catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

Does Democracy Produce Bad Art?

Default

kristinmarie
Apr 06 2002
06:41 pm

A few months ago I heard an NPR interview with the dean of the School of the Art Institute, Chicago. She claimed that the American view of art differs from that of most of the rest of the world in that Americans don’t expect/want their art to ask complex questions. She thought that this might be because, steeped in democracy as we are, we mistrust anything that cannot be commonly understood. This leads to an art scene heavy on spectacle and flash, intent on giving the audience an experience outside their lives, rather than probing them to dig inward.

Are all those Hollywood action flicks and romantic comedies a product of democracy?

Default

mrsanniep
Nov 18 2003
09:45 am

If art is not to be shared with others, than there’s no niche. However, isn’t a niche created the instant an artist shares their work with someone and that person likes it, perhaps encourages the artist to share with others because the artist’s vision is unique? And if it’s unique, won’t it start generating a demand?

Default

anton
Nov 18 2003
08:54 pm

I don’t think “finding your niche” is market language per se, though I can see how it might be taken that way. I think it would be more accurate to say that it is the language of modernism. Grant, it seems to me that you speak the language of a postmodern. Postmodern art tends to challenge forms, favor collages, and overturn distinctions (this is art, this is not art). It’s in line with a move against a “block house” methodolgy in logic that insists on moving in a direction or making a point.

I’m not sure it’s helpful to say that art is “the air, water, food people breathe.” It’s a definition so broad that it is essentially meaningless. It rather takes all content out of the word “art.” All is art; anything is art. It would be more helpful even to say “art is anything valued by people as art.” Even if its subjective, at least something can be discussed.

At any rate, art, whatever it might mean, does not have to be a marketable product. But if you want to make a living creating art, then its a question you might like to answer. Besides, money in itself is not the great evil. Can it not be a form of communication, whereby a person says “I like this, I don’t like that”? In this way, the so-called marketable value has reference to a community. In any sense, this is what I had in mind by a “niche.” A group of people who are willing to spend hard earned money on your creativity. It’s the idealist that refuses to ask “Can I make a living at it? Can I sell it?” There’s nothing wrong with being idealist. I’ve met a few real idealists and I appreciate them. But I don’t feel sorry for them, because they’ve made a choice to live as they do, somewhere near the poverty line. What’s wrong with that choice? Unless it’s unethical…

Why do we even ask, “Doesn’t art have value beyond just being a marketable product?” If a person thinks only of money, who’s to say he or she will make better or worse art? He or she may be quite skilled, even if it is all thrown away in vain pursuit of money. On the flipside, if one only thinks of art, who’s to say that person will be able to survive only doing art? People may commission them.

I suppose the question may be useful inasmuch as it exposes our underlying values and expectations regarding art. I just don’t see how it necessarily locks a person within the four walls of a particular economic system. But let’s talk about the underlying values or expectations, which may or may not be in keeping with a particular economic system. If it doesn’t keep with a particular economic system, why are we speaking as though it does?

Default

grant
Nov 19 2003
08:11 am

I didn’t mean to define art as “food, air, water”. I wanted to make the point that in our culture, just the fact that we have to define and justify art shows that it is not welcome in our society, it’s not considered “natural” unless it is just another product among products. I went to a Mexican Fine Arts museum in which “El Dia de Los Muertos” shrines were put on display. I became keenly aware that, in Mexican culture, art and artistry is part of everyday activity—church practices, festivals, courting, marriage and family rituals. In American culture, artistry appears not to be so integrated with church practices and everyday rituals. That’s not to say American culture doesn’t have rituals. We can see American cultural rituals in our own art, i.e. art that is put into museums, sold on auction as a “must have” commodity for collectors, reproduced as prints to decorate apartments, or sold as kitsch (bad art) in tourist traps across the country.

Default

mrsanniep
Nov 19 2003
08:40 am

I think you’re comparing apples to oranges, somewhat, Grant. The Mexican culture is predominantly Catholic. The lack of art of which you speak in our religious culture, for example, seems more an observation on your part based on your Protestant/secular experience. Art and symbolism is everywhere in most churches that aren’t Protestant, not only in the architecture, but also in the rituals.

Aside from these shrines (and pinatas at parties), what “art” are the Mexican people incorporating into their everyday lives that we don’t? I need a little more education on the subject.

Default

dan
Nov 19 2003
10:26 am

i’d say our religion is commerce. and our folk art is commercials and snazzy packaging.

Default

mrsanniep
Nov 19 2003
11:31 am

The more this topic rages on, the more I think we’re asking the wrong question – that is, does democracy produce bad art? As Christians, we should be asking if a secular society produces bad art. In that case, you pretty much put all economic systems in the same boat and judge them all by a higher standard.

Good art is that which glorifies God. But what does that mean, exactly?

Default

anton
Nov 19 2003
05:13 pm

I’m ready for a Morpheus-like to declare: “Capitalism has you.”

Default

anton
Nov 19 2003
05:24 pm

Grant, are you critiquing the distinction one could make between “low” and “high” art? Or are you just critiquing “high” art?

Perhaps the “must have” collector’s artwork and museum pieces are evidence we over-value art. Making special places for it and calling some art a “must have.” Why do some buy prints and put it on their walls? Does the only (or even primary) significance attached to it lie in the fact that it’s a product? Somehow your argument is incomplete. There must be some other “crux of the matter.” Or at least there must be other significanct factors.

Also, are you saying that the tendency toward “must have” collections and museum pieces and kitsch art is a distinctly American phenomenon?