Recent Posts
The Reformers erected the doctrine of calling in reaction to the Romanist distinction between clergy [more]
In the fourteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul rebukes the church for its chaotic worship. [more]
I am teaching right now in my philosophy class on meaning in music. When beginning [more]
"Men Without Chests" is the curious title of a chapter in Lewis' book The Abolition [more]
The Evangelical Theological Society was founded in 1949. Fundamentalists have been involved from the beginning. [more]

What The Popular Arts Are Not

This entry is part 2 of 8 in the series

"Cheap Thrills: Pop Art and Transcendence"

You can read more posts from the series by using the Table of Contents in the right sidebar.

Kaplan begins by defining what he means by the popular arts. In his definition, popular arts does not refer to:

1) Pop art, the dadaistic art movement that emerged in the 1950s.
2) Bad art. A work of art might fail in what it attempts to do, it might not succeed in what it attempts to do, rendering it bad. By itself, this does not make it popular art. While popular art may be bad art, bad art is not necessarily popular art.
3) Minor art. Minor art can be excellent art that is excellent after its own kind, even if it fails to reach the greatness and aesthetic depth of other works. It may be more popular than works of greater value or depth, but this does not make it popular art, by itself. Kaplan compares The Hound of the Baskervilles to Crime and Punishment as an example.
4) Folk art. Though often and sometimes easily confused, folk art is produced unselfconsciously, and perhaps anonymously, by a people group. The work is not always produced in an aesthetic context, but often grows out of the culture of that group. Kaplan regards Song of Songs, Gothic cathedrals and Byzantine icons as examples of folk art.

The popular arts are much more like mass art, what is mass-produced and received by vast numbers of people. Even here, Kaplan offers qualifications, pointing out that there is no fixed a priori relation between quantity and quality. Indeed, Kaplan does not fully agree with the thesis that the popular arts represent what democratization, technology, and capitalism does to the arts: commodifies it, appeals to the lowest common denominator, and then sells it to as many people as possible. He agrees that a good case can be made for this, but feels that the theory does not by itself explain what the popular taste is, albeit supplied by democratization, mass-media technology and capitalism.

Kaplan’s thesis is that popular art is not the degradation of taste, but its immaturity. Something peculiar to the experience of the popular arts is the key to recognizing it. We will consider this next.

Series NavigationPreviousNext
David de Bruyn

About David de Bruyn

David de Bruyn currently pastors New Covenant Baptist Church in Johannesburg, South Africa. Since 1999, he has presented a weekly radio program that is heard throughout much of central South Africa. He also blogs at Churches Without Chests.

4 Responses to What The Popular Arts Are Not

Leave a reply