Has art jumped the shark after WWI?

[thesummerqueen]

I have to come at this from more of a literature perspective, because music isn't my passion.

Take H.P. Lovecraft. [...]

Awesome example. I really need to read Lovecraft at some point...

It might help to listen to the HP Lovecraft Literary Podcast at the same time - the guys do a good and entertaining job parsing out the stories - including the bad ones....because don't get me wrong - some of them were complete bombs.

So what then makes high art? Stuff that's been around for centuries? Stuff that's been imitated by others? Stuff that builds on certain principles and speaks to the human condition? Stuff that follows a strict set of rules?

Well that is the question, isn't it. My point of view is that so-called "high art" (as was intended in the thread title) has given up on beauty and being fun in the widest sense and has therefore divorced itself too much from the audience, much like what Deist Paladin also says. At the least, I would say high art should do more than copy, but should bring some innovation to the table, should somehow be authentic, but at the same time involve some level of skill or virtuosity.

I think I'm confused as to what you consider high art and low art. What's the criteria? Because if people are still producing beautiful things, riffing on old themes but making them their own, what's the demarcation line?