Faux-Real: What Happens When the Elite Buy Lowbrow Art
In the grand tapestry of existence, art shines like a beacon, breaking through language barriers and cultural divides. It has the remarkable power to captivate, inspire, and transform us; touching the very essence of our souls. But, let's face it, fine art spaces can feel a little…stifling. You know the ones, art fairs, auctions, museums, and galleries, where only those with wallets heavier than a neutron star can truly indulge in high-profile art and masterpieces (Dimaggio and Useem, 144). It's part of their whole fancy-schmancy culture. But relatively recently, museums and snooty highbrow types have been getting into Lowbrow Art. If you think about the previous sentence for more than five seconds, you’ll realize that this newfound behavior is deeply bizarre based on linguistics alone. The Lowbrow Art movement was born to be socially disturbing. It was made for degenerate vermin like you and me to enjoy and has been thriving underground for decades. But when mainstream institutions start giving it the nod, you know something big is going down (Givens). Why has this phenomenon manifested and how does the act of creating and consuming Lowbrow Art influence and affect relationships between social classes? It's a mind-boggling journey through the art world, my fellow Earth wanderers. Let's buckle up and explore this strange cultural shift.
Yes, late Twitter, social class is totally made up. But it still has a big impact on how people see each other. In fact, the terms "highbrow" and "lowbrow" go way back to some messed-up ideas about intelligence and genetics. There was a firm belief in eugenics (Hello, Hitler fanatics!) and this other silly thing called phrenology (basically, some medically licensed individuals thought that the shape of one’s skull determined how smart they were. If someone had a high forehead, they were considered intelligent and part of high society. A low forehead indicated that the owner of the unfortunate skull was neanderthalic in nature and built for the streets alone. Some may say, “Hey, that sounds like it can get really racist, really fast.” And they’d be right! How humanity has progressed. We now use these terms with loose connotation to their past to describe class distinctions, with the term highbrow alluding to individuals who have been bred to speak and know of the arts and other cultural spheres with the end goal of turning these stocks of cultural knowledge into social and economic gains—and whose discourse and practices mark them off from less sophisticated (lowbrow) society (Ten Eyck and Christensen, 331). Regardless of their hierarchical ‘correctness’ or philosophical truth, these are the designated labels for each imaginary classification. And realistically, like all things culturally manifested, these labels only have as much power as we give them.
Unfortunately, Robert Williams realized the extent of this power when he was “critically snubbed and vilified” by the fine art establishment in the second half of the twentieth century for his “meretricious” (which, for the fellow knuckle draggers out there, is defined as superficial or relating to a prostitute. Feel free to decide which definition the critic was referring to) paintings (Campion). The movement is said to have been officially established in 1979 by Williams with a book of the telling title, The Lowbrow Art of Robert Williams. The acerbic style was a defiantly uncensored, anti-establishment movement inspired by hot rods, the punk scene, surfing, underground comics, and California counter-culture in general (Givens, 60). Joseph R. Givens took great pains to find a description of Lowbrow Art that accurately encompassed the technicalities of past and current artwork of said genre (Givens, 7-42) and goes as follows: Lowbrow Art is figurative art that is executed using a traditional medium that “exploits the aesthetic conventions of popular visual culture in order to engage the viewer with a narrative” (Givens, 41). This narrative culminates in a movement that goes beyond the canvas and into a more political realm. ‘Authentic’ Lowbrow artists seek to break artworld norms through this public communicative act, also known as aesthetic disobedience, in order to draw attention to and reform perceived conflicts (Neufeld, 116).
Williams’s The Anti-Madonna's Affirmation of the Status Quo or Academic Title: The Dowager of Damnation Exhibits Her Contempt for Other Individuals’ Personal Beliefs by Staging a Tasmanian Mayhem Nativity or Common Title: The Immaculate Fiasco, ca. 1986
A perfect example is Williams’s 1986 piece, The Anti-Madonna's Affirmation of the Status Quo or Academic Title: The Dowager of Damnation Exhibits Her Contempt for Other Individuals’ Personal Beliefs by Staging a Tasmanian Mayhem Nativity or Common Title: The Immaculate Fiasco, ca. (Fig.1). The painting features a raven-haired, deliciously glossy, crimson hued devil with a voluptuous and meticulously detailed nude body with tan lines accentuating her pale red buttcheeks. She split-kicks two professional looking gentlemen in the face with her fabulous dark silver sandal heels. On her left, she toes the nose of a policeman wearing a dark navy uniform holding handcuffs in his right hand and a wooden police baton in his left. On her right is a judge wearing an official black robe with a red tie and a white dress shirt. He holds a sand colored (presumably) holy book in one hand and a wooden gravel in his right. Stylized cornflower and midnight blue, indigo, and pale teal colored cities of obvious sin collide and overlap one another in the background while a floating, peach fleshed, naked woman with exaggerated breasts and chalky salmon nipples hovers in the lower left-hand edge of the canvas with a recently exploded head. Shiny metal shards appear to be coming out of her throat and specs of honey mustard, yellow-green, pine green, and various shades of red colored paint are scattered throughout the background. The head of a lusty, Looney Tunes-esque canine with brown fur and tan skin (and a little bushy tail with the same color scheme) on a chrome colored, metallic robot body salivates over the handcuffs the assaulted officer is holding. The pupils of his bulging eyes have been replaced with shiny red hearts. And finally, we see a pale-blue eyed, rosy cheeked, celestial child with a golden halo being sodomized with the traditional arrowhead tip of the devil’s tail by the devil herself.
And its mere existence takes America by the shoulders and tells her, “I don’t give a red hot flying expletive,” and then goes on to spank a self-proclaimed Protestant president.
There’s a lot to unload from this tri-titled image visually, let alone metaphorically. And its mere existence takes America by the shoulders and tells her, “I don’t give a red, hot, flying expletive,” and then goes on to spank a self-proclaimed Protestant president. The profane and vulgar are front and center and are executed with obvious technical skill. The combination challenges what is typically thought of as ‘fine art’ and the theme of blasphemy (among other sin soaked subject matter) is repeated by other Lowbrow artists such as Georganne Deen, Ed “Big Daddy” Roth, The Pizz, and Anthony Ausgang (Givens, 60). Nonetheless, studies such as “Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore” from the American Sociological Review claim that an omnivorous social and cultural palate is replacing exclusively elite consumption among Americans of highbrow status (Peterson, Richard, and Kern). The elite are now getting into everything; it's not just about what Barnaby’s grandparents thought was the bees-knees anymore. Their taste buds are more willing to try out new things and be open-minded about it. But why? Given the intentionally lewd, ‘lowbrow’ nature of these works, why are traditionally exclusive institutions and individuals potentially risking their status by association? Perhaps an even better question would be, are they?
In “Why Elites Love Authentic Lowbrow Culture: Overcoming High-Status Denigration with Outsider Art,” it was revealed that being stupid rich allows one to consume lowbrow culture without the risk of status loss. This is rather odd given that an equivalent example would be wearing Sketcher’s Shape-Ups and a fedora unironically to East Highland High School, but the article suggests that it’s all a question of authenticity. It's like the everyday dance of authenticity and distinction. When we're gobbling up these cultural goodies, it's a quest for both things. If those goods scream "authenticity" but anyone and their mom can acquire it, then we're still all about it because who doesn't love the real deal? If they have that "Hey, look at me, I'm so cool and expensive and constantly out of stock" vibe but don’t necessarily convey authenticity, we're still reeled in by the aspect of exclusivity. But a magical combination of both tickles our social and capitalistic senses, making those cultural gems especially irresistible (Oliver Hahl, Ezra W. Zuckerman, and Minjae Kim, 848). As a final example, in the theater of the mind, picture this scene: A grand spectacle, the 'Real Recognizes Real' show in which genuine folks spot authenticity in others and both parties acknowledge this thrilling and wordless exchange. It's like an exclusive club of the genuinely genuine. So, when those cultural goodies give off those real and exclusive qualities, the Richie Richs’ can't help but gravitate toward them.
The question of ‘authenticity’ is fundamental. The results of this research indicate that elite audiences have the tendency to view lowbrow cultural goods as more authentic than other goods due to the prevailing belief that low-status culture is produced in pursuit of intrinsic (art for art’s sake) rather than extrinsic (elite validation) reward (Hahl et al., 832). This makes sense; Lowbrow Art doesn't give a flying fig about getting approval from the elites and actively disregards highbrow culture as supreme, which in turn only makes said art that much more appealing. Scholars had previously assumed that the authenticity was sought for purposes of social distinction (Hahl, 830). However, Hahl, Zuckerman, and Kim have introduced a new and potentially complementary mechanism they refer to as “Authenticity-Insecurity” which stems from a sense of insecurity regarding how one believes he or she is understood to have attained their status by others (Hahl et al, 829). It is then understandable for such an individual to believe that he or she can address this perceived shortage of authenticity by demonstrating appreciation for and consuming authentic culture.
In any case, the nepo babes are clearly bored with the used-and-abused choices they have been presented with by their parents and their parents’ parents. And apparently, bathing in wealth everyday won't stop those universal feelings of insecurity from brewing in the guts of humanity. Rich or not, we've all got our moments of self-doubt. Cool! But it’s possible that they just like the Lowbrow style or think it's a cool kid move to possess something distinct from the conventional art that adorns everyone else's walls. It could also be a way for them to show off their rebellious side and stick it to the man; like an upper middle class teenage wearing shredded jeans to Grandma’s Easter brunch. Ah, the allure of ungovernable authenticity that Lowbrow Art unabashedly exudes, dismissing highbrow culture's supremacy with a dismissive flick. Whatever the reason, it's clear that snobs want in on the joke and they definitely have the cash-money to fake a membership into it.
Sources:
Campion, Chris. “Robert Williams: 'My Stuff Is Way Kitsch—to an Abstract Level'.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 1 Apr. 2015, www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/apr/01/artist-robert-williams-appetite-for-destruction-slang-aesthetics.
Dimaggio, Paul, and Michael Useem. “Social Class and Arts Consumption.” Theory and Society, vol. 5, no. 2, 1978, pp. 141–161.
Givens, Joseph R., "Lowbrow Art: The Unlikely Defender of Art History's Tradition." Louisiana State University Master's Theses, 2013, 654. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/654
Hahl, Oliver, et al. “Why Elites Love Authentic Lowbrow Culture: Overcoming High-Status Denigration with Outsider Art.” American Sociological Review, vol. 82, no. 4, 2017, pp. 828–856.
Meisel, Perry. The Myth of Popular Culture: From Dante to Dylan. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2009.
Neufeld, Jonathan. “Aesthetic Disobedience.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 73, no. 2, 2015, pp. 115–125.
Peterson, Richard, and Roger Kern. “Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore.” American Sociological Review, vol. 61, no. 5, 1996, p. 900.
Strausbaugh, John. “Street Art That's Finding A New Address.” New York Times (1923-Current File), 2010, p. AR26.
Ten Eyck, Toby and Emily Christensen. “Speaking of Art: Class Code or Historical Residual?” The Social Science Journal, vol. 49, no. 3, 2012, pp. 330–338.
Williams, Robert. The Anti-Madonna's Affirmation of the Status Quo. 1985.
