Too popular for its own good...

Can an artwork, an artist, author, book or drama be too popular for its own good? Does the fact that something is popular automatically mean that it has artistic or cultural value? Or is the opposite true: does the fact that something is popular with the masses mean that it is automatically lowbrow or culturally insignicant?

Popularism is a problem for the arts. In order to resist being labelled as elitist or irrelevant the arts must engaged with the general public, and must create and commission work that speaks to everyone in the country from the baron to the binman. However, everyone in the art world is not comfortable with the idea that art could, and should be accessible to all. Some continue to believe that a creative work, be that a play, painting, book or a song, must be complicated, and only comprehensible to a tiny minority, to be of any artistic worth. How many Turner prizes have been awarded to an artist who’s work is attractive, pleasing to the eye and appreciated by the public? And how many times has the prize gone to an individual who’s work is unfathomable to the vast majority of those who view the exhibition?

The fact that a work of art is so pretentious and complex as to make it unpopular, does not mean that the work has more cultural value than an extremely popular piece. After all, is it not the aim of art (in all its forms) to amuse, entertain, to tell us somthing about ourselves and our society? And how can it do this successfully, if it does not reach out and speak to the whole of society? The most popular pieces are those that speak to us in our own language, on our own terms, and try to understand us.