[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Art movements



I think it's important for the artists to know why they oppose
commercialism; i.e., what about commercialism is wrong for art? Originally
anti-commercialism came from art being thought as "avant-garde." It was put
in opposition to the hated bourgeoisie and their supposed mercantile values.
If the shopkeeper liked it, it couldn't be art.

Before this (mid 1800's) art was the expression of the aristocrats. This
sense of a rarefied taste that the peasants couldn't understand carried over
to the new class, the bohemians. As time went by all sorts of excuses were
made for opposing commercialism in art. One of the chief ideas came from
Marxist theory that the bourgeoisie ruling class would never allow any art
that opposed their values to become popular. Therefore, if it was popular,
it was "kitsch" by definition.

It was in the 1960's that this idea began to develop cracks. Andy Warhol, of
course, putting pictures of soup cans on the wall and calling it art, French
highbrow film critics praising the works of commercials filmmakers like
Hitchcock and Hawks, etc. The Who are allied with this movement through two
of their album covers; the pop-art "The Who Sell Out" and "Face Dances"
whose cover is drawn by the leading lights of Britain's pop-art movement.

However, the idea of anti-commercialism is so ingrained that for most people
it's knee-jerk. Even people who consider rock music an art, an idea
antithetical to anti-commercialism, have begun to think the only good rock
music is anti-commercial.

        -Brian in Atlanta
         The Who This Month!
        http://members.home.net/cadyb/who.htm