Page 37 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 37
changing the mind
Cultural Ideology
Since the text of Introduction is such as it is, namely “informative and af-
firmative”, I am not taking it as an object of relevant criticism. It main-
ly serves its purpose as a representation of a kind of an aesthetically qual-
ified discourse, which displays a power to select, to categorize, to evaluate,
to segregate, to judge, and so forth. As it appears, the authors tried to de-
fine art in a context, in which they find it difficult to distinguish between
“fine” and “commercial” art. However, why is it necessary to distinguish
between the two kinds of art? What purpose does the difference that must
be the product of the delineation actually serve? Consequently, is not “fine
art”, which is categorized as such, determined to be of a certain “value”, and
does not this value express itself as a “market value”? Since commercial art
usually happens to be accessible to the public at large and is relatively cheap
for an individual consumer, what then is actually the meaning or purpose
of the notion of “commercial”? Since the products of fine art that are deter-
mined as such by experts usually attain a high price in the art market, they
should actually be considered as truly commercial. Maybe the distinction
between “fine and commercial”, which, as we know, acquired a high degree
of general recognition and acceptance, was not so correct after all. Or, fi-
nally, on the contrary, such a distinction has probably had a role, no matter
how well understood or misunderstood, in the “classification struggle”, if
we may borrow the term from Pierre Bourdieu (1994: p. 27).
It seems that Woods and his co-writers did not recognize any curiosity
in the fact that they were recording themselves. They pointed out the role of
museums and galleries and they somehow overlooked the determining im-
pact of these institutions on the formation of artists and the production of
art itself. How much did they take into account that a web of such institu-
tions already makes up part of the industrial world so that “museums and
galleries”, (and concert halls, cinemas and the media each with a defined
role) form a decisive link in the production and distribution of art? The
overwhelming influence of these institutions on the value of works of art is
becoming common knowledge in the context of the post-industrial socie-
ty nowadays, but it seems that somehow we are still confronted with a cul-
tural ideology, which presupposes “true art vs. fake art or kitsch”. Among
many others, John Berger found that
/…/ since the French Revolution art has never enjoyed among the
bourgeoisie the privileged position it does today. During the second
half of the nineteen century, there was also an art of revolt and its
35
Cultural Ideology
Since the text of Introduction is such as it is, namely “informative and af-
firmative”, I am not taking it as an object of relevant criticism. It main-
ly serves its purpose as a representation of a kind of an aesthetically qual-
ified discourse, which displays a power to select, to categorize, to evaluate,
to segregate, to judge, and so forth. As it appears, the authors tried to de-
fine art in a context, in which they find it difficult to distinguish between
“fine” and “commercial” art. However, why is it necessary to distinguish
between the two kinds of art? What purpose does the difference that must
be the product of the delineation actually serve? Consequently, is not “fine
art”, which is categorized as such, determined to be of a certain “value”, and
does not this value express itself as a “market value”? Since commercial art
usually happens to be accessible to the public at large and is relatively cheap
for an individual consumer, what then is actually the meaning or purpose
of the notion of “commercial”? Since the products of fine art that are deter-
mined as such by experts usually attain a high price in the art market, they
should actually be considered as truly commercial. Maybe the distinction
between “fine and commercial”, which, as we know, acquired a high degree
of general recognition and acceptance, was not so correct after all. Or, fi-
nally, on the contrary, such a distinction has probably had a role, no matter
how well understood or misunderstood, in the “classification struggle”, if
we may borrow the term from Pierre Bourdieu (1994: p. 27).
It seems that Woods and his co-writers did not recognize any curiosity
in the fact that they were recording themselves. They pointed out the role of
museums and galleries and they somehow overlooked the determining im-
pact of these institutions on the formation of artists and the production of
art itself. How much did they take into account that a web of such institu-
tions already makes up part of the industrial world so that “museums and
galleries”, (and concert halls, cinemas and the media each with a defined
role) form a decisive link in the production and distribution of art? The
overwhelming influence of these institutions on the value of works of art is
becoming common knowledge in the context of the post-industrial socie-
ty nowadays, but it seems that somehow we are still confronted with a cul-
tural ideology, which presupposes “true art vs. fake art or kitsch”. Among
many others, John Berger found that
/…/ since the French Revolution art has never enjoyed among the
bourgeoisie the privileged position it does today. During the second
half of the nineteen century, there was also an art of revolt and its
35
