the relationship between power and art

The old adage goes: The more things change, the more they stay the same. This week's readings on the relationship between art and business, between cultural producers and cultural consumers at first glance would seem to be a new way of looking at art in our contemporary culture. However, I would like to begin by pointing out the essential and probably timeless relationship between art and power, where the latter is always tied in some manor to money.

Here we have an image of Michelangelo's David. Indeed, he is recognized as a great artist. However, is it possible to speak of Michelangelo's work without invoking the names of patrons? His art would have been impossible without financial support. His art was supported because it met the needs of the wealthy to display their wealth and power to others. Incidentally, this display also worked to enhance their power among the people and other wealthy individuals.

This is not to say that art cannot be appreciated alone, but this appreciation will always be tied to power. How so? If this sculpture has no worth outside of its intrinsic beauty, then it should not matter where it is displayed. If its worth is just artistic, then the Italian government should not care if this piece stays in their country. Indeed, we could argue that it should be moved to another, better display site.

I believe that what has changed in the relationship between power and art is the way that balance of economic power has shifted in some senses away from the individual multimillionaire to an "audience." Whereas even in the early 20th century the wealthy few could have a great impact on the tastes of the many (television/radio networks, publishing houses, movie studios, etc) the advent of the internet and other digital technology is having/will have the effect of fragmenting these mass audiences into specialized, albeit still numerous, niche audiences.