Part 1 (2/2)

Because what is considered as art is relative, I prefer to follow the soci-ological approach: art is what people call art The deroup of insiders or the general population In the sociological approach to art it is often an 'art world' that denes what art is in a specic artistic area4 The ter say in the de-nition of art are related; they are part of a group or 'world' Such worlds can be dened narrowly or broadly If not indicated otherwise, I use art worlds in a broad sense

In calling certain pheno these pheno products that are consid-ered art fro lies a contin-uous ordering People classify products as being more or less 'art' Some-where a deh art, ne art, or 'real' art, while below this line we nd low art, popular art, or non-art

Because the arts evolve and new genres arise, an art world is continu-ously repositioning this demarcation line This is apparent from the Jazz example When relatively ss and lines and subsequent denitions of art as there are art worlds Within society, however, such different opinions 'add up' and a do the economy of the arts

It is clear that this book will not answer the literal question 'what is art?' nobody can accurately detect art by using some objective device Instead people are asked what they think art is In this context it should be noted that when people call certain things art, they do not all have the saer say than others This is comparable to the market where some have more money to spend than others There-fore, art is what people call art, acknowledging that soer say in it than others have (thesis 1)

2

Cultural Inferiority and Superiority Color the Economy of the Arts

As an artist I cater almost exclusively to the rich and well-educated Sometimes I feel uncomfortable about this I often don't feel my work is any better than that of 'artists' whose work can be found in open-air markets for instance, and who sell their work to the not so rich and the not as well educated people I don't understand why ed to be true art while theirs is not As a social scientist I want to understand this phenomenon That's why I cli a pattern to what is going on

From the tenth oor I notice that the phenomenon is not unique First of all, I see many other exaher and lower strata in classes I notice, for instance, that the printer of this book, with his working-class background, buys Guns and Roses cds, comic books, and a little sculpture of a dolphin to put on his sill These things represent art to hi, buys cds with oes to the s by Lichtenstein and sculptures by Jeff Koons That is her art Tastes differ; this is not so special At rst sight, these divergent prefer-ences appear to originate fro, separate realms, which are based on completely different and irreconcilable views of what art is

Then I notice that the editor and the printer know about each other's choiceswhenitcoeeachother's artOntheonehand,cosarelessarttotheeditorthan Lichtenstein's blow-ups As a matter of fact, she actually resents the printer's choices in art: ”This is not art!” On the other hand, the printer could well say so like: ”Well, yes, this classical stuff as the nainanni? is of course 'real' art and Guns and Roses is not Yes, I know, classical music is 'real' art, and I suppose I should know sinmuseumsofmodernartaswellbut, well,youknow,it'sjustnotforpeoplelikeh art, while the editor looks down on the printer's low art

Research has shown that social classes are not only vaguely aware of each other's preferences, but that they order theh for the editor is also high for the printer Therefore judg-ely siroups They run parallel However, judg each other's art choices do not run similar On the contrary, they are asymmetrical

It is this apparent asy People have notions regarding the art of other social groups and they assess these notions Group A puts down the art of group B, while group B looks up to the art choices ment or cultural asymmetry 6 It is this asymmetry that is revealed by the illustrations In the rst illustration the a-cultural house culturally educated The second illustration reveals a group apologizing for preferring traditional art, while the group that prefers conteroup for their preferences The fact that those e their choice of art than those ments are asymmetrical Two types of art exist: superior and inferior art, high and low art, or real and non-art

Norh versus low art that they are unable to develop a tenth-oor perspective to see patterns in their and other people's behavior From the tenth oor, how-ever, we observe that there is considerable social agreeiven culture, a dominant and univer-sal undercurrent exists which determines what isin later chapters rests on the thesis that because of cultural inferiority and cultural superiority judgenerally held assueneral social stratication in society Soher positions, with more wealth and honor than other people, and most people are aware of these positions

2People want to 'better themselves' (This is a basic assumption in eco-no up the social ladder to falling down

3Because people aspire to higher positions on the social ladder, they focus on the sy works of art and ways of consuher positions They look up to these goods and practices It is their future On the other hand, they try to distance themselves from people lower than theoods and practices

4 Because of its symbolically rich content art is used to mark one's social status 5 Social coherence in society is strong enough to h and low art8 If these assumptions are correct, they offer a solution to the questions raised in the illustrations 'Why do the lower classes look up to the art chosen by the upper classes, while the latter look down upon the art of the former?' 'How can we explain why Eddy and the people at the exhibi-tion look up to the ne arts and apologize for knowing so little about it?' Because people want to ienerally oriented towards the art of the people above theize for their own choices 'And why do people broadly agree on what real art is?' Due to social cohesion people share a general notion of high and low in society

Generally these assuue that the differences between high and low art have started to disappear9 It's true that soh art also quite publicly consunify that cul-tural asymmetry would become less ih I have little in coe Tom Jones fan This kind of cosmopolitan omnivorousness, as Peterson calls it, however, does not necessarily contradict the notion of asymmetry10 (1) This phenomenon is for the most part non-reciprocal; it applies e consumer of low art11 (2) It is often more relevant to look at the ways in which art prod-ucts are consus, are 'shared' by high and low groups, the ways in which the art-works are consumed and the symbolic practices in which they serve differ between the various classes13 For instance, when lower class art becoher classes these patterns are sometimes 'camp' A double moral standard is involved here: consumers both admire and mock the culture of the lower classes Therefore, I do not think that the difference between high and low art is necessarily disappearing and I ment remains valid14 By the way, as is common in the eld of economics, I use such terms as 'consumption', 'to consume', and 'consumer' in a broad sense So up', but in this book, consu, lis-tening, and attending can all be for as there is social stratication and as long as art products are used to mark a person's position on the social ladder, an asyher on the ladder look down on the art of people lower than them, while the latter do not look down on, but look up to the art of the former (thesis 2) It follows that the power to dene art is not distributed equally aher positions have a de facto larger say in the denition of art than people in lower positions (thesis 4) Whether they are aware of it or not, people in higher positions appropriate the denition of art

3

'Art is Sacred'

Art is apparently attractive to the higher social classes So what are the attractive qualities that people in the art world associate with art? Sacredness is one such quality and a relatively constant one at that

Long before Romanticism, people associated art as con-sidered sacred, an association that beca this period And ever since Romanticism, people have tended to call what they perceive as sacred objects and activities art and vice versa By calling objects and activities art they become consecrated What people label as art tends to be considered sacred or to stand for sacred matters15 It is important to emphasize that this view does not imply that art is sacred in any objective sense (Nor that the author believes art to be sacred On the contrary, hts in this book tend to dee that when a general belief in art's sacredness exists in society, anyone can harbor traces of this belief

I am no different I too tend to put art on a pedestal, as if it were holy and therefore in need of special treatsters who are interested in beco artists, I immediately start to stimulate them I would not bother if all they wanted to becoer Only later will I inform theht end up disappointing them Second, recently in a Dutch journal I advo-cated for lower subsidies for the arts in the Netherlands After I had writ-ten down my opinion, I noticed that I was my oorst eneuilty and I had hts It felt as if I had somehow desecrated art

Many artists and art lovers experience art as intrinsically sacred The work of art is animated Not only is the artist 'in' the work of art, but often God or a supernatural power as well Art is ifted Because the source of the gift is unknown, a 16 It has been suggested that in its sacredness, art has joined religion and to soree taken its place17 Whether this is true or not, part of art consuious consumption For instance, the silence in ious wor-shi+p18 Art has an aura, as Walter Benjamin called it He drew attention to the cult value of art and the ritual functions of art19 The higher the cult value of objects and activities and the more important their ritual functions, in other words, the more sacred objects and activities are, and consequently, the more likely they will be called art (Benjamin expected that the technical reproduction of art would lead to its demystication But thus far, technical reproduction has not put an end to the cult of art It has instead only added new forms) The fact that art or the ne arts are put on a pedestal may serve a pur-pose Art probably represents or expresses values that are of the ution, es in those values Moreover, works of art comment on these values, often less directly, but not necessarily less effectively than the stories in the great religious books once did In their recording capacity, art offers an a archive of what came before No history book can cos, sculptures, and lit-erature 'Art' is a treasure trove consisting of al of value that our ancestors have left behind This way art stands for the accumu-lated past It is above all this quality that adds to the assuuard this treasure trove and add to it Because art represents high values, it is looked up to Art as a bearer of the values of civilization must be sacred20 The same applies when art expresses important values inherent to the identities of nations or of ethnic and religious groups

The perversity of the low or popular 'art' of the corades, while ne art ennobles To Allen Bloo of the Ah, profound, delicate, tasteful, or even decent”, while ne art, including classical h, profound, respectable”21 Therefore, the asymmetrical valuation in the arts does not only follow from the sacredness and therefore absolute superiority of the ne arts, but also from the perversity of low 'art'

In other respects as well, art's sacredness does not stand on its own It interacts with other relatively constant factors to determine what people call art, like the authenticity, uselessness, and remoteness of art, ele- sections

4

'Art is Authentic'

A work of art and its maker are said to be authentic In a formal sense, they are authentic if the artist in question is the only one who could have erprint of the artist soes to creep into the work of art, its style, the signature or some other quality23 In expressionist works of art the personal touch is very visible; people 'recognize' the artist in the work of art In other works of art this quality remains more hidden; in fact, so nature can be veried as genuine

BecauseofauthenticitypeoplelookuptoartandartistsWhatelsecan explain that in 1998 the Dutch government was prepared to pay 36 mil-lion Euro (appr 32by Mon-drian, as e 232?Afterall,it'sjusta piece of linen on a wooden frame with some dots of paint on it24 Much cheapercopiescouldeasilybeproduced,whichintheirappearancecould offer alinal offers Nevertheless, people believe thattheoriginalisirreplaceable,becausethey know thatMondrianmade thisspecicworkofartTheyfeelthatinonewayoranotherheis'in'the painting Or, to give another example, only the extreme importance of authenticity can explain that the price of a Re drops to lessthan a tenth when experts prove that a student of Rembrandt painted it

The extraordinary value of authenticity inhis-tory, which commences in the Renaissance Prior to the Renaissance, works people now call art were basically multiples usually made by trained artisans The producers never intended to let their personalities inuence their work It was during the Renaissance that works of art began to become animated the artist 'entered' the work of art There-fore, the signature of the artist was no longer irrelevant Anian to render the work of art sacred, and little by little this sacredness started to rub off on artists as well

Before the Renaissance, people were priroup Since the Renaissance, authenticity has gradually becohest ideals in modern society Only with Romanticism did this ideal become clearly embodied in specic individuals, above all in so-called bohemian artists Culture as a representation of a superior reality was an 'inven-tion' of Romanticism, as was the notion of free disinterested, sponta-neous 'creation', founded on innate inspiration25 At the beginning of the nineteenth century, artists began to eeoisie At rst these bohemian artists were relatively unimportant By the end of the nineteenth century, their numbers had increased and by the early twentieth century the pres-ence of bohemian artists was felt everywhere At present, the bohemian artist serves as the role model for almost all artists Even for those (post-modern) artists who oppose this model and try to develop a new model, the old model remains the point of reference

Artists were and are the only people who can give veriable proof of their uniqueness, of their authenticity Although in everyday life, the bourgeoisie may have shown their contes of jealousy for these artists as well as an increas-ing esteeenerally Successful artists were viewed as the sole producers of authenticity True artists were and are geniuses This worshi+p of art has beco with the Renaissance and up to Roh esteeeois lifestyle, which was rmly implanted in the world of business and commerce of those days However, over the last one hundred and fty years artists and the arts have becoeois lifestyle It was a romantic, not a realistic alternative; and this probably added to its allure Since Romanticism, society has worshi+pped authentic and sacred art

Art consumers often try to identify with one orto their works or by surrounding themselves with their works they share a little of the artist's uniqueness26 Artists are adored In the h incoroup of artists

Even today people are still jealous of artists It is telling that when I a of scientists, the host will usually introduce et far et, were I presented as an economist This implies that a romantic vision of the arts still exists In our rational modern society art lls a void or co in our everyday lives The arts offer a romantic alternative (thesis 5)27

5

'Art is Superuous and Remote'

Remoteness and uselessness are two other relatively constant factors that can often be found in objects and activities that people call art and consequently, add to the notion of art's sacredness Art tends to be detached from the needs of everyday life28 Food for instance, fullls needs As But art seems to serve no such purpose; it is superuous, luxury par excel-lence The aesthetic experience thus is an ai to Laermans, classical music and modern visual art are considered art because people have conferred the characteristics of use-lessness and luxury on the of an aesthetic experience Pop music and other forms of mass-produced low art products, on the other hand, are not art, because people need them in order to identify with other people, to nd role models, to understand life and ood and what is bad29 In this respect it is revealing that when artists in low art genres such as pop n try to join the ne arts, they often claim that their products have become more formal and more detached and therefore less useful

If art has little use value it becomes a luxury and thus works of art can be found pri wealthy people and institutions Since their daily needs are fullled they can afford art In this respect, art is aristo-cratic It comes to people who never had to work hard to be able to buy it and who apparently do not 'need' it The fact that art and the consump-tion of art are elevated above the daily worries of the vast ives art its special status