Beyond "Upper" Art

Quoting Dyske Suematsu <[email protected]>:

> Beyond "Upper" Art
>
> Just as each culture has its own distinct taste, each economic class develops
> its own taste as well. This is easy to see especially in food culture–many
> in the lower class and some in the middle class live their entire lives not
> knowing what foie gras is. Not all mediums of art are popular across all
> classes. Some are tied to a specific class, like Fine Arts is to the upper
> class, and film is to the middle class. This means that success in each
> medium of art is measured by the taste of a class it is associated with. This
> has certain implications for artists who hope to succeed.
>
> The vast majority of artists comes from the middle class. As they become
> successful, they often cross over the lines of social classes. A natural way
> to look at this phenomenon is that with money comes the taste associated with
> it, but, in some cases, it is also possible to see it the other way around;
> they became successful because they acquired the taste of the upper class. In
> order to show what I mean by this, I will take Fine Arts and analyze the
> class dynamics within it.
>
> The upper-middle class and the upper class are the patrons of what we call
> Fine Arts in the West. For it to be financially viable, galleries must charge
> a minimum of several thousands dollars per work even of an emerging artist, a
> price which a middle class income could hardly afford for what essentially is
> a wall decoration.

Actually, looking in at the art world from the (IT) business world as I do, I'm
often surprised at how little is charged for a work of art. Considering the
often time-consuming production process, the intensive deliberations before and
after selling a work etc. And looking in from the art world to the business
world, I'm very often more than surprised at the ease with which thousands of
dollars are shelled out for what I consider to be no more than electronic wall
decoration.



The success in Fine Arts, therefore, is contingent on the
> tastes of these social classes.
>
> What distinguishes the upper class from the upper-middle class is that the
> members of the former do not have to work. They have a lot of time on their
> hands to cultivate taste, and thus develop more radical taste than that of
> the upper-middle class. For the upper-middle class, art must still be
> functional to a degree. They cannot buy artworks and send them straight to a
> warehouse; they buy artworks so that they can display them in their houses.
> This severely limits the types of work they can purchase, which makes them
> conservative supporters of art.
>
> The upper class, on the other hand, has other reasons for buying art besides
> decorating their houses. One of them is pure investment. Buying art is as
> risky as, if not riskier than, buying penny-stocks or junk bonds. Like the
> way venture capitalists diversify their holdings in order to hedge their
> risk, if their motive is to make money, the collectors of contemporary art
> must also diversify. This is a strategy only the upper class can afford to
> execute. In order to beat the market, they must think more radically. The
> criteria for buying art cannot be confined to practicality. They have to
> think strictly in terms of the future potential of the artist.
>
> In addition, the upper class buys art in order to assert their identities.
> The middle class does the same by collecting books and CDs. Those who lack
> identities of their own must define them by consuming identities of others.
> Knowing what books and CDs a person owns is a convenient way to know
> something subjective about him. The members of the upper class go beyond
> mass-produced products of art. Instead of asking what books and CDs they own,
> they ask what fine artists they own.
>
> For those of us in the middle class, it is hard to imagine why anyone would
> buy a piece of conceptual art that consists of a DVD player and a projector
> for 10 thousand dollars. But, if your annual household income is 4 million
> dollars, 10 thousand dollars would be equivalent to 100 dollars of the middle
> class household income of 40 thousand dollars. It is not difficult to imagine
> collecting as a hobby something that cost 100 dollars each.
>
> The upper class being the sole supporter of radical contemporary art, the
> success of artists hinges on whether they succeed in pleasing their taste. In
> this sense, Fine Arts should be called "upper art" not "high art." Most
> artists are in the middle class when they start their careers as artists, but
> for them to be successful, they must cultivate the taste of the upper class.
> This means that initially their taste is out of sync with who they are, but
> as they succeed, their financial status comes in sync with their taste.
> Filmmakers and musicians have the opposite problem. They must please the
> taste of the middle class, but as they succeed financially and join the upper
> class, they must preserve their middle class taste. By failing to do so, they
> would alienate their market.
>
> Consumers of identities, whether middle class or upper class, are often drawn
> to what they are not. The White middle class is drawn to the Black street
> culture. Obedient kids are drawn to rebellious music. Suburban kids are drawn
> to urban culture. And so on. Successfully pleasing the taste of the upper
> class, therefore, does not mean doing as they do. Pandering to the apparent
> taste of the upper class would probably be a mistake. Exploiting their
> self-hatred or sense of guilt might be wiser.
>
> Since the tastes of the upper-middle class and the upper class are quite
> different, the artists who please the former may find themselves stuck with a
> moderate success, unable to achieve the status of "blue chip" artists. For
> them, a gradual shift into something more radical in taste during their
> mid-career might be strategically wise.
>
> How artists deal with the discrepancy between the taste they must cultivate
> and what they are in reality, has certain spiritual implications. Suppose
> what you do as an artist pleases you as well as the taste the upper class. If
> you are intentional in pleasing both, it is good business. It is like a baker
> who loves baking and pleasing his customers. If it does not particularly
> please you but it pleases the upper class, then it is prostitution. If it
> pleases you but you do not question where the money is coming from, then it
> is a shady business like selling bongs-the upfront premise of your business
> is to sell artistic substance (to smoke tobacco), but the buyer's true
> purpose is to satisfy their egotistical needs or greed (to smoke marijuana).
>
> In this sense, digital art offers an interesting alternative. Anything can be
> co-opted by the rich, but both the immediacy of access and the ease of
> duplication of digital art function as natural deterrents against it. This is
> true to some degree for photography. Many photographers like Robert
> Mapplethorpe appeal to the middle class as well as to the upper class. Once
> digital art establishes a market in the middle class, it would be an ideal
> medium for artists who have something compelling to say for the taste of
> their own class.
>
> Dyske Suematsu - April 13, 2004
>
> -
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

On Tuesday, April 13, 2004, at 08:43AM, <[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Dyske Suematsu <[email protected]>:
>
>> The vast majority of artists comes from the middle class. As they become
>> successful, they often cross over the lines of social classes. A natural way
>> to look at this phenomenon is that with money comes the taste associated with
>> it, but, in some cases, it is also possible to see it the other way around;
>> they became successful because they acquired the taste of the upper class. In
>> order to show what I mean by this, I will take Fine Arts and analyze the
>> class dynamics within it.

(One source of inspiration may be that) Jeff Koons did this with his basketball work. His argument was that white middle-class kids used art for social advancement the same way black lower-class kids used basketball. In this he's like Gilbert & George: "form" is "social form".

"Exploit yourself" can be seen as a call to Open your work. :-)

>Actually, looking in at the art world from the (IT) business world as I do, I'm
>often surprised at how little is charged for a work of art. Considering the
>often time-consuming production process, the intensive deliberations before and
>after selling a work etc. And looking in from the art world to the business
>world, I'm very often more than surprised at the ease with which thousands of
>dollars are shelled out for what I consider to be no more than electronic wall
>decoration.

Heh. I have to agree. But art is no more rational than business: look at much Open Source software costs and how over-budget some projects go …

- Rob.

My comment way down below….

Geert


On Apr 13, 2004, at 7:03 AM, Dyske Suematsu wrote:

> Beyond "Upper" Art
>
> Just as each culture has its own distinct taste, each economic class
> develops its own taste as well. This is easy to see especially in food
> culture–many in the lower class and some in the middle class live
> their entire lives not knowing what foie gras is. Not all mediums of
> art are popular across all classes. Some are tied to a specific class,
> like Fine Arts is to the upper class, and film is to the middle class.
> This means that success in each medium of art is measured by the taste
> of a class it is associated with. This has certain implications for
> artists who hope to succeed.
>
> The vast majority of artists comes from the middle class. As they
> become successful, they often cross over the lines of social classes.
> A natural way to look at this phenomenon is that with money comes the
> taste associated with it, but, in some cases, it is also possible to
> see it the other way around; they became successful because they
> acquired the taste of the upper class. In order to show what I mean by
> this, I will take Fine Arts and analyze the class dynamics within it.
>
> The upper-middle class and the upper class are the patrons of what we
> call Fine Arts in the West. For it to be financially viable, galleries
> must charge a minimum of several thousands dollars per work even of an
> emerging artist, a price which a middle class income could hardly
> afford for what essentially is a wall decoration. The success in Fine
> Arts, therefore, is contingent on the tastes of these social classes.
>
> What distinguishes the upper class from the upper-middle class is that
> the members of the former do not have to work. They have a lot of time
> on their hands to cultivate taste, and thus develop more radical taste
> than that of the upper-middle class. For the upper-middle class, art
> must still be functional to a degree. They cannot buy artworks and
> send them straight to a warehouse; they buy artworks so that they can
> display them in their houses. This severely limits the types of work
> they can purchase, which makes them conservative supporters of art.
>
> The upper class, on the other hand, has other reasons for buying art
> besides decorating their houses. One of them is pure investment.
> Buying art is as risky as, if not riskier than, buying penny-stocks or
> junk bonds. Like the way venture capitalists diversify their holdings
> in order to hedge their risk, if their motive is to make money, the
> collectors of contemporary art must also diversify. This is a strategy
> only the upper class can afford to execute. In order to beat the
> market, they must think more radically. The criteria for buying art
> cannot be confined to practicality. They have to think strictly in
> terms of the future potential of the artist.
>
> In addition, the upper class buys art in order to assert their
> identities. The middle class does the same by collecting books and
> CDs. Those who lack identities of their own must define them by
> consuming identities of others. Knowing what books and CDs a person
> owns is a convenient way to know something subjective about him. The
> members of the upper class go beyond mass-produced products of art.
> Instead of asking what books and CDs they own, they ask what fine
> artists they own.
>
> For those of us in the middle class, it is hard to imagine why anyone
> would buy a piece of conceptual art that consists of a DVD player and
> a projector for 10 thousand dollars. But, if your annual household
> income is 4 million dollars, 10 thousand dollars would be equivalent
> to 100 dollars of the middle class household income of 40 thousand
> dollars. It is not difficult to imagine collecting as a hobby
> something that cost 100 dollars each.
>
> The upper class being the sole supporter of radical contemporary art,
> the success of artists hinges on whether they succeed in pleasing
> their taste. In this sense, Fine Arts should be called "upper art" not
> "high art." Most artists are in the middle class when they start their
> careers as artists, but for them to be successful, they must cultivate
> the taste of the upper class. This means that initially their taste is
> out of sync with who they are, but as they succeed, their financial
> status comes in sync with their taste. Filmmakers and musicians have
> the opposite problem. They must please the taste of the middle class,
> but as they succeed financially and join the upper class, they must
> preserve their middle class taste. By failing to do so, they would
> alienate their market.

This is interesting, but I don't think it's exactly true. Within the
"upper class" some individuals like art, contemporary art, radical
contemporary art (in that order) enough to start a collection. Others
collect fancy motor-cars, divorcees, you know what I mean. But also, a
substantial amount of money goes into subsidised institutions like art
schools and museums. And although the average taxpayer tends to frown
on radical art, contemporary or otherwise, these institutions are
accepted as being a part of everyones' life, not just the life of the
"upper class".

Furthermore, any art "cultivates" from necessity, because of its
artifical character. An artist invisions "a life less than ordinary",
consciously or unconsciously seeks a model, copies the model, and in
doing so brings something new/fresh/exciting/obscene into the art scene
(India, Africa, bohemianism, suburbanism, funny sex, the dead ….).
Artists don't "cultivate the taste of the upper class", they cultivate
their own taste, and in doing so, become interesting for whoever has
the leisure and the means to want to own a bit.

Cheers

Geert
http://nznl.com


> Consumers of identities, whether middle class or upper class, are
> often drawn to what they are not. The White middle class is drawn to
> the Black street culture. Obedient kids are drawn to rebellious music.
> Suburban kids are drawn to urban culture. And so on. Successfully
> pleasing the taste of the upper class, therefore, does not mean doing
> as they do. Pandering to the apparent taste of the upper class would
> probably be a mistake. Exploiting their self-hatred or sense of guilt
> might be wiser.
>
> Since the tastes of the upper-middle class and the upper class are
> quite different, the artists who please the former may find themselves
> stuck with a moderate success, unable to achieve the status of "blue
> chip" artists. For them, a gradual shift into something more radical
> in taste during their mid-career might be strategically wise.
>
> How artists deal with the discrepancy between the taste they must
> cultivate and what they are in reality, has certain spiritual
> implications. Suppose what you do as an artist pleases you as well as
> the taste the upper class. If you are intentional in pleasing both, it
> is good business. It is like a baker who loves baking and pleasing his
> customers. If it does not particularly please you but it pleases the
> upper class, then it is prostitution. If it pleases you but you do not
> question where the money is coming from, then it is a shady business
> like selling bongs-the upfront premise of your business is to sell
> artistic substance (to smoke tobacco), but the buyer's true purpose is
> to satisfy their egotistical needs or greed (to smoke marijuana).
>
> In this sense, digital art offers an interesting alternative. Anything
> can be co-opted by the rich, but both the immediacy of access and the
> ease of duplication of digital art function as natural deterrents
> against it. This is true to some degree for photography. Many
> photographers like Robert Mapplethorpe appeal to the middle class as
> well as to the upper class. Once digital art establishes a market in
> the middle class, it would be an ideal medium for artists who have
> something compelling to say for the taste of their own class.
>
> Dyske Suematsu - April 13, 2004
>
> -
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

> Geert Dekkers wrote:
> This is interesting, but I don't think it's exactly true. Within the
> "upper class" some individuals like art, contemporary art, radical
> contemporary art (in that order) enough to start a collection. Others
> collect fancy motor-cars, divorcees, you know what I mean.

My understanding is that Dyske's post is referring to contemporary art that is marketed and sold in places like the Chelsea Art Galleries. This art depends on it's clienteles' tastes, thus reflecting the market that can afford to support it.


> But also, a
> substantial amount of money goes into subsidised institutions like
> art
> schools and museums. And although the average taxpayer tends to frown
> on radical art, contemporary or otherwise, these institutions are
> accepted as being a part of everyones' life, not just the life of the
> "upper class".

In the US, the taxpayers decided that this kind of art did not reflect their tastes - by electing representatives who proudly demanded cuts in the NEA. This has left the responsibility of supporting institutions of art to people who can afford to do so, whatever their motivation. Of course they do this with the expectation that their contribution will be used to reflect their ideal of what art is, be that a commodity, a political statement or a thing of beauty.

This being said, I am not clear that this dynamic is anything new. Is the hope here that contemporary art should be a "part of everyone's life"?

Jason