It's hardly news that most people in the field of arts are not making
lots of money out of it.
The reasons why are many and complex, but I believe Pierre Bourdieu
made a good attempt at defining exactly why the "cultural industries"
as they are now labelled, seem to work along very different lines to
any other branch of the market economy. For those who don't know his
work, I can recommend the anthology "The field of cultural
production essays on art and literature", available in English
translation for some time now.
Bourdieu very precisely formulates this inverted relationship that
the arts have to economic success and, by extension, rates of pay. If
I might misrepresent his work briefly, in summary his view is that
the arts since the Renaissance have espoused a set of publicly stated
values of "disavowal" of material success. Hence we can lambast, for
example, certain blockbuster shows as being "too commercial".
Despite his incisive and pertinent analysis, what I think Bourdieu
does not explicitly state is where we inherited the values of
"disavowal" from. Perhaps this can be seen more clearly in terms of
class differentials in the Royalist UK, than in states where the
historical aristocracy were dispensed with some time ago (and where
myths of meritocracy and opportunity are stronger). From my own
experience, I recall that as an art student in the 1980s, I heard a
number of comments from working people regarding this choice of
vocation along the lines of "art is just for toffs", "Curating is a
Job for Jessica", and so on.
Historically, the arts have been supported by private patronage, and
personal connections: widespread State support in the form of the
Arts Council has only existed since the end of the Second World War.
Curators in the visual arts have traditionally been drawn from the
ranks of the aristocracy or haute bourgeoisie: you can afford to
subsist on a tiny salary if the bulk of your income is derived from
other sources. Similarly many artists are possessed of independent
sources of wealth, however modest. I would contend this makes the
arts the realm of the amateur, the hobbyist, and the enthusiast,
rather than the professional.
Society is changing and more people (from perhaps less prosperous
backgrounds) are being drawn into the field of arts looking to make a
professional living from it. This poses interesting questions about
how this may start to influence the value system which still
dominates culture. Will we see the emergence of a Curator's Union?
Chris
> But this process has brought a question to the fore, also prompted
> by a conversation I had with another CRUMB list lurker: how much is
> what you do worth?
|