One my writings I would like to share is titled Why Bother? and was written in December of 2012 in response to a passage from Thomas Crow's Modern Art in the Common Culture; in it I address my thoughts on the labeling and categorization of art works.
Why Bother?
With the dawn of “modern”art, an obsession with whether it was acceptable for “high” art to appropriate “low culture” began to percolate into the public consciousness. While it may no longer be considered a “problem,” in terms of the finished product of art, it is still a point of contention that forces us to ask if something is an art object or if that something is just an object of culture because of where the idea behind it originated. I am going to pose a question that even contemporary artists may find confusing and potentially dangerous: why should we bother to make that distinction? Perhaps, it would be better to pose it this way: why is it a headache that there is now a difficulty in making that distinction?
The idea of what is “kitsch” came to light in the writings of Clement Greenberg circa 1939, and it has only proven to be a hurdle for artists to jump through since its inception (Crow 9). To me, it seems that Greenberg's issue with what he calls “kitsch” stems from an elitist attitude that labels art as “high” culture and a want for that art to only belong to the wealthy and privileged. For Thomas Crow's argument, kitsch is not so much a problem of appropriation of “low culture” in art, but a problem of determining whether “high” art depends on “low culture” to the extent that art cannot exist without common culture (Crow 3, 4). Honestly, “kitsch” is no longer as readily identifiable in art today as when Greenberg was writing because of how dependent art is on culture; if it is still as identifiable, it has become more common to look at art and ask whether it isn't “kitsch.”
I am not trying to say that there is no longer a division in mass culture between the “high” and “low,” nor would I want to, but the common culture, or what Crow terms “low culture” in his argument, is no longer exclusive to the lower ranks of society. This is something I think Crow tries to get across, and does so relatively well. Because common culture is now the culture of both the “high” and “low” in society, one could argue that art presently informed by “low culture” is really informed by “mass” culture in the truest sense of the word “mass;” the “everyday” luxuries are now common among the wealthy and the not so wealthy, and it seems to me that both sides continue to wish for a distinction, a dividing line, that had ceased to exist some time ago. Exactly when this arbitrary division disappeared is arguable; you could look back to Manet, as Thomas Crow does, or you could look slightly more recently at Marcel Duchamp and his readymade statements (Crow 4, 11).
Is it really a problem that “culture [has been] recast as reproducible commodities”? I think that the only perceivable problem is that “high” art can no longer easily claim its superiority as the crème de la crème of those “reproducible commodities.” As Crow stated, “the work of the avant-garde is returned to the sphere of culture where much of its substantial material originated;” “low culture” has always informed “high art,” no matter how far back you wish to look (Crow 3, 10, 35).
There seems to be a continuous struggle to distance art from society, and quite frankly, that is an impossibility. There seems to be a lusting after a distinction of what is really art and what is really just an object of culture, and that is an absurdity. Even the highest forms of art take something from the culture that they are made within, so why is it such a pressing problem to validate art as something special, as something produced outside of society, as modern day religious idols? Why is there an incessant need to label and categorize, not just art, but class distinctions? Perhaps I'm just overly simplifying Crow's argument, but why bother?
Works Cited
Crow, Thomas. Modern Art in the Common Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. 3-37. Print.
This essay is © Ian J.F. Wagner.
Why Bother?
With the dawn of “modern”art, an obsession with whether it was acceptable for “high” art to appropriate “low culture” began to percolate into the public consciousness. While it may no longer be considered a “problem,” in terms of the finished product of art, it is still a point of contention that forces us to ask if something is an art object or if that something is just an object of culture because of where the idea behind it originated. I am going to pose a question that even contemporary artists may find confusing and potentially dangerous: why should we bother to make that distinction? Perhaps, it would be better to pose it this way: why is it a headache that there is now a difficulty in making that distinction?
The idea of what is “kitsch” came to light in the writings of Clement Greenberg circa 1939, and it has only proven to be a hurdle for artists to jump through since its inception (Crow 9). To me, it seems that Greenberg's issue with what he calls “kitsch” stems from an elitist attitude that labels art as “high” culture and a want for that art to only belong to the wealthy and privileged. For Thomas Crow's argument, kitsch is not so much a problem of appropriation of “low culture” in art, but a problem of determining whether “high” art depends on “low culture” to the extent that art cannot exist without common culture (Crow 3, 4). Honestly, “kitsch” is no longer as readily identifiable in art today as when Greenberg was writing because of how dependent art is on culture; if it is still as identifiable, it has become more common to look at art and ask whether it isn't “kitsch.”
I am not trying to say that there is no longer a division in mass culture between the “high” and “low,” nor would I want to, but the common culture, or what Crow terms “low culture” in his argument, is no longer exclusive to the lower ranks of society. This is something I think Crow tries to get across, and does so relatively well. Because common culture is now the culture of both the “high” and “low” in society, one could argue that art presently informed by “low culture” is really informed by “mass” culture in the truest sense of the word “mass;” the “everyday” luxuries are now common among the wealthy and the not so wealthy, and it seems to me that both sides continue to wish for a distinction, a dividing line, that had ceased to exist some time ago. Exactly when this arbitrary division disappeared is arguable; you could look back to Manet, as Thomas Crow does, or you could look slightly more recently at Marcel Duchamp and his readymade statements (Crow 4, 11).
Is it really a problem that “culture [has been] recast as reproducible commodities”? I think that the only perceivable problem is that “high” art can no longer easily claim its superiority as the crème de la crème of those “reproducible commodities.” As Crow stated, “the work of the avant-garde is returned to the sphere of culture where much of its substantial material originated;” “low culture” has always informed “high art,” no matter how far back you wish to look (Crow 3, 10, 35).
There seems to be a continuous struggle to distance art from society, and quite frankly, that is an impossibility. There seems to be a lusting after a distinction of what is really art and what is really just an object of culture, and that is an absurdity. Even the highest forms of art take something from the culture that they are made within, so why is it such a pressing problem to validate art as something special, as something produced outside of society, as modern day religious idols? Why is there an incessant need to label and categorize, not just art, but class distinctions? Perhaps I'm just overly simplifying Crow's argument, but why bother?
Works Cited
Crow, Thomas. Modern Art in the Common Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. 3-37. Print.
This essay is © Ian J.F. Wagner.