The Black Market of Art Appreciation

Why do people agonize over whether to accept good art by bad people?

One of the things that makes the discovery of the seamy undersides of good-to-great artists so dramatic is that it cleanly divides the world into two groups: people who see themselves as art makers, and people who see themselves as art-takers. Art makers are not in crisis here.

The crisis of cognitive dissonance in the art-taking world completely evades one of the prevalent maxims of being sophisticated. The maxim says that the hallmark of intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing thoughts in the mind simultaneously. Great art makers actually had no problem with this from the beginning, because either one of the opposing thoughts had already been dispelled as irrelevant, or the opposition of thoughts was a big part of what was generating the artwork. So, nothing to see here; move on.

But in the art taker world, the problem of how art is valuable is now a migraine episode for many who (mostly) feel betrayed, disoriented, or at least conned, when the personality disorders or outright failures of art heroes are broadcast into the jealously guarded galleries of the art taker’s mind.

****

Somewhat earlier, in the 20th century, large audiences had already learned to not worry about these transgressions with entertainers, pro athletes, politicians, and chefs. This mainly reflected the ongoing presumption that the work done by these characters was generally not required to draw its inspiration from the divine, or even from mere ethics.

That is, one’s personal gravitation to the “Fine” in art(s) did not head in their direction. There was no penalty in being arbitrarily preferential about any of them, and for the most part laying any claim to them was more or less equal to maintaining an interesting wardrobe.

But when it came to Capital A Art — and this includes the 20th-century embrace of both cinema and photography — the stakes were much much higher.

This can be described now in terms of how artwork — and it’s inextricable connection with the mythology of inspiration — is Approved or Relevant, and how that is acknowledged either Tacitly or Explicitly.

****

To represent the range of possibilities there, we can ground them in a framework of Personal Value. The examination of Why something is valuable will wind up exposing How it becomes so.

This framework cross-references those acknowledgements of value as variations of private versus public expression, and variations of work that confirms desired ideas or that (more strongly) embodies desired ideas. What results is a picture of what people DO WITH the work, reflecting their appreciation of it.

That is, the personal embrace of art treats it as either Affirmative or Associative, and that relationship gets expressed either Publicly or Privately.

Cross-referencing those options gives the following four types of personal action expressing Value:

The current crisis among audiences that cannot reconcile the human flaws of their hallowed artists mainly comes from suddenly not knowing what to DO WITH the art.

It is easy to see that any person’s embrace of a particular artwork will always be found in at least one of the four types revealed here, and frequently in more than one of them. The new problem is that if the artist and the work were “necessarily” seen as two manifestations of the same thing, then rejecting the artist removes the basis on which to embrace the artwork — at least temporarily.

This is posed as a more or less spiritual or moral dilemma in the confessional media coverage of art lovers everywhere. But the reality is that the decision to be made is not a difficult one.

What is difficult is being openly expressive about what decision one makes, at the risk of social or personal consequence including exclusion, rejection or unwanted affiliation.

****

Secrets are a big part of the personal relationship with art — and not just with art but with a huge range of stimulating experiences. By no means are most people both aware enough and candid enough to admit openly that they prefer something potentially alienating to their peers or potentially risky to one’s own reputation or self-esteem.

Of course, LOTS of people are absolutely liberated by fearlessly exposing their appetite for experiences or expressions that are controversial in their usual circles. We are not ignoring these people but instead acknowledging that these are the people who do NOT agonize over a paradox of good art by bad people.

Looking into the proverbial shoebox at the back of someone’s closet, or for that matter into an unsecured browser history, can show quite a bit about what a person found “valuable” to COLLECT. But just as revealing is what they have collected as their usual selection criteria about artworks of one kind or another.

Case 1: appropriation. Without divulging anything to someone else, a person can adopt the idea(s) found in an artwork as their own, actually incorporating it into the way they think about and perceive whatever other aspects of their experience they intend to have continue. This can, but need not, extend even to how they go about making experiences for other people — including making art one’s self. But incorporation goes to the heart of one’s security about being original — or in other words being “responsible for” what the work does. If work by one art maker begins to be demonized, then the fear is that any endorser of similar work is suspect too.

Case 2: acquisition. Organizing one’s experiences for repetition on demand is second nature to most adults, and if any type of art becomes representative of an opportunity for repeating experience of a given type, the vehicle of that experience — a work of art — can be handled as an asset or a resource, “curated” and saved per one’s own criteria regardless of other people’s uses or interests in the same work(s). In fact, creating an “ownership” relationship with the work both removes competition for the opportunity to have key experiences, and it makes the work an extension of one’s self-determination (variously meaning “agency”, or “presence”, or “taste”). But curating is all about judgment; so anything making the acceptability of the work controversial calls into question one’s judgment that the work should be obtained from others.

Both of those modes of Collection are valuable primarily as private arenas of personal engagement with art.

****

On the other hand, in Expression, the public arena of personal engagement is equally an option.

Case 3: celebration. Outwardly exposing or promoting one’s position that an artwork affirms or confirms one’s preference, or a belief, is what Celebration of the work accomplishes. This is the area in which most of the crisis of the good art/bad person discovery lives. As the working theory, if a bad person’s good art is what brings them support, then cutting off that support is necessary because we need to eliminate bad people, therefore it is no longer permissible to celebrate their art. This “ethical” stance invites endless investigation into whether the bad person actually is supported by the work, and according to whom. But being complicated does not mean that the theory is not useful. It just leaves it open to being mis-used or abused in practice — even simply unresolved.

Case 4: identification. The most direct public expression of personal engagement with the work is to exhibit it as a personal statement or, in other words, a projection of one’s identity. Having the work “stand for” one’s self is at least popularly assumed to be what art makers are really up to. But by being the channel through which art work becomes known, a non-artist offers their own “brand” with the work being the content in the channel. Whether this occurs by performing in the role of Reference, Subsidizer, or other “signature” influence, taking credit for offering the experience of the work is about being concerned with having one’s identity acknowledged, not just intact. This is the area in which the good art/bad person dilemma supersedes the art itself and goes directly to the social risk of guilt-by-association between the art taker and the bad-person art maker.

****

As said earlier, these controversies are not really profound problems on any level exceeding the idiosyncrasies of personal choice. They are, instead, just several situations in which a person either has or does not have two things: the ability to candidly admit what kind of influence they care about; and the courage to take whatever consequences come with it.

What we can expect is that most people who have been shocked by revelations of bad persons making their favored art will NOT suddenly find the art work unacceptable — but neither will they become personally committed advocates of continuing to have the work celebrated or used to identify themselves.

They will leave that public relations effort to “professionals” — persons who have the social license to the look dispassionately at things and argue for the right of the work to have a life of its own regardless of who made it, just as they might argue that the work is sometimes terrible in spite of who made it.

Private relations with the work can be… well… private, the work trafficked in the black market of personal desires.