Art, Artists, and Fate

A few months back I came across a small article that casually mentioned that there are two types of arts - popular art and high art. Popular art is the one that the masses enjoy. Art that is being created at this very moment and consumed by the people in their revelry,  as soon as it is born. Art that is accepted in the present is what we call popular art and the practitioners of it as artists. Then again, somewhere in an old winter shack, away from everything he holds dear, a man is creating something that will change the perception of human vision towards a particular art form by forever expanding the boundaries of our knowledge and exposing us to horizons that we never thought existed. That is what we will come to call as high art. However, the path that it will follow is not easy at all. It will not be readily accepted by the experts and connoisseurs because it challenges every notion of the textbook version of the art form. It will not be liked by the public because they always feel threatened by something they don't already know, and this is something they have never experienced before. So, this art-piece, whatever it is, will be ridiculed, called trash, and thrown away. But the artist won't give up, because he knows what he is doing, and one day, ultimately, his genius will be recognized. It may happen during the course of his own life or maybe another generation marvels at his works, but he would be heralded as a master of his craft for he would have permanently changed the dynamics of his field.

However, I personally believe that an artist who is concerned with creating high art, once his works are acknowledged, should not accept praises and accolades and awards from the general public. If he accepts them, it will eventually force him to come down to the level of masses and create popular art to appease the general public. It is a part of the duty of the artist to seclude himself from the lowly recognitions of the society and keep creating art that is essential for the evolution of humanity to a higher understanding and in that endeavour, selfishness will not do. My idea is better reflected in the reply that Jean-Paul Sartre gave upon refusing the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1964. He said, "A writer who adopts political, social, or literary positions must act only with the means that are his own - that is, the written word. All the honors he may receive expose his readers to a pressure I do not consider desirable. If I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre it is not the same thing as if I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prizewinner. The writer must, therefore, refuse to let himself be transformed into an institution, even if this occurs under the most honorable circumstances, as in the present case."

I discussed this whole idea with a friend and she made a point that if they do this, they would starve to death. She said a little selfishness is required by everyone for the sake of survival but what cannot be sacrificed is honesty. Appeasement of masses is valid as long as you can validate your work for yourself. And this is true. Throughout the history, artists have produced works to support themselves financially while creating works that would make them legends. However, in the end, they all suffered the same fate of a lonely death. Be it Sadat Hasan Manto or Vincent van Gogh, Majaz or Oscar Wilde, or even Edgar Allen Poe. Conclusively, I maintain, that popularity will have to be sacrificed for humanity. It is the price to be paid by every artist for being blessed with the gift of art. But you are allowed to believe in whatever opinion you deem fit. As Nietzsche put it, "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist."