There is no question that the arts and an education in the arts is deeply connected to human rights, to Black Lives Matter and equal opportunity, for all...and then of course the tragedy of global warming and the 80 million refugees in our world today.(For those who are blissfully ignorant of the Artworld, Sir Anish Kapoor is a sculptor and painter, and as Establishment a figure as could be, with honorary degrees and prizes out the wazoo.)
So I have a question. Why isn't art deeply connected to the problems of unemployment and under-employment in the UK? Or to the horrendous social problems caused by the trade in cocaine and heroin? Or to the health issues of pharmaceutical companies replacing perfectly adequate generic drugs with new, patented and therefore expensive, drugs that are not actually any more effective? Why is it not connected to the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries? Or to the issues of free speech raised by the ownership of broadcast media and publishing by a handful of multi-nationals? Why isn't art connected to the problems of dysfunctional nutrition across the world?
Or any of a thousand other issues?
Because those are the wrong kind of issues.
The "right kind of issue" meets two criteria:
First, it must offend as few people in the Artworld as possible. Buyers, curators, civil servants in the Department of Culture, journalists, gallery owners, and other assorted gate-keepers.
Second, it must create paid employment and funding amongst the "right kind of people". Arts graduates. Bureaucrats. Activists. NGOs. Artists. Documentary film-makers. And lawyers. Especially lawyers.
"Human rights" allows one to pick and choose from a wide range of genuine abuses. The Uighyrs in China are perfect: it is pro-Muslim, which pleases the Arab buyers in the Artworld, and is anti-CCP, which pleases everyone else in the world outside the CCP itself.
"Global Warming" is even better, since assigning a tragedy to "climate change" means we don't have to think about a practical solution (Rising water levels? How about building sea and river walls? Oh. Excuse me for being the engineer.) but can kick it down the road to be solved when we solve the "real problem".
"Refugees" provides lots of work for lawyers and NGOs. All the expense borne by the taxpayer. None of the inconvenience borne by the Right People inside their gated communities. It allows the Right People to identify the Wrong People, since illegal immigration is a touchstone issue.
By contrast, sorting out the drug problem means giving money to the Police, Border Forces, and other such Wrong People. So does dealing with the problems of persistent unemployment, though it's a different set of Wrong People who benefit.
Follow the money.
Everyone is familiar with the concept of virtue signalling, but there is also status signalling.
ReplyDeleteNow that the standard of living in developed countries has risen to a level where almost all can have nice things, the elites differentiate themselves from the plebs through their opinions. Certain opinions are considered low status (e.g. being anti immigration) and others are high status (such as being pro EU).
What Kapoor is really signalling here is that he is so successful and affluent that, unlike people on low incomes, he has no need to fear mass immigration.
He also gets to drape himself in a cloak of faux compassion. Clever, isn't it?