A lot of things that have become immortal weren't orignally viewed as being potentially that. Another
good example are the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the
race for the Senate seat from Illinois in 1858. These
are now considered classical political discussions because they dealt with question of the meaning of the US Constitution, States Rights, the Rights (or lack of them) of Slaves, the meaning of human freedom.
Yet, it must be remembered that the audience were almost exclusively farmers in rural Illinois. People came to hear them primarily because it was considered entertainment. Listening to great oratory was considered fun at the time. In addition to the great men addressing the great issues of the time, there were also clowns, food and other interesting things.
Most of those farmers lead very boring lives so any great gathering would attract attention.
So the fact that millions of people, many not very educated, might have tuned into Columbo and that it appealed to them, doesn't mean that it can't be great, or immortal.
This also reminds me of an ongoing argument I have with a friend whether Norman Rockwell (the fellow who painted the famous painting about Thanksgiving at Grandma's and Grandpa's and other illustrations of "Americana".) I say he is an artist, my friend
says he was "merely" a talented illustrator. I guess there is no end to these discussions.

I have read many books on Shakespeare and also critical essays. Almost to a fault, all these books have referred to the fact that at the time, that yes, his work was for the upper class, but mainly for the mass common audience. They were not considered art, but entertainment.
Yes, it may be a stretch to compare Columbo to Shakespeare...but do we really know what this world will be like a few hundred years from now? What will be valued and what will be considered rubbish?
On another scale one could consider the work of Orson Welles...and dare I say it..John Cassavetes. At the time they were creating their films, the general critique of their work was that it was garbage. Today Welles is considered a genius, and in the Independent Film world Cassavetes is considered a god. These 2 men changed the face of cinema. And now their fims are considered masterpieces. Is that art? I guess I really don't know.
Everyone has their own perception of what art is. Some may find insight and beauty in a particular thing, while someone else finds nothingness. It is all a matter of what your mind's-eye-view is telling you.

Maybe it boils down to the old art versus craft issue. We look at a finely carved antique cigar store Indian: Is it art or craft? What about the handcrafted pottery that has attracted so many collectors? Art or craft? Neil Simon cut his teeth on tv writing . . . so is the Odd Couple the result of art or craft? We've been discussing a difficult question.

I'd agree, Michael....quite a difficult issue.
There is such a defining line about what people consider art, and what they consider popular, and then even trash. I think YM brought up a superb thought when he mentioned Norman Rockwell. He was basically considered an illustrator...but his work has been proven to many to be art...I happen to have 2 pictures in my office by him (obviously not originals!!!) but when I look at them they say so much...they tell a story in one solitary picture...there is so much going on..and so much you can read into them....and maybe that is what art is all about.
Michael, Do you ever discuss topics such as these with your students...I suppose you do. I wish I could have had you as an instructor when I was in school.....

I think you're right about Rockwell. As a child, I used to admire his coverwork at my great grandmother's--she was a fan and subscribed to mags that featured his work. Same is true of political cartoonists--there's quite a few of them I'd like to have framed!