Challenging Stereotypes: Art Collecting Beyond Class Boundaries

I adamantly reject the imprecision and bigotry embedded within the notion that collecting art is inherently philistine and bourgeois. Words like 'bourgeois' and 'philistine' have been misappropriated and misused to stigmatize a pursuit that is, in truth, a profound expression of cultural appreciation and personal taste.

Understanding 'Bourgeois'

The term 'bourgeois' refers to the middle class, with a historical and contemporary connotation of materialistic values and conventional lifestyle. Traditionally, it has been used as a derogatory label by those who claim to be of the upper class to insinuate that middle-class individuals lack culture. This assumption is flawed and misinformed. Art collecting is not a privilege exclusive to the affluent; rather, it is a means by which individuals from all walks of life engage with and appreciate cultural heritage.

Is Art Collecting Bourgeois?

The assertion that art collecting is intrinsically bourgeois is a cherished illusion. The term has more to do with economic and social status than with one's appreciation for art. Given that I have attended an Ivy League institution, I can attest to the absurdity of this argument. The idea that only those who attended private schools or privileged colleges are imbued with cultural sophistication is both erroneous and offensive. Art collecting, at its core, is about personal preference and discernment, not socioeconomic status.

The Inverse Snobbery Argument

Today, the inverse snobbery argument—that because anyone can collect art, it must be bourgeois—further cements the stigma. This mindset implies that widespread art appreciation is somehow a sad compromise, a dilution of true cultural refinement. However, the democratization of art is not a sign of degradation but a testament to the universal human desire to engage with beauty and creativity. It is ridiculous to suggest that cultural engagement diminishes by becoming more accessible. By participating in art collecting, individuals are not forsaking culture but elevating their own tastes and enriching their own lives.

The Meaning of 'Philistine'

An art collector cannot, by definition, be a philistine. According to the Oxford dictionary, a philistine is 'a person who is hostile or indifferent to culture or the arts.' This definition does not apply to the act of collecting art, which involves engagement with culture and discernment. Artists like Norman Rockwell, once relegated as mere illustrators, and Johannes Vermeer, whose work was not widely recognized during his lifetime, have since become celebrated figures. The notion that anyone who collects art is inherently philistine is a gross oversimplification of a complex and nuanced practice.

The Art of Choice

People have diverse tastes and preferences. What one individual might consider 'poor' or 'mediocre' art, another might treasure. It is subjective, and while some may take longer to select pieces that suit their personal preferences, this process is an integral part of the experience. To question someone's taste is to overstep boundaries and contradict the very essence of personal freedom and aesthetic appreciation. Art collecting should be celebrated as a form of self-expression and cultural engagement, not criticized as a bourgeois pursuit.

The Curse of Self-Rigorousness

More damaging than the label of being bourgeois or a philistine is the curse of self-righteousness. The inclination to impose one's standards on others undermines the very spirit of open-mindedness and cultural appreciation. It is a difficult habit to break, as it stems from a place of insecurity and an inability to accept the diversity of human experience.

Art collecting is a profound and meaningful experience that transcends class and economic boundaries. It is about personal preference, cultural engagement, and the joy of discovering beauty. Let us embrace it for what it is—a celebration of human creativity and an expression of individual tastes.