What’s ‘Good’ in Bourgeois Art?
conflicts in modern culture
Toni Cade Bambara’s explains the role of artists in their society: “The artist’s task is set by the status, process, and agenda of the community it serves.”
For those chosen by the rich capitalist class, art seeks to keep the status quo. It hides exploitation under a veneer of romance.
Jackson Pollock was a modern art icon. His abstract splatters, embodying the freedom of the American spirit, made him known. Yet beneath this surface of artistic liberation, the CIA conducted a covert operation during the Cold War. The agency promoted Pollock’s work as the opposite of socialist realist art. That art was typical in the Soviet Union. It glorified the proletariat and communal values. The CIA’s initiative was part of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. It did not just endorse abstract art. It was to see American culture as inherently superior and ‘free’ compared to the ‘authoritarian’ Soviet Union.
This manipulation of art by governmental bodies is not just a relic of the Cold War but a continued practice in various forms. Bourgeois art institutions still spread an ideology that aligns with imperialist ideology. They subtly weave capitalist agendas into aesthetic appreciation. The chains of market values and elitist validation paradoxically bind a version of ‘freedom’ in the art they promote.
This manipulation opens up revolutionary potential.
For whom do we create our art?
Is it for the groups that demand we conform to a palatable standard?
Or is it for the broader masses?
Their struggles and triumphs go largely unrepresented in mainstream art.
The bourgeois art tries to sell us is one of individualism, divorced from the collective experience. This is inherently deceptive.
True artistic freedom involves breaking from capitalist validation. It means engaging with the community. There is art for galleries. The art speaks to and represents the oppressed.
The vibrant street art scenes across the globe, from the political murals in Belfast to the graffiti in Palestine. These artworks do not exist in vacuums of aesthetic appreciation. They make art public, taking it from exclusive spaces and into the public eye. There, it can rally communities for solidarity and resistance.
The artist’s role extends beyond mere creation.
Artists must choose between letting imperialist agendas co-opt their work and or using their art to challenge and dismantle these structures.
Many artists live in these spaces with subversive intent. They subtly use the available resources to critique the platforms they occupy.
People commodify art, turning it into a luxury good for the wealthy. This perpetuates a cycle. It measures art’s value in money, not its ability to inspire, challenge, or provoke thought.
Creating art that challenges the rich status quo means facing the financial facts of being an artist.
This is the scariest part.
Financial freedom can be hard to find, especially if one rejects the paths set by capitalist art markets. Artists must be innovative in their art and approach to sustainability.
Online spaces can break down distance barriers.
They let artists connect with worldwide audiences and movements. Art, social media campaigns, and virtual galleries can engage people in ways that traditional venues cannot. These tools offer great chances for outreach and influence. But they also come with challenges, like the risk of commodification and the dilution of the art’s message.
What is ‘good’ in bourgeois art?
Thanks for taking the time to read. I’d like to hear your perspective.
You can also refer to the related articles:
Please subscribe here to receive the latest insightful stories by email.
Did you find this enjoyable? If so, remember to hit the clap button, which you can press up to 50 times and comment. Take advantage of more from me — ensure you’re following if you still need to. Thank you for being an integral part of my journey.
Please consider supporting my digital products on Etsy. Thank you!
