Art and Capitalism.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 1, Issue 5, 20 January 1911, Page 6

Art and Capitalism.

(By AN ARTIST.) Most Avriters on art assume that art has nothing to do with social conditions. Others contend that democracy is disastrous to art, hie (they say art depends for its very existence upon the patronage of the leisured rich, and under a democratic State the leisured rich as a class would not exist. So write the dilettanti—the AAorst enemies of Art. In the same way writers upon such subjects as industrial efficiency are in the habit of regarding workmen as mere unit machines in the vast system of machinery, not as human beings Avith temperament and soul, and yet temperament and soul must be into account with all human beings. Industrial efficiency does not depend upon the cramping of these. Indeed it cannot be too often emphasized that all artistic creations are the natural expressions of the temperament and soul of the individual.

Certainly the sccial state does influence art very greatly. Art is essentially individualistic, the expression of the artist's own feelings. Where this expression is interfered with, there does art suffer. Under the social conditions now prevailing—capital ruling—the artist is usually faced with the choice of staining or obeying the dictates of the buyer. In every art this sad state of things usually results in a compromise. Whenever an artist has to sacrifice his own feelings to those of the buyer, naturally the work is regarded by him as a mere " job." He knoAvs that he has prostituted his art, and the sooner the job is over the better. Art, to its detriment, is at present dominated by capital. Capital says : "I am willing to pay; therefore, I shall have what I demand. I shall not have what the artist calls art; I shall have what I call art. As the lives of Millet and Corot show, so long as our artist paints to supply the demand of the capitalist or the dilettanti, art suffers. It was not until Millet renounced the painting of marketable nymphs in favour of painting unsaleable peasants; when he abandoned Paris and a worldly prosperity close within his grasp for a life of poverty, hardship and Spartan fare—yes, all these and many other discomforts, but also for the painting of " The Angelus " and " The SoAver.". Corot catered for the capitalist with conventional Italian landscapes until he was over fifty years of age. Then he abandoned " the Avorld " for " the Avoods," and there he produced all the works that made him famous. For the good of art every artist must be free to paint Avhat he is peculiarly suited to paint, and under capitalism he is not so free. It is nonsense to ask a sea painter to paint trees, just because a capitalist happens to want a picture of trees. Art is essentially an expression of a man's own individualism ; and Socialism would be good for art, because it would give the artist a chance to express himself, rather than merely to cater for the more or less inartistic desires of the capitalist. Time after time in the art world one sees the corrupting influence of money, particularly with portrait painters. This point was recently dealt with by the Editor of " The Art NeAvs," and he gives the following explanation of the inferior work of the " successful " portrait painter :—" During the period of hardships and struggle commissions are unobtainable or scarce. Thrown on his resources the artist only paints people he knows, people in whom he is interested. At last his work is recognised as being good, success comes, and with it commissions, from all sorts and conditions of men and women. Thus temptation assails him; he wants to do good work, but ho also wants to make money. He accepts commissions which he ought to refuse; he grows careless and i?lovenly in what he is about. No longer is each sitter to him a fresh inspiration. It has become a job that has got to be done, and all he thinks of is in what style it shall be. And then one day, if he be not altogether lost to better feeling, Avith tears in his eyes he painfully recognises that all the titular honours and distinctions which may have been showered on Mm cannot drown his misery in the knowledge of his own degradation in the consciousness that he has wilfully prostituted a gift given him from God. Sooner or later the painter, like every other man and woman, has to realise that you cannot serve God and Mammon." Just one other quotation to close these somewhat disjointed notes:— The capitalistic dilettanti "do not belong to the criminal classes, but their " good intentions," their culture, their judiciousness and their infernal cheek amount perhaps to worse than arson or assault. Their attitude towards the creative artist is always one of large and tolerant pity. They honestly think that if only the artist knew his business as they know his business, if only he had their discernment and impartiality, and if only he Avasn't so confoundedly ignorant and violent—how different he would be, hoAv much nicer and better, how much more effective ! They are eternally ready to shoAA' an artist where he is wrong, and what he ought to do in order to obtain their laudations unreserved They ride over him like a regiment ot polite cavalry they know such a deuce of a lot, and they can balance the pros and cons with such astonishing virtuosity. The Press is their washpot." One of them once said to Whistler, after the latter had painted his portrait: " Yes, I suppose it is like mc, but you can hardly call it a great work of art." To Avhich Whistler promptly retorted : '' But then, you know, you can hardly call yourself a great work of nature." No wonder that the artist longs for Socialism, when he knows that under Socialism ART WOULD BE FREE.