Here's what I think you're saying: being judgmental about high-art-versus-low-art has no purpose, and the effectiveness of a piece of art--or, if you will, its ability to provoke meaningful interpretation--has nothing to do with any formal designation as high art or low.

Is that right?

Here's what I'm saying: being judgmental about high-art-versus-low-art has no purpose, and to call the difference between high art and low art "irrelevant" is to perpetuate judgmentalism, not refute it.

The differences between things should be savored.