19.05.2021

Themenreihe Corona

Autor*in

Pierre d’Alancaisez
is a curator and critic, and currently a PhD researcher at Birmingham City University investigating knowledge exchange in social and political art practices. He formerly directed the gallery Waterside Contemporary in London and has been a cultural strategist, publisher, scientist, and financial services professional.
Socially engaged art

Art in crisis and in solidarity

Art and culture like to see themselves as representatives of social causes. But the pandemic has turned their solidarity towards themselves. Does this undermine their often proclaimed social relevance more than it helps them?

Dieser Beitrag stammt von unserer internationalen Plattform Arts Management Network:

Themenreihe Corona

In the midst of the pandemic crisis, art and culture are forced to lobby for their survival and to compete for resources with other imperilled industries more than ever. They are also facing a new test of their claims of culture’s social utility. Since the publication of François Matarasso’s notorious whitepaper (1997), the arts and cultural sector has claimed to perform miracles of social amelioration through a variety of inclusion, representation, and outreach initiatives together known as social practice. Those claims are today’s foundation of art and culture’s status and importance in the public sphere and, in no small part, their rationale for public funding. Even in good times, however, these arguments attracted considerable scepticism from critics and publics alike. 
 
The road to recovery for organisations is riven by unenviable challenges and internal conflicts. Now, with most projects either suspended or severely diminished, how can arts and culture finally justify their socially essential nature? How to prioritise between the infrastructure, the arts managers, the artists, and the audiences? Does salvation lie in the state, private patronage, or audiences and communities? Are the social, personal, or economic arguments of art and culture’s value most convincing? 
 
Belfiore and Bennett’s (2008) historical catalogue of art’s value claims and their successes and failures offers a kaleidoscope of options. The difficulty of agreeing on strategies and disambiguating messages, however, has, among others, been made clear by some of the prominent campaigns ‘to save the arts’ in the UK. The drive of Contemporary Visual Arts Network campaign #artisessential attracted thousands of supporters among artists and small organisations, but failed to find a following elsewhere, perhaps because its abstract message did not speak to society grappling with more pressing concerns. The Public Campaign for the Arts attempted to make cogent arguments based on the return on public support for culture despite the past decade’s state funding cuts, but spread itself thinly and run out of steam before claiming any victories. Similar activities by individual artists and institutions, e.g., in Germany, have brought up similar results.
 
The messaging of art’s social prowess, however, continued unabashed. Institutions have continued to make claims of their relevance as Turin’s Castello di Rivoli turned into a vaccination centre and New York’s Queens Museum became a food bank. The Whitworth gallery in Manchester adjusted its mission statement to directly respond to social inequities emergent in the pandemic. New York theatres opened their doors and became sanctuaries for protesters. Artists, too, have demonstrated their solidarity: the designer Craig Oldham launched a billboard campaign in support of underappreciated essential workers, while artist C. A. Halpin is mounting a drive for a national pay rise for healthcare workers.
 
What is new in these recent expressions of social value is that they are portrayed as rooted in solidarity rather than a policy imperative. Are we witnessing a solidarity turn that transforms food banks into art projects and museums into healthcare providers just like the performance turn transformed community walks into art events, or the social turn commodified community cohesion as a currency of social practice? 
 
Solidarity for profit
 
In The Rules of Art (1996), Pierre Bourdieu offers an unflattering view of artistic production. He argues that art joins social struggles not out of altruism, but because such social movements’ needs for symbolic production drive new demand for artistic representation. Put crudely, Bourdieu implies that art as propaganda is profitable regardless of whether the artist believes in its cause, and whether the cause is successful in reaching its goals. 
 
In Bourdieu’s analysis, neither the artist nor the cultural institution is exempt from this hypocrisy that for the most part remains unarticulated. Should all the artists who made and sold artworks ‘supporting’ healthcare workers donate their proceeds to the cause, or is the claimed power of their artistic message enough? Does it matter if Castello di Rivoli charged the Italian health system rent? Is it disingenuous that Craig Oldham’s billboards also made claims of artists’, curators’, and designers’ social indispensability along his kind assertions of respect for waste collectors? Or that C. A. Halpin’s Kickstarter fundraiser details her fees and artwork production costs, but displays no interest in how the work may do anything to advance its stated aims? These dilemmas play out in far more jarring ways, too. In December 2020, the Black Lives Matter movement took the top spot on Art Review magazine’s Art Power 100 list, a place usually reserved for a blue-chip gallery dealer or a powerful institutional curator. It is unclear how the movement would make use of the benefits that such recognition would offer. Who is using whose power and for what?
 
The question of who benefits from the excess cultural capital generated when art engages in social interventions has long gone unresolved and to ascribe callous motives to all artists would be at best defamatory. The pandemic year could have been an opportunity to reconfigure the flow of value between social groups, but this remains difficult partly due to the considerable growth and professionalisation of the cultural sector and the arts and creative industries since the publication of Bourdieu’s work. Where once art’s solidarity with the world was a matter of moral obligation, the pandemic has turned art worker’s solidarity impulses inwards. This process has been long coming, given that the precarious working conditions of artists and cultural professionals have been a reality of the industry for many years. 
 
Art in support of artists
 
Individual ethics aside, this solidarity turn has profound implications for understanding culture as a public value because how culture performs solidarity can blur the boundaries between artists’ and arts professionals’ identities and those of the groups that are usually the beneficiaries of social practices. In a time of crisis, artists are incentivised to portray themselves as those deserving solidarity. #artisessential, but it’s more essential to artists than to their audiences.
 
The strikes surrounding the termination of some 300 retail and commercial jobs at Tate last summer illustrate this feedback loop. The workers’ plea to Tate management conflated two distinct narratives: that the workers were themselves likely artists, and that their number included historically disadvantaged groups. Tate owed the workers a double duty of care because artists are by definition underprivileged workers. In a sleight of hand, art’s offer of solidarity became a demand. Read in Bourdieu’s tone, art’s principled stand in solidarity with itself reflects the fact that artists can now control the demand for social art simply by insisting that they are themselves worthy subjects of art’s attention. In this solidarity turn, a closed and self-referential system, art can judge the worthiness of its subjects and mark the effectiveness of its own work. Such an outcome could only be self-defeating: solidarity between members of a single group is no guarantee of change. 
 
Art’s social mission is now core to its practice and education, and this has doubtlessly generated significant and quantifiable public good. However, in following this mission, art and culture have made unrealistic promises not only to their subjects but also to their workforces. How could they turn to a model of social practice that is driven by genuine solidarity, rather than a vicious circle of exploitation and amelioration that’s entirely internal to the practice? The challenges of disambiguating between the claims put forward by the plethora of actors involved are considerable, given that individuals are demonstrably as capable of moral grandstanding as their institutions. Resolving these tensions will be a key task for those charged with allocating what resources are available in the period of recovery, as they attempt to disambiguate the competing claims for support and evolving value narratives. 
 
History repeats itself
 
Reconsidering the historical models of solidarity between identity or class groups whose successes are attributable to the exchange of social capital could offer a productive framework. Shannan Clark’s recent The Making of the American Creative Class (2020)  is a rich account of the emergence and transformations of the ‘white collar’ and ‘creative’ classes in the US since the 1920s. Clark examines the histories of an industry that, until today, includes newspaper reporters as much it does artists and suggests that their identities have often been in internal conflict. The political, personal, and professional motivations of creative workers have long been heterogeneous and historically unstable. To put it mildly: the creative industries have long struggled to reconcile their conflicting desires for intellectual autonomy and economic recognition.
 
What is hearting to a non-historian in Clark’s account is that it offers a precedent for just about any dilemma in which the creative industries find themselves today. Changing cultural consumption habits? It already happened. Fierce competition in the labour market? Yes. Economic collapse? Ditto. Political in-fighting? Continuously. Change in funding paradigms? Repeatedly. Against this backdrop, Clark brings out examples of solidarities between creative workers and society at large. In the 1930s, organisations like Consumer Union - a group of design and advertising workers - brought labour and consumer activism together through an ideology that was as aesthetic as it was political. A careful study of the interplay of these historical solidarities could support the examination of the claims that today’s art makes about its own needs, desires, and abilities.
 
References
 
  • Belfiore, Eleonora, and Oliver Bennett (2008). The Social Impact of the Arts: An Intellectual History. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre (1996). The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford University Press.
  • Clark, Shannan (2020). The Making of the American Creative Class: New York’s Culture Workers and Twentieth-Century Consumer Capitalism. Oxford University Press.
  • Matarasso, François (1997). Use or Ornament? The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts. Comedia.
 
This article was first published in Arts Management Quarterly on "Serving Communities".

Unterstützungsabos


Mit unseren Unterstützungsabos unterstützen Sie unsere Redaktion mit einem festen Betrag pro Monat – und damit alle unsere kostenfreien Inhalte, also unser Magazin, unseren Podcast, die Beiträge und die Informationen zu Büchern, Veranstaltungen oder Studiengängen auf unserer Website. 

5€-Unterstützungsabo Redaktion

Mit diesem Abo unterstützen Sie unsere Redaktion mit 5€ im Monat. Das Abonnement ist jederzeit über Ihren eigenen Account kündbar.

Preis: 5,00 EUR / 1 Monat(e)*

15€-Unterstützungsabo Redaktion

Mit diesem Abo unterstützen Sie unsere Redaktion mit 15€ im Monat. Das Abonnement ist jederzeit über Ihren eigenen Account kündbar.

Preis: 15,00 EUR / 1 Monat(e)*

25€-Unterstützungsabo Redaktion

Mit diesem Abo unterstützen Sie unsere Redaktion mit 25€ im Monat. Das Abonnement ist jederzeit über Ihren eigenen Account kündbar.

Preis: 25,00 EUR / 1 Monat(e)*
* Alle Preise sind inkl. der gesetzl. Mehrwertsteuer, zzgl. evtl. anfallenden Gebühren
Kommentare (0)
Zu diesem Beitrag sind noch keine Kommentare vorhanden.

Unterstützungsabos

Mit einem Unterstützungsabo unterstützen Sie die kostenfreien Inhalte unserer Redaktion mit einem festen Betrag pro Monat – also unser Magazin, unseren Podcast, die Beiträge und die Informationen zu Büchern, Veranstaltungen oder Studiengängen auf unserer Website. 

5€-Unterstützungsabo Redaktion

Mit diesem Abo unterstützen Sie unsere Redaktion mit 5€ im Monat. Das Abonnement ist jederzeit über Ihren eigenen Account kündbar.

Preis: 5,00 EUR / 1 Monat(e)*

15€-Unterstützungsabo Redaktion

25€-Unterstützungsabo Redaktion

* Alle Preise sind inkl. der gesetzl. Mehrwertsteuer, zzgl. evtl. anfallenden Gebühren
Cookie-Einstellungen
Wir setzen auf unserer Website Cookies ein. Einige von ihnen sind notwendig (z.B. für den Stellenmarkt), während andere uns helfen, unsere Angebote (Redaktion, Magazin) zu verbessern und wirtschaftlich zu betreiben. Einige Angebote können nur genutzt werden, wenn Cookies gesetzt wurden.
Sie können die nicht notwendigen Cookies akzeptieren oder per Klick auf die graue Schaltfläche ablehnen. Nähere Hinweise erhalten Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
Ich akzeptiere
nur notwendige Cookies akzeptieren
Impressum/Kontakt | AGB