Once integral to artistic expressions of ancient civilizations, elitism still continues to provide art with the power it needs to retain its distinctiveness. Through centuries, perceptions relating to elitist sensibility have varied and transformed, but prized art is still located in select spaces of power and wealth. Similarly, patronage and financial sponsorship of artists by individuals or institutions — which paved the way for some of history’s most enduring works of art — also encourages exclusivity and class hierarchy. The nature of patronage too has undergone a change of guard but still remains instrumental in manipulating art.

Art patronage tended to arise wherever a royal or imperial system and an aristocracy dominated a society and controlled a significant share of resources. The ruling elite and men of wealth and prestige patronised the arts to endorse their political ambitions and social standing. The patron served a fundamental function in the development of art in early modern Europe. In addition to being an active consumer of art, he was its initiator, often dictating form and content. Patronage functioned as proof of wealth, status, and power and could also serve purposes of propaganda and entertainment. Conversely, influential contacts were essential to an artist’s well-being.

The Roman Catholic Church and, later, Protestant groups sponsored art and architecture, as seen in churches, cathedrals, painting, and sculpture. Masters like Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo sought and enjoyed the support of noble or religious patrons. The Medici and Sforza families accumulated art to embellish their dynasty. Other than medieval and Renaissance Europe, patronage can also be traced in feudal Japan, the traditional South East Asian kingdoms and elsewhere. At the peak of their power in the mid-17th century, the great Mughals were symbols of power, sophistication, luxury and might. Miniature art exemplifying Mughal glory was cultivated in the imperial ateliers. It was essentially a cultured, rarefied court art and was widely accepted and acknowledged as such.

Why is elitism in art such a vexed issue these days despite being a determining factor in the art business?

Elitism was a relatively unquestioned and universal feature of art in the earlier centuries. Enjoyed as a mark of refinement by the upper class art, then was awe-inspiring and majestic. It was larger than life and was meant to dazzle the populace as a symbol of superiority, wealth and greatness.

The period 1600 to 1850 saw a shift away from patronage towards the open market. This shift accompanied the gradual decline of sacred and courtly art, both of which were normally executed on commission. More market-oriented structures and practices emerged such as the evaluation of art in the academies, issues of style, and changes to patronage, where art and its consumption became increasingly part of the public sphere. With the establishment of the art museum, the autonomy of art gained its defining institution. Artists began immersing themselves in the conflicts and challenges of society and sought ways of conveying the changing experiences generated in the world by the twin processes of commercialisation (the commodification of everyday life) and urbanisation.

The shift in the destination of an artwork — from church to court, from private house to museum to commercial galleries and auction houses changed — the nature of art acquisition and its controlling forces. Now, corporations, hedge funds and institutional investors have entered as significant collectors. Banks, insurance companies and foundations boast expertly displayed collections catalogued and arranged by curators. All art, the old master category as well as contemporary, is grist to the mill.

Another change is the expansion of the art market beyond Western art capitals towards new outposts such as the Middle East and South East Asia, where art now serves the same function for nouveau riche patrons as it did in previous centuries for the royal courts — it is part of their armoury for self-advertisement.

High-end art is today one of the most manipulated markets in the world where auction houses and uber art dealers clinch deals for industrialists, magnates and oligarchs at outrageous prices. The elitist sensibility once associated with cultured, elegant connoisseur collectors now rests on flashy tycoons for whom art is a commodity.

“Even a show-off like me finds this new, super-rich art-buying crowd vulgar and depressingly shallow,” remarks Charles Saatchi in his article on the hideousness of the art world. Discerning patrons are disappearing and the new benefactors lacking the necessary taste and feeling for art prefer to rely on new-age curators, critics and investment advisers,” he adds.

“For professional curators, selecting specific paintings for an exhibition is a daunting prospect, far too revealing a demonstration of their lack of what we in the trade call ‘an eye’,” writes Saatchi. They prefer to exhibit videos, and those incomprehensible post-conceptual installations and photo-text panels, for the approval of their equally insecure and myopic peers. This ‘conceptualised’ work has been regurgitated remorselessly since the 1960s, over and over and over again,” Charles Saatchi’s succinct summation of the current art malaise also points to the other stumbling block that brackets art as highbrow — the ‘incomprehensibility’ of art to many.

Ironically Saatchi who now derides new art wheeling-dealing himself thrived on controversy. His personal Young British Artists exhibition titled “Sensation” (1997-98) comprising shockers such as a portrait of a convicted child-murderer, a pornographic sculptural tableaux and a Virgin Mary representation resting on two large balls of elephant dung, incited outrage and heated debate. Yet scholarly reviews acknowledging shock reactions reasoned and rationalised the show’s premise and made the art look progressive and extraordinary. Extreme art that offends public taste or is too complex for the masses often enjoys highbrow status. A considerable amount of expensive art today is eccentric. Elitism here works to the economic advantage of a select group of people.

Fundamentally, artmaking is a creative exercise and that art can be popular or unpopular, commercial or non-commercial, abstract, representational or conceptual, but this does not necessarily make it elitist. It is the custodians of art who bestow value judgements on it which determine its status. Unlike monarchies and dictatorships of yore, there is less tolerance for inequality in egalitarian and democratic societies and elitism in art is frowned upon. But even today, art gravitates towards surplus money and this flow determines the nature and value of art.

Published in Dawn, EOS, April 23rd, 2017