Classism and the Art World
The art world, like many other sectors of society, has long been criticized for its elitism and classism. The current art market and its connection to tax evasion and industry plants undoubtedly stifle the voices of marginalized artists.
Understanding Classism in the Art World
Classism in the art world refers to the systematic bias and favoritism towards artists and artworks from wealthy backgrounds or those that cater to the tastes of the affluent class or government organizations. This bias can manifest itself in various ways:
Limited Access: Artists from lower economic backgrounds often lack access to the resources necessary to produce and promote their work. They might also lack connections that could help them gain exposure in prestigious galleries or exhibitions.
Bias in Curation: Curators, critics, and collectors often favor artists who have received formal education from prestigious institutions, thereby perpetuating a cycle of privilege.
Market Manipulation: The art market is often manipulated by wealthy collectors, dealers, and auction houses who determine which artists' works are valued and which are ignored.
The story of Vincent Van Gogh (above), a renowned artist who died in poverty yet whose paintings now fetch millions at auctions, serves as a stark commentary on the paradoxes of the art world. During his lifetime, Van Gogh struggled with mental health issues and financial hardship, selling only one painting before his death. However, his work gained immense recognition posthumously, and today, his paintings are some of the most expensive ever sold. This highlights the often subjective nature of the art market, where an artist's worth can be drastically undervalued during their lifetime, only to skyrocket after their death. It underscores the disconnect between artistic talent and commercial success, raising questions about how we value art and artists in society.
A Historical Perspective: Rigging of the Art Market via Classism
The art market's history is marked by classism, which has created a highly exclusive and manipulated domain. The origins of this bias can be traced back to the Renaissance period when art patronization was a symbol of status among the nobility.
The Medici family of Florence, Italy, was incredibly influential during the Renaissance, and they played a significant role in shaping the art world as we know it today. They were known for their immense wealth and fervent patronage of the arts. However, their influence also contributed to some of the inequities that persist in the art world.
One of the primary ways the Medicis influenced these inequities was through their practice of art patronage. They funded numerous artists, including some of the most famous figures of the Renaissance, like Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. This patronage allowed these artists to create their masterpieces and contributed to the flourishing of the arts during the period. However, it also set a precedent for how art is funded and who decides what art is worth creating and displaying. This has led to a system where wealthy individuals and institutions wield a great deal of power over the art world.
Additionally, the Medicis' focus on certain types of art and artists—mainly those that aligned with their personal tastes and political objectives—contributed to a narrow definition of what constituted "valuable" or "high" art. This narrow definition has persisted in many ways, leading to the marginalization of artists and artistic practices that do not fit within these parameters.
Furthermore, the Medicis' accumulation of art also contributed to the commodification of art. They amassed an extensive collection of artworks, which were seen as symbols of wealth and status. This helped to establish the idea of art as an investment or asset, which can contribute to inequities in the art world by making art more about financial gain than creative expression.
While the Medici family did contribute significantly to the development of the arts during the Renaissance, their practices also laid the groundwork for some of the systemic inequities that exist in the art world today. It's important to remember that these historical influences do not dictate the current state of affairs in an immutable way, but they do provide context for understanding why these inequities persist and how they might be challenged.
Over time, the wealthy bourgeoisie and newly rich industrialists of the 19th century continued this trend, funding artists who catered to their tastes and reinforcing the notion of art as a status symbol.
In the modern era, this classist manipulation has become institutionalized. Wealthy collectors, high-profile art dealers, influential galleries, and major auction houses such as Sotheby's and Christie's hold an inordinate amount of power in shaping the market. They often determine an artwork's value based on the social status and reputation of the artist rather than the artistic merit of the work itself.
The classist bias in the art market is also perpetuated by prestigious art schools like the Royal College of Art in London and the Rhode Island School of Design in the US. These institutions are often criticized for favoring students from affluent backgrounds, thus creating an unbalanced representation in the art world.
The role of influential art critics and curators cannot be ignored either. Figures like New York Magazine’s Senior Art Critic Jerry Saltz and organizations like the International Council of Museums often possess the power to make or break an artist's career, and the ongoing trends frequently influence their decisions in elite art circles. All these factors together perpetuate classism in the art world, making it a highly exclusive sphere with restricted access for lower-income artists.
The Role of Tax Evasion
Interestingly, the art world has often been implicated in schemes of tax evasion. Here's how it happens:
Art as an Investment: Art is increasingly seen as a form of investment. High net worth individuals buy art not just for aesthetic appeal, but because they expect its value to appreciate over time.
Offshore Storage: Many wealthy art collectors store their artwork in tax-free zones known as freeports, which can be found in places like Switzerland, Singapore, and Luxembourg. These freeports allow collectors to avoid paying taxes on their art investments until they decide to bring them into their home country.
Undervaluation: Some collectors undervalue their artwork to pay less in taxes when importing them into their home country.
Wealthy collectors often purchase artworks not just for their aesthetic value, but also as a means of storing wealth. This is particularly attractive because art, unlike other assets such as real estate or stocks, often appreciates in value over time and is not subject to capital gains tax unless it is sold. Furthermore, if the artwork is donated to a museum or other non-profit institution, the owner can receive a substantial tax deduction based on the current market value of the piece. Some collectors also avoid taxes by storing their artworks in freeports—tax-free storage facilities that exist in various locations around the world. These practices, while legal, contribute to wealth inequality by allowing the rich to grow their wealth and avoid taxes, while public services are deprived of crucial funding.
These tax evasion schemes contribute to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few, further exacerbating classism in the art world.
The Influence of Industry Plants
Industry plants is a term often used to describe artists who appear to have emerged from nowhere but have actually been backed by powerful figures in the industry or in collaboration with national intelligence organizations. In the art world, these could be artists who receive disproportionate attention and success due to their connections with affluent collectors, prestigious institutions, or influential curators.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has a history of using art as a tool for psychological operations (PsyOp). The agency has been known to support and promote certain artists, often with the goal of influencing public perception and opinion.
One of the most intriguing instances of this involved the modern art movement. According to an article in The Independent, the CIA saw modern art as a weapon during the Cold War. They promoted abstract expressionist artists like Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning as a way to showcase the creativity and intellectual freedom present in Western society, contrasting it with the repression and censorship in the Soviet Union.
This strategy was part of a larger initiative called "the long leash" policy. The CIA discreetly funded and supported cultural organizations and magazines that would promote these artists without the public knowing about the government's involvement. The idea was to bolster a positive image of the United States abroad and to counteract anything perceived as Leftist.
In addition to promoting specific artists, the CIA also manipulated art in other ways to not only engage in psychological operations in other countries but also to influence public opinion domestically. For example, both the CIA and DoD have used the film industry to boost recruitment, mitigate public affairs disasters, and bolster their own image.
Overall, government agency or oligarchal involvement in the art world underscores the power of cultural expression as a tool for influence and persuasion. Far from being merely a form of personal expression or aesthetic appeal, art can serve as a potent instrument in the hands of those seeking to shape public perception and achieve strategic goals.
Industry plants serve a specific purpose in maintaining the status quo in the art world. Wealthy collectors, galleries, and curators often use them as a means to control the narrative of particular groups in the art world, dictating trends and tastes according to their own preferences. This manipulation allows them to shape the market in a way that benefits their financial and social standing. For instance, by promoting a certain artist, collectors can inflate the value of the artist's work, which they have already acquired, ensuring a high return on their investment. Such artists may continue to enjoy success and access only if they continue to comply with this “long leash” policy.
The emergence and success of industry plants can have a profound effect on the art world and culture. On one hand, their prominence can stifle diversity and creativity. Other artists, particularly those from marginalized communities or lower economic backgrounds, may struggle to gain the same level of recognition or support, regardless of their talent or the quality of their work. This can result in a homogenized art landscape, where only certain voices are valued. On the other hand, the phenomenon of industry plants can contribute to the public's disillusionment with the art world, fostering a perception of it as an exclusive club that is disconnected from everyday experiences and realities. This could potentially lead to a lack of interest and engagement with art among different segments of the population.
While industry plants may appear to bring new perspectives to the art world, their prevalence raises concerns about fairness and actual diversity - not tokenized and controlled. More importantly, they assist in muzzling deserving artists who lack such connections, thereby stifling a multitude of voices that deserve to be heard.
The Exploitation of Marginalized Communities
"Industry plants" from marginalized communities are often a contentious issue within the art world. Some critics argue that this can be a form of tokenism, whereby an artist is selected and promoted primarily because they fit a certain narrative or quota, rather than on the basis of their talent or the quality of their work.
There are instances where these artists come from a background of privilege within their own community or can be easily controlled by the industry, allowing the dominant class to continue exercising control over that community's narrative. This can result in the homogenization of diverse cultures and experiences, as these selected artists may present a narrow, stereotyped, and often glamorized view of their community that aligns with the expectations and tastes of wealthy patrons.
For instance, an artist from a marginalized community who has been educated at prestigious art institutions and shares social connections with influential figures in the art world may receive disproportionate attention and opportunities compared to their less-privileged counterparts. This artist, already accustomed to and comfortable within elite circles, can be used as a figurehead to give the appearance of diversity without threatening the status quo.
Alternatively, artists who can be easily influenced or controlled may find themselves pushed into the limelight. These artists might feel pressured to conform to the demands of the market, creating art that caters to the tastes of wealthy collectors and critics rather than authentically reflecting their own experiences and perspectives.
In both cases, the narrative of an entire community can become distorted, reinforcing stereotypes and excluding a multitude of voices that are not as easily compartmentalized. This form of classism in the art world thus not only limits opportunities for underprivileged artists but also has a profound and damaging impact on the representation of marginalized communities.
The Impact on Artists' Voices
Classism, tax evasion, and the influence of industry plants can significantly affect artists' voices in the art world, often silencing those who lack the resources or connections to navigate these complex dynamics. Classism can limit opportunities for artists from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, as they may struggle to gain access to art education, materials, exhibition spaces, and networks that are often crucial for success in the art world.
The prevalence of tax evasion strategies, such as investing in art as a way to store wealth, can further skew the market in favor of wealthy collectors and investors, rather than artists themselves. This can lead to a narrow focus on art as a commodity, potentially stifling creative expression and limiting the diversity of voices in the art world.
Industry plants, or artists who are heavily promoted by powerful figures in the industry, can also have a disproportionate influence, often at the expense of other artists. These artists may be chosen based on their potential profitability or their willingness to conform to certain trends or agendas, rather than the originality or quality of their work. This can further marginalize artists whose work challenges the status quo or does not fit within commercially viable categories, thereby limiting the range of voices and perspectives represented in the art world.
In turn, the current dynamic in the art world contributes to:
Stifling Creativity: When the art world values works based on their market value rather than their artistic merit, it can discourage artists from taking creative risks and pushing boundaries.
Limiting Diversity: By favoring artists from privileged backgrounds, the art world limits the diversity of voices and perspectives presented in galleries, museums, and exhibitions.
Creating Barriers: The financial barriers associated with producing and promoting artwork can prevent talented artists from lower economic backgrounds from pursuing a career in art.
Toward a More Equitable Art World
Addressing classism in the art world requires concerted efforts from artists, curators, collectors, critics, and policymakers. However, artists can also take individual steps to promote diversity and equity in the industry:
Supporting Emerging Artists: Established artists can mentor and support emerging talent from marginalized communities, providing them with opportunities for exposure and networking within the art world.
Collaborating Across Communities: Artists from different backgrounds can collaborate to create works that challenge stereotypes and amplify diverse perspectives.
Using Art as Activism: Artists can use their platform and voice to speak out against classism and other forms of discrimination in the art world, bringing attention to these issues and promoting change.
By actively addressing classism and advocating for diversity in the art world, artists can help create a more equitable and inclusive space for all artistic voices to be heard. It is through this collective effort that we can work towards a more fair and just art world, where artists from all backgrounds have equal opportunities to thrive. It is imperative that we continue to critically examine and challenge the systemic issues of classism in the art world, in order to create a space where all voices are truly valued and represented. Artists and art enthusiasts could work as a collective to strive towards an art world that celebrates diversity, rather than perpetuates inequality.
Here are some potential macro steps to dismantle classism in the art world:
Transparency and Accountability: Institutions, galleries, and collectors should be transparent about their selection processes and actively seek out diverse artists. They should also be held accountable for promoting diversity and equity within the industry.
Tax Reform: Governments can implement tax reforms to prevent tax evasion through freeports and other loopholes, creating a fairer art marketplace.
Democratize Access: Initiatives like open-call exhibitions, grants for artists from underprivileged backgrounds, and affordable studio spaces can help democratize access to the art world.
Promote Diversity: Curators and critics should actively seek out and promote artists from diverse backgrounds that have a powerful narrative rather than a powerful, wealthy donor or connections to intelligence organizations.
Regulate the Art Market: Policymakers should consider implementing regulations to curb market manipulation and tax evasion in the art world.
Culture > Classism
Classism in the art world is a deeply ingrained problem that continues to impact artists and communities. As we see a trend of rising neo-Fascism, authoritarianism, and plutocracy ravaging the globe, it is important to recognize the role of classism in perpetuating these systems. By promoting diversity and actively dismantling class barriers within the art world, we can take a step towards creating a more just and inclusive society. After all, culture should not be defined by the elite few or autocrats looking to rewrite history, but rather reflect the diverse voices and experiences of all members of our global community.
Through actively addressing it and promoting diversity and equity in the industry, we can begin to dismantle this system of discrimination. It is time for us to prioritize culture over classism, and recognize the value of all artistic voices.
The art world, like any other sector, should be a place where talent and creativity are valued above wealth and privilege. Artists' voices are what actually builds culture, and classist gatekeeping prevents artists from being heard, respected, and celebrated.
Let us continue to promote and uplift underrepresented voices and challenge the status quo, so that we may create a more just and inclusive art world for all. In doing so, we can ensure that the power of art truly belongs to everyone.
