On "Low" art
It is seldom that one finds any hint of emotion, complexity and intelligence in anything other than what people often refer to as the "low" arts. The idea that such arts can be distinguished by prevelence of entertainment and commodity is laughable when we consider that such "Fine" arts are an inbred mixture of both. It is becoming increasingly apparent that such "fine" art is becoming increasingly irrelevant and valueless, and more evidently as a hobby of the wealthy. The "low" arts are where all the positive aspects of art have thrived.
Culture cannot move without people. The "fine" arts are circulated between such a restricted amount of people, that the works produced are akin to deadwood: Stiff, uninteresting, stale. Culture inherently relies on forms of mass-media, those films, drawings and two-minute songs that flood the internet, which everyone accesses and contributes to. A culture of a few million elite cannot compare to, or ever hope to outpace, the culture of eleven-billion human beings. Forms of art that are looked down upon by the bourgeois are the very forms of art that is keeping the concept of "art" alive.
Great things grow on the ground, and I have never seen a beautiful flower grow in the skies. Art inherently thrives at the "bottom", in every nook and cranny designated as a lowly medium. The idea of an elevated art, if not dead, is entirely useless to anyone.