91桃色

Two centuries ago, wealthy entrepreneurs founded the American cathedrals of culture鈥攎useums, theater companies, and symphony orchestras鈥攖o mirror European art. But today鈥檚 American arts scene has widened to embrace multitudes: photography, design, comics, graffiti, jazz, and many other forms of folk, vernacular, and popular culture. What led to this dramatic expansion? In Entitled, Jennifer Lena shows how organizational transformations in the American art world鈥攁mid a shifting political, economic, technological, and social landscape鈥攎ade such change possible.

What led you to write this book?

JL: For the first decade of my career, I studied the sociological features of rap and hip-hop music. I came to understand that, as a white woman in an Ivy League Ph.D. program, I was given more encouragement to pursue the topic than my non-white peers. I hoped that my work would help make the subject matter more appealing and legitimate to (and for!) other scholars, and allow more voices to enter the conversation.

Once you read Entitled, you鈥檒l be able to argue that I was an aesthetic entrepreneur: a privileged person working to convince people to treat a native form of entertainment as art. The book is about what it takes for efforts like mine to succeed, and why that success benefits me more than the artists I care about.

One of the key concepts in your book is about the 鈥渙penness鈥� of the arts. What does that mean, and how has it changed over time?

JL: Most of us think of the fine arts as a pretty 鈥渃losed鈥� world. Major museums and symphony orchestras are expensive to enter, and we can鈥檛 touch anything or make noise. Even when we know that the point of these places is to provide a respite from everyday life, they can feel exclusive and elitist.

Wealthy and powerful Americans did build and run these organizations, and they wanted them to look and feel like 鈥渃athedrals鈥� of culture. But they鈥檙e also public places, in the sense of being open to the public (for an admission fee). They鈥檙e also civic places, in the sense that many programs and exhibitions are designed to educate the public, host debate, and stimulate community cohesion; they also receive donations from the public and support from our tax dollars.

And鈥攈ere is where my argument may be most surprising鈥攖hey鈥檙e also more open to more kinds of artists than ever before. You can visit any major metropolitan art museum and expect to see painting and sculpture but also motorcycles, fashion, photography, design objects, and鈥攊n one striking example鈥攁 recreation of the dirty CBGB club bathroom. You can go the symphony and hear popular music, even film scores.

In Entitled I devote a lot of attention to this last type of openness, and try to understand why it happened, what was excluded, and what it means for public life.

In short, while the invention of 鈥渉igh art鈥� in America depended on the work and tastes of elites, the story of the arts in America is incomplete if it is a tale of the noblesse oblige of the wealthy; it is better characterized by the tension between elitism and populism.

Once we treat something as 鈥榓rt鈥� instead of viewing it just as 鈥渦seful鈥� or entertaining, it becomes more valuable. Why do you argue that this process benefits aesthetic entrepreneurs more than the artists?

JL: Many people with wealth and power today adopt a kind of 鈥渃osmopolitan鈥� approach, supporting a huge variety of kinds of art and culture with their patronage. They depart from their ancestors who stuck pretty close to the 鈥渉ighbrow鈥� tastes of their parents and grandparents.

But in offering their support to artisans in Ghana, weavers in Burma, or French graffiti artists, contemporary elites often end up reproducing stereotypes of these creators and their home places. That is, sometimes when you celebrate 鈥渄ifference鈥� or novelty, you just end up reinforcing the fact that something is atypical.

I try to understand how their engagement with 鈥渄iversity鈥� through cultural consumption is viewed as political and ethical action, and I argue that they benefit from this a lot more than the artists, in part because so little profit (financial or reputational) trickles back to the artist and her collaborators. Much of their work ends up in other countries, and away from its contexts of production. To achieve diversity, we鈥檙e always also practicing exclusion.

Can you give us an idea of how that tension between elitism and populism plays out?

JL: They鈥檙e usually very visible, as two or more groups within a creative community battle over specific objects, sometimes using the terms 鈥渃ultural appropriation.鈥� In the book, I write about one such battle over the use of a kimono in an exhibit at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, in 2015. The following year, the Whitney Biennial exhibition was marked by protests over Dana Schutz鈥檚 2016 painting of Emmett Till (鈥淥pen Casket鈥�). These two battles were fought over who the right to display culture.

But these tensions are also evident in how we choose what culture to consume. In fact, in order to guide 鈥渆lite鈥� viewers toward the 鈥渃orrect鈥� programs, we鈥檝e invented the category of 鈥減restige television.鈥� A begins: 鈥淒o you need help recognizing whether the show you鈥檙e watching is good, serious TV? What if you thought the thing you鈥檇 fallen in love with was high-quality entertainment, but actually it鈥檚 just cheap trash?鈥� This nicely frames the problem: mediums no longer allow us to easily distinguish 鈥済ood鈥� and 鈥渢rashy鈥� culture; instead, we need to rely on indicators of 鈥渆lite quality鈥� within 鈥減opulist media.鈥� The aforementioned essay recommends, I think correctly, that people detect 鈥減restige television鈥� by the presence of discursive cues: comparisons to other art forms (novels, cinema), descriptions that are particular to art (鈥渃hapters,鈥� not episodes; a 鈥減ilot鈥� season), and the use of sophisticated interpretative lenses (鈥渨inking self-awareness鈥�).

And so we increasingly discover that the tension between elitism and populism plays out within audiences, as some viewers are amused by the 鈥渨inking self-awareness鈥� of the script writers, directors, and actors, while others mis-recognize this content, or ignore it completely. During the recent Emmy Awards, we could see this tension played out on stage, as prestige shows captured the 鈥渟erious鈥� awards (within the drama categories), while comedy and unnominated shows boasted more total viewers.