Art Ouroboros: Thoughts on Art and Classism

The image of the poor, struggling artist is a cliché in culture. It has long been accepted knowledge that a career in art is not one that generally makes one money unless one becomes exceptionally well-known in life. However, this is not to say that those who make art do not already have money to a point that those who start without it feel isolated. How has the negligence to allow artists to make a living changed who is allowed to make it to begin with and how does that impact the art that is made?

A complaint from various people in this author’s own life who attended some variety of art school or at least a renowned program large enough to be its own school was how wealthy everyone a large percentage of the rest of the student body was. The issues in this difference manifested in multiple ways. There was the general unrelatability. Other students had gone to private schools and received their art education through tutors and seen the Mona Lisa in person on vacation in France. Meanwhile, these less well-off students did not have the same exposure. Any lessons were largely less expensive. Even outside of the exposure to art, relating to students in a different class bracket creates issues. How can someone whose family has never stepped outside of the United States relate to a group of people whose families go to Europe every summer? It became clear that their fellow students came from many generations of inherited wealth, so it is no wonder they felt able to making a living in an area where the promise of wealth was not there; their living had been made before they were even born. One tale of an acquaintance in a dance program recalled when the head of the program attempted to get her to stay longer to take part in the program with no promise of increased pay. She informed her that this would be difficult to continue covering her rent. The program head recommended she just ask her parents for money, but this would have been difficult. The program head told her the line that made her decide to leave once and for all:

“If you’re going to do this, you need to understand that you are always going to be financially dependent on someone else.”

This would not have been a tall ask for someone from a rich family. However, even as a member of the middle class, this was too much, lest she managed to find some other wealthy benefactor. Alas, outside of the realm of fiction, the chances of being noticed by a kind philanthropist is fairly unlikely and so she moved on to pursue new prospects. While no other acquaintances had it so succinctly laid out for them in words, they came to similar realizations and adjusted their lives accordingly, whether leaving or getting an additional source of income. Having multiple jobs is not uncommon in this world, but the fact that those who were already taken care of did not have to worry about that meant they were able to focus more on honing their craft than generally surviving. In addition, they had the resources to network, arguably even more important to making it in the art world than actually being any good.  As a result, those artists from wealthy families usually ended up receiving more recognition in the long run. Is the phenomenon of the “nepo baby” in the music and film industries really so surprising? This is not to say that those who come from money or a family with connections cannot be talented, but they are certainly not the only ones with talent and not to the extent that they are disproportionately represented.

One must consider the implications of creating a situation in which only those who are already well-off thrive in artistic spaces. There is already an issue of resources, be they lessons or the materials needed to produce whichever type of art, being expensive and this will not change if money is no issue for those who produce the most. The same is true for artists being paid if those who make the most are not those who need payment. With much being made of apprenticeships, can one expect to be paid a fair wage as an apprentice if the person for whom one is apprenticing does not understand what it is like to need money? However, money is not the only area impacted. Art created will undoubtedly reflect the mindset of the creator, whether they intend it or not. While not everyone with wealth and connections has the precise same values and opinions, they are certainly a more narrow group than everyone else. Can someone who has never had to work a job that required physical labor be expected to make work that is relatable to those who have? Can someone whose family never financially struggled relate to those whose have? How many stories can someone with minimal financial struggles tell that others will connect with?

This is dismally reflected in the politics of the mainstream art scene. There is a common stereotype about artists of all sorts, from sculpting to film, being “leftists.” This is true if one’s definition of “leftist” is simply “not a Republican” (or whatever the equivalent may be in one’s own country). It is certainly true that, in artist spheres, one can find plenty of memes making fun of Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, and such. However, the most prominent voices are rarely further left than that. There is a joke in the US about how theater actors become the most generic brand of neoliberal Democrats while stage crew are communists. As someone acquainted with many who are involved in theater in different roles, this is largely true. So many of them blamed Bernie Sanders, viewed as someone who took his politics “too far,” for Hillary Clinton’s loss and viewed Joe Biden as a genuinely good option for president rather than someone moderately, symbolically better than Donald Trump. When it comes to more class-related issues, like the role Clinton and Biden have played in mass incarceration or the military industrial complex, they are silent. Seeing how actors are cut out from films for being against genocide in Palestine or even police brutality in the United States illustrates this further. Symbolic progressivism, like a female politician or even a less-mean man, is great because it does not go against the status quo that benefits the wealthy. Wanting to actually change the way things are is too much. Consider how Boots Riley’s scathing anti-capitalist critique Sorry to Bother You was snubbed for a consideration for even a nomination for Best Original Screenplay, many speculating that Riley’s critique of the whitewashing of the role played by the cop in Spike Lee’s Black kKklansman, a script Lee would himself receive an Oscar for for Best Adapted Screenplay. The latter film was ultimately about a cop who once stood up against the KKK, glossing over the role he played in infiltrating revolutionary black movements, while the former analyzed the manner in which people allow themselves to be exploited and throw their comrades under the bus to move up under the capitalist system. Riley’s film did well for an indie piece, but a mix of its radical message and staunchly original manner of getting that message across, it did not receive the acclaim or recognition it could have. 

In the world we currently live in, money is required to make art and there is no expectation that making art can make one money. This has led to an ouroboros of sorts where this feeds into itself. What will it take to break the cycle? To do such, the entire system we live in will likely need to be dismantled. Until then, prepare yourself for a lot more nepo baby mediocrity.