Marginality Triumphant? On the Asymmetry of Conflict in the Art World

Abstract

The relatively stable cultural structure that privileged the artist's individual autonomy has had to respond to challenges from social and political sources that intrude into developments intrinsic to existing art forms. With the expansion of markets and consumerism, the arts are increasingly called upon to be innovative in order to appeal to emergent middle classes. Historically, academic or similar prestige systems associated with national states came face to face with competitors, found largely on the margins of art worlds. Artistic change may result either from internal developments in aesthetic forms, or stem from the intrusion of sources external to established traditions. I want to argue that increasingly the sources of innovation stem from the margins; they are borne by agents who, rather than being central to the most important institutions of culture, arise in their peripheries. Their marginality may be seen from two perspectives: it may result from choice (as the deviant, or “maverick” of Howard Becker 1982) or from spontaneous or involuntary positioning (as “insane,” “naïf,” or “primitive”) of “outsider artists” (Zolberg and Cherbo 1997). Whether acting deliberately or as pawns managed by other agents (Dubin 1999), these artists engage in an asymmetrical conflict in which the political stakes are high. Thus, the weak confront the strong—the establishment. “Marginals” and their allies strive to profit from using the resources of their more powerful adversaries, who occupy established gatekeeping roles. Without asserting that all art worlds are necessarily wholly engaged “in political” strife, examination of a variety of cases casts light on the contentious nature of innovation.