Natalay Goldstein
Theory and Practice of Arts Management
February 5, 2013

“Highbrow Lowbrow” One thing that stood out to me in “Highbrow Lowbrow” was the brief discussion of the origin of the terms highbrow and lowbrow. Levine states that the terms “were derived from the phrenological terms ‘highbrowed’ and ‘lowbrowed,’ which were prominently featured in the nineteenth-century practice of determining racial types and intelligence by measuring cranial shapes and capacities.” This system of classification posited a hierarchy of human intelligence and capability from “Human Idiot” on the bottom to “Civilized” and finally “Caucasian” at the very top. Looking at the origin of the terms through this lens, we can see how art and culture became symbols of higher forms of human life and were closely tied to class definitions and identities. Race and class are interestingly intertwined. The “lower” races have always occupied the lower social classes in American society, and the distinction in the ability to appreciate “real” culture is linked to the upper, more cultivated, classes. It is revealing that culture would be defined along the lines of innate human capacity and intelligence. Levine argues that in the nineteenth-century, art was more democratic and enjoyed by people of all classes and somewhat diverse races. With the distinction of “highbrow” and “lowbrow” there is a connection to the ability, or lack thereof, of the lower classes to appreciate and derive real value from “true” art. This distinction is seen very clearly today, where there are largely white, middle class or affluent audiences for many of the more “cultivated” arts, and minority populations largely feel more connected to popular music (which they have greater access to) and entertainment. Levine also notes that although it has always been looked down upon, “low” or popular art tends to be highly innovative and intellectually and socially challenging. This is an interesting observation in terms of class and ethnic diversity, because it relates to questions of who has access to what kinds of art and who is producing it. If African-American music is automatically considered “low” because of racial prejudices, it is still widely recognized as being prolific, spiritual, and significant in American society. There are contradictions which become apparent as society becomes more integrated and democratized, and people who have traditionally occupied lower classes find a voice and their voice is heard by the public at large.

Question: How do old ideas of racial hierarchy influence what we see as “high” and “low” art in the present day? Is there a chance for groups that have been discriminated against to ever be seen as producing or appreciating “high” art?