Of course fine art influences popular culture. First off, fine art and popular art play off each other and influence each other. Secondly, fine art is considered fine art because it is on the frontier. Things that were risque in fine art years ago are todays standard stuff- like impressionism. And fine artists often capture a mood or feeling that in turn influences many types of artists…filmmakder, writers, etc. which can come to influence an entire era. As an example, you may not care much for beat poetry, but the attitudes it exsposes (altered consciousness, existentialism, postwar nihlism, sexual liberty° directly influenced the following decade. Without the beat movement of the 50s we zould not have had the 60s.
Really? There’s two assertions here, that ‘fine art’ is on a frontier of some kind, and also that this is the reason for it being considered so.
So beat poetry is ‘fine art’?
Of course it isn’t always. But generally the things that get “accepted” in fine arts are things that do something new. You arn’t going to get a lot of interest doing impressionism these days. Some of this new stuff is good and interesting, some of it sucks. Both the good and the bad go on to influence society.
Well, I guess not in the sense of “visual arts”, but I would say it’s what many people consider to be “high art” or “things those snobby art people do that we don’t understand and or disapprove of”. We arn’t defining “fine art” here as “Whatever GorillaMan thinks makes the cut.” In order to have this argument to begin with we must use the definition of “what society considers fine art”. Meaning stuff people who visit museums think are interesting.
If you wish, you may substitute “cubism”, or “pop art” or whatever makes you happier for “beat poetry”. You cannot tell me that Guernica does not influence how we think of the Spanish Civil War, warfare in the 20th century, and postwar attitudes.