Does the difference with low art still matter, and is high art not merely socially sanctioned by class but superior to low art, to the extent of the latter being an embarrassing mistake?
Feel free to answer for modern or post modern art.
I'm especially interested in arguments that talk about artisans and parody/mockery.
The distinction between pop art (it is usually not referred to as "low art") and high art (or high culture) was pursued among others by art critic Hilton Kramer (1928-2012). Kramer started out as an art editor for the New York Times but was led to establish a separate venue called The New Criterion.
Since the OP included "capitalism" among the tags, it is worth mentioning that Kramer saw capitalism and modernism in art as allies, at variance with a view that modernism's goal is to subvert capitalism.
I would add further that such a distinction is different from the artist/artisan distinction. Many greatest creations of the past that would be considered high art by all were in fact made on commission from wealthy patrons (for example, served a rather pragmatic purpose of glorifying this or that noble); similarly, many artists today produce work whose only destination is museums, that would be considered by all as pop art.
Think the old Greek distinction between 'artist' and 'artisan'. An artist produces a purely creative endeavor meant to invoke some ideal of beauty; an artisan produces practical goods that may have elements of beauty, but are ultimately functional in nature.
Somewhere in the 20th century technology started rearing its ugly head, so that production, reproduction, and mass production overwhelmed that purely creative endeavor. This led some aesthetes to try and distinguish 'high' art — offerings based in the kind of intense creative effort that marked painters, sculptors, and musicians of earlier eras — from the commercial art that was flooding the world. It is a (perhaps doomed) effort to maintain that 19th century ideal of art as the highest human endeavor.
Yes, the distinction between "high" art and "low" art is largely about what is sanctioned by the upper class.
"High" art does often have certain positive qualities:
There is plenty of "low" art that meets these criteria, though. Some comic strips come to mind. The rest of the difference is in the pomp and circumstance of how the art is presented. Posted on a personal web page? "Low" art. Unveiled in a gallery? "High" art.
