Prompt: If something is or becomes "popular," does that necessarily mean that it has diminished "meaning" or "value"?

On the surface, this would seem to be the case all across the cultural board--from grunge and gangsta rap, to pop art and new wave cinema cinema, to The Office--the thousands of attempts to try to copy from something new or innovative seem to change the object, transforming it from artistically interesting to pop culture drivel. But is there something suspect about the "way cool/sold out" dialectic of cultural reception? Is the artist ever in control of the context in which people use or receive art?

What, if anything, does the 'authenticity' of an artwork have to do with all this? How can you tell an 'authentic' original from an 'inauthentic' copy? And does this distinction merely repeat the problematic high culture/pop culture distinction? Why or why not? (The Theory Toolbox, 69-70)