The art world has long been romanticized as a meritocracy, where talent and creativity transcend barriers to determine success. This narrative, however, is a deeply flawed myth that obscures the ways systemic inequities—rooted in capitalism—shape who gets to participate, whose work is valued, and who thrives. The class system within the arts is not incidental; it is a structural feature, reinforced by centuries of economic and social hierarchies and amplified under the conditions of late-stage capitalism. At its core, the art world reflects and perpetuates capitalist values: commodification, gatekeeping, and the prioritization of profit over equity and inclusivity.
In late-stage capitalism, these inequities have only worsened. Art has become a commodity for speculation, artists are caught in the exploitative cycles of hustle culture, and public funding has declined to dangerously low levels. Together, these factors have entrenched a system where wealth, privilege, and access to elite networks determine success, leaving many artists to navigate precarious conditions or exit the field entirely.
The Historical Foundations of Class Divides in the Arts
The Patronage System: The Beginnings of Commodification
The commodification of art is not new. It began during the Renaissance when the patronage system tied artistic production to the wealth and tastes of the elite. Families such as the Medicis commissioned art not purely for its cultural value but to project power and reinforce their social dominance. In this system, creativity became a tool for consolidating wealth and influence.
As Howard Becker writes in Art Worlds, “The work of art is not the product of a single individual but of a complex cooperative activity, mediated by those who control financial and social capital” (1982). This cooperation was far from equal; it was shaped by the demands of patrons who dictated content and style, leaving little room for artists to challenge dominant narratives. Artistic innovation, though celebrated retrospectively, was often constrained by the need to appeal to the interests of the wealthy.
Industrialization and the Bourgeois Collector
The rise of the bourgeoisie during the Industrial Revolution marked a shift in the art world. As industrialists gained wealth, art became both a symbol of their social status and a financial investment. The emergence of private galleries, auctions, and art dealerships reflected this new dynamic, where art was increasingly subjected to the logic of the market.
Mark Banks, in Creative Justice: Cultural Industries, Work, and Inequality, argues that “The bourgeois adoption of art as a commodity transformed it into an object of private consumption and speculation, aligning its value with the capitalist market rather than communal or cultural significance” (2017). The transition from communal art production to private ownership solidified art’s role as a status symbol and further alienated working-class and marginalized artists from these spaces.
Professionalization and Gatekeeping
By the 19th and 20th centuries, art schools, museums, and galleries had formalized the art world’s hierarchies. Institutions became gatekeepers, deciding what counted as legitimate art and who deserved access to opportunities. This professionalization created a divide between “high art” and “low art,” privileging works that aligned with elite cultural norms while marginalizing craft, folk, and non-Western traditions.
Pierre Bourdieu explains in Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste that “Legitimate art is that which conforms to the tastes and values of the dominant class, while other forms are dismissed as inferior or primitive” (1984). This process of cultural validation tied artistic legitimacy to class privilege, excluding those who lacked formal training or access to institutional networks.
Late-Stage Capitalism: Commodification, Financialization, and Precarity
In the 21st century, the intersection of capitalism and the arts has reached a new intensity under late-stage capitalism. Art is no longer just a product of commodification; it is now deeply enmeshed in financial speculation, while the labor of artists is increasingly precarious and undervalued.
Art as Commodity
The commodification of creativity has turned art into an object of speculation, valued primarily for its exchange value rather than its cultural or intrinsic significance. The art market prioritizes works that can be bought, sold, and displayed as status symbols, sidelining community-based, experimental, or activist practices.
Mark Banks critiques this shift: “The transformation of art into a commodity reduces its cultural and social value to a financial metric, privileging those works that align with capitalist interests over those that challenge or resist them” (Creative Justice, 2017). The record-breaking sales of works by artists like Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst exemplify how spectacle-driven art dominates the market, while less commercial practices are systematically devalued.
Financialization of the Art Market
Under late-stage capitalism, art has become an investment vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Artworks are increasingly treated as assets, purchased not for their cultural significance but as a means of diversifying financial portfolios. This financialization deepens inequities by concentrating resources among a small group of elite artists and collectors.
According to the 2019 Art Basel and UBS Global Art Market Report, the top 1% of artists account for over 50% of global art sales, while the vast majority of artists struggle to find buyers. Julia Bryan-Wilson, in Art Workers: Radical Practice in the Vietnam War Era, notes that “The financialization of art mirrors broader trends in late capitalism, where assets are hoarded by the elite, and cultural production becomes another tool for wealth consolidation” (2009).
Hustle Culture and Precarity
Hustle culture, characterized by the glorification of overwork and constant productivity, has become a defining feature of the art world. As public funding has declined, artists are increasingly expected to “hustle” to sustain their careers. This includes maintaining a social media presence, applying for grants and residencies, networking with collectors and curators, and self-funding their work—all while creating new art.
Brené Brown, in Daring Greatly, argues that “Hustle culture is rooted in scarcity—the belief that there is never enough time, money, or resources—leading individuals to tie their self-worth to their productivity” (2012). For artists, this dynamic is especially harmful. The pressure to constantly perform and produce exacerbates financial precarity and emotional burnout, particularly for those without the safety net of wealth or privilege.
Howard Becker describes this exploitation as a feature, not a bug, of the art world: “The normalization of precarity in the arts serves to justify systemic inequalities, positioning exploitation as an inherent part of the creative process” (Art Worlds, 1982). This romanticization of struggle perpetuates the myth of the “starving artist” while absolving institutions of their responsibility to support artists equitably.
The Broader Implications of Capitalist Structures in the Arts
The Myth of Meritocracy
One of the most pernicious narratives in the art world is the idea that success is solely a result of talent and hard work. This myth obscures the structural barriers that shape who gets to participate and thrive.
Pierre Bourdieu critiques this notion in Distinction: “The myth of meritocracy conceals the mechanisms of privilege, making inequality appear as a natural consequence of individual differences rather than a product of systemic stratification” (1984). In reality, factors such as wealth, cultural capital, and institutional access often outweigh talent in determining success.
Gatekeeping and Exclusivity
Gatekeeping remains a central mechanism for maintaining class divisions in the arts. Institutions, galleries, and fairs prioritize artists who align with elite tastes and market trends, excluding self-taught, experimental, and marginalized creators. This gatekeeping creates a feedback loop where only those with access to resources and networks can succeed.
For example, major art fairs like Art Basel and Frieze predominantly showcase blue-chip artists represented by elite galleries, leaving little room for emerging or underrepresented voices. As Bourdieu explains, “Gatekeeping in the arts operates as a mechanism of exclusion, ensuring that cultural capital remains concentrated among the dominant class” (Distinction, 1984).
Conclusion
The class system in the arts is deeply embedded in capitalist structures that prioritize profit, exclusivity, and commodification over equity and inclusivity. Under late-stage capitalism, these inequities have worsened, with financialization, hustle culture, and declining public funding exacerbating the challenges faced by working-class and marginalized artists. As Julia Bryan-Wilson writes, “The art world, like the broader capitalist system, relies on the labor of the many to benefit the few” (Art Workers, 2009).
Dismantling these systemic barriers requires reimagining how we value art and labor. Increased public investment, cooperative models, and the decolonization of cultural hierarchies are essential steps toward creating a more equitable arts ecosystem. By challenging the structures that uphold these inequities, we can build a future where creativity is not a privilege reserved for the wealthy but a universal right accessible to all.
Works Cited
• Banks, Mark. Creative Justice: Cultural Industries, Work, and Inequality. Routledge, 2017.
• Becker, Howard. Art Worlds. University of California Press, 1982.
• Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Harvard University Press, 1984.
• Bryan-Wilson, Julia. Art Workers: Radical Practice in the Vietnam War Era. University of California Press, 2009.
• Brown, Brené. Daring Greatly. Gotham Books, 2012.
• National Endowment for the Arts. Artists and Other Cultural Workers: A Statistical Portrait. 2019.
• Art Basel & UBS. The Art Market 2019.
Commentaires