Art as Labor

The 1986 Guerrilla Girls print Bus Companies perhaps most obviously addresses the theme of labor. However, this work comments on much more than gender inequality in the art world. It reveals the attitudes of contemporary artists toward labor, and throws distinctions of class into high relief. The Guerrilla Girls are largely known for their works that hold art institutions accountable for their gender and ethnic biases in the representation of women and artists of color in their collections. The group’s works, usually posters ranging in size from small prints to billboards, are meant as provocative political interventions on the mainstream art world that Judith Wilson describes as “one of the last bastions of white supremacy-by-exclusion.” This print’s statement, “Bus companies are more enlightened than NYC art galleries,” seems simple enough. It is outrageous that 49.2% of bus drivers are women while only 16% of the artists represented by New York’s top thirty-three galleries are women, at least according to the Guerrilla Girls. However, examining this logic reveals some points of contention. Why should bus companies be less “enlightened” than art galleries? Is it surprising to find out that art galleries are more biased against women?

What is left unsaid by the Guerrilla Girls, but must be understood for their print to make sense, is the difference in class between bus drivers and artists. Commercially successful artists are a part of what is now understood as the creative class. Richard Florida defines the creative class as “purveyors of creativity. Because creativity is the driving force of economic growth, in terms of influence the Creative Class has become the dominant class in society.” Creativity is now highly marketable and more profitable than ever before. The Guerrilla Girls’ implicit claim of entitlement to better conditions for artists, relative to female bus drivers, is informed by the assumption of a higher social status for artists in the creative class than for bus drivers in the working class. However, this line of thinking does not put pressure on the relatively privileged hierarchical position of the creative class.

As the Judith Wilson quote above pointedly conveys, the art world is still invested in upholding the legacies of patriarchal Western art history. As such, the art market favors certain artists over others. All artists’ labor is located in the conception and production of new and original ideas. However, the idea that the truly talented and exceptional are justly rewarded by the art world is a misconception. Art is an industry fueled by the circulation of artworks through auction houses and galleries. Many of the super rich collect works of art as investments much as one would invest in stocks. The market plays a huge role in deciding which artists’ works are profitable. It is the art market, then, that ultimately determines who gets canonized and who does not, rewarding the successful ones handsomely. Artists are thus often business people who handle transactions with their galleries, apply for grants and fellowships to support themselves, and rely on the whims of the market. They are not simply bohemians fearlessly pursuing their personal passion for art. While many artists live with instability, the kinds of artists who are represented by the galleries the Guerrilla Girls reference are not performing the same kinds of labor as the working class. Perhaps the upper echelons of the art world are less inclusive of women than bus companies or the USPS because they have the interests of the most privileged classes of society in mind. The Guerrilla Girls print highlights the roles of gender and class privilege in the art world, and asks us to consider art not as art but as labor.

References:

Judith Wilson, “Art,” in Black Arts Annual, 1987/1988 (New York: Garland, 1988), 3.

Richard L. Florida, “Preface,” The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life (New York: Basic Books, 2002), p. ix.