The Art of Judging Art

Few days ago, I found myself engaging in an argument on Twitter over a

misunderstanding that warranted less exchanging of words and could have been
settled easily if only I made myself, perhaps the words I chose to use, clear. The
apparent conflict, if there were any, seemed to have stemmed from my using the
adjective lowbrow in describing something that endorses less critical thinking
which appeared to have struck a nerve with the person on the other line who
mistook it as something related to mass appeal further opining the tag as
problematic. I do see how the word could have mislead the person to think I
intended to anchor a social aspect to the term given it carries negative connotations
of uncultured taste commonly associated with the masses but truthfully, that wasnt
my intention.
To avoid the same confusion, I see it best to make it clear that every time you see
the word lowbrow used in the succeeding sentences, do know that I do not mean
it as a description of the sensibilities and preferences of the middle-class but rather,
a description directed to a work of art thats synonymous to unstimulating or
unchallenging. If I were speaking honestly, the reason why I detach from such
context is because I know too little about sociology or political science to be
throwing around a label ingrained in such context. Let it also be known that
contents of this blogpost are mere opinions of the author and not objective truths
regarding the matter at hand seeing as how Im far removed from my field of study
(I take up Civil Engineering in college). So if you look for statements that aim to
dissect correlation between art and class and complicate the matter even more
then you will find none of that here. Otherwise, I point you to the direction of the
academics.
Granted the dichotomy between highbrow and lowbrow art in terms of social class
no longer fits its arcane purpose in today's setting, such distinction, one that does
away with relations to wealth and culture, thereby directly tying itself to the quality,
with emphasis on the intellectual content, of a work is necessary to objective
criticism. Though it is quite important to note how culture comes to play in the
understanding of how we perceive and judge art, it is wholly unnecessary to
consider the appeal of a work of art for the 1% and/or the masses as it only makes
way to discussions criticism has no authority to insert itself in. It is a known fact that
highbrow art isn't entirely reserved to the interest of the upper-class the same way
lowbrow art isn't solely made to be appreciated by the masses. Both arts can be
consumed by members from different social classes which should then result to
varying degrees of appreciation.
A befitting demonstration of such idea is the continuing surge of Aldub phenomenon
which to some view it as nothing but a passing fad but one could not deny how, in
the span of not more than a month, it managed to achieve a well-earned position in
the rankings of Philippine pop culture. Those who try to dismiss the legitimacy of
the segments influence to the now are either foolishly unaware or in denial.
Lingering traces of Aldub can be felt everywhere from the TV commercials that grow
in number to the gestures and voice imitations we constantly see and hear every
day. Though Im reluctant to consider tweets as measuring stick to cultural impact
since it implies that only those who are able to afford an internet connection get to

decide which trend is worthy of attention, its hard to ignore the significance of 20+
million tweets when weighing popularity. Like it or not, Aldub is a hit among TV
viewers and from the looks of it, the appeal isnt going anywhere anytime soon.
Assessing its content, there's truly nothing intellectual with all that it serves to its
audience comprising mostly of physical comedy, lowbrow humor that, more often
than not, verges on mean-spirited jokes, and maudlin take on romance. I feel
though it is important for me to disclose the social bracket I fall on namely the
upper middle class. To be honest, I don't really consider myself a fan of the segment
and yet I also don't condone anyone from being a fan. In college, most of my friends
and the people I am surrounded by are avid fans of Aldub while only a few hold
disinterest, if not disapproving attitude towards it. More than one time, talks about
the segment have made their way into o Martine Cajucom ur table conversations
and every time someone offers their two cents, I am curiously perplexed at the tiny
details. Many have accused the titular love team as being scripted while many
defend the scripted-ness as effectively funny and romantic. But the thing that
surprises me the most is the time we spend discussing and arguing about the topic
or why we even try to in the first place when its clear no one among us is willing to
budge since the dissension is founded on personal taste.
I do not claim that fans of the segment arent multifaceted or shallow, I just think
its high time Aldub loses its status as the talk of the town and we give the title to a
more deserving candidate. Yes, it is definitely possible for one to enjoy lowbrow
comedy while still be concerned with the more pressing matters but the ultimate
question consumers must now face is which should take first priority and from what
Im seeing, were doing ourselves a great disservice. Twitter and Facebook have
become a toxic wasteland of verbal fights where name calling and intimidation are
the preferred, most used weapons in battles waged by both fans and nonfans of
Aldub or more accurately, fans of the two biggest TV networks in the country.
Hypocritical outliers are also present in battle who defend one show by accusing
anyone who disapprove of Aldub of being elitist while lambasting the other network
and criticizing those who find the rival noontime show entertaining for their
shallow sensibilities. How people find the time and effort to participate in petty
arguments when there are plenty of issues that need discussing is beyond me.
Theres no harm in watching 2 hours of television as a means to kill time but we
mustnt ignore the implications when, in a collective volume, a segment of a TV
program dominates real life issues in terms of discussion both online and in the real
world.
This does not go to show that those considered to be highbrow are inherently
better than lowbrow. Both have merits unique from each other that demonstrate
exactly why one isnt necessarily above or below the other. A perfect example for
this would be the horror genre which believed by most to be a low form of cinema. I
do see why most are quick to label horror films as lowbrow, what I cannot simply
accept is the idea that theres nothing more to the genre other than cheap scares
and loud screams. Many horror films, in spite of the unserious reputation so
undeservingly attached to them, have proved their worth as a great piece of
filmmaking that demands not only to be digested and enjoyed but also be
scrutinized. Yes, its a common belief that when watching a scary movie, a viewer is
better off paying less attention to the intellectual aspect of a work but such belief

does not justify the lukewarm reception received by horror films compared to
historical dramas or biopics, and if you think otherwise then Dario Argento would
beg to differ.
To the subjective, its much easier to say that anything can be highbrow or
lowbrow but the thing thats wrong with this kind of mindset is it delegitimizes
years of hard earned development in the area of critical judgment. If everyone were
to think this way then Michael Bays Transformers, Adam Sandler films, American Pie
film franchise and the likes are now allowed to stand shoulder to shoulder among
the cinematic greats with little to no objective backing. This can be observed
especially around films with rampant fanatics who would go so far as to threaten
any objective critic who would dare hold a negative opinion about the film and as
much as it saddens me, many Batman fanboys are guilty of this. Liking a film just
because is simply not enough to hold weight as far as criticism is involved, one
must be able to back an opinion up with objective approach and reasoning if one
wishes to be critical.

Yet every time the word criticism comes to mind, I am reminded of a quote from
one of my favorite animated films of all time which goes, The bitter truth we critics
must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more
meaningful than our criticism designating it so. Exactly how an average piece of
junk has more meaning than a criticism leveled at it is still foreign to me but what I
do get out of this sentiment is that contrary to popular belief, the role of a critic is
not just to criticize but also give meaning to a work of art. A critics sole purpose in
the universe is not relegated to dictating what should be liked and what should be
avoided by the senses but rather to provide meaning or reason, in the most
objective way possible, to why we like or dislike something in a way that we feel
less enamored to consult to our biases the next time we find ourselves being asked
for our opinion. Art is already complicated as it is even more so when absorbed so
some would opt for a work with less challenge. Alone and separated, the world of
art might appear esoteric to the point of hostile but in the presence of the experts,
theres truly much to learn and appreciate.