Politics of Art
The 1863 Salon des Refusés, in Paris, was the turning point in modern art. Forever after—to this day—art would be a political matter. When onlookers say they don't understand contemporary art, what they mean is, they don't know which side to take.
The original Salon des Refusés was authorized by Napoleon III, when 2,218 submissions to the official Salon were rejected. That number represented a sizable body of citizens, many of whom were resentful because of arbitrary rejection by a State magistrate. Wary of social unrest, the Emperor decreed a separate exhibition where the rejected artists' submissions might be shown.
The official Salon was founded in 1648 by Cardinal Mazarin, chief minister of France, to display the work of recent graduates of the École des Beaux-Arts. The Salon, and École, were as symbolic of the ancien régime as anything. It is amazing the institution survived the French Revolution. By 1863 reform was due.
By his policy of tolerance social upheaval was averted by the Emperor. Public opinion turned against the Refusés exhibition, generally because rejected submissions were wanting skill, but in particular because of Manet's provocative Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe. The public was scandalized by it. The public panned the show for the same reasons as the Academy proving the point. The Emperor's instincts turned out to be correct. The success of the policy of temporizing with dissent led to subsequent Salons des Refusés in 1874, 1875, and 1886.
The École des Beaux-Arts, and subsequent Salons des Refusés, survived the Paris Commune of 1871, even as the Emperor did not. Meanwhile, tastes in art evolved apace social evolution. Montmartre, location of the May, 1871 massacre, became ground zero for Modernism. Picasso was drawn there by the romance of revolution, as much as by the ideas then current at Montmartre.
The 20th Century witnessed the rise of art-ism, the identity politics of art. Individual artists identified, and were identified with, distinct styles such as Cubism and Expressionism. Styles of art functioned as political parties in a multi-party system. As long as the overall political system was democratic -well and good.
1907 was a pivotal year in Modern art. In that year, among other historical developments, Adolf Hitler made application to Vienna's Academy of Art. The application was rejected. Undaunted, he applied again the next year, and was again rejected. Hitler (specifically, his artwork), did not show talent. The perceived insult enraged his artistic disposition -a matter of no consequence to the Academy. He resented the rejection and vowed revenge.
When Hitler came to power, he turned the Salon des Refusés solution of Napolean III on its head. Where the Salon des Refusés of 1863 had offered an alternative exhibition to rejects, Hitler perversely made art that did not meet his approval, the main event. The art that did meet Nazi approval seems to have been the alternative. The artists who did not meet official approval were condemned as "degenerate."
Repression is never a good policy. It becomes, eventually, the victim of its own devices. Nazi repression drove resistance passions, forging bonds of allegiance that still endure. After Hitler's defeat the artist—any artist—was given deference in compensation for the Nazi persecution of the so-called degenerates. All artists were subsequently seen as vulnerable persons. The situation made post-war art criticism a sensitive subject. Criticism of an artist's art might be perceived as an attack on the artist, personally.
Sartre wrote about the artist as cause célèbre in his book about Jean Genet, “Saint Genet, comédien et martyr." It is a study of profane martyrdom (as opposed to the religious kind) and, implicitly, the emerging sensibility. As Genet was a genuine outsider, and artiste of distinction, Sartre felt obliged to take up his cause. Genet's writing was seen by Sartre as compensating for Genet' problems with the law (and his antisocial proclivity). It was a landmark case of artist advocacy -and the first shot in the culture wars that continue to the present.
The present situation is such that, if an artist does not have a challenging background, the artist's art is perceived as lacking profundity. It upends Sartre's advocacy of Genet. Now, if an artist is perceived as not in need of advocacy, so is the artist's art. It is a paradox for artists who find themselves marginalized, thus, as personally unsympathetic subjects. What remains to be done by these artist is not to play the role of the oppressed (comédien et martyr), but that of partisan—or, at least, the advocate in the cause of disenfranchised individuals, or class. This is, incidentally, my agenda in making the homeless subject of art.
One-of-a-kind works of art can be viewed at: https://www.saatchiart.com/account/artworks/1840403