It really depends who you ask. Ive mentionrd several times on these boards anout the minimalistic sets, the lighting and use of color in the lighting to give the illusion of more depth and substance to the sets. It was art in this respect especially in the first season. But even later episodes like Spectre of the Gun used creative lighting and set building because of the low budget and it gave the episide an artistic look. One of my favorites. TOS of all the star trek shoes has a unique look because of the limitations of the technology if the time. It really does look delightful.
Perhaps the original series is high art but only the original. It was the first of its kind on television. It looked great even though they used minimalistic sets. It really changed televised sci fi. Below is the a.i. response. Obviously created by hundreds or thousands of view points on the internet. It coukd be considered high art now or at least medium. Ive often mention my love for the sets and colors. Real talent on those early episodes.
A.I. runinations below.
---‐---------------------------------
Is star trek the original series considered high art?
7 sites
It depends on who you ask! Traditionally, Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS) was classified as low art because it was a mass-produced television show made for a broad audience.
Wikipedia
+2
However, Star Trek is one of the best examples of why those labels are often ignored today. It is widely considered to have bridged the gap or even "elevated" its genre into something more sophisticated:
Intellectual Depth: Unlike many "campy" shows of its era, TOS explored complex philosophical themes, sociopolitical issues, and psychological dilemmas.
Artistic Intent: Creator Gene Roddenberry explicitly aimed to move science fiction away from "children's programming" by hiring award-winning writers like Harlan Ellison to create "serious" storytelling.
Stylized Visuals: While some call the effects "cheap," modern critics often view the show's use of light, shadow, and bold colors as highly artistic and expressionistic.
Cultural Legacy: Because it has been studied in universities and preserved in the Smithsonian Institution, it now holds a level of "prestige" typically reserved for high art.
+4
In short, it started as "low art" pop culture but has been "canonized" into a form of high-brow cultural heritage.
Do you think a show needs realistic effects to be taken seriously as art, or is it all about the writing?
13 sites
In the traditional sense, Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS) is not high art; it was created as mass-market commercial television, a hallmark of low art. However, modern critics often argue that it has ascended to high art status through its intellectual depth and cultural canonization.
Why it was "Low Art"
Medium: As a 1960s TV show, it was built for mass consumption, advertising revenue, and popular entertainment.
Production: It utilized "state of the art" but budget-constrained practical effects (painted plywood, miniatures, and styrofoam) rather than "elite" fine-art techniques.
Reception: At the time, network executives often viewed it as "too cerebral" for the average viewer, yet it was still categorized alongside "campy" sci-fi of the era.
+5
Why it is now considered "High Art"
Intellectual & Moral Depth: Unlike typical "pop" TV, TOS used sci-fi as a moral compass to address sociopolitical issues like the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War.
Expressionistic Visuals: Critics now praise its stylized use of light and color as a deliberate artistic choice rather than a budget failure.
Institutional Preservation: The original Enterprise model is held by the Smithsonian Institution, a level of institutional "high art" recognition rarely given to pop culture.
Canonization: Decades of academic study and its influence on global culture have moved it into the "classic" category.
