Written by: Valeria Riley
In Lucy Lippard's "The Pink Glass Swan: Upward and Downward Mobility in the Art World", there is a breadth of information to be digested on the key views Lippard holds in regards to feminism, especially in application to Marxist ideology and the high contemporary art scene. Often, reading texts by intellectuals in the field can be bogged down by complex terminology and be more difficult to understand. Without a more comprehensive understanding of where Lippard is coming from, it can be difficult to discern points where her philosophy hits some complications in a more modern conception of feminist thought.
In order to be able to argue with or for someone's view of feminism, one must first understand their own views in regard to the subject. Many people today have opinions in terms of feminist thought and doctrine but don’t have as well thought out and comprehensive a stance on the issue as Lippard did in her time. Conceptions and understandings of feminism really do differ from woman to woman and are hugely affected by context, circumstances, personal opinions, and desires. To try to push an all encompassing ‘one size fits all’ outline of feminism to all women as a group is a fool's errand. To me, this “one size fits all" approach defeats the purpose feminism is supposed to serve: to give women the freedom of choice and future that they desire themselves.
In my work for Heresies, it's been my focus to read articles focused on art history and the philosophy of art. When I set to the task of writing this piece, I thought of my work as a commentary and more personal analysis of the work by Lippard. As part of my research, I myself worked on a conception of feminism that works for me. Laying out all the facets and philosophies of feminism I believe in and making all the possible tenants that could apply to feminism coincide without being hypocritical is much easier said than done, and for this I applaud writers like Lippard who have put extensive time and effort into formulating their own understandings of this topic. I’ve arrived at a semi-grounded understanding of what feminism means to me and it will be from that framework that I analyze and interact with Lippard's writing.
Firstly, I’ll outline the main themes she espouses in order of how important they are to her argument, rather than in the order they appear in the text. Lippard is an intellectual who sometimes writes sarcastically, jokingly or from an opposing point of view within her work which can potentially confuse someone who hasn't read her work before.
I think many of the ideas she voices in this article are still strikingly prevalent in our day and age, despite the fact that The Pink Glass Swan was published in January 1977. In order of importance these are the key points we will be covering:
- Class is a problem within the women's movement.
- A truly feminist art will provide other standards of taste/beauty that unite all classes.
- One's role in the art world determines one's ‘social mobility’ (with some interesting phenomena involved in this process for ‘upward’ or ‘downward’ mobility).
- the Feminist social issue and its quasi parallel to the Marxist economic issue.
Art worlds function as microcosms of the capitalist society they exist in, causing dysfunction between the ideas of universal art and avant-garde arts’ inherent inaccessibility and elitism.
Lippard's essay, and in turn mine, covers these main themes, and so I will work my way through my analysis in the order described above. so as to most clearly explain them. Lippard opens her essay outlining the inconsistencies that high or avant-garde art worlds operate in given the contexts they exist inside, focusing primarily on the United States’ art world. Art exists in a system where if one wants to be successful or make money in the system, they must cater to an audience willing to spend money on their art or their ideas. Beauty and art have been defined before as desirable. In a consumer society, art too is not seen as above this and becomes a commodity rather than a life enhancing experience. This capitalist motivation affects the types of art made and thus has lent itself to a new type of ‘avant-garde’ artistic tradition largely inaccessible to general audiences. This makes it so most modern and high art is rather niche because of its inaccessibility to broad audiences.
Art can only be groundbreaking if there are existing conventions to be broken and only those part of the educated elite are knowledgeable enough to know/break conventions and spend money buying and viewing such works. Lippard makes the argument that this ‘high’ art is limited only to the highly educated and rich and made primarily by men, who work primarily in the more ‘public’ art world. Women, on the other hand, operate mostly in more ‘private art’ realms and don't typically break into such circles. In fact, I would argue that it is also the artist who has the privilege to choose to devote themselves to a decidedly unprofitable career choice, since they must be comfortable enough financially in their lives to pursue at full time and (even if its just in the beginning as they get their feet off the ground) not be making money from it. There is the occasional rare case where an artist starts with nothing and is able to make a career out of being an artist but the opportunities for that type of career trajectory are slim to none in the art world. Many are not even given the option to think of pursuing art, since they need to be making money as soon as they enter the workforce, just to live and eat. Lippard herself writes of this phenomenon:
"This is the only legitimate reason to see artists as so many artists see themselves —as "workers." At the same time, artists/makers tend to feel misunderstood and, as creators, innately superior to the buyers/owners. The innermost circle of the art-world class system thereby replaces the rulers with the creators, and the contemporary artist in the big city (read New York) is a schizophrenic creature. S/he is persistently working "up" to be accepted, not only by other artists, but also by the hierarchy that exhibits, writes about, and buys her/his work. At the same time s/he is often ideologically working "down" in an attempt to identify with the workers outside of the art context, and to overthrow the rulers in the name of art. "
This results in less reputational success and less representation for women in these upper-class, male-dominated art spaces. These male-dominated art spaces are the same spaces which end up being the main deciders of art trends and conventions, thus maintaining the cycle just described.
This may be a biased take on modern art however, since I personally have never liked it for how clubby and self referential it is. In my opinion, contemporary arts desire to break convention and rebel against classical traditions only further drives home my understanding of the importance of conventions and the history of art. Without these preestablished rules and traditions, the breaking of the standard would carry no meaning or weight. To break the conventions of art, one is forced first to acknowledge their importance. To me, it's because of this that most modern art feels hypocritical and contrary to its own tradition.
Contemporary fine art remains inaccessible to a large portion of the population due to its high falutin ideas which are not immediately intelligible from looking at pieces themselves. High art circles are often social hierarchies made up of in-groups and out-groups and the main patrons of such art are the rich, who can afford to spend large sums on concept art. In holding with this line of reasoning, Lippard does not support any art that becomes too avant-garde, since that art speaks more to the educated upper-classes than the majority of viewers. One can invoke Pierre Bourdieu in his book Distinction on this, as he conducted sociological studies to determine the differing levels of cultural capital different classes had. Cultural capital stems not just from economic capital but also education, position and situation of birth. Bourdieu, who was largely influenced by Marxist theory, makes the distinction between the upper and lower classes finding that those who were higher in cultural capital were also higher in the social hierarchy and thus had more status in the cultural world in general. Those with higher cultural capital drew more distance between themselves and art they viewed, and were apt to take away more messages from art that appeared more abstracted and not as immediately understandable. Bourdieu also found that those in the lower classes sought relatability in art and through viewing it wanted to become immersed in it. They were less likely to be spotting vague themes, forms, and motifs that are present in upper class art, instead focusing on the main subject matter of the work. This is why for people in higher class art circles, things that might be seen as ugly or useless to the average observer can become objects of beauty in the eyes of someone who has more time and training in distancing the subject of the work from its ideas. From this, we can see reason in Lippard's statement that high art is exclusionary in all the ways that she believes are most fundamental to us, in terms of social class and hierarchy.
I believe that art should be something that people from every political position, social class, gender expression, and age should be able to enjoy. But it's impossible for all art to deeply impact and matter the same amount to every single person who perceives it. It should be noted that in some circumstances, prior knowledge or context might be required to understand certain art, and some people might not have or be interested in acquiring that understanding. This also contributes to it becoming more difficult for every individual to like and be struck by all art to the same extent. Though of course not all work is context dependent, thus my emphasis on the importance of more traditional types of art that are easier to understand as a viewer. Though it’s inevitable that there will be disagreement on what art to enjoy. This to me, is a result of the human condition and the fact that everyone is an individual and won’t understand or enjoy all the same things. To strive for universality in art is something that I think Lippard is a little idealistic about, she writes “As women, therefore, we need to establish far more strongly our own sense of community, so that all our arts will be enjoyed by all women in all economic circumstances.” pg 86 and while I agree with this sentiment, for all women to enjoy one type of art all to the same extent to me feels difficult. We have yet to find complete universality in anything as humans other than in death.
This is what I personally don't like about contemporary conceptual art and I think Lippard could perhaps agree with me on points. She herself writes on page 83 “As a child, I was accused by my parents of being an "anti-snob snob"” though she follows it with conceding she grew to appreciate contemporary art for its esthetic achievements but still critiques its ideals,
“Though I was bitterly disappointed (with the social, not the esthetic achievements) when I found that this work could be so easily absorbed into the system, it is only now that I've realized why the absorption took place. Conceptual art's democratic efforts and physical vehicles were cancelled out by its neutral, elitist content and its patronizing approach. From around 1967 to 1971, most of us involved in conceptual art saw that content as pretty revolutionary and thought of ourselves as rebels against the cool, hostile artifacts of the prevailing formalist and minimal art. But we were so totally enveloped in the middle-class approach to everything we did and saw, we couldn't perceive how that pseudo-academic narrative piece or that art-world-oriented action in the streets was deprived of any revolutionary content by the fact that it was usually incomprehensible and alienating to the people”
I feel it's inaccessible despite all the creators of this art's attempts to rebel against the system with their ideals, but in the end it can only be supported by the system it claims to rebel against. Without the capitalistic system to support it and pseudo-academic context to understand it , it would be untenable. It feeds into the system that keeps art like it alive and expensive. This seems demonstrative of a more utilitarian capitalist notion of art that keeps it alive, which to me is fundamentally not rebelling against the capitalist system and rules that confine the art world. This is an inherently socialist realist argument, which holds that any style of art not immediately comprehensible to everyone is illegitimate and elitist.
From this point, Lippard guides us to the interesting notion that one's role in the art world determines their ‘social mobility’. The term social mobility refers to an individual's ability to gain prestige and reputation in a field. Lippard writes on page 82,
“The art world has evolved its own curious class system. Externally this is a microcosm of capitalist society, but it maintains an internal dialectic (or just plain contradiction) that attempts to reverse or ignore that parallel. Fame may be a higher currency than mere money, but the two tend to go together. Since the buying and selling of art and artists is done by the ruling classes or by those chummy with them and their institutions, all artists or producers, no matter what their individual economic backgrounds, are dependent on the owners and forced into a proletarian role-just as women, in Engels analysis, play proletarian to the male ruler across all class boundaries. Looking at and "appreciating" art in this century has been understood as an instrument (or at best a result) of upward social mobility in which owning art is the ultimate step.”
In the case of the art world, to be at the top of the social system, it means to be a high paid or well respected artist in the same circles as rich educated art connoisseurs. Lippard shines some light on an interesting trend that continues to this day, which has become noticeable at smaller scales, whether one is interested in the political philosophy of art or not. The contemporary artist is a hypocrite in a lot of ways, they work ‘up’ to be accepted by other artists and the hierarchy that makes them popular but also ideologically they work ‘down’ in an attempt to identify with the workers outside of the art context and overthrow the rules in the name of art (since to be an artist, has often also meant to be ‘revolutionary’). An example I see myself in my life as a college student at a liberal arts university is the popularity of Golden Goose shoes that are wildly overpriced ($400-$900!) despite looking decidedly old and used. Another example is the prevalence of deliberately dirty and ripped clothing in high fashion brands catalogues. At an even more common level, the prevalence of ripped jeans as a sign of personal style. A generation before, one did all they could to not have ripped jeans, since it was commonly understood to mean that one was working class. This trend follows into the art world, with artists rejecting conventional mediums of creation in favor of more “down to earth” artistic tools. Rich artists who have already made their fortune work with dirt and junkpiles, placing them artistically about and ascribing deep meanings to them, inaccessible to someone just viewing the piece without knowing the artist and hyperspecific context and veiled meaning.
Now, the idea of being a worker is seen as chic and artistic, and this trend originated in the art world, which glamourized that type of life despite having little connection to it. This is because the majority of people involved in art education, creation, curation or collecting come from majority upper middle class roots. Only people with this type of financial freedom can pursue art; which isn't easily profitable or successful. Working class people are not afforded the same privilege and thus are excluded from the movement. As a result, it has been these upper middle class temperaments that have curated the artistic tradition to fit upper class standards of taste and beauty which differ largely from those of the working class.
From this point, Lippard argues that class continues to be a problem in a larger sense, expanding past the issues it presents in the microcosm of the art world. It presents problems in the Women's Movement as well, which to Lippard is the most important topic she deals with. She argues that a Marxist ideology is what she seeks in helping to fix the issues presented by over or underrepresentation in terms of economic class in feminist issues. There are some issues with this synthesis however, and she quotes Sheila Rowbotham on this matter,
“They are at once incompatible and in real need of one another. As a feminist and a Marxist I carry their contradictions within me and it is tempting to opt for one or the other in an effort to produce a tidy resolution of the commotion generated by the antagonism between them. But to do that would mean evading the social reality which gives rise to the antagonism” pg 86
Lippard calls women the most privileged oppressed class capable of communicating across economic boundaries through our most shared fundamental experiences. However, this presents an issue with her previously Marxist inspired doctrine for fixing these class inequalities since Marxist/Communist ideology for economics does not perfectly align with her conception of feminism. This requires the reader of ‘The Pink Glass Swan’ to understand that Marxism is at its root tied to positivism – the idea that culture, aesthetics, languages, religion and moral thoughts systems are all a result of material processes and reasons. Essentially that everything is an effect of economic and material relations. Lippard recognizes this view isn't enough to cover the extent of the issue, writing,
“an economic analysis does not adequately explore the psychological and aesthetic ramifications of the need for change within a sexually oppressed group. Nor does it take into consideration that women's needs are different from men’s” pg 86
The main issue presented by these conflicting political views is that it's difficult to ascertain which should be addressed first before the other can be worked on. Perhaps a more communist conception of the issue would suit Lippard's argument better. The way that Lippard outlines it, women play the ‘proletariat’ role to the male ruler across all class boundaries, hence her desire for women as a ‘vertical class’ to unite and create a type of art that provides other standards of state that make it more accessible to people of all economic standings and for women especially. Lippard claims that a truly feminist art will provide other standards of aesthetics, since most art being shown now has little to do with women's experiences because women are still seen as in charge of the private sphere of art while men identify more with the public sphere art (aka art that has become public through economic validation). Private art to Lippard seems to be seen as mere ornament while public art is more important and reaches a wider audience. According to Lippard, art should fuse the public and private spheres and be consciousness raising – a form of activism popularized by US feminists in the late 60’s, often taking the form of a group of people attempting to focus the attention of a wider group on some cause or condition. This art should be able to reintegrate the personal within the artist without being satisfied by merely the personal. To Lippard, the artist has forgotten the needs of the audience in favor of one's own needs.
“Artists claiming to work for themselves alone and not for any audience at all, are passively accepting the upper middle class audience of the internal art world.” (pg. 85)
To her, the art world has become too individualistic and self serving, since personal art does not reflect working class cultural values. The goal is to make this ideal “feminist art” connect to all women regardless of class boundaries. Feminist art seeks to reach all women. Since about the 21st century, feminist art only reached women of the same economic and social standing as the artist. Lippard's conception of feminist art says it must become more wide reaching and deal more with the class system that divides women. So, essentially that idea must be implemented in art to make it more easily understood and accessible.
It's here that Lippard’s argument concludes and it's also this part of her argument I don’t agree with as much, and I’ll outline that now. She makes the insinuation that private art by women has less value because it stays within the sphere of people who are close to the artist and doesn't garner any material success, thus implicitly agreeing with the capitalist standard she barrages earlier in the article. Also, I believe the statement that all art should be “ consciousness raising” and thus be making a political claim in one way or another is largely restrictive to more personalized expression. To me, this defeats the purpose of art being something done as a life enhancing experience, and makes it more utilitarian, something that Lippard herself argues against. This mode of thinking calls back to Gustav Flaubert's understanding of politics and art as being asynchronous. Famous for pursuing art for arts sake and writing only the novels he wanted to, Flaubert was comfortable enough financially that he could maintain this understanding of art without being in fear of ruin. He held that art as the only true, sacred purpose in life, entirely independent of moral, social, or political utility. And from his correspondence we can see he believed art should be a composition of sonorous phrases, prioritizing aesthetic perfection over content or message. While this may seem a bit extreme, and could in itself be perceived as a political stance on art; the non-stance, this makes one think. Can’t working class people or women that make art that speaks to a personal motive be doing exactly what Lippard advocates for, which is for the creation of more work that “reflects working class cultural values”?
Economic capital cannot dominate art's value and meaning, whether it be through an elitist lens or a 'deprived' lens because the masses do not have the same level of social and financial capital. To put it a little clearer, to give the masses the dominating view of arts value and meaning would be applying the same concept of economic capitals importance to art as it does when the elites have it, only this time the masses have as a result of their deprivation while the elites have it as a cause of their having. The meaning of art is not dependent on any particular social group, so long as you can retain some sense of the arts' sacredness or quality of being set apart and worthy of spiritual veneration or deep respect, without needing to reference religion. Since that’s (to me) the only stable place to locate art's value, if one wants to escape the sociological game of “who decides?”.
Another issue I come to is, I support Lippard's desire to have more women populating the public art world and market but given the way it's described as saturated with materialist principles and has become lost to the true meaning of “art”, why should women seek to be part of that? Public art gets its meaning and power from money, at the end of the day. This continues to be a result of the capitalist mindframe we approach almost everything with. This does not coincide with Lippard's Marxist/Communist view of art and feminism.
Which is more pressing, the issues caused in art and feminism by capitalism OR the underrepresentation of women in these deeply flawed capitalistic systems for art, which then give rise to class stratification between genders? If the answer is the first one, to what extent can one transform the art market? That takes either a full-blown communist revolution (which sounds violent and not altogether desirable, since that would mean subjugating at least some people to something which they don't agree with) or some less holistic but still intensive effort to carve out at least some space in public art where something besides money is the relevant capital. This raises a difficult question in the definition of art and what is valuable about it other than material purpose. From Lippard's analysis, what she envisions as relevant capital other than money is “revolutionary ideological message”. This I mildly disagree with. To me, art's only value isn't just in its ideological power but also its ability to speak to human spiritual (rather than merely political) needs. Spiritual needs like comfort, deep personal emotion, dealing with themes of death (a very universal idea), deep questions, dealing with suffering, expressing deep love and sometimes presentation of beauty in the simplest terms.
How would the goal Lippard describes come to fruition? What would we have to leave out of her doctrine to perhaps make some progress? For now all I can say is that as a humanist, I don't want revolution. Because yes, we could have a violent cultural upheaval to make the art world and economic world fit into the binaries we want them to, but in doing that would be exerting the same type of power and control over people who don't want it to be that way as we currently experience. To do it that way would only be continuing to proliferate ideas of subjugation and power that most of us can agree aren't in alignment with our ideals. And to me this seems an unviable and surface level solution to a deeply societally ingrained problem.