Arts & International Affairs: Volume 2, Number 2 | Page 46

arts. Others also rightly discuss concerns expressed in Congress about the
widening division between highbrow and lowbrow, which echoed concerns
in intellectual circles during the ����s and ����s. Mid-century intellectuals
were afraid that Americans were gorging themselves on a sugary diet of
popular Hollywood movies, broadcast television, and pop music. The ensuing
decades have seen a blowback against each originally held position. “Low
art” forms were eventually granted federal recognition with funding and
“lowbrow” has achieved greater cultural status; “pop culture” often serves as
the source material for the fine arts. Lowbrow has become the fascination
of the highbrow; the former often serving as the starting point of the latter.
For a brief moment, during a discussion between Senators and Representatives
about highbrow and lowbrow, there were concerns expressed about art
and culture produced for profit by large corporations for mass audiences.
Traditional fine art forms like opera or theatre could not compete with
Hollywood’s mass distribution systems and capital. Members of Congress
reflected about the nation’s trajectory if Americans were only exposed to the
arts and entertainment produced by a few large corporations. What would
commercial entertainment do to American culture and public discourse?
Contemporary artists and presenters love to explore popular culture, mining
it for references and source material by which to frame artistic projects or
program entire seasons. But what about the central question of media and arts
consolidation? What happens when the lowbrow is created and controlled
by three or four major entertainment corporations? What happens to the
public discourse when what constitutes the popular culture is created and
delivered solely by systems controlled by TimeWarner, NetFlix, Disney, and
Amazon?
45