Throughout Ragtime, Doctorow emphasizes the contrast between the upper, middle and lower classes. One way he does this is through different character's views of what defines art.
Houdini sees his magic and daring escapes as an art form, however the rich elites don't see it the same way. In the prison, Harry K Thaw mocks Houdini as he escapes from one of the cells. At the party which Houdini is invited to perform at, he is brought to a room with the other performers who are freak show performers. The rich look down upon Houdini and his trade as just another circus act. Doctorow mentions several times through the book that Houdini wants his trade to be recognized as art. Houdini still doesn't give up on his work. He is well supported by the middle class who love his escapes, but the rich still see it as lowly.
Similar to Houdini, Tateh relies on lower class to buy his silhouettes (with the exception of Evelyn). Even though he is poor, Tateh is talented, but since he is a poor area of New York, not many can see this. Tateh was on the verge of giving up, instead realizing his talent through the sale of his flipbook for $25. Doctorow mentions that Tateh's silhouettes end up in a museum. In this way Doctorow shows that these men from humble beginnings manage to be remembered and have their slice of history.
Docorow purposefully follows up the chapter about Tateh selling his work to the novelty shop and achieving success for his art by describing Henry Ford. Ford is described as having a mechanical persona. To him it seems the only art form is precision and time saving. He cares more about the shaving of seconds than his workers. This shows the contrasting views of the lower and upper class. For Houdini and Tateh art is personal in the sense that they are performing or making art on their own. Ford however, art is repetition and perfection despite others doing the actual labor. In this way, I think Doctorow ironically compares the hardships of art for the lower class with Ford standing outside his factory as his masterpiece comes together without any of his physical work.
Doctorow further compares the upper and lower class' views on art through JP Morgan. Morgan is described as a patron of the arts. He goes to Europe collecting art and other things for his personal library (somehow gaining the sarcophagus of Seti I). The way that Doctorow describes Morgan's library shows his obsession with the ownership of art. Morgan seems to see art the way many rich people do: as a way to flaunt wealth rather than truly appreciating it. The way Doctorow describes Morgan and Ford provide a stark contrast from Tateh and Houdini who work to refine their craft.
In the end, there is some irony as all four of these men become famous. Morgan and Ford are known for their achievements in their respective fields. Houdini, despite the lack of interest of the rich, is known by almost everyone, the most famous musician. Doctorow mentions that Tateh's work is in a museum. Even though he is fictitious, Tateh's work also gains appreciation. It's ironic that despite receiving no recognition from the rich, these poor artists end up just as well known, and more deserving than these rich men.
I liked here how you compared upper and lower class perspectives on art, and even more-so, I feel that Doctorow compared more/less capitalist prospective on art. To me, J.P. Morgan has the most capitalist prospective on art, as he specifically is focused on ownership and seems to struggle to see anything beyond having the capitalist claim to the work of art. To Tateh, who is a socialist, art is not something that should be part of an industry or economy, but rather for non-profit causes like the posters he draws for the strikers. However, through the course of the novel, we see capitalism wear off on Tateh as he begins to profit off of his art, and eventually is able to create a middle class career out of it.
ReplyDeleteThe harsh reality of today's artist is that they must sell their art to make a living, which means that an artist's success is tied to the tastes of the wealthy. Just some ridiculous examples include the taped banana that costs 120K and the red square painting that sold for 87M. By letting an elite group of people dictate what is art or not defeats the whole purpose of art because it places a capitalist perspective on it. I like how Doctorow pokes fun at the rich for their "appreciation" of art and how he hints that the masses have a better understanding and appreciation for art.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Doctorow is supporting the poor more than the rich come up again as we see the genuine hard work that tateh puts into his work compared to how Ford is only fixated on mass production and being efficient. I thought it was interesting how you believe Doctorow intentional compared them two, because I definitely think that these details were included for a reason. The rich rely on time to get things done and wants everything under a minute, while tateh takes his time creating the perfect silhouettes that are all individually unique. The rich creates things are the same, while tateh created stories for his books. The book makes the readers want to support the lower class people as well.
ReplyDeleteTateh certainly finds a way to profit from his art, as you note--but there isn't a clear indication that Doctorow treats this as a "sellout" or compromise of his creativity. In fact, he become a film-maker, the quintessential art-for-profit medium in American culture (films rather than books are ranked according to their gross at the box office). But Tateh (or, rather, Baron Ashkenazy) is also associated with the idea of art as a way of seeing, or a way of "framing" the world, and film/photography is his new medium: the passage where Mother is contemplating the effects of looking at the familiar world through Tateh's frame (which he uses to frame shots for movies) has nothing to do with commerce or profitability; we see reality re-framed, which alters our perception of what is around us all the time. That's a pretty neat definition of art, right there.
ReplyDelete