On high art vs popular art

Especially in times of recession, the question whether the so-called high art is to be subsidized or not keeps emerging again and again. I think the answer is relatively simple, and a parallel with the sciences might show why. As, generally, I do not believe in the existence of a chasm between the sciences and humanities / arts, my suggestion is that "high" culture could be related to basic research, and popular art to applied science.

The parallels between high / popular art and basic research / applied knowledge are manifold. It appears that the techniques developed during the creation of artworks that are classified as belonging to "high" art often find their way to popular culture as audiences start to appreciate the new ways of expression. Initially, it may seem, these new techniques meet the approval of only those who are trained to be sensitive to such novelties (scholars, artistic directors, etc.), but later on, the new ways of expression develop their own audiences just before, more often than not, they degrade into clichés and, ultimately, sink into oblivion. Examples for such processes range from the alienation effect of Brecht to the Dutch angle in filmmaking. The "death" of metaphors in language, in my view, is essentially the same process. It might be sufficient to cite one more example, the fate of Petrarchian metaphors, already ridiculed in Shakespeare's anti-blason "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun".

It has been widely accepted that although basic scientific research does not yield directly marketable products, it is able to further technological advancement, and its results might be applied in the future. Companies whose products are based on applied science have long been contributing -- financially -- to basic research. Why do we expect the case to be different in the field of arts? We, it seems, are constantly in need of new ways of expressing our conflicts, ideas and emotions as the old modes wear out. Let experimental artists and studio theatres discover a new arsenal of artistic expression. Not all their results will be used in the future, but the rest will pave the way in which "popular" art will follow. And it has to be accepted that such experimentation will only be appreciated by a limited number of people. They will not represent a market large enough to make this artistic basic research sustainable. And maybe it's better this way. Let this small group of people be the guinea pigs of "high" art so that what reaches the public would be truly effective. In short, do subsidize "high" art. It is not practised by a bunch of anti-social people closeted in a postmodern ivory tower (or a vitrine full of formaldehyde). It is there so that when we yearn for something new, there will be something to look at.