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.�.�.�