Geoff: Yes, I suppose you are right in general terms. But it's so fluid. Anyone, no matter what his/her station in life, can learn to appreciate art, high art. Who asks for pedigrees at the museum door? (In my youth the museums were all free). For years I taught at a college where most students were "first generation", meaning the first of their families to obtain higher education. They flocked to art appreciation and art history and even art studio courses. Maybe they aspired to acquire "class" traits but they were sincere nonetheless. The tropes of the common man squirming in a tuxedo at the opera or fumbling with the salad fork or pretending to be engaged in front of the abstract painting (a famous Rockwell illustration shows that very scene) are funny partly because they are true. No one is out-of-hand excluded from the ranks of one's "betters".
But to reinforce your point, or the drift of your argument, we can turn to Albrecht Durer whose Handbook of The Artist begins with a claim that becoming an artist can enable one to move up the social ranks. Also, not very many artists who achieve some success can afford to buy their own work. Maybe that's always been true among those who live by their "craft". What cabinet maker can afford the $1,000 a foot price for custom cabinets. And what about the yacht builder? What boat carpenter can afford a one-of-a-kind yacht? Etc. But they, at least, have the advantage of bona-fide professions, and can obtain their raw materials at wholesale and, together with their own skill, sell their product at retail. This ensures their place in the social/economic structure. Just a few minutes ago I was flipping through the latest art materials catalog to arrive in my mail. The annual artist materials market is in the billions of dollars. How much money does that generate in the form of art product sold? If the market made sense it would be many times the value of the materials. But in fact, the art product sold from the materials is very tiny. Shall we guess less than 1%? It's a backwards market. That's why the art materials market is essentially an "end use" consumer market and that's why artists pay retail for their "raw materials" instead of wholesale like other makers, like that cabinet maker or yacht builder. So, whatever the concept about art and class, there's this goofy situation in which even the raw materials of art are not indicators of art-making as an economic strata, and thus they lack class categorization. No sane manufacturer would pay retail for raw materials that after being made into a product, would sell for 1% of costs. Being an artist make no sense whatsoever in the social/economic world. One might experience or buy art for higher class identity but, in contrast to Durer's time, one does not make art to acquire higher class identity. By almost any measurement, making art reduces one's class affiliation, even to a level below that of the professional craftsman, like a cabinet maker, because no wholesale market for art materials serves the artist. Very weird, agreed. WC --- On Tue, 11/4/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Comment? > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 1:53 PM > William: To respond to only one aspect of your informative > note: with regard > to aesthetics (at least of a type): would you agree that > there is an > assumption of class associated with the purchase/owning of > "in" works of > art? Most people (less alert, or educated, or "high > born") don't > understand/care about current "high" art. > Geoff C > > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Comment? > >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 23:19:44 -0800 (PST) > > > >Geoff; > > > >I'm glad you mentioned Tocqueville. He did indeed > remark on American > >rejection of class and "aristocracy" but did > say that lawyers took the > >place of a ruling class because they (with their > specialized insider > >language) could read the law thus effectively > protecting/abusing the rights > >of the minority from mob rule of the majority. > > > >I agree that Americans have had a very odd sort of > love/hate toward class > >issues, with some always aspiring to a high born > pretense and others > >insisting on the practical value that in America there > are no guarantees > >that wealth or status can be passed on passed on as a > birthright. > >Tocqueville said that in America wealth and status are > usually depleted in > >two or three generations. He also made much of the > glaring contradiction > >of slavery in a classless America. He concluded that a > slave economy was > >very inefficient and unsuited to the then emerging > Industrial Revolution > >(1830s). He correctly showed that it held back economic > and industrial > >development in the south. So, if slavery was an > outward symbol of > >American aspirations to an aristocracy, it was doomed > by economic reality > >as much or even more than the moral outrage it > fostered. > > > >Tocqueville was an amazingly prescient person. Yet he > was an aristocrat > >and was hoping it could be preserved in a > post-revolutionary France. > > > >This issue is odd for me because my English pedigree is > fully documented > >back to Edward 1, through Dukes, Earls, and three Magna > Carta Barons. My > >American lineage begins with John Alden. So, although > I can claim an thick > >aristocratic English ancestry, my classless Plimouth > Plantation Compact > >heritage is more to my liking. > > > >It is worth knowing that George Washington turned down > the job of King of > >America and showed up for his inauguration in a brown > dress suit. Pretended > >or real ommonness is the most basic and cherished value > in America and that > >is an aesthetic -- and vexing -- value as well > > > >Although these class issues are not easily seen as > relevant to aesthetics, > >I do think there are the implied as you point out. Yet > the American ideal > >of classlessness may be evident in the force of > avant-garde modernism here. > > If anything the progressive nature of modernism has > favored the levelling > >of the aesthetic norms every generation or two, almost > as if to prove the > >built-in instability of any class oriented > symbol-system. The power of mass > >culture with its parody of class through easily > acquired status objects is > >further evidence of the aesthetics of classlessness. > > > >The red blue thing in America is a disgusting > trivialization of reality by > >the media. Toruble is, mass media has created a > reality from false > >simplifications. It has established caricatures of > class orders so > >thoroughly that people have come to believe that the > most complexly > >authentic person is the one most plainly caricatured. > This is a great > >teagedy, akin to the way minority groups are always > caricatured by a power > >majority. > > > >The relationships between culture, real and imagined, > and aesthetics are > >very important and revealing. > > > >WC > > > > > > GEOFF CREALOCK wrote: > > > > > > > William: Re American longings: Robertson > Davies is a > > > dead white > > > > male (Canadian playwright and novelist). He > was > > > educated partly at > > > > Oxford and although he was a late 20th > century person, > > > his writing > > > > and thinking suggested to some (myself > included) that > > > his attitudes > > > > were more characteristic of English persons > of the > > > early 20th century. > > > > This could lead to discussion of differences > between > > > our countries > > > > which might be wide of the mark for this > list. > > > However, I do agree > > > > regarding what might be called the denial of > class > > > differences > > > > south of the border, probably observed first > by de > > > Tocqueville. > > > > (But there are those differences between > folks in the > > > red states > > > > and blue states ..... not classes perhaps > but, > > > differences - and > > > > the worship(?) of the latest crop of > starlets in > > > Hollywood by some
