Manipulating Class.

I’ve been reading “Class, Self, Culture” by Beverley Skeggs. The following is my reaction to what I’ve gained from it in relation to my own artistic practise exploring British society and the class system. Excuse me, if I repeat or reiterate points highlighted by Skeggs. This is partly to organise my own thoughts and reflect on what I have learned.

Class does still exist. It is not talked about as frequently or in the same way as it has historically. It has taken on a different guise. It is now represented by a number of things; location (geographically or for example a local estate within a community), political alignment, culture and lifestyle. It is to be noted however, that this representations are formed not by who they relate to but by other social groups to re-affirm their own self image. Such class identities are constructed to limit mobility. That is to say, the middle-class (authoritative) will enhance their own value by constructing and repeating negative values they assign to the working-class. It must therefore be understand that any negative representation of the working-class is an attempt by the middle-class  to attribute value to themselves. As Skeggs says; “making oneself tasteful by judging others tasteless”. This is done through the authorisation and institutionalisation of class symbols, suiting the middle-class who occupy the positions of political authority within institutions.

The repetition and institutionalisation of the constructed values attributed to the working-class highlight the fragile position of the middle-class and their “authority”. These efforts to keep the working-class in a fixed place can challenged through the critique of the middle-class and the questioning and devaluing of authority.

The creation of classed symbols and class representations acts to maintain class divisions.

As a point separate to Skeggs but in line with current affairs I would like to highlight the proposed Labour policy to allow football fans a greater chance of having a say in the running of their football clubs. Under this plan fans will be allowed a stake of 25% in their club combating the recent worsening feeling of football fans to the owners of their clubs. It will provide fans with the power to prevent takeovers and the purchasing of controlling shares from businessmen who may not fully appreciate the heritage of a club and its meaning to the fans. Examples can be seen now at Manchester United and Liverpool. The Tories have dismissed this as gimmicky and I’d have to agree it is a gimmick. But could it be a gimmick that will work? I don’t expect the Tories to understand football, which has long been the working man’s game. Could this move by Labour to reinforce what would be seen as their core vote potentially work for them? The importance of football is not to be underestimated in Britain and with the timing of the election so close to the World Cup, could the increased interest in football in this country potentially swing some votes Labour’s way. I’m not sure yet what long term effects such a policy would have on the game but it’s safe to say if it gives power to the fans who, of late, have had a raw time of it, then it could just be a stroke of genius. That is to assume that football does have a great enough importance to large sections of society. I’d like to hear other people’s thoughts on this.

I hope I don’t sound like a class-warrior. Please get involved and share your opinions.

Ignorance isn’t always bliss. Educate yourself you damn heathen!

Ignore the title. It’s an exaggeration of sorts. It’s an exaggeration in that I wouldn’t say it to someone but thoughts of the same effect have crossed my mind when talking to someone who is not part of the art world.
Since the yBas in the 1990s triggered a boom in public interest of the fine art world, it has given a voice to the general masses in which was once a very exclusive and elitist section of culture. This is NOT a bad thing. This is fantastic. Art should be for everyone, everyone should have a voice and an opinion. Whether that person does research and reading into the art world, keeps abreast with current news and trends and gains a knowledge and understanding of the context and history surrounding artists and works or just stands on the sidelines shouting “advice” in a similar way to how I shout at the television when watching football, is up to the individual.

One thing I thought coming to art school would help me with is handling the typical argument of “Joe-I don’t get modern art-Bloggs”. That argument being, “is that art? I could do that. A four year old could do that!” You know the score. “An unmade bed? I’ve got one lying around at home, is that art?” NO IT ISN’T!
The counter argument is simple, taking Tracey Emin’s “My Bed” as an example. Her’s is art because she thought about taking that bed into the context of a gallery space. She took it into the art world, with a concept behind it. The concept in this case being deeply personal. She was taking a step back and looking at her lifestyle, then baring the most personal of her possessions and affectations for all to view and judge, allowing the bed to tell its own story. It highlights the imperfections and insecurities of the artist.

Your bed however, Mr. Bloggs, isn’t art because you didn’t think of it. You’ve thought of it now having seen Emin’s bed.

There was a BBC series last year called “School of Saatchi”. It was essentially an art world X-factor, starring Emin and eternal suck-up Matthew Collings as well as some other art world non-entities as “the panel”. There were also a group of contesants, a mixture of annoyingly cocky, arrogant, eccentric, idiotic and slimey. There were at least a couple of contesants who seemed genuinely talented and had interesting ideas and concepts driving their work. The whole premise of the series was to impress the panel of Saatchi’s minions and to ultimately get Saatchi to purchase or show a contestant’s work. It was annoyingly entertaining in the way that style of programme always is. It was infuriating to watch, but you couldn’t stop.
My main problem with is was that it showed a group of artists who were not representative of the art world, who were making deliberately controversial work to impress Saatchi. Airing to the masses, this did not portray contemporary art in a good light.
How can we argue about the values of true art when rubbish like that is put on a pedestal as examples of contemporary British art?

The next stage of Mr. Bloggs’ argument is; “Okay, I can’t do the bed, how about if I make something new? What if I put my toaster on top of my TV? Is that art?”
Yes Mr. Bloggs, if you can justify your concept behind it and take it into an artistic context (not necessarily a gallery), it is art.

This is the line we must walk, however painful. It must also be highlighted that there is a difference between what is art and what is good art. The individual (and not just monetary) value  of a piece is another argument altogether!

What adds to my infuriation with this argument is that it was won nearly a century ago. Marcel Duchamp and the Dadaists showed that art wasn’t just paintings and sculpture and that other objects, such as Duchamp’s  readymades, could be art when taken into that context. Manzoni did a similar thing later on with much of his work.
Another dimension to this argument is the one surrounding the economics of art. This is often hard to justify and being honest, I don’t always like to, especially in the current economic climate, I believe money needs to be spent wisely. The way I do try to justify it though, is by grouping artists with professional athletes such as footballers and with Hollywood movie stars. People will always pick holes in this and there’s only so much you can do to argue the point. I tend not to.

What does annoy me is the exaggeration or ignorance when it comes to the real value of individual pieces of work. I talked to someone this week who was appalled at the thought that spin paintings made by Damien Hirst and David Dimbleby on the BBCs “Seven Ages of Britain” would sell for “a million each”, for what was thirty seconds of easy work. I’d highly doubt whether these pieces would ever sell, I think Hirst would probably give them to Dimbleby otherwise they would have been destroyed. It’s the belief that artists have a license to sell anything they touch for millions. Yes the prices are high, especially when it comes to the likes of Hirst et al but Mr. Bloggs does have a tendency to exaggerate the prices of individual pieces.
It’s a difficult position to be in, having to justify the work of others in an effort to protect the integrity of what you do. It seems though, that it’s a position we, in the art world, look unlikely to escape from anytime soon.

I looked at every other word when writing that and wondered, “is that a word?” It’s obviously been a while since I’ve written anything of importance.