Art after Continental Theory

In Literary Theory: An Introduction, Terry Eagleton proposes that Continental Theory has opened all cultural production to critical scrutiny. Doubtlessly, this is true. This criticism has overturned long held assumptions and divisions while blurring the lines between all forms of cultural output. Everything is open for re-evaluation. I believe, though, that fine art has weathered this storm and emerged, although changed, remaining a separate and distinct form of cultural production.

The fundamental difference between the output of fine art and popular culture is the continued belief in the existence of fine art as a unique and separate cultural construct. “Art” is different because we as an audience still believe that it is different from the products of popular culture (“I don’t know what Art is, but I know it when I see it”). We expect it to be a separate class and embody ideals and aims separate from the products of popular culture. Although it’s become more challenging to identify these ideals and goals, we still believe in the existence of the intangible structure that defines these aims. It’s as if we know they’re out there somewhere, on the horizon, but we’ve temporarily lost sight of them behind a cloud.

This social construct (or even a social contract) exists as a dialog between one group, Artists (mostly self-identified, be they professional, amateur, outsider, foreign, living, dead, etc), and a second group, the Audience. The Audience participates in the construct with the expectation that the Artist will deliver an experience of Art. Fine art continues to exist as different because the Audience continues to expect Art. The work is positioned in an continuing social dialog and the Audience expects the Artist to be fluent in that language. We, as the Audience, still expect fine art to be motivated by and contain themes different than works of popular culture. We continue to expect the Artist to communicate essential and universal themes or even deliver an experience of transcendent beauty.

In reality, our contemporary era has opened fine art and popular culture to all varieties of purpose, situation and classification. But fine art is still a product of and within wider popular culture. Appearance or position is not an indicator of a work’s nature as fine art or popular culture nor is its’ means of production or distribution. The art market as a business crosses boundaries into characteristics of the output of popular culture. Popular culture of unusual character crosses over with historical and critical re-evaluation into fine art. We are still subject to overlooking and devaluing works of popular culture because of their context. We are still subject to celebrating and valuing works of fine art simply because of their positioning and the social structures around them (“The Emperor’s New Clothes”). But we still hope as an audience and as artists that fine art can transcend the temporary appeal & goals of pop cultural output and be a relevant and historically meaningful element in an on-going dialog about “Art”.

Although we lack a hierarchy or higher authority to define the pinnacle of cultural values, Continental Theory has also opened the door to the everyman critic. All cultural production is exposed to critical scrutiny and anyone was qualified to be the critic (”Is it art?”). But the products of popular culture are never questioned in category or presentation – They are not part of the fine art construct and dialog. Although the everyman critic can speak on the quality or content of a piece of popular culture (tv show, movie, concert, song, book, etc), the everyman critic never questions its’ position and classification. We can say, “That’s not art” but we never say, “That’s not a movie”.

Art criticism functions within this social construction as well. If anything, art criticism & art critics have become more crucial to the construct in this era following Continental Theory. Although we can all criticize and evaluate works that are positioned as fine art, there is nothing like the education and experience that a dedicated art critic can bring to this conversation. Even in an era of DIY and everyman experts, there is still value in trained professionals. Especially where the distinctions are particularly blurry and slippery - Like fine art. We may not need a doctor to clean a cut and apply a band-aid, but we still go to professional for open-heart surgery. This collector of art is acutely sensitive to this role.

The expectations of the consumer and the expectations of the collector are different. The consumer buys with function and purpose in mind. He or she buys to fill a need – real or imagined. The collector buys to participate in the social construct of fine art – appreciation, patronage, or investment. Ultimately, the collector buys an artwork not as an object but as a nexus within the social construction of fine art. It’s the belief that a product of fine art can even be a cultural focus at all drives the act of acquisition. Again, it’s our participation in the social construct that provides this distinction.

Finally, Eagleton’s alliterative analogy (”Coriolanus to ‘Coronation Street’“) is perhaps a poor choice on his part - apples to apples. Both Coriolanus & Coronation street are works of popular culture. Although history and critical re-evaluation of Shakespeare’s work has placed it into the canon of high culture or fine art, his work was originally created as a popular work for mass consumption… just like Coronation Street. In the same way that Shakespeare’s work was re-evaluated in the centuries after his death, perhaps future generations of critics and theorist will re-evaluate Coronation Street as well placing it within the canon of 20th century fine art.

In all, this points to a continued distinction between fine art and popular culture. If anything, we allow this division to continue in western culture because we have invested too much in it for too long to allow it to be overturned by a single generation of theorists. The aspiration for ideals and the belief in a narrative of progress is still too powerful a drive to discard, even if anchoring those ideals in real-world examples has become increasingly ambiguous and challenging. This very difficulty might even cause us to re-double our efforts in attempt to, once again, clearly define the place where popular culture ends and fine art begins.