Why is William wegman fine art and not kitsch: an emotional attachment theory of social structure of art and the artworld
Children who have developed under an emotionally void parent will most likely develop into a teenager and adult who struggles to emotionally attach to others and receive/demonstrate love.
https://blogs.psychcentral.com/caregivers/2016/03/7-consequences-of-having-an-emotionally-detached-parent/
What is it about William Wegman's photos of his dogs done in commercial methods that makes it fine art whereas cute pictures of puppies might be called kitsch or popular art?
A big differentiator is the lack of sentimentality and emotional content. There's also the dry humor. How much does this say about the art world and the type of people who can relate to unemotional art.
Socioeconomically, the art world is by and for rich people in New York City. Rich people who send their kids to boarding school. Busy people who spend most of their time on work, rather than caring for their children. These people may have grown up in a similar way, with limited emotional closeness and support from their own parents.
These people grow up to lack emotional empathy for others and therefore resonate with emotionless art. They find sentimentality, emotions, feelings to be repulsive.
Whereas, the non-rich raise children themselves. Find joy and solace and love in their children. And therefore popular art is full of emotion.
In the field of art, fine art is associated with a specific socioeconomic class, the rich, which I theorize have characteristic emotional psychographic traits of being unempathetic. Because of this trait, they prefer unemotional art, buy and support unemotional art and thereby shape the art world.
However, this art may resonate with non-rich people who have similar emotional issues: those raised without much parental love and support. Though, differing from the rich in most aspects of habitus, they can relate to the lack of emotional attachment experienced in life and expressed in fine art.
I'm not saying all rich people are this way, but by their habitus as a class, they are more likely to be this way.
Furthermore, this emotional aspect of art and class is also greatly influential in the determining positions in the field of art, as described by Pierre Bourdieu.
What is it about William Wegman's photos of his dogs done in commercial methods that makes it fine art whereas cute pictures of puppies might be called kitsch or popular art?
A big differentiator is the lack of sentimentality and emotional content. There's also the dry humor. How much does this say about the art world and the type of people who can relate to unemotional art.
Socioeconomically, the art world is by and for rich people in New York City. Rich people who send their kids to boarding school. Busy people who spend most of their time on work, rather than caring for their children. These people may have grown up in a similar way, with limited emotional closeness and support from their own parents.
These people grow up to lack emotional empathy for others and therefore resonate with emotionless art. They find sentimentality, emotions, feelings to be repulsive.
Whereas, the non-rich raise children themselves. Find joy and solace and love in their children. And therefore popular art is full of emotion.
In the field of art, fine art is associated with a specific socioeconomic class, the rich, which I theorize have characteristic emotional psychographic traits of being unempathetic. Because of this trait, they prefer unemotional art, buy and support unemotional art and thereby shape the art world.
However, this art may resonate with non-rich people who have similar emotional issues: those raised without much parental love and support. Though, differing from the rich in most aspects of habitus, they can relate to the lack of emotional attachment experienced in life and expressed in fine art.
I'm not saying all rich people are this way, but by their habitus as a class, they are more likely to be this way.
Furthermore, this emotional aspect of art and class is also greatly influential in the determining positions in the field of art, as described by Pierre Bourdieu.
///
This theory stems from my personal experiences as an artist and as person. I believe I have difficulties with emotional attachment stemming from emotionally absent parents. Difficulties that became worse as an adult. I believe I may have used art as a refuge, or perhaps just something to do because of a lack of human connectedness.
I don't think I'm an extreme case, my parents weren't awful, though looking back at my life and the spectrum of possible parenting styles available I'm now aware of, I would estimate that the emotional support I received growing up was less than average.
The larger implication is that if as a class, the rich are less empathetic, then what does that mean for society when they may be leaders in companies and government? Are toxic, inhumane workplaces the product of managers lacking human empathy, due to lack of parental love?
To what extent are nations affected by cultures of emotional detachment?
I am interested in examining how your idea relates to Greenberg’s “The Avant-garde and Kitsch.” Certainly some emotional art is kitsch, but what about Anselm Kiefer. Is his art emotional? His concentration camps certainly evoke emotions in the viewer.
ReplyDelete