Are art collectors responsible for growing economic inequality, and, as such, should socially responsible progressives in the art world withdraw from the market in protest? A recent article in Adbusters seems to suggest as much. It takes a hard look at the highly perched patrons of the art world — mostly the 1 percent of the 1 percent of the 1 percent — and questions whether artists, art historians, museum directors, and curators should continue to take part in a system so fully supported by those at the top of an increasingly unequal world. It’s an interesting correlation to consider, but logically it goes a step too far.
Progressive artists, critics and curators face an existential crisis: how can we continue to justify our involvement in this art economy? At minimum, if our only choice is to participate or to abandon the art field entirely, we can stop rationalizing that participation in the name of critical or political art practices or–adding insult to injury–social justice. Any claim that we represent a progressive social force while our activities are directly subsidized by, and benefit from, the engines of inequality can only contribute to the justification of that inequality.
It is important that someone points out that correlation does not imply causation. Just because there is increasing wealth at the top of the economic spectrum driving an art market boom, and a stagnation of wealth in the middle and lower classes correlated to aforementioned growth at the top, does not necessarily mean that art collectors are to blame for the world’s macroeconomic problems, or that progressives should withdraw from the art economy. There are a lot of other structural issues to consider before giving up your art world job (or even simply repudiating expensive art on principle) just because Roman Abramovich is worth $13.4 billion and is also involved in keeping the art industry afloat.
Another reason that our economy is in such dire straits today is because highly paid manufacturing jobs are being replaced by more efficient, lower-cost technology, leaving what used to be a big part of the middle class without similarly high-paid options. Should all progressives refuse to use their computers in solidarity?
I am sympathetic to the feeling of powerlessness over the increasing amount of money it takes just to participate in the art market (it’s all I think about all day, after all), but going totally noncommercial on political principle isn’t the right solution. Everyone has to eat.
Side note: If you are as big of a fan of the correlation/causation logical fallacy as I am, click here.
Tags: 
Hello Shane, when you say “I am sympathetic to the feeling of powerlessness over the increasing amount of money it takes just to participate in the art market…” there are implicit parts in your proposition; meaning “I, having a steady job, and being still quite young as to assume, that change can be obtained through hard work, and perseverance, since, at the end of the day, when we make decisions, we are the ones making them, and not the education that we’ve been given, and the value system we did not have any hand in making, but which we have made ours without really questioning, etc…”.
Of course, the final part “Everyone has to eat” helps show the contradiction within, and that all that has been previously written is scaled with the latter.
Don’t worry, it’s not about you anyway.
Best.
It isn’t about anyone individually. It’s about everyone being stuck thinking about a dying system that doesn’t reflect future reality. I worry this a lot:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/01/stiglitz-depression-201201
Then again, maybe I’m wrong. But every time I provoke a discussion by being wrong I’ve hopefully made a few people really question what is right. And that’s the goal, in the end.