It is truly a coincidence that we are about to begin discussing the relationship between the economy and the arts in New York, and that I stumbled upon this article in the New York Times. It talks about the activities of different art gallery auctions in New York and abroad, and basically says that on the whole, most of these auctions are unaffected by the economic downturn. As the article puts it, “Despite the debt crisis engulfing Europe and an Occupy Wall Street protest directed at Sotheby’s [an art gallery], life inside the art bubble remained effervescent, buoyed by a marathon of flawlessly orchestrated parties, invitation-only dinners and blue-chip openings.” The Rose Art Museum in Waltham, MA actually had Occupy Wall Street protestors march in and shout “Shame on you!” to the art bidders, but were simply escorted out, and the auction continued on normally. Paintings from these auctions are still being sold at ridiculous prices. The art collectors who go to these art parties seem to be Class A snobs the way we defined “snob” way back in the beginning of the semester.
To read the original article, click here.
And there was an article in today’s paper (Nov. 27) about Ronald Lauder and how he manipulates the tax codes to allow him to fund the Neue Museum in New York and fill it with art work he has purchased. What would the arts look like without the 1%? (See also Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “Harrison Bergeron” in which Vonnegut imagines an American future where no one is allowed to be more artistically capable than anyone else. Maybe I need to assign it at a reading for the class?)
I think in current times the need for the 1% to produce art is not needed as much as it was previously. It was because of the aristocrats, the pre-dated 1%, that we have works like Michelangelo, Mozart and other great artists and musicians. If it was not for these wealthy people, who could commission these great artists? What then could have enticed these people to produce the classics, which we now love and cherish. Even when the aristocracy became a thing of the past, an upper middle class took its place, and it is because of these people that artists like Pablo Picasso painted. The Cone sisters are a perfect example of the modern aristocrats. Since these sisters had the funds to commission great artists, these artists were able to produce art without worrying about money. Yes, money was used, but it was used to create the art rather than paint it. The money used, was used to commission the artists so that they could do what they love without worrying about having a job on the side. In these situations, money didn’t ruin art as much as it promoted it.
The people of Occupy Wall Street aren’t calling for the end of the arts, but rather the end of excluded art. The excess money that is being thrown at art, while people are trying to scrap funds together to make a decent dinner for their family’s is what disgusts the occupiers. The occupiers aren’t trying to shut down the arts, as they themselves are now producing art of their own expressing their discontent. This then leads me back to my opening line, where the aristocrats are not needed as much to produce art anymore. In modern times, art is accessible for anyone to create. The question of whether it is good or not is then up to you, the viewer.