Works of high art are deeply related to morality, in the widest sense of the term, and sometimes problematize morality itself. High art has a history, in which styles, techniques, genres and the entire orientation of the work of art is changed. Properly speaking, low art has no history. Works of high art are individual. They bespeak a personality behind the work.
Low art is best when it is anonymous.
Now, it is my thesis that none of these characterize low art, which is assimilable to children's entertainment for the lack of spiritual riches they contain, and which grow boring with repeated exposure. In examining the astonishing fact that these propositions are all regularly denied in discussions among highly educated people, I set about to find out how these entirely obvious things have been forgotten, and what the motivations for denying obvious truths could be. I found three. First, there is the fact that there is no absolute dividing line between high and low art. In fact, in modern industrial society, low art has disappeared and been replaced, for the most part, in adult entertainment, by what has been called midcult.