Population Change a Force Behind Today’s Art Trends
Thomas Malthus, the 19th-century writer on human population, was no artist. But he gave us the idea of the “Malthusian cycle,” which hints at how the rise and fall of populations can affect everything, even trends in the arts.
One recent population finding, for example, is that the number of younger people who appreciate art in the United States will not be enough to replace the art aficionados in the aging baby boom generation.
Those baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, still account for most Americans who participate in art activities. Within the baby boom group, moreover, a smaller segment has shown interest in a wide range of arts. This dedicated segment of art lovers is just 13 percent of the entire U.S. population, but it accounts for 58 percent of art participation. Population researchers are thinking about the art scene as an “arts ecosystem.” So they call this highly active group of baby boomers “omnivores”: they consumes many kinds of art. This aging omnivore population may not be adequately replaced in the future.
It’s not that younger Americans do not appreciated art. There are just not enough of them to replace past rates of art participation. Today, about a third of Americans attend art events, but that is down from about four in ten a decade ago. “If these trends continue, the health of the arts ecosystem will be in jeopardy,” says a new study by University of Chicago and University of Pennsylvania researchers.
What is more, the fastest growing parts of the U.S. population, Latinos especially, but also black Americans, are least likely to take interest in the arts. This is attributed to a lack of art education in their public schools, which tend to be poorer. This just in from the 2010 Census: one in six Americans is now Hispanic. In this group alone, the absence of art literacy could lead to more national indifference toward arts participation.
The original Malthusian equation was based on the idea that since population grows geometrically, it will outpace food supply, which grows more slowly by addition. Eventually the mismatch between people and food leads to starvation, disease, war, and revolution, all of which cut back the population, restoring a balance.
This dire equation has been proven wrong where human ingenuity can produce food and health to keep up with population. Even so, Malthus pointed to the concrete effects of the ebb and flow of population. Given the population shifts in the U.S., the country is simply running short of enough people to maintain the current support for the arts. The antidote is a bumper crop of young art omnivores to replace the old ones. Bringing this about will require ingenuity. For now, that solution is described as more art education at home and in school.
Population changes are also rocking the worldwide art market. The British Art Market Federation has just announced that China has passed Great Britain as the second largest art market in terms of gallery and auction sales. The reason is clear: China’s large population is aggregating new wealth in that country. The United States is still the largest market, a 34 percent share compared to China’s 23 percent (and Britain’s 22 percent).
With its small population, England had done remarkably well for generations on the art front, but populations eventually determine wealth (as do tax policies, which are less favorable toward art sellers these days in Europe than elsewhere). The value of sales in China has doubled since 2009. Not for nothing are contemporary artists going to China to install art exhibits, and U.S. art schools are catering to foreign exchange students.
The Malthusian population cycle began with a pessimistic vision, though human ingenuity was able to outsmart its dark vision. In the art world, it seems that the dark side will just move around, visiting various nations as their art markets, and their art-appreciating populations, rise and fall, and presumably rise again.
No comments:
Post a Comment