I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. The amount of money given by ‘bureaucracies’ in the US is vastly inferior to the money given out by rich patrons. Almost all of our arts is funded by individual people. Some larger organizations have some corporate sponsors, but I don’t know if that counts as bureaucracies.
Look at any theater, gallery, or orchestra in the US. More than 90% of their money comes from individual donors.
Private people nowadays fund art, either directly or indirectly, for two main reasons: because it’s tax-deductible and/or to buy status. The tax-deductibility already implies significant government involvement—who gets to dispense money, patronage, and status from tax-deductible funds is by no means a simple and straightforward question.
But more importantly, there is the question of status. Note the immense status contrast between people shopping for home decorations in a big-box store and someone buying something generally recognized as a “work of art” for a hefty price. The former is about people indulging their honest aesthetic preferences in a way that’s likely to be low-status; the latter is as close to a pure money-for-status transaction as anything gets—even if the actual “work of art” contains no discernible marks of talent or aesthetic qualities at all. So who are these “artists” who get to have such high status that a whiff of it is readily paid for with piles of cash?
The key point is that nowadays the hierarchy of status in art is essentially a vast and sclerotic bureaucracy. Within this system, there are still some classic forms of art that have been traditionally high-status for many generations, such as classical music. However, these are rarely (if ever) tremendously profitable, and also require a lot of skill to practice. On the other hand, the modern art scene is almost purely about bureaucratic careerism. Those on the very top are laughing all the way to the bank, getting vast sums for random junk, sometimes made by hired low-wage labor and just signed upon completion. For those in the lower levels, it’s the standard dreary bureaucratic fight over small stakes but with no alternative life prospects.
Overall, the point is that artistic status itself has been monopolized by a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that has led to its almost complete disconnect with skill and aesthetic value (as measured by satisfying people’s honest aesthetic preferences). If you work outside of this system, even if you get rich, and even if your work is vastly above anything made by the top-ranking official artists by all objective measures, you will always be assigned to the low status of a kitsch peddler.
If you work outside of this system, even if you get rich, and even if your work is vastly above anything made by the top-ranking official artists by all objective measures, you will always be assigned to the low status of a kitsch peddler.
You’d think some of them would attempt to counter-signal by doing just that.
The former is about people indulging their honest aesthetic preferences in a way that’s likely to be low-status; the latter is as close to a pure money-for-status transaction as anything gets—even if the actual “work of art” contains no discernible marks of talent or aesthetic qualities at all.
I didn’t say anything about modern art or art that contains “no discernible marks of talent or aesthetic qualities at all” or whatever. I said bureaucracies do NOT fund the majority of art in the US. And it doesn’t.
Your claim is that basically it’s either art that’s low-status or art that people like. And that’s just blatantly false. Not all art today is modern you know. There are still ballets, operas, shakespeare theaters, orchestras, realism galleries, and independent film theaters. These are high-status but high-quality. You have a warped view on the art world today.
Within this system, there are still some classic forms of art that have been traditionally high-status for many generations, such as classical music. However, these are rarely (if ever) tremendously profitable, and also require a lot of skill to practice. On the other hand, the modern art scene is almost purely about bureaucratic careerism.
Yea, I think you overestimate the power of bureaucracy here. Maybe if you showed that modern art makes way more money than non-modern art you’d have a case.
Those high-status individuals are the ones supporting the art system because they want to. It isn’t because they’re part of some invisible bureaucracy. It’s because they have money and they see something they like and give their money to it. That is the way it works. Have you ever worked in art development? Everything is individuals.
Overall, the point is that artistic status itself has been monopolized by a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that has led to its almost complete disconnect with skill and aesthetic value (as measured by satisfying people’s honest aesthetic preferences).
And I call bullshit. There is nothing “bureaucratic” about what you’re talking about. Rich people like the art they support. It is not just about status. Or else it wouldn’t matter what kind of organization they donate to, but that’s not true (donors typically have very specific preferences). Many rich people care about status but don’t support the arts at all (they can always donate to churches and charities after all). Many donors are heavily involved in the organizations that they donate to.
If you work outside of this system, even if you get rich, and even if your work is vastly above anything made by the top-ranking official artists by all objective measures, you will always be assigned to the low status of a kitsch peddler.
Uhm. No? I mean there are artists that have became wildly famous and everything, but high-quality artistry is still around and still high-status. So I don’t understand where you get this idea from.
There is nothing “bureaucratic” about what you’re talking about. Rich people like the art they support. It is not just about status. Or else it wouldn’t matter what kind of organization they donate to, but that’s not true. Many rich people care about status but don’t support the arts at all.
It doesn’t follow that because not all rich people who care about status support the arts, support of the arts by rich people is not just about status. Not everyone takes every possible action in support of their goals, indeed, for something like status, with so many avenues of pursuit, it’s unlikely that anyone does. I’d be willing to bet that more rich people care about status than give to charity as well.
I don’t doubt that there are rich people who care strongly about the arts. There are certainly non-rich people who do, and I don’t think richness would filter very strongly for people who don’t care about the arts. But I think you underestimate the importance of status signalling; being seen to be heavily involved in a cause is a stronger status signal than being seen to merely donate.
I’m not saying that they aren’t status-signaling, but I would argue that it isn’t just status-signaling and tax-deductions.
After all, because there are so many avenues of pursuit, there must be some way for people to decide which to take. I mean if there’s a contemporary art gallery I’m bored of, and an impressionist art gallery I like, I wouldn’t donate to the contemporary art gallery because of status. I would donate to whichever I like the most. Both of them give me status.
I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. The amount of money given by ‘bureaucracies’ in the US is vastly inferior to the money given out by rich patrons. Almost all of our arts is funded by individual people. Some larger organizations have some corporate sponsors, but I don’t know if that counts as bureaucracies.
Look at any theater, gallery, or orchestra in the US. More than 90% of their money comes from individual donors.
We have a lot of rich people in the US.
Private people nowadays fund art, either directly or indirectly, for two main reasons: because it’s tax-deductible and/or to buy status. The tax-deductibility already implies significant government involvement—who gets to dispense money, patronage, and status from tax-deductible funds is by no means a simple and straightforward question.
But more importantly, there is the question of status. Note the immense status contrast between people shopping for home decorations in a big-box store and someone buying something generally recognized as a “work of art” for a hefty price. The former is about people indulging their honest aesthetic preferences in a way that’s likely to be low-status; the latter is as close to a pure money-for-status transaction as anything gets—even if the actual “work of art” contains no discernible marks of talent or aesthetic qualities at all. So who are these “artists” who get to have such high status that a whiff of it is readily paid for with piles of cash?
The key point is that nowadays the hierarchy of status in art is essentially a vast and sclerotic bureaucracy. Within this system, there are still some classic forms of art that have been traditionally high-status for many generations, such as classical music. However, these are rarely (if ever) tremendously profitable, and also require a lot of skill to practice. On the other hand, the modern art scene is almost purely about bureaucratic careerism. Those on the very top are laughing all the way to the bank, getting vast sums for random junk, sometimes made by hired low-wage labor and just signed upon completion. For those in the lower levels, it’s the standard dreary bureaucratic fight over small stakes but with no alternative life prospects.
Overall, the point is that artistic status itself has been monopolized by a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that has led to its almost complete disconnect with skill and aesthetic value (as measured by satisfying people’s honest aesthetic preferences). If you work outside of this system, even if you get rich, and even if your work is vastly above anything made by the top-ranking official artists by all objective measures, you will always be assigned to the low status of a kitsch peddler.
You’d think some of them would attempt to counter-signal by doing just that.
I didn’t say anything about modern art or art that contains “no discernible marks of talent or aesthetic qualities at all” or whatever. I said bureaucracies do NOT fund the majority of art in the US. And it doesn’t.
Your claim is that basically it’s either art that’s low-status or art that people like. And that’s just blatantly false. Not all art today is modern you know. There are still ballets, operas, shakespeare theaters, orchestras, realism galleries, and independent film theaters. These are high-status but high-quality. You have a warped view on the art world today.
Yea, I think you overestimate the power of bureaucracy here. Maybe if you showed that modern art makes way more money than non-modern art you’d have a case.
Those high-status individuals are the ones supporting the art system because they want to. It isn’t because they’re part of some invisible bureaucracy. It’s because they have money and they see something they like and give their money to it. That is the way it works. Have you ever worked in art development? Everything is individuals.
And I call bullshit. There is nothing “bureaucratic” about what you’re talking about. Rich people like the art they support. It is not just about status. Or else it wouldn’t matter what kind of organization they donate to, but that’s not true (donors typically have very specific preferences). Many rich people care about status but don’t support the arts at all (they can always donate to churches and charities after all). Many donors are heavily involved in the organizations that they donate to.
Uhm. No? I mean there are artists that have became wildly famous and everything, but high-quality artistry is still around and still high-status. So I don’t understand where you get this idea from.
It doesn’t follow that because not all rich people who care about status support the arts, support of the arts by rich people is not just about status. Not everyone takes every possible action in support of their goals, indeed, for something like status, with so many avenues of pursuit, it’s unlikely that anyone does. I’d be willing to bet that more rich people care about status than give to charity as well.
I don’t doubt that there are rich people who care strongly about the arts. There are certainly non-rich people who do, and I don’t think richness would filter very strongly for people who don’t care about the arts. But I think you underestimate the importance of status signalling; being seen to be heavily involved in a cause is a stronger status signal than being seen to merely donate.
I’m not saying that they aren’t status-signaling, but I would argue that it isn’t just status-signaling and tax-deductions.
After all, because there are so many avenues of pursuit, there must be some way for people to decide which to take. I mean if there’s a contemporary art gallery I’m bored of, and an impressionist art gallery I like, I wouldn’t donate to the contemporary art gallery because of status. I would donate to whichever I like the most. Both of them give me status.