To what extent is the Arts becoming a Product?

  • Angus Bamford

A study of Art’s Consumption. ©AngusBamford2020

Introduction

Through Comparing and Contrasting three academic articles covering cultural consumption homogenization, omnivorous consumption, and the Habitus of means to-an end cultural consumption and abundance, I aim to decipher the extent to which the arts has through its current state of consumption altered in state away from being a common good and/or set by the base-superstructures to becoming a service driven commercial entity or product. Each chosen article poses a research question followed by a Latent Class Analysis (LCA) influenced by Bourdieu’s research on ‘Distinctions’, in order to analyse and evaluate arts consumption. In order to discuss a transition in state one must define the components. Firstly, art is as argued by sociologist Howard Becker to be derived from its context, thus, social constructed, defined not by nature but by “groups of people organized into art worlds” (Alexander, V. 2003. pp3). Although a characteristic of arts is its tangible product, its production has always been historically considered an act also of expression or communication. This paper however, looks to define product (in regard to the question) upon its state within economics theory that being “something that is made to be sold, usually something that is produced by an industrial process” (Cambridge Dictionary). “economy of cultural goods” (Bourdieu, P. 1984. Ppxxiii),

Theories behind cultural consumption within cultural studies are broad and subjective. However, there is to some level an agreement on the notion that “audiences are the key to understanding art, this because the meanings created from art and the ways it is used depend on its consumers, not its creators” (Alexander, V. 2003. pp1), beyond this cultural policy and vested interests within the cultural arena also have increasing weight over consumption through mitigating production. Therefore, to understand consumption, one must understand the arena. Pierre Bourdieu Sees cultural consumption as influenced by three main distinctions; cultural capital, habitus and field. Cultural Capital refers “the distinctive forms of knowledge and ability one acquires” (Bourdieu, P. 1984. Xviii), this connotates the idea that culture is attained and gratified through education, something which can be wielded as power and validation. Habitus for Bourdieu consists in the set of unifying principles which ‘underlie tastes and give them a particular social logic’ (ibid Xix), meaning that taste is founded in the tensions between free-will and the social structures, habitus is dynamic and brought about and reproduced unconsciously. Lastly, Field is a “sporting metaphor for visualizing the lay-out of social space” (ibid. Xxi), this being the spaces in which persons interact, these include the social and institutionalized.

Part 1: Cultural Homogeny Argument
Are we still defined by our base-superstructures, within a bipolar society?
Cultural Homogeny conceptualised by Bourdieu regarding distinctions, is the idea that all aesthetic preferences are created through an isomorphic relation, in simple terms person to person interaction, linked with the class structures and its consequential habitus. Bourdieu sees taste as something channelled into the two distinct entities that being “highbrow/Lowbrow” culture. This popularised into the concepts of high and popular arts, in which those of higher social status shared one set of tastes(high) and those in lower social status shared another(popular). Homogeny argues much against the idea of productization and Bourdieu sees that the distinctions have a sense of significance to a particular social class, something that is curated through the habitus, rather than commercial interests.

Tak Wing Chan, et al (2007) conducted an empirical study regarding Visual Arts, stratification and consumption. Chan through research found many parallels with Bourdieu’s notions of homology arguing that “status is to be regarded as the symbolic aspect or dimension of the class structure, which is not itself reducible to economic relations alone”. (Chan, T.W. et al, 2007 pp169). Therefore, symbolisms of the field in which one belongs is ever present in the forms to which one consumes culturally, this ‘mediated through the habitus(ibid). These conclusions derived from the LCA comparing those of certain profession’s and the tastes to which they proclaim. In doing so Chan found that the majority of the sample size were inactive (58%), this most prevalent amongst those within lower status professions. Amongst those that did consume the arts with these profession’s, the majority engaged only in particular works which were either of fame or offered some forms of social interaction, entertainment or relatability. These class distinctions further control the ways in which one lives as Chan sees that lifestyle is “expressed by the status order” (ibid).

In a more recent study of alike research methodology LCA, Daenekindt (2017) found both similarities and contrasts to that of Chan, offering a more critical perspective of Bourdieu’s distinctions, stating that we must “re-evaluate and re-think some of the basic mechanisms central to Bourdieu’s theory as our results do not support the sameness assumption” (Daenekindt, S. et al, 2017 pp40). Although there is agreement over the presence of key indicators of distinctions. Daenekindt rather sees that current consumption patterns do not necessarily align with rigid socio-demographic variables, as new forms of distinction are occurring that in both Bourdieu’s research did not identify, Chan agrees in as much as “age, gender, ethnicity or sexuality, are now at least as important as class or status in conditioning lifestyles” (Chan, T.W. et al, 2007 pp170). However, on the contrary, Daenekindt’s findings is that the main proponent of distinction “action as a result of different socialisation experiences shaped by habitualized schemes” (Daenekindt, S. et al, 2017 pp40). Daenekindt sees social inequalities at the heart of distinctions rather than that of economic or professional to which is the foundation of Chan’s research. This social inequality is manifested in educational differences, as what is seen now is that the ‘taste and education levels are strikingly parallel’ (ibid). This agreeable with Bourdieu’s notions of field habitus and cultural capital however with increasing educational practises amongst the lower class, creates a change in distinction away from the meta-narratives of Bourdieu and greater 20th century critical theory, to a more devolved homogeny of consumption, to which Wright (2011) gives insight into regarding the impact production alterations are having on the ways we consume, for example recommendation and algorithmic culture, and their implications on homogenising in abundance. This further developed in Part 3.

Part 2: Omnivorousness Consumption Argument
Greater diversity for those who can
Omnivorous consumption is where individuals, mostly those in higher social classes, engage in both high and popular culture, a cultural omnivore would see themselves as having value in different forms of culture from various aesthetic traditions, striving to consume a higher volume and diversity of offerings. Wright (2011) states that “the admission of popular culture to the taste portfolios of elite groups is interpreted as a decisive challenge to Bourdieu’s homology thesis” (pp357). thus, theorists see the broad hypotheses of omnivorous consumption theory to be that “in modern societies the homology argument is outmoded.” (Chan, T.W. et al, 2007 pp170). Much of this critique however is not in opposition to Bourdieu’s work on distinctions, as much of what omnivores consume still falls within the distinctions stratified through the Homology argument. Thus, through cultural omnivores exploring the alternatives with an intentionality, there are suggestions of an understanding of the distinctions expressed by Bourdieu. In essence they still proclaim there to be legitimate forms of art, to which are still controlled within the arts-worlds or field. Cultural Omnivores merely seek to transcend the stringent barriers to entry. Some could claim this as appropriation, and a means of control and ownership by the elite, through legitimising popular art, into the realm of high art. Evidence of this being that From Chan’s research only 7% of our population, can clearly be regarded as that of omnivores in the visual arts. (Chan, T.W. et al, 2007 pp175). With particular emphasis on the social inequalities as the foundation of the separation between the cultural omnivores and the so-called rest, Chan sees cultural capital as the critical metric of what makes someone culturally omnivorous as “Graduates and others with tertiary level qualifications—though not those with lower-level qualifications—are significantly more likely than those with no qualifications to be omnivores rather than paucivores” (Chan, T.W. et al, 2007 pp182). Both Chan and Daenekindt agree in as much as education is critical in diverse taste. With Daenekindt stating that “art education provides the individual with very wide and varied cultural registers (Daenekindt, S. et al, 2017 pp37) this enables them to engage with arts from varying ‘aesthetic traditions’ to which both increase openness, tolerance and awareness, but also appropriate as their own in much a homogenising matter.
Wright in contrast sees the transition in cultural omnivorousness into an aestheticisation of everyday life – an aesthetic rationality (Wright, D. 2011 pp 357) this creating what he calls a “New Creative Class”. To which with abundance and acceptance the norm in urbanised life, an ever growing omnivorous and creatively conscious populous is developing. Wright notes ‘In Denmark, for example, Eurostat identifies 3% of workers in cultural occupations, but with definition of the broader “creative class”, this thus accounts for 21.29% of jobs or 41.29% if technicians working in creative class enterprises are included’ (Wright, D. 2011 pp 362). This exemplifies the fact that who we define as omnivorousness is now outdated and that more and more have a creative conscience and practice. Therefore, that what is legitimate art is being challenged as “changes to art worlds opened up the possibility of challenges to institutionally legitimated tastes” (Wright, D. 2011 pp 360) therefore the distinctions will slowly blur as taste becomes democratised, in a “participatory culture” (Wright, D. 2011 pp 358). Wright’s work in many regards can be seen as utopic, not laden in research and thus observational and interpretive, however the increases in values of cosmopolitanism and the effect of this “Creative Class” on creative practise will alter arts world and in turn its production or productization. This Wright says is much through the ‘interpreting of data on omnivorousness, reconnecting production and consumption’, as growingly interlinked, something which hints at the emergence of a consumer led production of art, an economically product creation process, devaluing the implications of arts as hierarchical in validity or prestige.

Part 3:
Moving to an endless pick-n-mix of cultural consumption
Beyond Homogeny and Omnivorousness, we now lie in the state of Cultural Abundance, and the strive for objective validation. Chan envisaged this potential as a “matter of individual ‘self-realisation”. (Chan, T.W. et al, 2007 pp170) the research hinted at the fact that growingly “Individuals not only can but have to choose to ‘pick-and-mix’ from the vast array of possibilities that the highly commercialised ‘consumer societies’ of today make available to them: lifestyle becomes a ‘life project’” (ibid). Although there is the appearance of choice and control by the individual. Institutions wish to maintain structure and control as the base-superstructure within the growing abundance of cultural offerings. Wright (2011) sees the state as an important actor within the cultural arena, arguing that the state has a “desire to claim a broader base of work as “cultural” or creative to fit with established policy and industry rhetoric’s about the similarities between artistic creativity and business practices”. This reflects back to the issues of the elite appropriating culture, as a means of power. However, with technology, increased literacy and growing individualism, restrictions will become ever more challenging. As privatisation of the arts and consumer culture thrives so will it drive arts away from being preserved as a common-good towards and service servant model in which all aspects of cultural production will be productized for their audience with the rule of majority. This Wright (2011) states is because “notions of “cool” are determined through interactions between critics and reviewers attached to commercial organisations concerned with the production and circulation of things themselves” (pp 366).
Wright gives three main reasonings for these developments in the arts;

Reason 1: the rise in the volume and scale of the cultural/creative industries as sites of employment in western societies (Wright, D. 2011 pp 359). Linking with the ideas of the ‘aestheticisation of everyday life’. Cultural interactions and means of capital conversion are gaining significance, with consumer culture and the emergence of social media, individuals’ engagement with cultural offerings are increasing thus their conscience nous of artist practice. As more engage so does the potential for monetisation, this commercial vested interest has for once created an abundance but led to the audience interest at a broader extent, now the arts in open as a profession to more than an elite, this the concept of the ‘Prosumer’ someone who through consuming sees value in being a part of the production, no longer apathetical.

Reason 2: media-saturated or culture-saturated societies (Wright, D. 2011 pp 359). In Western cultures, the accessibility to cultural offerings has never been greater, through the increased audience and vested interest, and saturation of culture has occurred. This devalues the canon with individuals engulfed with information, with the advancements in technology and literacy. Persons see themselves as much experts as those who dictate the canon within the pre-existing Arts-World, thus the Arts-World has had to alter their production in order to offer their audience their arts in much the same way in which we decide our preferred type of trainer. Example being that of Tate Modern offering Late opening, music, cafes, restaurants, and interactive arts tailored to persons social media interactions. This all developed in the last 5 years to mitigate for the younger generations after new ways of engaging with the arts.

Reason 3: Technology alters the means by which culture is distributed (Wright, D. 2011 pp 365). Technology has been pivotal to all parts of life and its processes; the arts is no different. Digital technologies have enabled a greater understanding of a producer’s audience and their wants and needs, secondly, the audience have greater access and ease to find alternatives and through reviewing culture can dictate through peer-review what works deserve validation. Wright sees that recommendation enabled by the digital technologies of sites like Amazon, help shape cultural value alongside notions of the canon determined through accredited expertise and institutionalised forms of capital. (Wright, D. 2011 pp 367). Thus, although there is greater diversity in offerings for one to choose it is still controlled within the remits of organisations, utilizing algorithms to offer you what you should want. This the false sense of Control. Therefore, rather than the ‘Self-Actualisation’ claimed by Chan, there is a system of more ‘self-gratification’ in which we are pacified and coerced through the appearances of choice. This facilitated by Data Analytics and artificial intelligence interpretation of wants to lead to a pseudo-individualisation across artists, critics and the people, merely reinforcing subjective thoughts on art and culture. As Hegel states “We can, indeed, freely choose to do what we please; but we do not freely determine what pleases us - nature does” (Hegel, G.W.F. 1821 Introduction pp. xxi).

Conclusion

Upon reflection on the three chosen articles, there has been an evident shift towards the productization of the arts. Although within arts organisation outreach, charity and notions of corporate social responsibility, there are programs to maintain the arts as a common good, much of these lie in the realm of fulfilling cultural policy, an example being children’ arts education workshops. Beyond this, Arts Organisations have in many regards been forced into adopting more business practises into their work, with cultural shifts and the emergences of abundance. Competition amongst cultural organisations is ever-growing and therefore for survival they must act in the interest of their audience, often the ones with economic means, leading to bias.
An Audience led approach for one offers more attuned cultural offerings, with more access and less discrimination. However, some more abstract forms of arts with little commerciality are being further marginalised from validation, due to the increased saturation. Whether a positive or negative force, the advent advancements of the 21st century have altered culture, with ever-increasing cultural engagement, even our definitions of cultures are becoming more fluid. Popularised media channels such as Instagram or Tik-Tok, which utilize hashtags to embody prosumerism, are arguably transcending social class and boundaries, offering a creative output to Billions on a global scale. It is these platforms which facilitate the Cultural Class and develop the values of cosmopolitanism and the aestheticism of life. To summarise in Wright’s words (2011) “the consumerist republic of taste is a central organising principle within our consumer culture” (pp 363).

Bibliography
Alexander, V.D., 2003. Sociology of the Arts. Wiley-Blackwell.
Bourdieu, P., 2013. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Routledge.
Chan, T.W. and Goldthorpe, J.H., 2007. Social stratification and cultural consumption: The visual arts in England. Poetics, 35(2-3), pp.168-190.
Daenekindt, S. and Roose, H., 2017. Ways of preferring: Distinction through the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of cultural consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(1), pp.25-45.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1821) Outlines of the Philosophy of Rights. Translated Knox, T. M. (2008). Oxford: Oxford Press
Wright, D (2011) Making Tastes for Everything: Omnivorousness and Cultural Abundance, Journal for Cultural Research, 15:4, 355-371