The death of cinema

You can disagree, but just applying my words to other terms isn't a compelling argument. High art lacks any reasonable criteria for why one should call it high. The adjective invokes emotions that this kind of art is better, more valuable (not financially) or more refined but there isn't any factual basis to that; Is it high because only a small fraction of humans is interested in? Thats niche, not high. Is it high because only those of a certain status have access to it? Thats exclusive, which isn't even a good thing. Is it high because it takes a a great deal of effort to create? Thats monumental, as the LotR films indeed are. Is it high because it takes a high skill to craft? That would be an appropriate qualifier, but its usually not the one that is used to differentiate high art from other art. Does it take a certain level of understanding to enjoy? That would be another valid qualifier and its coming close, but this is still not really whats about; a physics joke takes a good understanding of the underlying principles that are played on by the joke, but I don't think it counts as high art. So what constitutes high art? High art is an extremely subjective term applied by a certain personality type to art as a way to differentiate the art and, more importantly, the enjoyer of this art from others. In certain areas as classical music, some book genres and even some movie genres high art is propagated by these personality types and generally accepted by others as a sort of natural classism. It gives those enjoying the art a rush of interacting with something deemed valuable and intellectual, giving a feeling of belonging to some kind of elite. Whereas the other side can feel content with knowing that high art isn't for them but for some stuffy intellectuals. It pleases both sides emotionally, which is why the distinction is so popular. I could have told you these thoughts just by asking for them, by the way. No need for a weak attempt at an insult.