Poptism challenges the traditional hierarchy that distinguished “high” art from “lowly” mass culture.
Poptimism exacerbated our feelings of cultural decline in two ways. First, it made mass culture the center of the cultural conversation, which was bound to disappoint us. And, second, poptimist criticism provided a false promise that “creativity” can happen anywhere, ignoring the fact that some creative endeavors and formats are much more conducive to the kind of cultural invention that provides lasting works of art.
The central idea being that popular culture and mass-produced entertainment should be seen as equally valuable forms of cultural expression. You could say that it was reactionary to elitism and validation of diverse tastes.
But, we see a reversing sentiment and criticism, that it detracts from artistic innovation, and blurs the line between art and commercialised entertainment. In high art, there are the avant-garde innovators that push the art. With poptism, there exists major pop culture figures.
Questions
- Are we in cultural decline? Or have people in history always taken avant-garde art in some manner, and commercialized it?
- Who gets to say art is art?
see: Aesthetics