Nice post on a complicated subject. What is meant by "value" as it relates to art? It seems to me that there are two (at least) possible "meanings". It could be said, to paraphrase, ' The values of a culture are the values of the ruling class.' That is, the determination will usually be made in the context of market forces and profitability. It might even be further stated that the "value" of the work say of Van Gogh, or Gregory Mendel (in the sciences) are solely contingent on historically determined use value - having no "intrinsic" worth but only as it relates to the needs and/or desires of others at a particular time.
Barry: "The artist has also served the prevailing ideology well by demonstrating (in quite ostentatious fashion) that class ascendancy is possible in bourgeois society. Like the peasant maidens of Chaucerian rhyme, the artist is often an individual who begins his or her life poor but enters royal society through the sheer inventiveness of rare artistic ability. An especially apt example is The Beatles, originally publicized as 'working class' Liverpool 'lads' made good, one of whom was knighted years later. Other
notable examples---Sinatra, Monroe, almost all black athletes---also 'worked their their up' to 'the top' from their 'humble origins.'"
bill: Yes, and much of it is illusory propaganda. For every artist (or black athlete) who "makes it", there are tens of thousands who "fail" and are left with "Hoop Dreams". The fact that One may succeed is apparently a sufficient indicator of a level playing field a la Horatio Alger.
Yet I'm not entirely happy with this formulation.
You quote Wilde:
"A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that its author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment the artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist and becomes a dull or amusing craftsman, an honest or dishonest tradesman. Art is the most intense mode of individualism the world has known."
And observe:
" The artist, in this romantic (and pre-industrialized) view, is an individual who has taken from society nothing and owes society nothing; their possible interactions will only be one of mutual free trade, one of exchange between equals."
bill: In spite of Wilde's humorously infuriating snobbiness I'm not sure that an existentially experienced act necessarily implies non-dependency or non-obligation toward the society at large. While such a claim might be made it is only done to artfully reinforce hierarchical structure.
I think Wilde may have been stressing the importance of breaking free of certain constraints imposed by a society conditioned by values that produce self-alienation. It is perhaps in this sense that art may be considered an instrument of emancipation, emancipation from the imperatives of capitalist system maintenance. Unfortunately it is difficult to think of an example that hasn't immediately been co-opted and exploited by the dominant culture to serve it's own ends. Thus "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" becomes a pop hit.
So what are we left with?
1. Art (co-opted?) in the service of the dominant ideology - the 'Culture Industry', or
2. Art as a communicable experience which may result in a different (potentially revolutionary) way of viewing the world?
bill
