Who Speaks for the Art? (prepared for Human Ecology class at Otis, 2011)

Who speaks for the art?
Paper delivered to Otis College of Art and Design, December 2011
by Chris Rodgers

Ecology is a relatively new science, and science is a new endeavor compared to how long our species has existed. In turn, humanity is brand new compared to the age of this planet much less the rest of the Universe. During our brief stay here, we have used our powers of observation, adaption, and manipulation to effect serious changes in our ecosphere. Many of our advancements have led to longer life spans, increased creature comforts, and enhanced abilities to produce and consume. Unfortunately, some side products of our current methods of industrialization and scientific rationalization include toxic accumulation, potentially unsustainable levels of resource consumption, and systems of social domination and control that favor some groups to the detriment of other groups.

If given a choice most people would probably rather live long healthy lives, be in as much control of their work as possible, and be subject to the least amount of exploitation. The reality is that we are born into the world with differing access to resources. Our ability to navigate through our own lives is dependent on the successful use of the resources available to us as well as knowledge of where we are. Those that develop skills of effectiveness are better positioned to influence the direction of social change. It will continue to be advantageous to have the best understanding of the state of things if we are to be effective agents of change. The best way to improve a situation is by having an accurate understanding, then developing a plan of action that accounts for the stakeholders, resources available, and conditions necessary for the sustainable reproduction of that improved environment.

WHO DEFINES ART?

The title of this lecture is a question asked in one of the films discussed below. I cannot presume to speak for art. But the creative impulse is important to long range decision making that avoid the mistakes of the past. Defining art is one way of taking a position and claiming a stake in the art world. The definition of art is also a stake in the struggle to establish a hierarchy of human accomplishment. From various sources I gather that art can be beauty and/or the pursuit of emotional or aesthetic experience. Art can be objects or actions with widely varying values. Art can also be a manner, as in the art of design, living, or making music. Art can be a way to distinguish between those objects, manners, persons, and ideas that have more value and those that have less value (or perhaps value of a different type). Art can also be the institution of the value and logic of artistic endeavor. This paper is not to delimit what is art and what is not. Rather, we will consider how a more thorough understanding of the social reality of artistic creativity contributes to social sustainability. It is, however, crucial to consider the definition of art as a stake in the struggle to define value in humanity.

I grew up idolizing pure science, hoping to be a theorist when I got older. This is probably because my talents lie primarily with words. I have always preferred the company of creative people; now I realize the similarities between designers and musicians and artists and scientists. All four groups face a similar set of challenges in terms of the need for creativity, institutional support, educational structure, a group of producers, and a market on which to capitalize. My goal is to suggest a framework with which to analyze one’s own position in the interest of personal betterment while doing socially meaningful work in the world. My language has been influenced by the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu’s work is useful but challenging when considering the issues facing the makers of art and culture. This paper and lecture will focus on 3 main concepts central to Bourdieu’s work: 1) Field, 2) Habitus, and 3) Capital. We will use examples from several documentaries to help illustrate.


FIELDS OF CULTURAL PRODUCTION

The first of these big ideas is a common word with a lot of packed into it. A field in our sense is a place; all places also exist in an historical moment. Thus a field is a place that exists in and through time. Imagine a playing field, where one might find two teams in competition. Now consider how a magnetic field has two poles of attraction (and repulsion). Our place in time now has actors engaged in competitive struggles, influenced by dynamics we can describe and analyze. With enough work we may be able to sketch a picture of a field that allows us to see traces of the ways that the field functions at a given moment or over a period of time.

A field is ultimately a space of possibility. Something happened because the conditions existed for the occurrence to take place. The conditions can be described by examining the social relations between various individuals, groups, and forces that make up an historical moment. The more detail, the greater the richness of the description. The functioning of a social field can sometimes best be seen at a statistical level, and sometimes they can be easily understood in more qualitative terms. Our ultimate goal in this section is to consider one or more fields of artistic expression, but first we must explore the concept of a ‘field of social relations.’ We will do this first using the focal point of the documentary film Seamless.

Netflix said this about Seamless: “A decade after making his documentary Unzipped -- which followed flamboyant designer Isaac Mizrahi -- fashion photographer Douglas Keeve again trains his lens on the world of haute couture, this time trailing three finalists in a Vogue-sponsored contest to support the next generation of designers. Who will win the coveted award: the shy Doo Ri Chung, the secretive Alexandre Plokhov or the cocksure team of Lazaro Hernandez and Jack McCollough?” The film also indicates that the contest was jointly sponsored by the Council of Fashion Designers of America, and describes a “panel of top industry experts.” This is a brief illustration of one way in which the field of fashion works, by means of industry groups/councils and their approval/support. Early on the film shows a meeting of these industry experts during which there is a brief exchange regarding the ultimate aim of the CFDA contest and award: is it to further the goals of fashion or those of business?

Fashion may largely be a business, but there are clearly creative and artistic elements that are not completely controlled by business concerns though it can be difficult to maintain independence. This is an indication of the antagonism in design between art and money. Further indications of both that antagonism between art and money and the influence that various groups can have on a field include the relationships between designers and stores/boutiques or private clients or image consultants; or the relationships between designers and fashion magazines. It is possible to have profitable relationships between parties occupying antagonistic positions, but that does not change the existence of a conflict relationship.

Understanding fields of social relations can help minimize the limitations a field may impose on an individual. One of Pierre Bourdieu’s most concise publications is a small book called On Television. In it he condensed years of work into a lecture broadcast on television. From that we get an accessible definition of what he meant about fields of social relations:

A field is a structured social space, a field of forces, a force field. It contains people who dominate and others who are dominated. Constant, permanent relationships of inequality operate inside this space, which at the same time becomes a space in which the various actors struggle for the transformation or preservation of the field. All the individuals in this universe bring to the competition all the (relative) power at their disposal. It is this power that defines their position in the field and, as a result, their strategies.

We are left to consider what is meant by a Field of Cultural Production. In an essay titled “The Field of Cultural Production; or The Economic World Reversed” Bourdieu examined the development of autonomy in intellectual and artistic fields in France. Autonomy in this context is the institution of logic and practices that are to some degree independent of the logic and practices of another field of social relations. This essay became the cornerstone of a book and shows a diagram of 3 fields with the larger containing the smaller: 1) class relations, 2) power, and 3) cultural production. The field of class relations is the largest of these fields, and is also referred to as economic production. Here functions the dynamics of the circulation and/or accumulation of wealth, goods, and services. The diagram shows the forces of domination described in the ‘short’ definition above. Class relations are the relationship between the economically dominant and the economically dominated. We could use various specific indicators like wealth (money, property, income, investments) or access to other resources like education, health care, or political representation. There is no shortage of ways to attempt to evaluate economic dominance, but the tools themselves will likely contribute to the manner of evaluation (e.g., the art of statistics). What is most important here is that economic domination exists, and thus also the condition of being dominated economically.

At the dominant end of the field of class relations, Bourdieu described the field of power. This is where we find the economically dominant, engaged in an antagonistic relationship between the poles or forces of temporal power and those of symbolic power. Temporal power is found in the functioning of government and finance; those agencies who find their ultimate authority in the legitimate exercise of violence and the accumulation of wealth. At the other pole of the field of power, we find the forces of symbolic power. Though dominated in the field of power, the symbolic pole is where we find institutions of education and culture, science and art.

The field of cultural production is located at the dominated end of the field of power. This is the place where the practices and logic of artistic and intellectual work have become relatively autonomous of the logic of the field of power. Science and art are completely surrounded by the logic of finance and legitimate institutional violence. Designers are obviously subject to the demands of markets, in fact there is much talk during the final jury for the CFDA award about the need it should go to a “winner,” or someone that already shows enough business promise to assume the winner will in turn contribute to the well being of the larger financial economy of the field of fashion. The award, in effect, rewards the combination of consumer approval and aesthetic competence. The tendency to develop aesthetic competence and/or consumer approval can be explored using Bourdieu’s second major idea we will cover: habitus.

HABITUS

An interesting way to consider the analytical value of habitus is by way of the documentary film The September Issue. Again from Netflix: “Director R.J. Cutler's documentary offers a rare look inside Vogue as the fashion magazine's influential editor, Anna Wintour, and creative director, Grace Coddington, produce the highly anticipated September issue.” This sparse description casually glosses over and minimizes the efforts of the numerous other contributors and cultural workers who labored over the production of the 2008 September issue of American Vogue. But Netflix does provide the names of two important persons in Vogue’s history. Let us consider these two major figures in Vogue’s history.

Habitus can be thought of as the product of durable immersion in social structure and the internalized history that results. When the logic of various fields become a set of decision making strategies to navigate these fields based on the perception of positions and available resources, we might describe that scheme of thought using the habitus. The idea of a socially based structure that helps to model decision making structures does not rob one of creative independence or uniqueness. But recognizing how durable immersion in social structures can influence thought processes helps to explain some decisions in cultural productions. For example, there is an interesting contrast between Anna Wintour and Grace Coddington. Both represent a high degree of success at Vogue and thus in fashion journalism. In The September Issue, suggestions to describe Wintour include: “high priestess”/”pope” in the church of high fashion, “most powerful woman in fashion.” Wintour tells the viewer she was born to a newspaper editor who helped shape her goal of becoming editor of Vogue. She also describes her various professional siblings. Coddington mentions Wintour’s vision and ability when describing the current level of success that American Vogue enjoys.

In contrast, Coddington tells a personal story with a much more humble beginning. She does not elaborate, but describes how, as a girl, she looked at Vogue instead of going on holiday. She mentions a desire to get out of the area of Whales from which she came. Coddington started as a model at 17, then slowly worked her way up from Junior Editor at British Vogue to Creative Director of American Vogue. The backgrounds of the two women may differ, but they both show a high degree of competence in terms of the logic(s) that govern the production of fashion journalism. It is also the case that their respective competences, while complementary, describe the tension between art and money (creative director vs. editor-in-chief). Coddington is described in the film by Sally Singer as “the greatest living stylist,” while Wintour says “…Grace is a genius and there’s no one that can visualize a picture or understand the direction of fashion or produce a great shoot [the way she can]. I mean, she’s just remarkable.”

But the value of The September Issue is more than the interesting contrasts between two members of the upper echelon of Vogue magazine. This film also helps illustrate the field by describing and showing the interactions between various types of agents in the field of fashion: designers, models, photographers (and technicians), makeup artists, publications, their publishers, as well as a department store CEO. Seamless also showed us designers’ private clients and the words of an image consultant. What these documentaries don’t show us is the market of expanded consumption. We never see anyone shopping at Neiman Marcus or Target, but this too is an aspect of the larger functioning of the field of fashion.

We will never see a simple causal relationship between the function of a field and the behavior of a participant in that field. But if fields of social relations exist, then understanding them will put us in a better position to understand our behaviors in relation to those fields and how they may be influenced by social forces. We are then better prepared to act in a way that is as independent as possible and/or better adjusted to the constraints of one’s chosen field. One important factor in the relationship between fields of social relations and a person’s habitus is the types and relative amounts of capital that different people and different groups have access to and their relative abilities to mobilize that capital. One good example of the various forms of capital is the documentary film The Art of the Steal.

CAPITAL

The Art of The Steal is a documentary film exploring issues concerning a collection of visual art considered very historically important and very financially valuable. Albert C. Barnes was a hard working man, born of very moderate means. After medical school he struck it rich in pharmaceuticals. He then used his financial success to amass a world renowned collection. Netflix describes the film as such: “A gripping tale of intrigue and mystery in the art world, this film traces the history of the Barnes collection of Post-Impressionist paintings, which was worth billions and became the subject of a power struggle after the 1951 death of the owner. Dr. Albert Barnes collected 181 Renoirs, 69 Cézannes, 59 Matisses, 46 Picassos and many other valuable paintings. But the political wrangling over the collection eventually led to its division.” A very illustrative description of Barnes’ ability and legacy is from a document filed by The Pew Charitable Trust with Internal Revenue Service in application for public charity tax status:

The Barnes Project. This is perhaps the best example of both the PCT Division’s role in the philanthropic community and the its [sic] ability to attract outside funding. The Barnes Foundation was established by Dr. Alfred C. Barnes in 1922. It has a strong educational mission and is recognized by the IRS as a public charity described in sections 501(c)(3), 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). Dr. Barnes was an avid art collector and the Barnes Foundation holds a world-renowned collection of French paintings of the Impressionist, Post-Impressionist and early Modern eras, as well as extensive collections of Americana, African art, and other works. The total value of the Barnes collection is estimated to be at least $25 to $30 billion.

The film is of particular value to our discussion for at least two important reasons. First, it supplies a brief sketch of sorts of the functioning of the field of art and its position inside the field of power. The film presents the story of The Barnes Foundation in a decidedly polemic manner, not hesitating to ‘name names.’ Evidence is presented to call into question the behavior of several agencies and related individuals. I do not pretend to be able to judge the veracity of any of the claims, but the film takes a clear and well-articulated position. That position is that there were serious ethical breaches, and possible criminal wrongdoing, in the recent years of the Barnes Foundation’s administrations.

The second main aspect of interest for this paper is how The Art of the Steal can help us understand what Pierre Bourdieu meant by “capital.” 1) Capital is the accumulation of value developed through work. 2) There are at least three forms of capital we should consider: financial, social, and cultural capital. 3) These different forms of capital can be translated and transformed into each other. Money is the prime example of financial capital, representing an accumulation of labor. Social capital can be thought of as the people and network of connections that can be mobilized to action. Cultural capital is the symbolic value accumulated through various means including the acquisition of objects, formal education, and enculturation by family.

According to The Art of the Steal, Barnes made a great deal of money (financial capital) from a pharmaceutical product. He was introduced to art (cultural capital) by a friend (social capital). Barnes “immersed himself” in the world of modern art, going to Paris and collecting paintings. He used financial and social capital and ‘an eye for art’ to amass cultural capital that came to far outstrip the means of museums and collectors around the world. Though the Pew Charitable Trust assessed the financial value at $25-30 billion, it may be more accurate to say that some of the pieces are impossible to sell (as the estimated value may be beyond the ability of any one collector or agency). We can certainly infer that Barnes’ money and artwork in turn allowed him to cultivate more social connections, but Barnes did something that furthers the logic of cultural capital. Barnes’ will and trust provided a mechanism to negate the commercial value by establishing the Foundation as an educational institution, stipulating that the collection never be moved, lent, or sold from the Foundation’s site in Marion, Pennsylvania. There is much more to the story of the Barnes Foundation, and many other examples of how The Art of the Steal can help illustrate valuable ideas as well as specific historical developments in the world of art.

Before we move on, let us stop and consider Barnes’ action in a bigger picture. We need to understand that, according to the film, Barnes was not accepted by the Philadelphia art scene when he first exhibited his collection. He then became virulently opposed to the dominant figures and agencies in that scene, both personally and in terms of his position in the larger field of art in the Philadelphia area. His donation to the Barnes Foundation included the stipulation that the collection stay intact, in place, and educational in nature. This may be a very concise illustration of the difference between enculturation into artistic competence through education versus enculturation into artistic competence due to the durable immersion in a lifestyle where visual art is used as a backdrop for wealth. Barnes is quoted as criticizing the use of art as wallpaper for the wealthy. In what I assume is regarding The Philadelphia Museum of Art, the film shows us this quotation: “The main function of the museum has been to serve as a pedestal upon which a clique of socialites pose as patrons of the arts.” Barnes was financially and culturally independent of the field of art in Philadelphia, and constructed an institution of education and appreciation at some degree in opposition to the patronage of socialites. The Foundation attempted to follow his wishes after his death, but the influences of governmental intervention and the representatives of money eroded the protections his will establishes by law. What the film portrays is a narrative of resource acquisition by powerful interests, in violation of the wishes and legal documents provided to govern the disposition of the Barnes Collection.

If we think about this conflict in terms of the influences of the fields of social relations involved, as well as through the lived experiences of the persons making those decisions, it is possible to see a conflict between the logic of artistic education and aesthetic principle as opposed to the logic of the conspicuous consumption of art as a backdrop for business and philanthropy. Bourdieu suggested a way to think about the basic antagonism that underlies this conflict of strategies: there is an opposition found in the field of cultural production between the force of autonomy (the relatively independent functioning of a logic of artistic and/or intellectual work) versus the force of heteronomy (artistic and/or intellectual work aimed more at reward from outside the field of cultural production).

This tension between autonomy and heteronomy is also illustrated in Seamless. We already covered the concern expressed in the film about whether the CFDA award is to further the aims of fashion or the aims of business. This tension can also be described using the language of autonomy vs. heteronomy. Autonomy is the logic of fashion in the field of design. Heteronomy is the logic of finance. It may well be that the two poles of attraction can only exist in relation to one another. It may also be true that the field fashion is more subject to the logic of commerce than other forms of visual art. Regardless, Seamless shows the dependence the fashion industry has on the development of designers and their art. Also, the CFDA award illustrates another example of cultural capital as it is a field-specific form of recognition that also includes financial capital to assist further development of the creative talent. Most telling perhaps, is Mayor Bloomberg’s statement that the fashion industry has an impact of at least $32 billion dollars a year in New York City’s economy compared with the statement at the beginning of the film that designers can often be considered ‘successful’ though they may not be making any money.

In the same way, The Art of the Steal may have given us hints of the market of expanded consumption. The specifics differ, but there are similarities in function between the fields of fashion and visual art. For example, paintings need to be shown to be sold. We can assume that if paintings are bought, the buyer has reason to pay money. Albert Barnes may well have originally started to collect art to impress other wealthy people. However, the course of history and his own trajectory led him to develop an art institution dedicated to education in artistic practice and appreciation. Either way, Barnes bought art that significantly appreciated in value.

The Art of the Steal also shows a brief glimpse of the possible underside of the world of museum administration. Museums and galleries are also buyers of art, who then provide a venue for the periodic yet continual consumption of visual art, and a venue for the possible conversion of one form of capital into another:
Museums themselves are active in the field of cultural production, as vendor, beneficiary or repository of art works – and institution which conserves the capital of symbolic goods – and also in the field of cultural consumption, as a provider of the site where individuals manifest cultural education and dispositions. Museums are highly consecrated sites, with high-volume cultural capital, where the habitus of field participants can be transformed. For instance, an art donor, in giving works of art to a museum, is making a contribution to a country’s cultural heritage, but indirectly they may also seek to exchange the economic value of their collection for the invaluable cultural capital of public esteem and recognition…In other words, what can be achieved through an art museum is a transformation of the individual’s configuration of capital – habitus.
It is valuable to consider that agents and agencies may have interests and agendas that are not t publically stated or even acknowledged.

CONCLUSION

This paper contains dense analytical concepts stripped down to their bare essentials. By most means of evaluation, the time I have given each of the three main ideas borrowed from Pierre Bourdieu (field, habitus, and capital) is not nearly enough to make them fully sensible. However, they are important and helpful enough to make worthwhile even this bare outline. My hope is that the set of documentary films presented will compliment and help illustrate the ideas. The point is ultimately to provide a set of tools of analysis with which a person might investigate the social circumstances within which she finds herself. Whether or not a person is interested in describing and explaining his situation is another question altogether, but those best prepared to understand will likely be better positioned to make decisions that are in their own best interests as well as the interests of the groups with which they identify and associate.

Social exploitation is an important element in the current makeup of industrial economic conditions. We may not want to be exploited or dominated economically. But not wanting conditions to exist is not likely to be sufficient to change that state. In order to be most effective as agents of change we must arm ourselves with the most accurate information about what is, what can be, and how to bridge the gap between the two.