High and Low Cultural Artifacts

It is a well-known truth that individuals in the twentieth century stratified their culture in a substantial way, despite the fact that historians disagree on what constitutes high culture and low culture (Cohen, 2010). The majority of individuals concur that high culture has reached its pinnacle in the world. Therefore, high culture can be characterized as an approach that is committed to handling the agendas that are pertinent to social history, such as population numbers and other concerns that have an impact on society, in an overall positive way. High culture is hence anything that the society presumes to have a high cultural message and hence the society perceive it to be some form of exemplary art. The study seeks to explore high and low cultural artifacts.

Some of the artifacts that are likely to come in one’s mind whenever one mentions about the twentieth century artifacts, include artifacts such as the Holy Grail, Blackadder, courtly love and other well-known artifacts (Clark, 1973). They all represented the popular culture that was later translated to imply that the popular culture is one that was intended for people who were recognized in the society as important individuals. Low culture on the other hand was a term that was meant to be demeaning for the various forms of cultural arts that had a huge following and commanded some sort of mass appeal among the people.

High culture and low cultures were all the different types of subcultures that were supposed to be found among the people (Pugh and Weisl, 2013). It is hence important for one to look for the important artifacts that were meant to be perceived as high culture items and those that were not perceived to have the ability to qualify as the high cultures and were hence perceived as low cultural artifacts (Pugh and Weisl, 2013). The emphasis on the stratification of the culture was one that was inspired by the innate need for the people to maintain some sort of social stratification among the people. it is however interesting to note that despite the attempts by the subcultures to subdivide the kind of art that the various types of people consumed they were in some sort of ways merged to become the same thing (Pugh and Weisl, 2013). One would even argue that it was the beauty of art in its ingenuity to assimilate the people from all lifestyles to appreciate the kind of concepts and ides the art transpired to transmit.

Low culture type of art is one that looks into the need for the art to have some form of substance, style, and even the kind of forms that are wholly subservient. Low culture kind of art is not interested with the abstract ideas or even with the fictional forms of modern social problems and the issues that are relevant to the conditions (Abulafia et al., 2002). It insists on the need to be morally upright but does not go past the familial and personal problems whilst applying some of the concepts that can be used to solve some of the said problems. This kind of art is satiated with showing the twentieth century working class values while triumphing over the seductions to give in to the paradoxical whims and behavior sequences (Abulafia et al., 2002). One example of an artifact that is found in the twentieth century era that marked the low culture form of subculture is the painting that is meant to portray the renowned saint Francis being handed over some form of stigmata.

As one would deduce from the images is that it is a painting that is supposed to encourage the people to uphold the familial values and the virtues of gratitude even in the face of persecution (Barandiaran et.al, 2009). This is a trait that the people form the twentieth century believed marked one to be a moral person or an immoral person. The candid gratuity that the Saint feels even when there are nothing to be grateful for, is a proof enough for the need of the people to be able to thank the lord even when they feel that they have nothing worthwhile that is going on in their lives (Barandiaran et.al, 2009). The painting also is one that fits into all the requirements of the low culture. Given that it is one that is meant to evoke emotions, seeing the image of a crucified savior is one that is bound to spark some emotions across a wide range of people and while looking at the effects that such representations will have on the people. Apart from being a painting that sparks some unsolicited type of information, one is bound to spark some form of moral uproar as it denotes the injustices that the Christ had been subjected to in the face of persecution (Bernárdez, 2013).

The painting is one that hence fits into the requirements that the low culture is assumed to have to possess. Considering that it has both the moral and the need to uphold the societal values even when one feels that they do not have anything to thank God for, it also advances some of the important issues that the people tackle even as they are getting interested in the arts (Birth,2012). Themes such as the oppression and the need for compassion for our enemies are advanced albeit in a tactical way. One would argue that the need for tact was important as it told one of the need to be laid back in the face of the calamities that the people were subjected to is important (Birth,2012). People had to learn to pose and get rid of the likelihood of being suspected of going against the opinion of the important people in the society. The low culture although perceived as one that was inconsequential and that the people did not have the need for opinion among the people was important (Chomsky,2000). This was because it tackled the various issues that the people faced at a time when having an opinion different from the others would be interpreted to mean that the person was not ready nor willing to learn.

The high culture apart from advancing the opinions of the other patrons was a move that let the people see the truth that they would normally not prefer to see. Consider for instance most of the patrons had acknowledged on the need for the people to see the crucifixion of Jesus as an act that did not have any kind of suffering for Jesus (Bloom,1996). The artists and other relevant authorities worked hard to make sure that the suffering was not transmitted and that Jesus remained heroic and one that was devoid of suffering. The crucifixes and other important artifacts for the people was one that did not portray realistic representations since Jesus was one that was portrayed as a person who did not suffer and even the kings maintained the narrative (Bloom,1996). This was odd since the evidence that had been gathered was one that was not a picture that seemed to be true since the people did not show their true feelings about the process of crucification.

The high culture, however, sought to usurp these unfounded beliefs and it advocated for the need of the people to be told of the harsh truth. The high culture is one that values the need for the arts that are subscribers to this theory; represent the events that normally transpire among the people as accurately as one could (Boella, et al, 2004). Seeing that the church saw the need to cover up and acts that they would traditionally think of as unfavorable was a move that was meant with a considerable level of resistance. In addition, the people felt that the people would not represent the beliefs if the Christ were one that was seen as being contrary to the expectations of the Christ. It is hence important for the high culture to paint a true picture by showing a Christ that was suffering. By risking displeasing such a huge following and the influence that it carried with, was a move enough to depict their willingness to stand for the truth, even when the people felt that it was unbearable and unworthwhile (Boivin, 2008). Church in the twentieth century was an important organ in the society since it upheld the importance of being straightforward in the undertakings of the people. The society sees the need for upsetting such a huge crowd as long as the truth that is clearly important to them is shed (Boivin, 2008). It is hence necessary that one see that the high culture was one that was not meant to appeal to the masses but rather to bare it as it is.

One of the most obvious differences between the two is that the high culture and the low culture is one that is concerned with pleasing the masses to gain large followings. This is as opposed to the high culture that argues that it is important for one to stand for what they believe in, if they are going to be art world (Bourdieu, 1977). This is especially since the people see the need for the people to be wary of what they represent. Art is after all supposed to be the representation of the societal issues that are happening in our society and thereafter to seek ways that are meant to solve the issues (Bruner,1990). The people do not see the need to hide the mistakes that the people did in crucifying the one person that was believed to be responsible enough to have the ability to solve such issues.

The emergence of some of the issues that were paramount to the narrative about the crucification of the savior, led to emergence of concepts and ideas such as the passion of Christ and other pieces of works that showed how the people really felt about the story of their savior being crucified and ultimately killed. One of the factors that make the move to portray the events that transpired when Jesus was persecuted was that it was a time when the need to belief in something abstract was rife (Buhler, 1990). Deciding to own up and tell the truth must have been difficult and that would one of the reasons that the piece of art to the people in the middle culture was perceived to be in the category of the high culture that did not see the need to alter the truths in order to spark the desired reactions.

In conclusion, it is clear that the low culture and the high culture are different and they have very diverse agendas. The low culture rarely seeks to portray the truth as it is but rather is concerned with the presentation and the substance that is being explored in the piece of art (Clark,2006). The two aims of the various works of art are what make the works of art to be so different from each other. This is especially despite the fact that the two are talking about the same issue; the crucification of Jesus. Their aim and the agenda that they seek to advance make their presentation to be so different that without proper scrutiny one would not even see any similarity.



























References

Abulafia, D., Franklin, M., Rubin, M. and Brooke, C. (2002). Church and city, 1000-1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barandiaran, X. E., Di Paolo, E., and Rohde, M. (2009). Defining agency: individuality, normativity, asymmetry, and spatio-temporality in action. Adapt. Behav. 17, 367–386. doi: 10.1177/1059712309343819

Bernárdez, E. (2013). On the cultural character of metaphor. Some reflections on universality and culture specificity in the language and cognition of time, especially in Amerindian languages. Rev. Cogn. Linguist. 11, 1–35.

Birth, K. (2012). Objects of Time: How Things Shape Temporality. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bloom, P. (1996). Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition 60, 1–29. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00699-0

Boella, G., and van der Torre, L. W. (2004). Regulative and constitutive norms in normative multiagent systems. KR 4, 255–265.

Boivin, N. (2008). Material Cultures, Material Minds: The Role of Things in Human Thought, Society and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice, transl. R. Nice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bühler, K. (1990/1934). “Theory of language,” The Representational Function of Language, transl. D. F. Goodwin (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).

Chomsky, N. (2000). The Architecture of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clark, A. (2006). Language, embodiment and the cognitive niche. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10, 370–374. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.012

Clark, H. H. (1973). “Space, time, semantics and the child,” in Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, ed. T. E. Moore (New York: Academic Press), 27–63.

Cohen, E. (2010). The modulated scream. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pugh, T. and Weisl, A. (2013). Medievalisms. London: Routledge.