Self-taught artists and makers occupy a unique yet often precarious position in the art world. Operating outside formal institutions and lacking the traditional markers of cultural capital—such as academic credentials or gallery representation—they face systemic barriers that affect how their work is valued, perceived, and positioned. The historical distinctions between “high art” and “low art,” rooted in exclusionary practices and cultural hierarchies, continue to shape the trajectory of self-taught artists today. This division is not just an external phenomenon but also impacts how artists perceive themselves and others within the field.
This article explores the historical development of the divide between “high” and “low” art, the mechanisms of gatekeeping that reinforce this divide, and its implications for gallery sales, representation, and the broader perception of art and artists.
The Historical Divide Between High and Low Art
The distinction between “high art” and “low art” is not a natural or neutral categorization. Instead, it is a construct shaped by social and cultural forces, deeply tied to issues of class, power, and access.
The Rise of High Art
In Europe during the Enlightenment and into the 19th century, the notion of “high art” emerged as part of a broader effort to codify taste and cultural value. The rise of the academy system, particularly institutions like the Académie des Beaux-Arts in France, formalized artistic training and established a hierarchy of genres, with history painting and portraiture at the top and decorative arts or crafts at the bottom. These academies dictated not only what was considered “art” but also who could practice it.
Art historian Carol Duncan, in Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums, argues that the categorization of high art was deeply tied to the rise of public museums as spaces for cultivating moral and intellectual refinement among the middle and upper classes. “The museum space was designed to elevate certain cultural forms, associating them with ideals of reason and civility, while excluding or marginalizing other forms as frivolous or uncultured,” Duncan writes.
The Marginalization of Low Art
“Low art,” on the other hand, came to signify practices outside the elite frameworks of high art. These included craft, folk art, popular art forms, and the work of self-taught creators. The distinction often carried implicit judgments about the social status and intellectual capacity of the artists themselves, equating high art with sophistication and low art with naivety or utility.
This divide was further solidified by industrialization and colonialism, as Western powers sought to define their own cultural superiority by contrasting European fine art with the so-called “primitive” art of colonized regions. As Olu Oguibe writes in The Culture Game, “The construction of primitivism and its association with non-Western art was not simply a reflection of Western taste but an assertion of cultural dominance.”
Gatekeeping and Exclusionary Practices
The mechanisms that sustain the divide between high and low art are rooted in gatekeeping practices that control access to resources, visibility, and legitimacy.
Institutional Gatekeeping
Formal institutions such as art academies, museums, and biennials have historically functioned as arbiters of taste, determining what is deemed worthy of inclusion in the canon. Self-taught artists, lacking the institutional credentials often required for entry into these spaces, are excluded not only from exhibitions but also from the networks and resources that come with institutional validation.
As sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argues in The Field of Cultural Production, cultural institutions act as gatekeepers, reinforcing class hierarchies by privileging those who possess the “right” forms of cultural capital. “The field of cultural production is structured around access to symbolic capital, which is distributed unevenly and often contingent on one’s social origins and affiliations,” Bourdieu writes.
The Role of Galleries and the Market
Commercial galleries play a critical role in reinforcing the divide between high and low art. By prioritizing artists with established credentials or market appeal, galleries perpetuate the notion that self-taught artists lack the sophistication or seriousness required to succeed in the art world. This creates a cycle in which self-taught artists struggle to gain representation, which in turn limits their access to collectors, critics, and institutions.
Art historian Griselda Pollock, in Vision and Difference, critiques the gallery system for its exclusionary practices: “The gallery space, like the museum, operates as a site of power, legitimating certain works and practices while rendering others invisible. This is not simply a matter of taste but of structural inequality.”
Media and Critical Reception
The media and art criticism further reinforce these hierarchies by shaping public perceptions of what constitutes valuable or important art. Self-taught artists are often framed as “outsiders” or “naïve,” labels that simultaneously exoticize and marginalize their work. While such framing can attract attention, it often comes at the cost of being taken seriously within the mainstream art world.
The Impact on Self-Taught Artists and Their Perceptions
The exclusionary practices that sustain the divide between high and low art have significant implications not only for the careers of self-taught artists but also for how they and others perceive their work.
Internalized Marginalization
For many self-taught artists, the lack of institutional validation can lead to feelings of inadequacy or impostor syndrome. The constant reinforcement of high art’s superiority creates a cultural narrative in which self-taught practices are seen as less legitimate or valuable. This perception can discourage self-taught artists from pursuing opportunities or advocating for their work.
Artist-on-Artist Bias
The divide also manifests in how artists view one another. Artists with formal training may look down on self-taught artists, seeing them as lacking discipline or technical skill, while self-taught artists may harbor resentment toward the perceived elitism of the academic art world. These dynamics reinforce divisions within the creative community, making it more difficult to build solidarity across different practices.
Implications for Gallery Sales and Representation
The divide between high and low art has tangible effects on gallery sales and representation, shaping what is seen, sold, and valued in the market.
Market Perception and Pricing
The art market often privileges works that come with institutional backing or established provenance, creating a bias against self-taught artists. Works by academically trained artists command higher prices, not necessarily because of their intrinsic quality but because of the cultural capital associated with their credentials.
As economist Don Thompson notes in The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art, “The value of a work of art is as much a product of its context—its creator’s reputation, its exhibition history, and its institutional affiliations—as of its aesthetic qualities. For self-taught artists, the absence of these markers creates a significant disadvantage.”
Barriers to Representation
For self-taught artists, securing gallery representation often requires overcoming significant skepticism from dealers and collectors. Many galleries are reluctant to take risks on artists without formal training or established networks, viewing them as less marketable. This limits the visibility and financial viability of self-taught practices, perpetuating cycles of exclusion.
Toward a More Inclusive Understanding of Art
Challenging the divide between high and low art requires rethinking the systems and assumptions that sustain it. This involves not only recognizing the value of self-taught practices but also addressing the structural inequalities that limit their access to resources and opportunities.
Expanding Institutional Definitions
Museums, galleries, and educational institutions must expand their definitions of art to include a broader range of practices and perspectives. This means integrating self-taught and marginalized artists into mainstream exhibitions rather than relegating them to niche categories.
Redefining Success
The art world must move beyond market-driven models of success to recognize the cultural and social value of diverse practices. This includes supporting community-based initiatives, grassroots projects, and alternative spaces that prioritize inclusivity over exclusivity.
Building Solidarity
Artists, curators, and collectors must work together to dismantle the hierarchies that divide high and low art. By fostering dialogue and collaboration across different practices, the creative community can challenge the structures that perpetuate exclusion and inequality.
Conclusion: A Call for Change
The divide between high and low art is not simply a matter of taste but a reflection of deeply entrenched systems of power and privilege. For self-taught artists, this divide creates significant barriers to recognition and representation, limiting their ability to thrive within the art world. By critically examining these dynamics and advocating for change, we can create a more inclusive and equitable field—one that values creativity in all its forms, regardless of where it comes from or how it is labeled.
Works Cited
• Bourdieu, Pierre. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Columbia University Press, 1993.
• Duncan, Carol. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. Routledge, 1995.
• Oguibe, Olu. The Culture Game. University of Minnesota Press, 2004.
• Pollock, Griselda. Vision and Difference: Feminism, Femininity and Histories of Art. Routledge, 1988.
• Thompson, Don. The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
Comments