Firstly, let me say low art is fantastic, and before we continue, I must disabuse you of the notion that high art is somehow superior. I have a theory that comedy is uniquely resistant to becoming high art; however, to explain further, we must go over some definitions.
High art is classical music, paintings in museums, and fine dining. It is sophisticated and deep. Without knowledge of the art, you may not even be able to appreciate it fully. Low art is pop music and memes. It is for the common people. It is accessible and widely entertaining. Even if you don’t know these terms, you’re familiar with the sentiments associated with these categories.
High Art is Terrible
The highness of high art comes from its association with the upper class, and as such, it is elitist. If you don’t know the distinction between Monet and Manet, you clearly lack good taste. Anyone who can appreciate art can see that—that is, anyone who specifically learned about those painters—that is, only people who went to an upper-class, Western school. It is exclusionary by design.
We all have a rightful skepticism about high art. When someone buys an extremely expensive bottle of wine, is it because the taste truly carries that much value for them? Maybe they are just showing off. Or maybe they are buying the wine to hide the fact that they can taste no difference, and the emperor is wearing no clothes.
Low Art is Also Terrible
When art tries to appeal to too wide an audience it feels watered down. High-budget blockbuster films must sell millions of tickets to make a profit, so they cannot risk offending anyone. Disney executives will remove queer content from their films so they can reach a wider audience.1 Pop music gets the most playtime on the radio (these days, TikTok), so musicians are pressured to make pop tracks, even if it doesn’t fit their style. Some labels won’t release a song without a plan for virality.2 Netflix wants writers to dumb down their dialogue so viewers who aren’t paying full attention can still follow along.3
There is a financial incentive to make low art. How many tickets were sold matters more than the quality of experience the ticket brings. The number of likes on social media matters more than how much they liked it. To make low art, artists must cater to the lowest common denominator, and the resulting art feels soulless.
Actually, Low Art is Great
Low art is accessible by design. It is meant to appeal to the common man. In the 1960s, Andy Warhol made waves in the art world by embracing low art.4 Memes and short TikTok videos play such a big part in our lives. Arguably, these forms of low art have a greater impact on the average person than the great classic works of art.
Great art reveals some truth about the world, and the greatest art presents it so that it makes this truth obvious for anyone to see. Appreciating art shouldn’t have a long list of prerequisites. Artists want their art to be powerful enough to cut through our differences and reach people from all walks of life.
High Art is Great Too
The case for high art is the hardest to make because it depends on what you, specifically, are interested in. When stripped of its classism, high art is simply nerdiness. If you’re deeply knowledgeable about a hobby, it can be a great pleasure to discuss that hobby in depth with like-minded people. To an outsider, these conversations seem overly dramatic or boringly erudite; nevertheless, on the inside, it’s wonderful to dive into the nuances that a layperson wouldn’t even notice.
This is what good high art feels like. It might only appeal to those already in the know, but those people hold it in high regard. Artists who make high art strive for the recognition of their peers—those who have the most refined taste in their medium. The attention of the public is secondary. These lofty ambitions can help artists grow and innovate by holding themselves to a higher standard.
So Why Even Have the Distinction?
Whether art is low or high has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad, but artists do think about it often. We want to make art that appeals to our peers and the public. We want our art to be revered and relatable. Often, these goals are at odds, and we must choose how to strike a balance.
All mediums have their version of low art and high art.
Paintings can mass-produced for hotel rooms or hung in museums.
Photos can go on Instagram or in magazines.
Music can be played on the radio or in a concert hall.
Architects can design apartment buildings or cathedrals.
Food can be served in a food truck or at a five-star restaurant.
Theatre can be Disney plays or Shakespeare.
So What About Comedy?
Comedy, especially live comedy, does not seem to have its high art. Some comedians are highly revered, but not exclusively by comedy snobs. No comedians pride themselves on having a small fanbase of other comedians. Rarely, a performer may be called a “comedian’s comedian” (notably Andy Kaufman5), but few people in comedy aspire to be one. Some museums have exhibits dedicated to comedy, but comedians do not aspire to be museum-worthy.
Ultimately, comedy—whether it’s stand-up, improv, sketch, clown, etc.—is about making the people in the room laugh. None of the audience should feel excluded, regardless of their comedy credentials. There is no glory in telling jokes that only land for part of the audience. In fact, there’s a name for jokes that only appeal to the upper class, and it’s called punching down.6 The nature of comedy is to reflect the voice of the people. High-art comedy is a contradiction.
What do you think? Can you think of an example of high art in comedy?7 Let me know!
Vary, Jackson. “Disney Censors Same-Sex Affection in Pixar Films, According to Letter From Employees” Variety. March 9, 2022, link.
Chow, Andrew R. “Halsey Is the Latest Artist Complaining About the Music Industry’s Reliance on TikTok” Time. May 23, 2022, link.
Forlini, Emily. “Netflix Is Telling Writers to Dumb Down Shows Since Viewers Are on Their Phones” PCMag. January 2, 2025, link.
Andy Kaufman famously didn’t call himself a comedian. Often, he would intentionally confuse the audience. The people in the room wouldn’t like the performance, but other comedians would be impressed by his fearlessness in intentionally giving an unfunny performance.
If you’re unfamiliar with the term, a rule of comedy is that jokes should be “punching up”—in other words, making fun of people who are high status. It’s also called “speaking truth to power”. Jokes at the expense of those less fortunate are said to be “punching down”. Not only are they ethically wrong, but also people find them unfunny.
To me, the things that come closest are improv shows that are only ever attended by other improvisers. After a while, these shows can get more insular—such as when it becomes more important to do a technically good Harold than to make it funny. These shows are rare though, and they often don’t last long.
Enjoyed this one a lot, it's a really interesting discussion. Maybe I have the term wrong in my head--Because I do appreciate the "Comedian's comedians," but I've always associated that term with Bob Mortimer. He's guy in the British panel show scene who most consistently breaks the other comedians (Though the whole arena would likely be classified as low art). But Bob also gets the biggest laughs from the crowd.
All to say, I respect the folks who can manage to get the extra layers out of people who appreciate the art form but still do the principle duty of comedy by making the whole audience laugh.