Art Poverty and The Artist
The art world has always served as a kind of trophy defining the identity, leadership, perceived superior intellect, grandeur and taste of the upper class.
The concept of class is very similar to the concept of law. It doesn't really exist naturally as a tree grows in the forest. The idea is put forth (generally by those who benefit) as a common perception that is taught, protected (through art!) and even revered. If a majority group decided the law was irrelevant the iconic law enforcer and entire judicial system would be no more. The concept of class is only "conceptual" yet is the determiner of value and how we are to view history and culture. High culture also disguises itself by identifying with poverty and concerning itself with struggle and oppression. Strangely enough, the concept of the struggling artist in history is a lie. In honest reflection, most if not all "The Masters" in our books not only had a financial lifeline but were born into "high culture".
Today, it is a bit different! Though, the concept of high culture generates a kind of mass paralysis for the creative underclass to produce or exhibit their work. The physical reality of financial and social mobility (time and money to make art and show it) also creates obvious limitations. The contemporary art world occasionally awards particular artists based on political merit. Much like a basketball scholarship, doors now open for the already marketed peasant and ethnic or gender symbol. Especially if their ART reveals the vulture-like identity of high culture and threatens it's relevance! What was once powerful and sincere art, becomes an ironic moth/butterfly metamorphosis. One that makes for a galvanizing topic for dinner parties and publications.
There's nothing romantic about poverty. However, there is definitely a noble quality to a person who willingly gets their hands dirty in order to rise above their adversity! I would also BROADLY assume that an impoverished artist whom worked a job to pay for their own education, may have learned a bit more about the world we live in. There is also something very profound about the experiential! Too often am I subjected to art that plays a distant and exploitative role in depicting people and the world around us.
I have yet to discover a "universal" definition or standard for art, only established labels such as "Kitsch" and "Fine Art". Both standards seem to be intimately connected to class and money.
How can Greenberg's kitsch peasant get anything out of fine art if it isn't accessible to them? The arts in education is usually pushed aside to a lonely corner of the university. However, kitsch is everywhere! It would seem that participation in this world of art is in itself unavoidably and exclusively class based.
The concept of class is very similar to the concept of law. It doesn't really exist naturally as a tree grows in the forest. The idea is put forth (generally by those who benefit) as a common perception that is taught, protected (through art!) and even revered. If a majority group decided the law was irrelevant the iconic law enforcer and entire judicial system would be no more. The concept of class is only "conceptual" yet is the determiner of value and how we are to view history and culture. High culture also disguises itself by identifying with poverty and concerning itself with struggle and oppression. Strangely enough, the concept of the struggling artist in history is a lie. In honest reflection, most if not all "The Masters" in our books not only had a financial lifeline but were born into "high culture".
Today, it is a bit different! Though, the concept of high culture generates a kind of mass paralysis for the creative underclass to produce or exhibit their work. The physical reality of financial and social mobility (time and money to make art and show it) also creates obvious limitations. The contemporary art world occasionally awards particular artists based on political merit. Much like a basketball scholarship, doors now open for the already marketed peasant and ethnic or gender symbol. Especially if their ART reveals the vulture-like identity of high culture and threatens it's relevance! What was once powerful and sincere art, becomes an ironic moth/butterfly metamorphosis. One that makes for a galvanizing topic for dinner parties and publications.
There's nothing romantic about poverty. However, there is definitely a noble quality to a person who willingly gets their hands dirty in order to rise above their adversity! I would also BROADLY assume that an impoverished artist whom worked a job to pay for their own education, may have learned a bit more about the world we live in. There is also something very profound about the experiential! Too often am I subjected to art that plays a distant and exploitative role in depicting people and the world around us.
I have yet to discover a "universal" definition or standard for art, only established labels such as "Kitsch" and "Fine Art". Both standards seem to be intimately connected to class and money.
How can Greenberg's kitsch peasant get anything out of fine art if it isn't accessible to them? The arts in education is usually pushed aside to a lonely corner of the university. However, kitsch is everywhere! It would seem that participation in this world of art is in itself unavoidably and exclusively class based.
consider that there is no "universal" definition or standard for art, which is, perhaps, the point you are alluding to. It is a matter of perspective. It is an ongoing flow of potential definitions created by individuals, not to be evaluated. Write the word "art" and draw a circle around it. Branch of from that an infinite amount of connected ideas and concepts that a piece of paper, the worlds largest canvas, or a cityscape would not be able to contain. It is a massive semantic web, each with some level of relevance when considering outlooks. Somewhere in there will be truths. It is both in the product from the paintbrush and in the construction of the paintbrush itself. It is in the perceived brushstroke and the negative space within the brushstroke. If looking toward a classic textbook definition of what art is, a definition will not be found. Textbook, standard definitions can be devoid of emotion or experience. And that is what is most critical, emotion and experience. In the humanities, the term "equality" can elicit many responses. A student once told me that equality only exists in mathematics. It depends on the person and their experiential interaction. Textbook definitions are sometimes written with agendas, financial and influential, unless it critically analyzes processes. A constructivist approach would allow someone to develop their own working definition, given that the person is pursuing knowledge for serious reasons. With the abstract and esoteric, the construct of language poses barriers. It is the experiential that is profound. Tra is the mirror image of art.
ReplyDelete