Support Hyperallergic’s independent arts journalism. Become a Member »

Support Hyperallergic’s independent arts journalism.

Tilda Swinton sleeping at MoMA (photo via republicx.tumblr.com)

When I first heard about Tilda Swinton’s “The Maybe,” an ongoing performance piece in which the actress sporadically sleeps in a glass box at the Museum of Modern Art, I sighed and shrugged and laughed a little. Another unoriginal work becomes a cultural flashpoint — cause for media outcry, cause for real, live spectacle, an unexciting performance sold to ticket-buying tourists as avant-garde. What can you do? But “The Maybe” wormed its way into my head, and I found myself confoundedly returning to it often. It was only a week or two later, and after reading Jason Farago’s takedown in The New Republic, that I realized why I cared: middlebrow.

A few days before the news about Swinton’s performance hit every blog in the Western hemisphere, I had gone to the New School on a Wednesday night to see a panel discussion about the cultural phenomenon of middlebrow. The featured guests were The New Republic‘s Ruth Franklin, freelance writer and PhD candidate Christine Smallwood, and the New York Times Book Review‘s Jennifer Szalai, with Harper’s associate editor Christopher Beha moderating. The panel promised to tackle such big questions as whether middlebrow still exists today or has disappeared in a “great cultural leveling,” and, if it’s extinct, whether we miss it, and if it’s not, where it currently resides.

The panel on middlebrow at the New School. From left: Christopher Beha, Jennifer Szalai, Ruth Franklin, and Christine Smallwood (photo by the author for Hyperallergic)

If you’re new to the term (or it’s new to you), a brief introduction: “middlebrow” is one of three cultural “brows” that critics and others sometimes use to explain and classify forms of culture. The word “highbrow” has been in use for some 150 years, according to Beha’s introduction, although it has uncomfortable racial undertones that have since fallen away; it generally refers to avant-garde art and culture — Joyce’s Ulysses, say, or Picasso’s “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon.” “Lowbrow” entered the lexicon in the early 20th century, Beha said, and refers to popular, mass-produced art: think Thomas Kinkade and Mary Higgins Clark. “Middlebrow” is a term meant for the culture that falls somewhere in the middle — art that aspires to be avant-garde but isn’t quite, that uses the tropes of highbrow forms but presents them in a far more accessible, easily digestible way. Like Tilda Swinton sleeping in a glass box at MoMA.

A number of critics have written on the phenomenon of the middlebrow, including Virginia Woolf, but for decades, the one-stop reading on it has been critic Dwight Macdonald’s 1960 essay “Masscult & Midcult.” In it, Macdonald criticizes and attacks “the tepid ooze of Midcult” (another term for middlebrow; “masscult” refers to popular culture). Here’s his starting definition:

In these more advanced times, the danger to High Culture is not so much from Masscult as from a peculiar hybrid bred from the latter’s unnatural intercourse with the former. A whole middle culture has come into existence and it threatens to absorb both its parents. This intermediate form — let us call it Midcult — has the essential qualities of Masscult — the formula, the built-in reaction, the lack of any standard except popularity — but it decently covers them with a cultural figleaf. In Masscult the trick is plain — to please the crowd by any means. But Midcult has it both ways: it pretends to respect the standards of High Culture while in fact it waters them down and vulgarizes them.

And here’s a bit more of his vitriol, in the following paragraph:

The enemy outside the walls is easy to distinguish. It is its ambiguity that makes Midcult alarming. For it presents itself as part of High Culture. Not that coterie stuff, not those snobbish inbred so-called intellectuals who are only talking to themselves. Rather the great vital mainstream, wide and clear though perhaps not so deep. You, too, can wade in it for a mere $16.70 pay nothing now just fill in the coupon and receive a full year six hard-cover lavishly illustrated issues of Horizon: A Magazine of the Arts, “probably the most beautiful magazine in the world … “

It’s not hard to see why “middlebrow” has basically been a negative term ever since 1960.

As expected, the panel raised many more questions than it answered, and after an hour plus an audience Q&A, it still felt like there were so many aspects of the topic that had barely been touch on. Jennifer Szalai raised the interesting point that middlebrow might better be a term applied to people who look at or use culture in an aspirational way, rather than the cultural products themselves. Ruth Franklin identified examples of middlebrow all around us — “I feel like we’re drowning in the middlebrow,” she said — including Jonathan Franzen and Paul Auster novels and TV series like The Wire. Christine Smallwood didn’t seem to have much use for the brows, but she made a number of incredibly astute points, including the idea that cultural distinctions aren’t going away — “maybe they’re just refragmenting,” she said — and that people are not necessarily looking for edification, betterment, or truth in art anymore; they may simply be looking for experience.

That last one seems especially relevant to the world of visual art, where experience has become a hugely important factor in exhibition and other programming. The drive for these kinds of universal, social-media-shareable experiences may be what leads, at least in part, to the watered-down pseudo-avant-garde stuff that we often get today. (Which is not to say that all experience art is middlebrow or bad.) Everyone loves a good #ArtSelfie.

Jeff Koons is the poster boy for middlebrow art (and good for #ArtSelfies). (Image via orensanznyc.org)

I kept thinking, too, about how these concepts are very medium-specific. Visual art will always be ripe for middlebrow, because it’s a field filled with mostly with unique, or at least limited-edition, objects; there’s no built-in mass appeal. For art to succeed, it needs to either truly do something new or build on the formerly groundbreaking, now newish ideas that preceded it. Art’s uniqueness, its inaccessibility, probably scares some people into never setting foot in a museum; by the same token, it also paves the way for all those collectors and investors and showboaters who use art as a status symbol. Visual art is High Culture, naturally. If middlebrows are people, we’ve got plenty of them.

Part of the reason it sometimes seems like middlebrow may have disappeared is that we live in an age when culture is increasingly fractured and niche, not to mention mashed up and thrown together. One audience member commented that “modernity is about mixing up the brows,” which is the case with artworks themselves as well as those who consume them. We’re all cultural omnivores these days; it’s not weird for someone to Instagram photos of a visit the Guggenheim in the afternoon and then spend the night tweeting about Say Yes to the Dress. “At a time when reading up on Kafka is neither more nor less valid than keeping up with the Kardashians, a thriving demographic of middle-class strivers looks to me less ludicrous or menacing than the vacancy it has left behind,” Szalai wrote two years ago in an essay about Macdonald and middlebrow for The Nation.

The art world, however, remains largely monolithic and single-tracked. There are, of course, counternarratives, just as there are artist-run spaces and people operating at the margins — but there’s also the money, and it is everywhere, determining mostly everything. This is another reason that middlebrow often dominates: because it’s fairly easy to identify a prescribed set of values that determine what succeeds and sells, and then mimic them. Controversial but not too much; edgy but not nihilistic; clever but not necessarily original. I suspect this is why, like Hrag and unlike Jerry Saltz, I’m not too worried about the supposed death of the gallery show, at least not yet. As Hrag said, “The narratives we once had were limited and excluded far too many people.” If we work towards opening things up, letting in more voices, which necessarily means more ways of seeing the world, we might be able to create a pluralistic space where middlebrow at least gets pushed to the wings, making it a little bit harder to find.

The Latest

Required Reading

This week, LA’s new Academy Museum, the intersections of anti-Blackness and anti-fatness, a largely unknown 19th century Black theater in NYC, sign language interpreters, and more.


Jillian Steinhauer

Jillian Steinhauer is a former senior editor of Hyperallergic. She writes largely about the intersection of art...

16 replies on “The Art of Middlebrow”

  1. just thinking back

    “In the 19th century, the salon system frequently incited criticism from artists for the bland or academic quality of the artwork, while radical artists (like Edouard Manet or Gustave Courbet) would not be received or would be greatly censored by the ‘respectable’ public. The salon system thus forced radical and modern artists to seek alternative or unofficial exhibition sites. This is especially true for Impressionists and Fauvism.”

  2. I think there’s a typo that may need to be fixed “probably scares some people into never setting food in a museum” foot?

  3. How boring! This middle/high/low brow bs is a smokescreen to vaguely hide the offensive snobbery of the art world. What arrogance to think anything could be original!

    1. While I am no big fan of the Kardashians I think this guy sounds incredibly pompous. I would encourage him to consider spending some time doing an after school art workshop for kids in rural areas or low-income neighborhoods. It might help him to be less self-involved and pretentious. Something to help him return to planet Earth where the rest of us live.

  4. A great article, and as you surmised there are many implicit issues left unsaid.

    -Who has the authority to determine what is high, middle, or low brow? Is this achieved simply by audience consensus?

    -Are such categories as high and low even valid?

    Highbrow is mired with issues of class, perceived taste, politics and history. Today, no one would dismiss Renaissance art from The Netherlands as being lesser than that produced in Italy, and yet, this is exactly what was propagated by Italian chroniclers at the time.

    Categories and taste are always evolving. Today’s low brow might be tomorrow’s high brow and vice versa.

    1. I agree very much that categories and tastes are always evolving; nothing is really set in stone, at least not for long. As for who has the authority—I look at it the way I look at criticism: you have the authority if you decide it’s something you want to think about and determine. Some people like to have critics do that work for them (e.g. the NY Mag approval matrix, or Dwight Macdonald); others like the decide and judge for themselves (those people are often critics).

      I don’t quite understand your question about validity, though. How would the categories be invalid?

      1. Hey Jillian (really enjoy reading your articles)

        Categories in the art world are, for the most part, taken for granted. But the more you interrogate them, the more they fall apart. I think this is especially true with definitions such as ‘high’ and ‘lowbrow’ which are meant to signal something about artistic quality and taste, but for the most part aren’t really as helpful as you’d imagine.

        Unlike ism’s such as Cubism or Fauvism, which articulate something concrete about such work, high brow and low brow are just about taste.
        For example, ‘Cubism’ indicates the visual nature of such work. ‘Fauvism’ (wild beasts’) was coined as a derivative term by an art critic and yet it also usefully captures the visual energy of the Fauvist’s work. So the label Fauvism is useful (and by extension, valid) because it usefully tells you something about the work’s initial reception and its visual energy.

        This is why I feel that qualitative terms are less useful, because they don’t really tell you anything about the context or visual appearance of a work. For example, would Jeff Koons qualify as high, low brow, or both? Koons’ subject matter is described as kitsch, but the production value is intentionally high. His work is a great example for your article because he purposely aims to disrupt the casualness with which we band around terms such as high and low.

        And yet, despite all this, when you describe ‘The Maybe’ as middlebrow – I know exactly what you mean!

        1. Hi! (Thank you!)

          I definitely see what you’re saying, about the usefulness of ism vs. categories like the brows. I think you’re right that terms like Cubism have a much broader usefulness, in that they describe the art, they work for everyone, and they can be used art historically. I do, however, find the brows useful—they help me when I think about art, providing structures and designations and a way to organize things (which is what my brain likes). I think they’re just less broadly useful, because they’re personal and subjective, measurements of taste.

          This came up at the panel, actually: Christine Smallwood remarked that she didn’t see the value in designating things according to brows. Ruth Franklin responded that it helps her manage expectations. I liked that.

  5. Good article, I would add advertising as a new definition of middlebrow-it is designed to appeal to as many people as possible and not to offend anyone. It’s not surprising that Saatchi who is an add man,is one of the most influential figures in the art world. I have seen more than a few shows that look like advertising without subject or content.

    1. Yes! And not offending people is definitely a characteristic. It can be “controversial,” but it shouldn’t really make you uncomfortable.

      I think this is why the art on “Work of Art” sucked. Because it was basically glorified advertising (design an artwork based on a car!).

  6. How Greenbergian! So where does “middlebrow” fall between avant-garde and kitsch?

    1. I believe it’s somewhere right in the middle. Avant-garde is basically high culture; kitsch is mass/low. Middle tries to be avant-garde while keeping the populist appeal of kitsch.

  7. I have to confess, I find the very words high, low and middle brow disturbing. The term “middle” brow is especially vexing to me because it infers the heirachical stacking of categories, rather than the ends of a spectrum that the high and low polarity allows.

    I am surprised that the terms are still used in art criticism. I feel they are an over simplified framing of a relationship between art and people that is actually very subtle. To me they are an archaic artifact that exposes the liniage of art and its toxic relationship to money. And the continued use of the term disturbs me becasue it shows that this relationship, along its all its prejudices, is still very real.

    And as an artist, just hearing or reading the words high-brow, middle-brow and low-brow sends a tiny little chill down my spine.

Comments are closed.