Cultural capital, economic capital and conspicuous consumption Corporate art can undoubtedly reveal cultural interest within a corporation, as Corporate art can undoubtedly reveal cultural interest within a corporation, as

well as reveal corporate taste. It can also reveal different levels of consumption, and what Veblen describes as conspicuous consumption, (Veblen and Mills

1994) as high quality and recognized art is obviously expensive to purchase.

Possessing art in corporations may also be initiated by the desire of what Habermas describes as possessing status symbols, (Habermas 1988) on display for clients and visitors and in a similar way that the former bourgeoisie; and today many “newly rich” and “super rich” people show their expensive

residences, cars and yachts, and as discussed below by purchasing expensive art.

Thus also coprorate art can undoubtedly signalize high capital, both in respect of cultural capital and economic capital, as high quality art is also expensive.

2.1.8.1 The contradictory interests of art and business

There are several conflicts and contradictory interests between art and business.

Although some business schools, for instance BI in Norway, show a considerable interest in art, and have started educational programs in the administration of art and culture, as well as doing research on art and business, the interest from the Norwegian art field seems limited. In fact many artists are critical of connecting with business at all, as art is considered to be autonomous and non commercial.

How then, does the art field respond to corporations that support and collect art?

This is an interesting counterpoint worth paying attention to. As Martorella claims, in its essence, visual art in corporate settings is “the coming together of antithetical pursuits.” (Martorella 1990)¹³⁰ While corporations are quasi-rational with bureaucratic structures, artists are critical and creative.

Paradoxically, and in spite of the art field’s traditional resistance and rejection of the business world, the latter continues to value and buy art on a large scale, also sometimes as patrons who provide opportunities to young artists to develop their artistic styles. As claimed in my Bachelor Thesis on the legitimization problems of visual art, the relation between art and business represent a “mutual exchange of power”. (Hagen 1990) While the art field provides symbolic power attractive to business, to the degree that artists become role models within the business field as discussed in chapter 3.1.2.4, the business sphere provides economic power, which on the material level is attractive to the art field, although this is denied by most artists; who claim their art to be non-commercial. Still art is continuously offered for sale in various exhibitions, art galleries and art fairs, and the contradictory features of art, being both autonomous and non- commercial;

not made for sale and at the same time exhibited for sale; prepares the ground for conflicts. As also described by Bourdieu, art is “a commodity not made for trade”. (Broady 1985) According to Karlsten, Walter Benjamin was fascinated by Marx’s analysis of the production of goods, and particularly the fetish character of commodities. To save the art from being reduced to a commodity with a fetish

130 Preface, page xi

character, he argues for an art criticism that will awake the self consciousness of, and fulfill the work of art as “the midwife” of the art. (Benjamin and Karlsten 1991)

In spite of the “eternal” conflicts in values and interest between the art world and the business world, the mutual trade relation between art and business seems unavoidable, as professional art is often too expensive to buy for ordinary people, or too big to hang in ordinary dwellings, while the business world usually has more money to buy expensive art, and more space to hang large sized art. By this the “eternal spiral” of power-exchange between the art world and the world of business continues, although most artists reject the existence of this

commercializing mechanism. Instead visual artists continue to create art autonomously and independent for the future purchasers of their art.

Additionally, many contemporary artists are still idealistically engaged in social and political matters as they were in the seventies, while others have become more narcissistic.

Some artists however, openly acknowledge the commercial feature of art, and take open advantage of the business factor of their art. Among these are world famous contemporary artists such as the British artist Damien Hirst and the American artists Jeff Koons and Richard Prince. As described by Crane; while traditional artists are concerned with other values, Hirst, Prince and Koons are more like entrepreneurs, with a lot of assistants who make the art on commission for the artists who may have as many as 80 – 130 assistants employed. (Crane 2010) While the art world used to be “a society”, it has become “an industry”

where the producers of art are no longer “art-thinkers” but “art-workers”. Today super-rich collectors buy art from these artists at the most important art fairs and auctions, such as The Armory Show in New York, Frieze Art Fair in London, Art Basel Switzerland, and Art Basel Miami. According to Crane there are about 100 000 super-rich people in the world that use art as luxury goods. Art and fashion has become more equal, and Koons, Hirst and Prince have become brands, which is also an important aspect of fashion. (Crane 2010) According to David Halle, such art may also be bought unseen, and on the Internet, for instance at Saatchi Online, with about 65 000 artworks, serving about 80 000 clients who can also vote for the best pieces of art. Many of the new super-rich buyers are not even conscious about their own art preferences, and can buy Jeff Koons’ “Red Balloon Dog” simply “because they love dogs”, or because it reminds them about a dog they once had. (Halle 2010) Most of the collectors do not collect art because of its money value, but “just because they like it”, although they do not always know why they like it. As described by Halle; 22 of

25 sample collectors in the Armory Show in New York buy art because they like it. The largest collectors only buy art they like. (Halle 2010)

Super-rich private collectors that buy expensive art “just because they like it”

without knowing why, have obviously a low consciousness of art, and appears to look at art as a luxury article, similar to luxury cars and yachts. In that case, the art of artists in the genre of Hirst, Prince and Koons are luxury articles that contribute to display the social position, wealth and power of the owner in the term of conspicuous consumption. One could also question the actual art value of such art. According to the French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard, a great part of our culture today is marked by eclecticism, and by appearing as kitsch, the artist may “throw something together” in accordance with the taste of the “art-lover”, which pleases the artist, the gallery owner, the critic and the public. As claimed by Lyotard;

…this “whatever” reality is the reality of money: in the lack of aesthetical criteria it becomes possible and desirable to measure the artistic value of art in the value of money. (Lyotard 1986)¹³¹

One could ask, in this genre mentioned above where art has become an industry, and others than the artist himself are producing the artworks, where is the art factor? What is the essence of being an artist, if it is not for creating his or hers own artworks? It is true indeed, that also the old European masters had assistants working for them on their large scaled paintings, but these were pupils of the master, working on the artworks to learn the skills of painting and the paintings were usually one of a kind not mass produced. Today the industrial aspect of some of the art created by assistants has the expression of mass production. Art within the “Hirst, Prince and Koons genre” which have become luxury articles of consumption, drawing super-rich people to popular art fairs, exhibitions and Internet auctions can also be regarded as “populist art”, because it has become a trend for super-rich people to buy such art so as to be equal to and able to compete with the other super-rich. In other words, many of the super-rich may not be interested in art per se, but only in the luxury value of art in order to display their own wealth and power.

131 Page 86 (My translation)

2 . 2 V I S U A L A N A L Y S I S O F A R T C O L L E C T I O N S

2.2.1 Introduction

As presented in chapter 2.1.2 and discussed through the previous chapters; during my examinations of corporate art and architecture, I observed different qualities of corporate art collections that I regarded as relevant for my project. To repeat these qualities are: 1) Personality; corporate taste and the “zeitgeist” of corporate cultures, 2) Gender; the gender aspect that is embedded in art and art collections, 3) Pure art; the conspicuous absence of art that may be experienced as offending, 4) Spaces of art; diversities in how and where corporations display their art and art collections, 5) Territorial art; the territorial dimension of art and art

collections, 6) Capital; cultural capital and pecuniary strength, (which sometimes appear as conspicuous consumption). In addition I also describe the dominating styles of each collection that influence the personality and other qualities of the collections, and contribute to make them comparable also in light of the time period and society in which they are founded. The analysis and interpretations of the art collections also implies perspectives that are coherent with semiotic

“reading” as well as iconographic and iconological analysis and interpretations, as shown in my analysis of the graphic prints in chapter 2.1.1. Therefore I also make a brief summary of these coherences in chapter 2.2.7.1.