I recently came across this item on the Internet having to do with the idea that Modernism was a snobbish reaction to increasingly literate lower classes becoming aware of and appreciating the then-current art scene. That is, the upper-class elite needed to protect its status by downgrading art that was becoming too popular and promoting new forms of art that were more difficult to understand in terms of everyday visual experience.
It's a cute hypothesis. But not the whole explanation for the rise of Modernism, and probably a lesser factor than the reasons usually set forth in art history books and articles.
Nevertheless, there is truth that upper classes tend to defend their status in various ways, one of which is by contrasting their lifestyle with those of supposedly lesser groups. Taste in art could be one such item in the contrast package, though hardly the dominant one.
As for the concept of "class," for a long time I've had difficulty with the term. On the one hand, it's an easy word to capture normal societal differences in wealth, education, occupation, consumption patterns and so forth. On the other hand, historically in Europe there were hereditary titles that elevated some families from the rest of the population. This was not a rigid system such as Hindu castes. Men could become ennobled by a king for various reasons including military performance, so the system was permeable.
A problem I have is that here in America where social class is of the permeable variety, some intellectuals and politicians use the word "class" to imply that American society is more socially rigid than it is. Worse, those same intellectuals and politicians tend to promote conditions that lead to increased rigidity here. An example of this? The seemingly reasonable requirement for an educational attainment level for being considered for a job. When too strictly applied, some people having considerable merit are denied the opportunity to demonstrate how they can perform.
No comments:
Post a Comment