Fine art, while now practised regardless of class, is a construct derived from the abundance of time and wealth enjoyed by the most privileged in historical societies. Reduced economic inequality has advanced the capacity of members of non-Leisure classes to produce art, but the work of the most affluent is ubiquitous in the fine art canon.
The term “Leisure Class”, coined by economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen, refers to the strata of society who do not undertake industrial work because of their wealth and social status. Veblen writes “the occupations of the [Leisure] class have the common… characteristic of being non-industrial.” He defines “industry” as “whatever has to do directly with the everyday work of getting a livelihood”. Given this, “the Leisure Class” can be outlined as “those whose occupations do not improve the physical living conditions of others.” Writing concerning feudal European society, Veblen mentions priesthood, sport, politics and the military as non-industrial domains. However, an early critic of capitalism, Thorstein Veblen would have likely joined the modern Left in labelling corporate executives as non-essential and thus non-industrial.
Fine art refers to articles created “which minister not primarily to [man’s] his material necessities or conveniences, but to his love of beauty”. From this definition, we find that fine art must be self-motivated; any commissioned art would minister to another man’s perception of beauty. Colvin’s definition does not exclude the possibility that fine art might be commercially or decoratively useful, but rather highlights that expression of aesthetic brilliance is paramount to the author. The tendency of the domain to be not-for-profit excludes individuals for whom profit matters. In the same way that the lack of a salary for Members of Parliament before 1911 created a privileged Commons, not paying artists creates a privileged class of artists.
Practising fine art has historically been the preserve of the wealthy because individuals must satisfy material (or physiological) needs before satisfying aesthetic and self-actualisation needs. Physiological needs are satisfied by wealth and other tangible resources; such resources are derived from “industrial” labour. Thus, the wealthy have already met, or can meet, all material needs that arise, and are thus free to meet aesthetic desires. If we consider the practice of fine art to meet aesthetic needs by permitting them to create whatever they esteem, it becomes clear that wealthy people have a greater opportunity to practise fine art. In the hours a poor man strives to satisfy his physiological needs (by working), the man of the Leisure Class embarks on an artistic project. With the advancement of labour movements and the division of labour, workers now enjoy fewer working hours and can more easily meet physiological needs and accordingly, members of “industrial” classes now participate in fine art at the same rate as members of the Leisure Class.
Although social class no longer affects rates of fine art participation, biographical observation of fine artists evidences the idea that fine artists have traditionally been members of the Leisure Class. While Rembrandt’s series of self-portraits is typically seen as entirely self-expressive, while concerned with paying his mortgage, he produced self-portraits to meet the market demands for self-portraits. Later, when he retired from commercial efforts (the piece may have been created at any point between 1665 and his 1669 death), he produced Self-Portrait with Two Circles, visible at Kenwood House, London. Because Rembrandt did not make the Kenwood portrait with the market in mind, it was not sold until 1888, long after Rembrandt’s death. Similarly, Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s best-known fine art piece The (Great) Tower of Babel was produced in 1563 - after Brugel had ceased printmaking operations.
In the years in which Thorstein Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class was researched and written (the 1890s), the negligible fine art participation rates in non-Leisure classes might be easily explained by a lack of leisure time. In the 1890s, American manufacturing workers spent 60 hours per week working and given the intensive nature of manufacturing jobs, we might assume that they spent much time outside of work in recovery. In contrast, in 1958, this figure was 37.8 hours; numbers have since plateaued. There is evidence to suggest that social class and wealth are no longer useful predictors of participation in creative arts, and in this sense, the Leisure Class’ hold on fine art has been broken. As time progress and we immortalise the works of this epoch, the canon of fine art will begin to reflect the diversifying social backgrounds of artists. Nevertheless, the wealthy still consume fine art at considerably greater rates than their less affluent counterparts and participation in fine art continues to correlate with education levels. Given this, the statement “Fine art is a construct of the Leisure Class” may be better phrased as “Consumption of fine art is a construct of the Leisure Class.” In a similar vein, the question “Why are the educated more likely to produce fine art than the less educated?” might serve as a worthwhile point of discussion for those interested in rectifying participatory disparities between various social groups.
The term “Leisure Class”, coined by economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen, refers to the strata of society who do not undertake industrial work because of their wealth and social status. Veblen writes “the occupations of the [Leisure] class have the common… characteristic of being non-industrial.” He defines “industry” as “whatever has to do directly with the everyday work of getting a livelihood”. Given this, “the Leisure Class” can be outlined as “those whose occupations do not improve the physical living conditions of others.” Writing concerning feudal European society, Veblen mentions priesthood, sport, politics and the military as non-industrial domains. However, an early critic of capitalism, Thorstein Veblen would have likely joined the modern Left in labelling corporate executives as non-essential and thus non-industrial.
Fine art refers to articles created “which minister not primarily to [man’s] his material necessities or conveniences, but to his love of beauty”. From this definition, we find that fine art must be self-motivated; any commissioned art would minister to another man’s perception of beauty. Colvin’s definition does not exclude the possibility that fine art might be commercially or decoratively useful, but rather highlights that expression of aesthetic brilliance is paramount to the author. The tendency of the domain to be not-for-profit excludes individuals for whom profit matters. In the same way that the lack of a salary for Members of Parliament before 1911 created a privileged Commons, not paying artists creates a privileged class of artists.
Practising fine art has historically been the preserve of the wealthy because individuals must satisfy material (or physiological) needs before satisfying aesthetic and self-actualisation needs. Physiological needs are satisfied by wealth and other tangible resources; such resources are derived from “industrial” labour. Thus, the wealthy have already met, or can meet, all material needs that arise, and are thus free to meet aesthetic desires. If we consider the practice of fine art to meet aesthetic needs by permitting them to create whatever they esteem, it becomes clear that wealthy people have a greater opportunity to practise fine art. In the hours a poor man strives to satisfy his physiological needs (by working), the man of the Leisure Class embarks on an artistic project. With the advancement of labour movements and the division of labour, workers now enjoy fewer working hours and can more easily meet physiological needs and accordingly, members of “industrial” classes now participate in fine art at the same rate as members of the Leisure Class.
Although social class no longer affects rates of fine art participation, biographical observation of fine artists evidences the idea that fine artists have traditionally been members of the Leisure Class. While Rembrandt’s series of self-portraits is typically seen as entirely self-expressive, while concerned with paying his mortgage, he produced self-portraits to meet the market demands for self-portraits. Later, when he retired from commercial efforts (the piece may have been created at any point between 1665 and his 1669 death), he produced Self-Portrait with Two Circles, visible at Kenwood House, London. Because Rembrandt did not make the Kenwood portrait with the market in mind, it was not sold until 1888, long after Rembrandt’s death. Similarly, Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s best-known fine art piece The (Great) Tower of Babel was produced in 1563 - after Brugel had ceased printmaking operations.
 |
| Rembrandt's Self-Portrait with Two Circles Copyright: English Heritage |
The historic domination of the fine art domain by the Leisure Class has impacted the body of work we consider to be fine art by continually highlighting a limited range of experiences. All fine art expresses an individual’s self, but, historically, fine art has only served to express the experiences of individuals in the Leisure Class, for only members of the Leisure Class have been afforded the luxury of devoting immense amounts of time and energy to producing such work. Life experiences a person undergoes impact a personality and, by extension, what they elect to express as “self”. Members of the Leisure Class, having avoided the need to tackle the problem of physiological needs, have a view of self that aligns themselves with the epic and grand, rather than the domestic and lowly. In much of European fine art, the Bible is the subject matter of pieces. This alone does not demonstrate that the fine art canon is dominated by the Leisure Class but the particular depictions of biblical episodes can provide insight into the experiences of the artists.
In Jacopo Bassono’s oil painting Lazarus and the Rich Man (c.1550), for instance, Bassono depicts the eponymous parable told in Luke 16. Lazarus, a beggar covered in sores, is continually denied food at the table of an unnamed rich man. When the two men die, Lazarus is rewarded with Heaven, whereas the rich man is consigned to damnation in Hell. Although Lazarus is the party highlighted as upstanding in this narrative, Bassono’s painting looks far more favourably upon the rich man. In a depersonalising effort, Lazarus’ face is not shown in the painting. When this is coupled with the fact that Bassono does not allude, neither in this piece nor any other, to the final resting places of these two men, we might interpret his painting as exalting the rich man, even though the biblical narrative reads contrarily. Although contrary to the tone of the Biblical narrative which describes the rich man “being in torments”, Bassono’s painting does correspond with his affluent upbringing. Being the son of the locally renowned painter Francesco il Vecchio, his “expression of self” sees him identify with the rich man and centre him, however sinless, rather than Lazarus. Is it not plausible to suggest that a man born to a peasant farmer, unable to afford medical treatment, might empathise with the plight of Lazarus and produce a painting that reflects his allegiances? The historic domination of fine art by the Leisure Class leaves this hypothetical forever unanswered.
 |
| Bassono's Lazarus and the Rich Man |
In the years in which Thorstein Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class was researched and written (the 1890s), the negligible fine art participation rates in non-Leisure classes might be easily explained by a lack of leisure time. In the 1890s, American manufacturing workers spent 60 hours per week working and given the intensive nature of manufacturing jobs, we might assume that they spent much time outside of work in recovery. In contrast, in 1958, this figure was 37.8 hours; numbers have since plateaued. There is evidence to suggest that social class and wealth are no longer useful predictors of participation in creative arts, and in this sense, the Leisure Class’ hold on fine art has been broken. As time progress and we immortalise the works of this epoch, the canon of fine art will begin to reflect the diversifying social backgrounds of artists. Nevertheless, the wealthy still consume fine art at considerably greater rates than their less affluent counterparts and participation in fine art continues to correlate with education levels. Given this, the statement “Fine art is a construct of the Leisure Class” may be better phrased as “Consumption of fine art is a construct of the Leisure Class.” In a similar vein, the question “Why are the educated more likely to produce fine art than the less educated?” might serve as a worthwhile point of discussion for those interested in rectifying participatory disparities between various social groups.
Comments
Post a Comment