Artists, Capitalists, and the Fate of Art under Capitalism
My current book project is The Fate of Art under Capitalism. The research is done and I’m over halfway done with the writing. I love art, art and intellectually history, and political economy—and this book project lets me integrate them all.
One of the questions I take up is based on three observations:
1. Artists have never had it so good as over the last century—the number of practicing artists has skyrocketed, as has the amount of money we spend on art, as has the number of media and genres, as has the quantity and quality of artistic raw materials, and so on.
2. The last century has been relatively capitalism-and-business friendly. (I know what you’re thinking, free market friends of mine.)
3. Most artists, especially those in the artistic establishment, are anti-capitalist and anti-business. (Picasso is representative, in word if not always in deed, here in 1918 speaking of his dealer Léonce Rosenberg: “Le marchand—voilà l’enemmi” [“The dealer—there's the enemy”].)
So my question is: Why the dynamic of the cartoons below?
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
Thoughts?
(Kudos to Chris Vaughan for drawing the cartoons for me.)
Tags: Art and business, Art and capitalism, capitalism, Picasso
I think you answered your own question in your book “Explaining Postmodernism.” The highest echelon of the art world is presently dominated by the postmodernists, who are all leftists (for the reasons you point out in your book). So even if they survive on the spoils of the market, their work is inextricable tied up with a strongly anti-capitalist philosophy. I would say that they are somewhat insulated from the market via the public funds that find their way into MOMA’s, but on the other hand, private collectors put millions and millions into these works also.
It is worthy of note that Hollywood is not anti-capitalist. I dare say that much of the work Hollywood puts out is oriented 100% to making money, without worrying about artistic integrity or depth. Funny though, how I could see a postmodernist pumping out bad action movies too, their cynicism and dim view of human nature agrees with the idea that to survive in a capitalist system you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They resent and ridicule their audience while simultaneously making money from them. Not too far off from a canvas of “white on white.”
Mises in “The Anti-Capitalist Mentality” has some thoughts on the anti-capitalism of showbiz people, in brief, they are so fiercely competitive and individualistic (and stinking rich) in their careers that they take on socialism and collectivism on political issues to give the appearance of being deeply caring people.
Whilst you rightly observe that “amount of money we spend on art” has “skyrocketed” you neglect to note the sources.
Increasingly, these days, art is paid for out of the public purse firstly directly in the form of subsidies to theatres, arts festivals or films, and secondly indirectly via organisations like the NHS (UK), educational institutions and government departments buy art for their own consumption.
The fact is many works of art would not exist were it not for public subsidy. What is particularly galling is that much of this art is subsidised because it supposedly “transgressive”, “challenging”, “brave” et al. The idea being that it would not exist otherwise. Unfortunately those adjectives invariably mean the opposite of the normal sense. Whenever used you can be sure that the art in question is predictable, preaches to the choir and is safe.
The relevance to your question is this. There is a difference between the anti-capitalism of artists who exist on the public purse and those that exist on the largesse of the public. The former assume that this is the natural state of affairs. They don’t see the grants as charity but as their due. They see state sponsored artists like Eisenstein and Riefenstahl as role models to be emulated.
In contrast artists who live from the commercial sales of their art are seen as being prey to having sold out their principles.
It’t notable the the rock group Gang Of Four (all Marxists) were apologetic about signing to EMI and reported all manner of trivia as evidence of the wicked desire of Capitalists to make them conform (eg. Condoms and TV exposure). Contrast that with the lack of complaint from artists at the sterile conformity that is PC state funded art.
Markets are meant to allocate resources in this way and the resulting alienation isn’t meant to be a problem. Gay artists painted pagan scenes for the Catholic church during the renaissance after all.
Anti-capitalist art is like paintings of nudes. The former won’t destroy globalisation, and the latter won’t get laid. The former will be brought by business leaders, the latter by respectable pillars of the community. There’s a sociological and psychological function being served here. And the thrill of (mastering the) the illicit.
The people who pay for art aren’t always its audience. The collection and promotion of avant-garde art is usually a sociological rearguard action. State bureaucrats can afford to pay for anti-capitalist art and get tickled by seeing the upstarts knocked.
The desire for authenticity *within* art ignores the fact that art is inherently illusory. The desire for authenticity within the artworld under capitalism is bogus. Making demanding authenticity of artists is interesting only in a “why do people do that?” way.
That both artists and capitalists want authenticity and that it is destroyed by the market is a criticism of capitalism, not art.
Dr. Hicks—
I have spent a little time thinking about this intriguing issue (artists biting the hand that feeds). The following are more notions than well-thought-out arguments with plenty of data to support. Call them instead observations on the psychology of an artist. You can be the judge if there is any level of merit to these points—which I emphasize are generalizations along the lines of your cartoon and not intended to be a blanket representation of every artist. Both of us know, and know of, artists who do not mind—and perhaps even embrace (shock of shocks!)—the so-called “dreadful yoke” of the free market.
Why do artists hate capitalism?
Because many have an inherently negative view of humanity—You have only to look at their art or read their words to see that most artists seem to enjoy dwelling on what is wrong with the world—not necessarily on what is great about the world. This taints everything for them to begin with—man “as is” is destructive, its institutions are therefore detrimental. And as they look for causes and explanations about man’s inhumanity to man, greed and love of money/acquisition seem always to bubble to the top (along with religion). And what better poster child for greed than capitalism—therefore, capitalism is what is wrong with the world. I mean, imagine no possessions . . . then people would really be living life in peace, man.
Because artists have shaky self-esteem—No matter how arrogant an artist may come off, there is always a part of them that is scared witless that their work is not good enough and that each new piece produced could be the piece that dispels them from whatever favor they have and plunge them into obscurity, and therefore poverty. The cold heartless world of capitalism won’t be there to give them a safety net, and they may have to find some other means of being productive. Say, at McDonald’s. Or perhaps at a Big Four accounting firm (the horror, the horror). That is, they fear failure, which is something that can easily rule one’s attitude and outlook if one does not govern it properly. Capitalism is viewed as a system that does not deal kindly with failure, though people forget that failure isn’t terminal and that capitalism actually provides the best bet to pick oneself up and start anew.
Because they fear that their livelihood is at the mercy of the ignorant—This ties into both of the points above. There is an idea that capitalism has “dumbed down” consumers by providing often trivial and easier fare than perhaps a challenging book or piece of music. Whether or not that is actually true, I can’t count the number of times I have heard people say that real art can’t survive in a society that doesn’t read, doesn’t go to the symphony, etc. They talk about how the artist who has to live by the law of supply and demand is screwed because the demand is perceived to be waning, and it is waning because of the ignorance of the masses who prefer Dancing with the Stars to a Bach violin sonata—an ignorance perpetuated by a system that wants to make a quick buck and so caters to the lowest common denominator, etc. Couple that with the common idea that capitalism has turned us to drones who care only for work, and it is no wonder that artists hold in contempt a system they perceive as anti-art.
Because they are victim to a misguided idealization of the artist as rebel—Somehow, the role of an artist transformed itself into an idea that an artist is a rebel who pushes against the established order of things. Like artists watched The Wild One one too many times. Artists are artists and are only incidentally rebels. Of course art often (though not always and not exclusively) breaks the “rules” of art or challenges taste or abrades social mores or whatever. Sometimes, very beautiful things can be created that aren’t rebellious, but are just beautiful. But still, I think artists are—and perceive themselves to be—rebels. This position is reactionary—as if you have to reject certain things because as an artist you have to live on the edge or some bullshit like that. But the problem there is that I think artists rebel for the sake of rebellion, not because there is necessarily anything wrong with what they are rebelling against. So if capitalism is the norm, might as well rebel. I think this sentiment is best summed up by the Simpson’s character Nelson Muntz, who, upon being asked if he actually agreed with his poster that said “Nuke the whales,” replied: “Gotta nuke something.”
All this is a way of saying that artists—like most people—are prone to not possessing (or adhering to) a core philosophy or set of beliefs that is built from one’s thoughtful consideration of the world around them. Without this “internal” anchor, it becomes easier, if not, frankly, inevitable, to begin to perceive oneself as a victim of the world’s forces—rather than as a force oneself.
On the source of funding for the arts it is essential to read Tyler Cowen (also on the benefits of foreign aid). For a review of his recent book on funding: http://www.amazon.com/review/R20LMNK1HDG6A0/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
To get straight on the figures, he reports that donations (from both individuals and corporations) listed as tax deductions for ‘Arts, Culture and Humanities’ amounted to $30 billion in 2003. Compare this with NEA funding which peaked at $175 million in 1992. He estimates that donations of time amount to some 390,000 volunteers with a dollar value in the order of $20 billion. In contrast the French government limits tax deductions for the arts to 1% of taxable income for individuals and 0.1% for corporations. Germany allows deductions but bureauctatic restrictions make the scheme unworkable.
He has previously challenged widespread views about the damaging influence of capitalism and mass consumer culture on the vitality and diversity of the arts. “In Praise of Commercial Culture” surveyed the last two or three centuries to show how the capitalist market economy provided a vital but underappreciated framework to support a wide range of artistic visions. In “Creative Destruction” he pursued the same theme to argue that international free trade in goods and ideas will alter or disrupt many particular cultures but the net result will be positive.
Respectfully, you are wrong. In the art world it’s called ‘late’ capitalism, silly.
And to be serious for a moment, a vast part of the UK art institution is a Keynesian pump-priming exercise in ‘regeneration’ economies. People who might have become skilled trades or clerks studied art off the back of enjoying video games as children, and being told by the Labour party that they should go to university. Add that to the fact that there is not enough real art to go around the ever-increasing number of new ‘landmark’ public galleries (or ‘art factories’, often priding themselves on not actually having an art collection) and so new art must be created to keep up, with the inevitable decrease in standards of demand outstripping supply.
Jaques Barzun is good on some of the pathological forms of art and art commentary. See “The Use and Abuse of Art”. http://www.amazon.com/review/R10Z19C46JMGUU/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
In the second lecture he examined the rise of art as a substitute for religion in the nineteenth century. Art simultaneously became the “ultimate critic of life and the moral censor of society”. The next phase in that development is the topic of the third lecture on Art the Destroyer, treating Estheticism and Abolitionism during the period 1890 to 1914…
He sketched its destructive function over the last 150 years (now 180). “By the tradition of the New, art unremittingly destroys past art, though by the cognate tradition of historical sympathy we deny ourselves the unity of a contemporary style. By making extreme moral and esthetic demands in the harsh way of shock and insult, art unsettles the self and destroys confidence and spontaneity in individual conduct.”
Art in this function has helped to undermine the assumptions that the state and civilized society are valuable or admirable, thus impairing the effectiveness of political and social institutions and proving the destroyers’ own case. By linking the growing interest and respect for art in modern times with the “dominance of bourgeoise values” Art has effectively turned on art itself by becoming a vehicle for every kind of assault on traditional standards of beauty, craft, morality and commonsense. This was written thirty years ago and all that has changed is the increased number of students who are exposed to more advanced “theory” to justify the assault of Art on our senses and sensibilities.
In the fourth lecture he moved on to another piece in the crazy pavement of modern art, the function of art as redeemer, linked with the previously noted concept of art as a substitute for religion. Barzun accepted the common ground, that the power exerted by great art on receptive persons is a religious power, and he pursued the defects that follow when that insight is not checked by critical thinking. He discussed the individual and collective forms of salvation through Art that have been promulgated for 200 years. By the term collective salvation he means the appeal of revolutionary art which offers the artist a special role, first as evangelist and later as beneficiary, in the utopian society brought about by the revolution.
In the next lecture he turned his attention to the troubled relationship between Science and Art, describing how artists have entered into competition with scientists to claim some of the respect (and the material benefits) that have been generally granted to modern Science. One of the fruits of this endeavour has been the proliferation of “art bollocks” that is, the use of pretentious jargon to emulate the (supposed) precision and profundity of scientific discourse.
If Michelangelo were alive today, he might have fought with the businessmen if they tried to control him - like he did with the Popes - but I think he would have been very happy with the market otherwise.
And how about Hugo? He actually got the better of his publisher after Notre Dame de Paris! I wonder what he said, if anything about the businessmen he dealt with?
So I guess, the point of my last post was: there’s something peculiar about the culture since the industrial revolution that pits art against business…could it be philosophy?
As far as Hollywood is concerned, by all accounts, there have always been numerous, extremely crass businessmen involved in that industry. Leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth about business and capitalism, which helps to support all the leftie ideas in Hollywood.
“I’m a commercial person. I’ve got a lot of mouths to feed. Gotta bring home the bacon.”
I think that you are missing the main point most artists give on this matter. The problem has been one of that ; those who have the most money retain the most money by means of controlling the distribution , influencing the tastes of the consumer through advertising and exclusion and finally controlling the content and standards of creation. The more static and dependable all three of these elements are the better for the media monopoly. It’s less work\risk and the same reliable profits. Art however needs change and innovation and requires risk (let alone arts ability to challenge the popular social thinking of the time) What goes with the flow is popular and profitable in mass. This means it is no longer the most valuable art that is successful but that which is mass producible product of the large distributor that is successful. Rather than selling his art the artist is now in a position of being an employee of a media company and will be doled out his salary as long as he follows his employers guidelines in his creations and niche art is right out as consumers are overloaded with main stream manufactured artistic product determined to milk their interest for all it’s worth until it’s so run into the ground no one can stand it anymore then it’s off to find something new to co-opt, sanitize and mass produce. This is good in that the artist dose not assume risk of profitability, but bad in that he no longer has creative license to challenge existing trends and tastes. Also once an idea is bought that intellectual property is owned to the extent that even satire let alone a derivative work of any artist sometimes even by it’s original creator is out of the question (at lest in US court )unless you have lot money for lawyers. Sony America has buried people in repeated lawsuits Sony could never have and did non win this way by simply making it to expensive for an artist, who being one person also can’t spend their life in court every other week. IBM has trade marked a certain shade of the color blue and even common language is owned by companies who sue for you for treading on their IP often for little more than censorship of an individual who poses no real commercial threat.