In the renaissance period the only people able to commission portraits were the rich, canvas and oil paints were too expensive for artists not to charge a high fee and artists had to make some form of living. Because of this the majority of paintings from this time simply illustrate religious icons or a very small selection of the population - the rich and powerful. In today's society the ruling class still have a strong hold over art and culture in different ways.
Claude levi strauss, when quoted by Marcel Henaff (1998 p.196) discusses the fact that renaissance painting was only feasible because of the ‘immense fortunes’ which were being amassed in Florence. He speaks about ‘rich Italian merchants’ using paintings as a form of wealth and used them to ‘confirm their possession of all that was beautiful and desirable in the world’ Ways of seeing mentions the painter Adriaen Brouwer who painted images of ‘cheap taverns and those who ended up in them’ the images are painted with feeling and realism and because of this were never bought except by fellow painters such as Rembrandt and Rubens (1973) this illustrates the fact that it would have been impossible for any artist at the time to actually make a living painting what and whom he wished, the artist was ruled by the customer and the only customers were the rich and powerful.
Art was not for the public but for the private owner. However, in 1820 John Martin changed this with his piece belshazzar’s feast, rather than work for a royalty or landowners he created this painting and put it on sale in a commercial exhibition, people could pay a small amount to come and see it rather than having to commission and pay for a whole painting, this was unheard of at the time and took culture from the very rich and very few upper classes and delivering it into the hands of the people making it accessible to more of the population. (lecture 2016)
Although this idea of accessible art and the concept of exhibition is less elitist than the previous system the art gallery is certainly not without its hierarchy. Gallery statistics still show that there is a significant difference between the amount of visitors with a post graduate degree compared to the low amount of visitors with only a high school diploma. The factual evidence indicates there is some form of elitism still apparent in galleries today. (the economist 2013)
Galleries also cultivate a system of values in subtle ways, even through the architecture of the buildings. In many prestigious galleries, such as the national gallery, you have to ascend a set of wide and imposing stairs to enter, this is because you are not worthy, you must ascend to become worthy, these buildings are often great and mesmerizing feats of architecture. Similarities exist between churches and galleries, you go to them, they do not come to you, it's like a pilgrimage where you bow down to the altar of culture. This tells you something about institutions and their power over us. ‘A gallery is constructed along laws as rigorous as those for building a medieval church. The outside world must not come in, so windows are usually sealed off. Walls are painted white. The ceiling becomes the source of light.’ (O'Doherty 1986)
Brian O’doherty expresses the opinion of the gallery as a negative space which makes us feel uncomfortable, he describes the gallery space as expensive, ‘what is on display looks a bit like valuable scarce goods, jewellery, or silver: esthetics are turned into commerce’. He argues that the gallery space practices a form of social elitism and therefore takes on an exclusive atmosphere (1986). It is arguable that the major galleries are still owned by the elite, policed by the elite and made to suit the elite. Art is a form of wealth and commissioning controlling and curating art collections can be seen as a form of wealth and power too. Jonathan jones echoes this by stating that it is a ‘glaring reality’ that art is bought and sold by the ‘super rich’ (the guardian 2011) not only do we not own this art, the majority of the population are made to feel we don't understand it either, modern artistic understanding is a club we simply don't belong to. Art is difficult, what it expresses is incomprehensible and because of this much modern art is only accessible to an exclusive audience, ‘here we have a social, financial. and intellectual snobbery’ (O’doherty 1986) We must also struggle with the notion of the elite as the taste makers, as O’doherty writes ‘ the gallery will make it art anyway’ (1986) As soon as a painting is exhibited in the tate, it has value, as soon as a piece is bid for by one of the Saatchi brothers it has value. ‘There are a very few lunatic entrepreneurs who will understand that culture and design are not about fatter wallets, but about creating a future’ (Tibor Kalman 1998)
The sources I have quoted are academic texts and respected authors, however they are still simply opinion. In the case of O'doherty it may be his opinion that the gallery space is elitist and unwelcoming to those not belonging to a certain class where as Gail Gelburd, a professor of contemporary art argues that ‘the white cube’ is a sacred space space to reflect, contemplate, meditate and listen to ‘the inner voices of the art’ (hopes and fears 2015) Gelburd evidently has a positive view of the gallery space as a place to relax and feel comfortable. Professor Ivan Gaskell also comments that the gallery space enhances the existing pureness and wonder of the artworks (hopes and fears 2015)
The question of whether or not the gallery space and current art world is still elitist is a hard question to answer reliably, generally sources from academic writers or art historians would be the most accurate sources to reference, however in this case they are exactly the people we are criticising, naturally they are going to defend the institutionalism of the modern art world and the white cube. The artistic elite are part of the problem with the system and part of what the quote is arguing against, it is therefore illogical to rely too heavily on their counter arguments.
The point we have come to in the argument now is whether people can actually have a meaningful relationship with visual communication, is the importance of a masterpiece institutionally manufactured or is image making about creating something primal, eternal and immortal? Unfortunately this is a question impossible to answer objectively.
Berger, J (1973) ways of seeing, London, Penguin
The Economist. 2013. Temples of delight [Online] (Updated Dec 21st 2013) Available at: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21591707-museums-world-over-are-doing-amazingly-well-says-fiammetta-rocco-can-they-keep [Accessed 2016].
henaff, M. (1998) Claude Lévi-Strauss and the making of structural anthropology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, p.196.
Hopes and fears. 2015. Why are art galleries white cubes? (Updated nov 2015) Available at: http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/question/216781-why-are-art-galleries-white-cubes [Accessed 2016].
Jones, J. The guardian. 2011. Temples of delight [Online] (Updated 1 July 2011) Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/jul/01/modern-art-super-rich-sothebys [Accessed 2016].
Kalman, T (1998) Fuck Committees, available at: http://www.manifestoproject.it/fuck-committees/ [Accessed 2016].
O'Doherty, B (1986) Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space
Richard (2016) Print culture and distribution (Lecture notes) (Leeds college of art) (9th nov 2016)
No comments:
Post a Comment