According to Homer from the television series The Simpsons, “If something is hard to do, then its not worth doing”

It has been argued that high culture is difficult, demanding and rewarding whilst popular culture is easy undemanding and superficial.

Using this example I will discuss the validity of making distinctions such as these between high culture and popular culture.

The distinction that because high culture is less accessible to the masses thus making it “difficult,demanding yet rewarding” and therefore in that tone must somehow be deemed “superior” in comparison to popular culture or in the words of Raymond Williams “culture actually made by the people for themselves” is one which cultural elitists such as T.s Elliot or Matthew Arnold in his description of high culture as “The best that has been thought and said” would appear to use.
From a Marxist point of view this would be in an attempt to oppress further the working classes feeling of self worth and as French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu would suggest “keep them in their place in society.
The fact that cultural elitists are mainly of the upper classes themselves, class in context being the distinction between rich and poor in a capitalist society, would seem to underline the argument that the high vs low culture debate is not one of segregating what is good for the “peoples” intellectual and moral development but rather a hidden ideology that the activities and arts traditionally accessible only to those with a level of wealth in society are what defines them and therefore their class as being nearer to , in the words of T.s Elliot “perfection” in comparison to the “have nots” ie those lacking the money or opportunities to partake in such things , ie the lower classes.
The problem with using a selective cannon of works of literature, painting and music which is not bound on a commercially accessible scale to the lower classes is that eventually from a Marxist perspective these through economic determinism become like everything in a capitalist society “just another product to mechanicly chew up and spit back out to the masses” which to some like the earlier mentioned T.s elliot would ultimately mean them losing there true cultural, or as a Marxist would perceive social seperationalist value in there new found readily accessible version.

A clear example of this can be found in the BBC’s adaption of Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” a 19^th century novel which would traditionally be seen as belonging to “High culture” its huge viewing figures on public airing and subsequent, massive increase in sales would seem to indicate a transition from its being produced too and valued by the few thus holding in an elitists eyes cultural superiority to, on evidence of sheer numbers being seen as “popular” and therefore holding low cultural worth.

Following this example it could be clearly theorised therefore that if all “high culture” was accessible to the public and not just the few it would lose through familiarity its “moral worth” to improve or educate us through a ready made familiarisation with it .

The approach that because high culture is more “complex” then popular culture, therefore through its not straightforward and easy to understand it must be “good” can be seen to mirror a difference in educational standards of the classes.

The “difficulty” of high culture products would diminish substantially it could be said under familiarisation with them on a mass scale, seeing as a person only needs to be educated in something they are not already familiar with.

This however in turn would in theory turn them from being “high culture” to “popular culture” through mass acceptance and production.
The statement that popular culture is “easy” can also be challenged as education standards rise among the classes and with continual cultural status swapping due to loose definitions of what determines high and low culture.

For example, there is a tendency in this argument to focus on works of the past such as the works of Shakespeare which would clearly seem to fall into the category of “high culture” , however in Shakespeares’ time his popular theatre would have been enjoyed by all classes if not primarily lower classes as his theatres were actually based in the tougher working class districts of London.

Also like todays “low culture” Hollywood films Shakespeare’s pieces included purposely recognisable genres , rude jokes, fight sequences and love affairs which could constitute what F.R Leavis in his book against low culture “Mass civilisation and minority culture” describes as “involving surrender, under conditions of hypnotic receptivity ,to the cheapest emotional appeals” .So had Shakespeare been around today and his plays shown through the medium of film rather than live acting and in a cinema rather than a playhouse (which they undoubtedly would) Shakespeare himself instead of being rejoiced by cultural elitists would have come under their criticism of being of low cultural worth.
If Shakespeare hadn’t been brought to public attention by being popular in his day would his plays have stood the test of time and would we have even heard of him today?

Similarly who is to say that what is considered “popular” in our lifetime will not become the “high culture” of those in the future, two obvious cases being the songs of “The Beatles” and “Elvis Presley” whose work despite being in some cases nearly fifty years old, continues to sell in millions every year.
The notion that popular culture is in-fact formulaic mass produced culture, put together without thought and sold to a brain-dead public is also wrong.

As John Fiske points out ,two thirds of all films fail to make a profit .This runs along side the famous “uses and gratifications theory” which suggests people are indeed discriminating in their choices rather then just passively absorbing anything which is offered to their attention. So to dismiss the “popular” is in-fact dismissing the choices and tastes of the majority simply for being a majority and in turn dismissing most probably what will become “the high culture” of the future.

In conclusion as the definitions of what stands as high and low culture are constantly changing with society ,it is impossible to make such distinctions as which raises more cultural or educational value as something being popular does not make it “easy undemanding and superficial” as Shakespeare and other examples have proved just as something being celebrated by the minority with access to it is not necessarily “difficult and demanding” just perhaps lacking familiarity with the masses. As for being “rewarding” it is obvious from mass popularity that it is infact “low culture”which has the clever complexity to recognise and fulfil human needs and which the mass population are financing with their own money to do so, evidently showing it to be more rewarding to the individual on a mass scale than “high culture” thus proving the proposed distinction in the title of this question invalid.