Art, Elitism and the Green Stuff

It seems that Christopher Knight is confusing “anti-elitism” with the effects of corporatization on the arts (“Elitist and Proud of It,” Sept. 2). The more that public funding is cut, the more beholden museums have become to corporate patrons--hence, the Guggenheim’s Armani exhibit. (Could anything be less elitist than Armani anything?)

It is not anti-elitism but corporate control of the arts that is responsible for the dumbing-down of our museums, music and movie screens. Anti-elitists understand that good art is universal and that smart marketing will bring new audiences to intelligent art. The average museum-goer need not appreciate all the nuances of Edward Hopper’s palette and composition to be deeply moved by the estrangement of “New York Movie” (currently at the Getty). Corporations, on the other hand, consistently patronize and underestimate audiences.

Fortunately, canvas and paint remain affordable, enabling most artists to continue their work. However, in film--the most expensive medium--corporatization has effectively aborted the work before it is even created, all but eliminating the entire genre of intelligent adult film. The films that move us, that haunt us all our lives, do not grace our screens today. They are edged out by the massive resources devoted to putting the latest blockbuster sequel on 2,000 screens opening weekend.

That film may be the bellwether for other art forms should be a matter of concern to all.

KAT SMITH

Santa Monica

*

Knight should spend less time justifying his misguided “elitism” and more time working on his analogies. His comparison of contemporary art with professional sports erroneously presumes that the success of both commodities can be objectively measured.

For the Lakers, this is a given: The ball goes in the hoop, the game has a final score, at the end of the season someone is awarded championship rings. In the world of art, such yardsticks are considerably more elusive, in spite of the efforts of self-anointed experts such as Knight or his classical music counterpart, Mark Swed, to define for the audience wherein value lies.

In any event, you can’t whine about the “administrative bureaucrats and their bean-counting boards of trustees, who now dimly equate gate receipts with success,” and presume to make any comparisons to professional sports. As an avid Laker fan, I guarantee you that California Sports Inc., the privately held company that owns the Lakers, is hardly hurting for money. If it was, it most likely would be a direct result of a lack of “success,” as measured not only by the championship rings, but also by the “gate receipts” Knight so glibly derides. You can’t have it both ways.

CAROL WEISSBERG

Chatsworth

*

I’m generally in agreement with Knight when he says reflexive anti-elitism in museums today leads mainly to bad art (or non-art) being shown.

But to play devil’s advocate, I think his comparison with sports is misleading. Sport is a paradigm example of an endeavor with fairly objective standards of greatness. In art, there is no comparable objective measure of accomplishment. Thus the charge of elitism has not only a class-based ring (perhaps outmoded, as Knight points out), but also a skeptical component: Who determines what is good, and for what reasons? Tastes change, artists go in and out of fashion--perhaps some in the art community (however defined) will judge, contra the mainstream, that, say, Michelangelo is overrated.

There are good answers to this skeptical challenge, but Knight doesn’t even hint that these doubts can exist. I would think that, as an exponent of quality, he would be more careful about the quality of his own writing.

ERIC YUN

Washington, D.C.