Stephan Kurr
February 2003
Today, professionalism means the ability to act economically. But in
the art system (as in the systems of law, politics and science) one has
to keep one’s sense of self-worth distinct from one’s economic
calculations in order to survive. The autonomy of art is, in any case,
something that calls for proof, and, as Michael Hutter has written, one
of the things that would have to be established in this respect is its
immunity to market forces. Art belongs to the category of goods that benefit
not only those who produce and procure them, but also others.
The beneficiaries of artworks are the viewers, regardless of whether or
not they own those works. Even reproductions enable artistic enjoyment,
the accumulation of knowledge and insight. Like science, art is an unconditional
basic investment. Anyone capable of drawing social or economic capital
from the perception of culture can profit from it.
In his tripartite classification of society, Rudolf Steiner defines cultural
production, and hence artistic creativity, as an economy of giving, which
differs from the situation of employees, who hire out their labour, and
employers, who might for example exchange their products for money.
In East Asia it is customary not to give things of enduring value as presents.
It is said that only ephemeral gifts earn friendship. Thus one gives flowers,
or sweets, and pays careful attention to elaborate wrappings, which constitute
the most ephemeral part of the entire gift. The recipient perceives the
lovingly wrought wrapping only for an instant before destroying it, for
the present is what it contains. This custom acknowledges that enduring
gifts can be used to measure the distance between friends; they become
the yardstick of friendship, demanding compensation when the scales are
unbalanced. The end of many a friendship has been marred by a comparison
of profits and expenses, even though the friends were aware from the start
that friendship could no more by bought than the justice they now demand.
Polynesians throw their presents in the dust at the recipient’s feet
in order to demonstrate the worthlessness of their offerings. This custom
demonstrates how a present can become a declaration of war, for the recipient
has to accept the gift in the way he would a gauntlet of challenge, and
likewise he has to return it.
In his book “Sacrifice: its nature and function”**, Marcel Mauss
describes how, in their potlatch ceremony, the Indians of the North American
West Coast would often bankrupt themselves. In their ritualised gift-giving,
the higher ranking figures, the chiefs, and entire tribes had to outdo
one another in their largesse. For it is generosity that demonstrates
authority; only those who know no alternative resort to violence and brutality.
Georges Bataille regards the potlatch as a social arrangement for making
profitable use of surpluses, for the obligatory reciprocation leads ultimately
to the relinquishing of power, and hence to rotation in the hierarchies.
To give a twist to an old German proverb***, the wise man submits until
he has become the fool.
There comes a day when one’s labouriously accumulated wealth has
to be given away, for he who does not give willingly will be cleared out
posthumously by his heirs. At least the person who gives voluntarily can
choose his moment of largesse.
But even the economy of giving has to be learnt.
It isn’t every sponsor that manages to erect a successful monument;
not every artist who commits his or her life to art gains a place in the
annals of art history; and it isn’t every gesture of neighbourly
love that earns a place in heaven. These people only reap the gratitude
of their fellow humans and of God when the latter consider they deserve
it. The criterium is: selfless action – even when one knows how the
action will be rewarded. Calculation might be essential to economics,
but anyone who calculates in the economy of giving is sure to fail. Only
those who give unconditionally receive the gifts they wish for.
* Latin proverb: “I give, that you may give.”
** Mauss, Marcel Sacrifice: its nature and function, University of Chicago
Press, 1964. A translation of Essai sur la nature et le fonction du sacrifice.
*** “Only the wise man submits.”