The Elitism of Art Consumption

The consumption of art and the creation of it have always been uncomfortably separate worlds. Those bidding high and attending fancy galleries are oftentimes the elites of society, as opposed to the “starving artists.” While paying artists fair wages in acknowledgment of the dedication it takes to make art, the notion that art is for the upper crust’s enjoyment inherently limits the power of the medium. As wealth disparities skyrocket in the digital age, the usage of art as a mechanism for elitism and enforcing hierarchical systems permeates our culture. Yet, although art has become an increasingly deliberate sign of luxury, wealth has always been embedded in the collection, commissioning, and creation of art. From Dutch still lives to curiosity cabinets, flaunting has always been an element of the artistic process. 

In the Netherlands in the early 1600s, the artistic style of the hyperrealistic and full table still life was popularized. Dutch still lives were often assembled with the intention of asserting wealth and status to one’s guests and visitors. They often featured assortments of fancy or exotic foods, such as rare fruits, and sought other rarities like ornate tableware and items that could only be acquired in other countries. Plants were also often included in the pieces. In addition to a sense of greed promptly evident in the works, the immensity of their moral implications grows stronger when one begins to recognize the extensive amounts of labor placed upon enslaved people who provided the very contents of the works. 

In a way, these still-lives serve as precursors of future physical collecting. Art collecting began with systems such as studiolos and curiosity cabinets. Curiosity cabinets were often used as a means of political advancement, serving as a signaller of might. These collections, while often spoken of and initiated for the means of scientific inquiry, nearly always served a dual function of societal advancement and the acquiring of sponsorships. 

While supporting artists is crucial, the association of art appreciation with intense wealth creates a divide. By insinuating that art is to be consumed by the most wealthy and the most educated, a system is created in which art is deeply luxurious instead of a centralized mode of being. Art is a deeply personal and emotive act, yet the ever-increasing commodification of digestible works hinders its full potential. There is an urgency and pressure upon artists to create work that is easily consumed and therefore purchased, and yet that is the most counterproductive and counterintuitive way of constructing an artistic process. 

This is why public arts initiatives and accessible museums are so crucial. Without museums' availability at discounted prices or for free, these historical divides between the art world and the common person grow more distinct. Art is for all people, not just those with the depth of pockets to purchase it.

‍

(Cover Image: Pieter Claesz, Still Life, c. 1625. Oil on panel, 48 × 76.9 cm (18 7/8 × 30 1/4 in.). Art Institute of Chicago, 1935.300, Simeon B. Williams Fund via the Art Institute of Chicago)