Populism in Art

Words: Jessica Lehmann

Populism is inherently a political concept. However, every facet of culture is infused with political elements. Therefore, art is increasingly manifesting to reflect the current cultural and social populist phenomenon. Populism is defined as: “The policies or principles of any of various political parties which seek to represent the interests of ordinary people… or their views; speech, action, writing, etc., intended to have general appeal.”[1] The definition of a populist, integral to consider when referring to specific artists or an art movement as populist, is: “A person who seeks to represent or appeal to the interests of ordinary people.”[2] Populism has arisen from both the upsurge of a capitalist consumerist society since the industrial revolution, as well as the digital age and the instant internet generation of the now. A fascination with celebrity culture as well as fragmented globalised identities have also contributed to populist expansion. This essay will explore the history and emergence of populism in art and culture while surveying practical instances of it such as; the rise of the art biennial and fair, artist as celebrity, the MET gala and ‘affordable’ art. The essay will also explore the limiting effects of this hegemonizing populist cultural movement while surmising that there are advantages to the movement especially in aspects of its inclusivity and destruction of traditional roles and barriers in social/economic/gender terms.

Art and populism is integrally linked to the history of art and the construction of society as a capitalist culture. Populism in art emerged in America during the 1930s Depression and was typically associated with right-wing conservatives. Artists sought to encapsulate the experience of the everyday downtrodden worker in ‘American – scene’ painting with the rural ‘Regionalism’ and urban ‘Social Realism’ streams. American-scene artworks appealed to the masses by depicting their individual and collective experience, a nationalism and romanticism of everyday life.[3] The artists rejected European modes of art and hoped to depict a uniquely American way of life. Populist in its ethos, parallels can be seen nowadays in Donald Trump’s appeals to the everyday American rejecting foreign interests and embracing the interior experience as authenticity. An alternative populist art on the other end of the political spectrum also emerged in America; the ‘Avant-Garde.’ Following the industrial revolution artists no longer traditionally relied on churches and aristocratic patronage. This coincided with the Avant-Garde artistic movement assuming “cultural leadership and produced objects and projects to enrich social progress by turning life into art…it was avowedly elitist and tried to maintain its autonomy from everyday life.”[4] An art that is entertaining, a populist kind, can be referred to as ‘kitsch’, a term coined by Clement Greenberg in 1939,  as an in-between option of high culture and folk art. Greenberg fought to defend the leftist avant-garde art culture from the politically totalitarian ‘kitsch’ producing “deceptive and misleading sensational effects.”[5] This example elucidates the general historicity of the elite in tension with populism, literally elitism supports the interests of a ruling class at the expense of the majority.[6] Both spectrums of the political sphere can be represented by populist art ideals, the precursor is that the majority ‘normality’ is in tension with the ‘other’ and there is an underlying narrative embodied by the art movement.

Throughout the history of art, the concept of aesthetically representing a collective group can drown out the voices of further marginalised members of the oppressed, thus resulting in a populism per the strongest of the “everyday” people represented. Yet these movements can also include many members of the community who otherwise wouldn’t be involved in art while also actively enacting change in the wider community. This is evident in both the feminist and black power movements. The connection between art and politics is implicit in both political movements having a corresponding aesthetic movement. The humane in art is perpetuated by our perspective of undergoing a universal aesthetic experience, as Immanuel Kant proposed we are all capable of, thus feminist art can exploit the ‘fiction’ of humanity to a populist agenda.[7] Lucy Lippard articulated the goal of feminist art as “to enter the real world and affect everyone – all those people whom contemporary art has failed to reach or move”[8] thus highlighting an us and them divide. Yet what is this ‘real-world’ that populist art is in tension with? This emphasises the very narrative of exclusivity and inclusivity prevalent even in a subculture for the people in dichotomy with the ‘elite’ people.  However as Malcolm X argued, dominant cultural institutions can often project the very elitist or degrading characteristics these movements rally against, in the 1960s they were infused with racism and classism therefore ‘Black Power’ advocated for a separatist “culture as a weapon of resistance by persuasion.”[9]  This parallels Joseph Beuys push for art as a socially responsible force arguing “art is the only power to free humankind from all repression.”[10] The black power movement saw the rise of cultural infrastructure and revolutionary art galleries and book stores emerged in African-American communities. Most importantly this movement emphasised the ‘we’, the inclusivity and acceptance of an undefined but no less enthusiastic community, and cultural institutions at the time did not cater for the ‘we’. The rise of this populist artistic ethos is articulated by Adorno’s view that the social content of art since the mid nineteenth century is to be found in its resistance to social acceptance and utility.[11] The risk of these populist politically infused artistic movements is in the quest to appeal to a broad audience, the humanity of the masses, is whether this reduces the complicated and inherently sophisticated nature of art making and appreciation of it, by merely labelling it with a catch cry of, for example, ‘women’s art’ or ‘black power art.’

A political system favouring populism over democracy and the commercial culture of Web 2.0 has shifted the cultural climate. Fredric Jameson writes that since the 1980s with booming corporatism and neoliberalism “art was incorporated into commodity production generally.”[12] The commodification of art is tangible in Art Fairs, designed with artists or art spaces showcasing their work in sectioned off white cubes to the general public who have brought a ticket to admit themselves to this shopping centre of art. The intensification of a populist art entangled with capitalism was produced by the exposure of art to the market forces and the regular investment calculations inherent to modernisation.[13] Swedish retailer IKEA, exalted for its functional, stylish and affordable homewares launched a ‘removable’ art gallery on the 30th May 2017 at the Art Gallery of New South Wales. Visitors can literally remove their favourite artworks from the wall and the show “aims to turn the idea of art as inexpensive and inaccessible on its head, to show people that great art can be accessible for everyone” with spokesperson Mark Mitchinson citing that “91 percent of Australians believe that art shouldn’t only be found in galleries or museums, but also belong in their home.”[14]  This show appeals to the masses and is held in a cultural institution validating it as respectable by both the structures and history of the institutions and society. Yet, visitors are not basking in the artistic brilliance of the artwork, rather surveying the exhibition for suitable artworks that they can firstly; afford and secondly; complement their interior decoration. As Stephen Weil once stated, the importance of cultural institutions and the employees of them should instead be evaluated by “answering questions such as: “When the day was over, the sun had set and the crowd gone home, what have you accomplished…In what ways have the world been improved? How had someone’s life been made a little bit better?”[15] Both art fairs and readily affordable art in unison with cultural institutions challenge this, instead prioritising the vague majority ‘everyday’ person.

Money drives demand in the art world. The growing inter-relationship between public/private and commercial/non-commercial has blurred distinctions. The influence of private collectors is reformatting the art world, “…a former dealer-critic system might now have been replaced by what could be described as a dealer-collector system…current process in which all social positions involved in the activity of value making seem to be renegotiated.”[16] Previously museums and art galleries were institutions that held collective cultural heritage. Now the valuation of art is popularly decided, the command lies not in the cultural institutions to define what is valuable but their “role is now to frame the popular.”[17] An advantage of this movement is greater exposure of art to varied socio-demographics that either due to intimidation, cultural structures or a lack of education they would not have ever stepped foot in a gallery, but the reduced elitism allows an ‘everyday ordinary’ person to engage with art. Therein lies this irresolvable tension[18] between hoping to enact change and exposure in the wider communities while respecting the traditions and discourse of art practice and production in cultural institutions.  No longer reliant on government support museums are creating blockbuster exhibitions to satisfy their predominant corporate sponsorships.[19]

The art market’s increasing commodification and function as a status object has contributed to an increase in populist art shows. The National Gallery of Victoria’s ‘Andy Warhol/Ai Wei Wei’ 2015-16 retrospective catered for the masses with an interactive photo booth, cat-themed fun room and provocative pieces such as ‘A Study of Perspective 1995-2011’ (2014)[20] by Ai Wei Wei that depicted himself with an erect middle finger pointed toward significant landmarks around the world. The show encouraged Instagramming, social media updates and even bringing along your friend who likes cats. Opening this year, the Queensland Gallery of Modern Art (QAGOMA) have a “blockbuster” show ‘Marvel’[21] with “interactive experiences throughout the exhibition.” “Photography is welcome” and gallery attendees are encouraged to “share your experience #MarvelGOMA @qagomagallery.”[22] The exhibition consciously encourages interaction with the art show marketing the experience on the visitor’s personal social networks. A populist art show manufactured to be shared and experienced by as many ‘everyday’ people as possible.

The historical genesis of populist art functioning in the public realm is the star-studded celebrity focused MET (Costume Institute) Gala, held yearly by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  Originally designed to raise money for the institution, the event is covered by journalists and is extensively showcased on the celebrity’s personal social medias. Nowadays to get a non-invitee ticket it can cost you upward of $25,000. Although the exclusivity of the event suggests an elitist concept, the fact that the celebrities are often uninformed of art and merely invited for their status and marketing prowess situates the MET gala as a populist showcase to the masses without a culturally curated elite guest-list.  This aligns art with a celebrity culture, an instant gratification seeking approval anything will do whirl hole.  However, what these populist artistic examples help typify is the intersection between public and art institution, the audience is now valued in the experience of the art show. By redefining the strict junctures between curator, artist, audience “the institutionalised dynamics of power and responsibility are never put into play”[23] thus the public art space becomes a democratic environment. This concept can be extended further by satisfying the public’s wish for popular art and the institution’s goals of engagement thus amalgamating into a type of participatory art that encompasses involvement and commitment in the viewer rebuffing an isolated experience.[24] Yet arguably this is in complete contrast to a democratic ideal, the museum’s collective cultural heritage is exploited for the popular and in fifty years what will be the outcome of this investment – an Instagram update and no Caravaggio of the 21st century. As the former director of Whitney Maxwell Anderson stated: “The core constituency of collectors who matter, and people who are members of an art museum, want to be taught and stretched and learn…You may get people in for a motorcycle show or a Star Wars show, but they don’t return, and there is no residual value from their visits.”[25]

Populist art for the people, not the cultural elite, is derived from the forms and signs of ‘popular’ mass media, and populist artists are also reflecting this popular market. This popularity is “measured by the majority market share held.”[26] Johanna Drucker writes that “aesthetic objects mark the differentiating line between individuality and a subsumed alignment with the status quo machines of cultural life”[27] she cites Cindy Sherman as an example of how the art world “is a culture industry, capable of similar effects and operations with respect to the distortion of individual identity into celebrity image and product.”[28] This is executed now on social media, especially Instagram as a source of marketing of both the artist’s lives and their artwork. For example, Frances Cannon is a Melbourne based artist who constantly updates her social media portraying her life as any other young woman; wearing facemasks, playing with her dog, going on dates with her boyfriend and style shots.[29] Her art depicts “bodies such as her own” and she speaks to young woman and on behalf of them[30] – she is both populist and her own type of brand. John Kelsey wrote functioning in this manner is a requirement, that “the contemporary artist or post-Fordist virtuoso is no longer a producer so much as a communicator, a transmitter, an emailer: ‘human vaseline.’”[31]  From the lineage of Andy Warhol, Tracey Emin, Cindy Sherman and Sarah Lucas, artists must now define themselves in a flooded market and appeal to as many people as possible to reach success.  As Adorno wrote, the artist must “remake himself into an instrument, to become a thing himself, if he does not want to succumb to the curse of anachronism in a reified word.”[32] The wider populist culture, infused with the pressing needs to be connected, updated and relevant, produces populist art and artists.

To conclude, art and populism have been in tension since the industrial revolution and often used in a political battleground for the masses. A changing political and cultural society is reflected in art, and populism has been enacted for political movements and nowadays for the capitalist system’s emphasis on money and consumerism with blockbuster exhibitions, affordable art and art fairs. Artists are also succumbing to the populist pressures marketing themselves as objects and enacting a curated life on social media platforms. However, art that can be deemed more entertaining and appealing to a wider audience can still be intrinsically valuable – any aesthetic expression that is viscerally enjoyed connects the individual with themselves and the wider visual culture, the universality of experience (by way of Kantian theory). Populism helps demystify art and see it as a part of a wider culture and without typical artworld pretention. Yet, art does require erudite thought and reflection thus considering art without the sophisticated discourses, history and theory reduces art to an entertaining past time and cheap thrill. The complexity of art will always see it in tension with populist ideals, the power of an impalpable transmittable enigma is unique to art and defies the universality of experience and emphasises the unique – the very opposite to populism.

SOURCES:

[1] Oxford English Dictionary, “Definition: Populism,” Oxford English Dictionary, accessed 19 May 2017, http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/view/Entry/147930?redirectedFrom=populism#eid.

[2] Oxford English Dictionary, “Definition: Populist,” Oxford English Dictionary, accessed 19 May 2017, http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/view/Entry/147931?redirectedFrom=populist#eid.

[3] Judith A. Barter, America after the fall: Painting in the 1930s, (New Haven, Connecticut : Yale University Press, 2016), 26.

[4] Mark Pennings, “Editorial: Arts and Entertainment,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art 11, iss.1 (2011): 12.

[5] Catherine Liu, “Norman Rockwell vs. Richard Serra: Cultural Populism and its Vicissitudes at the end of the Twentieth Century,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art 11, iss.1 (2011): 16.

[6] Victor Burgin, “Populism, Genre and the Blank Canvas,” Parrallax 14, iss.2 (2008): 127.

[7] Clara Weyergraf, “The Holy Alliance: Populism and Feminism,” Art World Follies 16, October (Spring, 1981): 23.

[8] Lucy Lippard, “Changing since Changing” in From the Center: Feminist Essays on Women’s Art, (New York: Dutton, 1971), 8.

[9] Peniel E.Joseph, Waiting ’til the midnight hour : a narrative history of Black power in America, 1st ed. (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2006), 35.

[10] Alain Borer, The essential Joseph Beuys, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997), 108.

[11] Theodor W.Adorno, Thesen zur Kunstsoziologie in Ohne Leitbild Parva Aesthetica, (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1968), 97.

[12] Fredric Jameson, ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’ in The Anti- Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture, ed. Hal Foster, (USA: Bay Press, 1983), 124

[13] Julian Stallabrass, Elite Art in an Age of Populism in Contemporary Art 1989 to the present: Art after Modernism and Postmodernism, ed. Alexander Dumbadze & Suzanne Hudson (UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2013), 44.

[14] Article on IKEA art gallery: http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/news/ikea-exhibition-invites-you-to-take-home-your-favo

[15] Stephen Weil, “Beyond Management: Making Museums Matter,” Curator: The Museum Journal 44, iss 3 (July 2001): 314.

[16] Isabelle Graw, “Introduction” in Canvases and Careers Today: Criticism and its markets, ed. Isabelle Graw and Daniel Birnbaum (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2008), 14.

[17] Stallabrass, 47.

[18] Jen Budney, “What we can learn from Populism,” Fuse Magazine 34, no.2 (Spring 2011): 12.

[19] Budney, 11.

[20] Source: http://aiweiwei.cycladic.gr/en/portfolio_page/study-of-perspective-1995-2011-2014/

[21] http://blog.qagoma.qld.gov.au/gomas-marvel-blockbuster-is-coming-soon/

[22] https://www.qagoma.qld.gov.au/whats-on/exhibitions/Marvel-creating-the-cinematic-universe

[23] Lori Waxman, “Participatory Populism: Art that says hello and shakes hands,” New Art Examiner 29, no4 (March-April 2002): 57.

[24] Waxman, 58.

[25] Robin Pogrebin, “Populism hasn’t boosted Brooklyn Museum’s attendance,” New York Times, June 14 2010. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/arts/design/15museum.html

[26] Burgin, 128.

[27] Johanna Drucker, Sweet Dreams: contemperory art and complicity, 253

[28] Drucker, 210.

[29] https://www.instagram.com/frances_cannon/?hl=en

[30] http://francescannonart.com/about/

[31] John Kelsey, “The Hack” in Canvases and Careers Today: Criticism and its markets, ed. Isabelle Graw and Daniel Birnbaum (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2008), 65.

[32] Adorno, 67.

Leave a comment