Are Snobbs useful to Art-forms?

For the purposes of this post I shall be looking at this rather vexing question, its implication and its proprietary. To be quite clear from the start; I'm certain that snobbery has a part to play in artistic endeavour, despite the rather unsavory moral after taste this leaves. Let me start by looking at the flavours of this key word: snobbery.

The term 'Snobbery' (snobs, snobbish etc) has a few different uses. It sometimes refers to the elitist behaviour we might have been told to expect from the wealthy in regard to their favoured choice in wine or opera. It sometimes refers to the angry dismissal of popular musical forms by those who believe that such popularity necessarily lowers the worth of that artifact forever. There are cases where a snob is taken to be someone who, despite having no innate appreciation for an art form as a treasure in itself, nether the less sees the great value in art itself. This secondary value, either political, financial, or sentimental is said to be at odds with the value the work has as an aesthetic phenomena. This third type I would refer too as the the 'insensible snob', and it is this kind I would like to consider for my own evaluation of this question (please, feel free to jump in and analyse any other versions present or imaginary, it should also be noted that these do overlap considerably).

When we say this question out loud, the thought it carries seems quite absurd. Calling someone an insensible snob is a hideous insult, and to suggest that a snob might be useful is like suggesting a murder might be good with a mop, or a prisoner might be a valuable citizen. Usually its not the done thing to talk in this way.

However, tradition once justified the slave trade. Since traditions change from time to time and culture to culture, is there a better way of defending the feeling that snobbery is a wrong thing in art?

We might try a financial argument. If art costs money (and we all know artists need materials, like to eat, and like to have time to spend exclusively upon their art) then they will obviously need this money to come from somewhere. We might assume that a large degree of funding actually comes from these insensible snobs, ignorant of arts intrinsic value, who none-the-less buy 'good art' in imitation of their friends. I would not want to say that all rich people who buy works of art are unappreciative, but I would hazard a guess that the opposite is true: many art critics are not wealthy, many art appreciators are poor. It is probable that one who has spent their life gaining wealth may not be not critical or experienced enough to appreciate the art they find themselves buying to the degree we might want them to be.

If there are a few wealthy sponsors of art who are willing to buy art for its social merit, who do not appreciate the art for its aesthetic merit, then we can conclude that there will be artists who can profit from finding and utilising these people. It stands to reason that this process will increase the possibilities afforded to some artists, and so may well add to a given art form. This misguided funding is therefore a good thing.

The problem with this answer comes in the form of a counter argument, the problem of the artistic seeming con-man. If those with no true appreciation of the art are responsible for funding it, then we may find that they are funding art with no merit. They may lavish an unoriginal artist with funds, securing them many exhibitions, shows or public advertisement for their work. We may find that the funds that initially seemed to be directed towards the arts was instead directed toward the silver tongued con men of this world.

An answer to this counter argument would perhaps be to suggest that some rich folk may have learnt how to judge art in a very methodical way, and that they may therefore fund the right kind of art: but this doesn't quite save the idea of rich snobs funding bad art. It might still happen, and indeed seems quite likely to happen a lot.

The responses so far depend upon the idea that any given snob is and always has been a snob. Like the proverbial 'criminals' who populate our prisons, snobs are human beings too. They were somebody's children, and they are the kinds of creatures which we like to believe can change and adapt.

Perhaps the best defence of the idea is to raise the idea that all people learn to appreciate art through experience, and that this applies to all collectors. The collector who initially has no appreciation of the art they are buying may over time become a good collector through much experience. They will undoubtedly have friends who talk about their art, and so will have to learn a bit so as not to be to obviously inept in aesthetic judgement (otherwise their whole project would be doomed!). They will bit by bit learn a great deal about the art they collect, and this will of course inform the art the invest in.

Are they still a insensible snobb? When does the snobbishness end?

Coupled with this is the idea that art is either good or bad. Is this idea reasonable? It seems that some pieces are universally praised, while some are hated. Their is much in between, and many of these things seem to be specific to a given culture. One group of teenagers might like grindcore, another might like R&B, and both might insist that the others music is just noise. I would suggest that art may be good or bad relative to its context, but that in isolation from a context it becomes meaningless. This of course is a much larger debate (please argue for absolute aesthetic standards if you feel they should apply, I have no good arguments for them!)

If aesthetic appreciation is relative to culture, and insensible snobs are appreciators in training, then the financial argument has more force. Of course con men will dupe the rich of their money, but the rich will grow wise to this eventually. In trying to impress their friends they will learn about the art, and through experience they will become engaged in the living breathing discussion that art can be. If we do not each have an innate artistic ability, then who are we to complain about the snob, who after all is only learning the ropes.

We are left only with the initial feeling of disgust at this insensible snob we see before us, and as with most moral questions this feeling may be destined to remain. It seems that we can answer the question quite easily, yes snobs are useful to almost all art forms, but we still feel that this usefulness ruins the perceived purity of the art somehow, in a way we can't explain. It does seem that snobbery is still a vice after all.

References

Matthew Kerian, (2010) 'The Vice of Snobbery: Aesthetic knowledge, Justification and Virtue in Art Appreciation' Philosophical Quarterly, number 239, p243-63

Questions

Welcome

This blog is to be used for a detailed analysis of some questions and their answers. The sort of question to address to the blog is any question that has no obviously factual answer and though grammatically coherent, is puzzling. Some examples off the top of my head would be:

Is the universe all material, or is it spiritual too?

Can we prove a negative?

What is truth?

Why are we here?

My intention is to analyse the questions in my opening post, then open up the floor to blog members to find other approaches, flaws in arguments, and new solutions. Obviously the original questions validity will come in to play, along with the consistency of responses.

Please, when responding try to take the absolute best view of the comment to which you respond, criticizing that which remains amiss after this has been done. In this way the debate can move forward productively, and a much better understanding can be reached.

Please, post your suggestions for questions! And join the blog to discuss them!