In Questioning Elitism

There have been conversations around elitism in art since the first neanderthal dragged a piece of clay against the wall of a cave. Perhaps another troglodyte approached the art and half-heartedly grunted at it, walking back to his half-eaten saber-toothed tiger. Clearly I’m in no position to conduct a study on the history of elitism in art, which would require more than I’m willing to write here. Instead, I’m going to just put out my thoughts and experiences concerning elitism.

Film critic for the New York Times, A.O. Scott, wrote a book about criticism and art titled Better Living Through Criticism. He devotes the book to deconstructing criticism, what it means, why we do it, and why art can’t stand without it. In an important passage, Scott suggests that conversation is the essence of criticism: “a passionate, rational argument about a shared experience.” To criticize something is not just to give it a like or dislike; in fact, that’s about as far away from criticizing something as you can go. Criticism is being willing to dialogue about something, to explore why it makes you feel what you feel about it. I believe that establishing the importance of criticism is essential to this essay.

I’ve found that elitism more typically applies to the artist or the art-appreciator than to the art itself. Perhaps because the artist or appreciator has the ability to speak for themselves, or maybe because it simply makes more sense to get angry at a person than a work of art. So, let’s talk about elitists. An elitist, according to Mirriam-Webster, is “one whose attitudes and beliefs are biased in favor of a socially elite class of people.” For the sake of this essay, let’s say that elitists are biased in favor of elite classes of art, rather than just people. What does that mean? Since there is no determined patriarchy in art, and all art is subjective, then how do we determine what is elitist?

It’s unavoidable that historically important or influential art and artists will end up at the top of the pyramids (where elitists like to sit). So, those who admire or draw influence from the historically important art are prone to be accused of elitism, which is insanity. These important pieces of art—and I want to get as basic as possible—Abbey Road, The Mona Lisa, Citizen Kane, Für Elise, are often the starting points for many people getting into art. So why is it so often criticized for being elitist? Is it because it’s old? Maybe it’s because of the admission price to see this art in a museum, or the price to listen to it on vinyl, or just the level of knowledge required to talk about the theory behind the music, or the technique in every brush stroke. There’s an empty space between the appreciator and the artistic gentiles who are not invited to the country club of art appreciation. Some people may not have the resources to understand art, and there are some art appreciators that are fine with this. These appreciators want the art world to be an elite social class.

There’s the cloutist lens of elitism—those people who only want to talk about art to make themselves look smart. They’re totally fine with people not knowing what they’re talking about. This is where critics of elitism have a point. When all we’re trying to do as art appreciators is talk about how great the things we like are, we are forgetting to criticize it. Let’s not forget the wise words of our friend, A.O. Scott. Art cannot exist without criticism, or inviting critics into the conversation.

This takes us, then, to the problem of gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is a term that has recently become a buzzword on the internet. It’s often used to describe when someone, or a group of people, block newcomers from a community. There are so many forums, niches, and cultures on the internet that it has become a perfect breeding ground for gatekeepers.

Gatekeeping in art happens when people refuse to let others in on the conversation—disgusting, lowbrow, and defeats the entire purpose of art, it creates a feedback loop, it stops criticism from happening, thereby stopping creative evolution from happening. I’ve seen it happen. I’m guilty of it. I guess in my own experience, I’ve just been afraid that people won’t know what I’m talking about, rather than trying to get others excited about it. I think I’m getting better at it. There’s a balance. You want people to get excited about art, but you also don’t want to seem like you’re showboating your “vast knowledge of all things beautiful,” which would be elitist.

How do we solve this problem? We need to get more people in on the art conversation. This conversation needs to start with a universal understanding that all art can be experienced equally. Rothko’s art can trigger an understanding on the meaning of life just as easily as Old Town Road.

I can get behind the appreciation of the simpler things, such as radio songs or poop jokes. I’m still trying to overcome that prejudice. Taking the time to understand that there is something to appreciate in all art is what this is all about. Even if you hate everything about it, even if its very existence triggers a rant about mainstream/lowest-common-denominator media, the least you could appreciate is the fact that it was made. Someone took the time to channel some level of creativity to make it. Which is more than a lot of us can say about ourselves.