Does high art have to be unfathomable?

By Elizabeth Dangerfield  

If an artwork has huge popularity and public appeal is it by definition low art?

According to Artificial Intelligence (the pinnacle of the rational?):

“High art” generally refers to art forms like painting, sculpture, and classical music that are considered to have a deeper, more sophisticated meaning and are often appreciated by those with cultivated tastes. It’s a term that can be contrasted with “low art,” which might be considered more accessible or utilitarian. High art is often associated with aesthetic contemplation and the pursuit of beauty for its own sake. 

The Archibald Prize is generally considered to be about high art. However, although its brief is to select the best portrait of a man or woman “distinguished in art, letters, science or politics, it also accepts elements of popular culture, social commentary and a range of artistic styles so that the winning artworks do not necessarily conform to what is traditionallyconsidered a portrait.

Does high art depend on the intent of the artist?

In the winning portrait for 2025 painted by Julie Fragar called Flagship Mother Multiverse (Justene) the subject appears to float space. NSW Art Gallery director Maud Page applauds Julie Fragar’s sumptuous ability to transcend reality and depict her subjects technically but also psychologically and the painting is a powerful rendition of the juggle some of us perform as mothers and professionals. Certainly, the painting is esoteric in intent, and high art, if somewhat controversial because is it really a portrait?

The winning works of the Archibald Prize have frequently been controversial – for example:

1938 Nora Heysen – women can’t be expected to paint as well as men?

1943 William Dobell – taken to court because his portrait of Joshua Smith was a caricature?

1972 Clifton Pugh – captured the essence of Gough Whitlam but not traditionally?

1978 Brett Whiteley – Art, Life and the Other Thing – very unconventional?

2004 Craig Ruddy – portrait of David Gulpilil challenged as only a charcoal sketch?

2012 Tim Storrier – the histrionic wayfarer (after Bosch) no face, no portrait?

All these paintings were judged high art by the boards who selected the winners but the reaction, not just among members of the public, but also fellow artists, shows there is no universal agreement on what constitutes high art or great art and that its expression changes over time. Indeed, rejection of Archibald winning works often seems to be based on being comfortable with traditional approaches, and preconceived ideas and prejudice about what constitutes good versus bad art.

If even the experts don’t agree on what constitutes high art what hope does the general public for deciding what is great art? What if the lofty ideas of high art can only be understood by the most erudite of viewers leaving the rest of us mystified? Should high art be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the artist’s intent or should we spend some time to contemplate the work and search for our own meaning?  

Certainly, galleries provide assistance for those with little understanding of the history of art, the different styles of art, and different techniques by providing guided tours, headsets to lead the individual through an exhibition, signage and brochures. All of which enrich the experience of the viewer and give greater insight into the artist’s intent and place in the artworld. Australians seem to flock to galleries such as the National Gallery of Australia to see the latest exhibitions.

People flocked to see Blue Poles by Jackson Pollock acquired by the gallery at an eye-watering cost of $1.3m in 1973. Many visitors were bemused by the painting and had trouble making head or tail of the abstract expressionist artwork. They were probably unaware that:  

Blue poles embodies Pollock’s ideas about pure painting and the unconscious. The energy and scale offer us the possibility of stepping into Pollock’s world. It brings together his complex experience of life, alternating between darkness and light, between turmoil and elation.

This may be the esoteric intent of the artist, but the work is also enjoyable for its complex layers of paint, its striking structure and brilliant colours, and for its sheer size and audacity which gives a view into a different form of art. It is also the best investment the gallery ever made as it is now worth between $100m and $350m.

Is high art better because it is based on unchanging principles?

Art academies of the not so distant past, believed that great art was a discipline organised around a set of agreed rules and principles that students could develop by: copying the worksof old masters; spending many days painting or drawing ancient statues; and finally painting from life.

Many artists and critics have tried maintain the status quo, even taking other artists to court to do so. However, we cannot say that art is rational simply because the criteria as to what constitutes a great artwork remains inviolate, and a great artist is one who is good at imitating past artists. What people, including the experts, consider is great art changes.

Each year, thousands of people visit exhibitions of the work famous artists who were overlooked, or considered rubbish in their day. Many renowned artists faced severe criticism during their careers because of their unconventional approaches. Examples include: Claude Monet whose impressionistic paintings were considered unfinished; Vincent Van Gogh whose work was considered chaotic and crude, Paul Gauguin who was considered uncouthand his work lacking intellectual depth; Eduard Manet who was considered too bold and provocative; and Andy Warhol who was considered a pop artist doing trivial work; and of course, throughout most of history women artists just didn’t make the grade because they were invisible.

Is the rationale for high art that it is lofty and not mundane?

Are artworks that are practical in their nature automatically excluded from the realm of high art because their very nature renders them unsophisticated? Such a definition would preclude so much art that people admire, that stimulates the brain as well as the emotions and our also spirituality.

The exquisite cave paintings of Lascaux, France, were probably done to increase the likelihood of success at hunting but they represent so much more, both in terms of human consciousness and in terms of beauty. The paintings of medieval times aimed to instruct the faithful, glorify God, and enhance the spiritual experience of worship​. Many paintings with this pragmatic purpose are considered great art.  

In the days before photography, portraits and paintings of people and their families and pets where essential if you wanted a record of such things and as a reminder of your heritage. Joshua Reynolds portraits, such as the one of the Polynesian Omai, were considered high art.  

Many useful things are artforms in themselves. Decorative artwork on practical objects liftsthem out of the mundane. Museums and art galleries are full of such interesting and exquisite objects such as illuminated medieval manuscripts and ancient Greek vases.

The Aboriginal Memorial 1987-88 in the National Gallery of Australia, consists of 200 skilfully decorated hollow log coffins or memorial poles produced by a number of artists from Central Arnhem Land. The act of creating hollow log coffins has profound meaning for the artists as well contributing to a serious artwork that commemorates Indigenous people who have lost their lives defending their land since 1788. 

Looking at art from this perspective makes it hard to see how it is possible to draw a neat distinction between high and low art and whether we should bother doing so.

Maybe art is like many things, the deeper your knowledge the more profound your understanding the more sensitive you are to the subtleties and complexities of the subject matter. Maybe good art is like a good wine. To get to know the characteristics of a good wine you need to understand something about the history and nature of wine, maybe do a wine appreciation course and attend wine tasting events. Eventually you will become more acquainted with the nuances of different wine. That doesn’t mean that in a blind tasting you may not find out that the wine you considered the best was by no means the most expensive.

Just as I imagine that if ten paintings were hung on a wall you might not always think the best was the same as the one picked by experts, or worth the most money, even if you have done an art appreciation course. After all, the reaction to an artwork, whether it stimulates the intellect, or the emotions, is a very personal attribute. A question of taste as well as conceit, but the greatest also suggests something that is on another plane, something you instinctively recognise as sublime.

Also by Elizabeth Dangerfield: Is art rational? – The Dinner Party

 

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969