over his (they were all dudes at the time) chosen medium. Low art is a somewhat derogative term for popular culture, referring to the McDonaldization of art.
The concept of high vs. low art has always been criticized as being elitist, and I agree, if only with the semantics and the qualitative aspect of it. It really is elitist. I’m a novice; I don’t know how to make qualitative judgments about any kind of art on a deep level. Sure, I can kinda gauge technical skill, but that’s all I got.
So this whole new generation of hipster-indie kids… irks the very calluses on the ends of my toes. Why? Because they uphold their own version of the elitist concept of high art and low art… except their concept doesn’t really have any sense of technical refinement.
Elitism without the refinement.
Trashy elitism?
Beautiful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LOVE YOU.
ReplyDeleteHmm. I also have I feeling I know a name or two who this could possibly refer too. ;)
Damn elitist. It's funny because, the elitists I know aren't musicians/artists themselves...they just sit there on their high horses, letting everyone else know what is good, and what isn't, while not contributing ANYTHING to the community but their criticisms. Yeah. They can stuff it, thanks. I can't listen to anyone like that. XD
I fear that sometimes I may come off this way, mostly because I hate things that become insanely popular when I don't think they deserve to be *Cough* TwilightHighSchoolMusicalJonasBrothersMileyCyrus*Cough* But I think that's a general concensus with everyone who is over the age of 12 and has a brain...Oh damn! I sound like an elitist ass right there!
I also like to sit there and like the things I like and be the only one who likes them. I don't know why...it's wierd, because I want to talk to somebody about it, but there is no one to talk to, and I kind of like that at the same time. That's what Indie used to feel like to me...no one knew about it, no one liked it.
But with everything that wasn't liked, it became cool to like it. So Indie became mainstream or "low art". Silly little Elitists have turned into hypocrites. Oh those special unique snowflake Bella Swans. XD
Pfft. "Low art". I'm under the belief that there is no good or bad art, just a bunch of opinions. Everything has the potential to be beautiful for someone. What is a creative output to someone, may not be one for another. It's all relative to the eye of the beholder. ;0