The art world is often dominated by its own tendency to overvalue drawings and paintings by famous (often white, male, and dead) artists. Too often, new, relevant, and striking pieces by lesser-known artists are overlooked in favor of pieces which attract more attention from the name next to the piece rather than the work itself. In art history classes, students are taught which pieces they should treasure, taught to value the past importance of a piece more than critically evaluating its place in modern times. For example, Picasso’s work was rebellious and revolutionary almost 100 years ago, strongly contrasting the accepted styles of that time, though his work viewed in a modern context seems to fall flat, as most view the work to be great simply because it is a “Picasso” and his styling has been copied and reworked in so many ways in the following 100 years that in this period the Picasso work in itself seems cliché, having completely lost its original meaning.

The exhibits at the Clark museum in Williamstown are a prime example of reinforcing the hegemony of art culture. If you’ve seen their latest exhibit “Drawn to Greatness” you’ve seen the featured gallery filled with brief sketches and seemingly mediocre works, though selected because of the “greatness” behind the name of the artists. All of the names, from Picasso to Pollock to Cezanne to Degas framed along the walls, though only brief sketches or studies for other works. As I walked through on the opening night of the gallery, I asked myself whether I would like these pieces at all if the name tags weren’t right beside them or whether if a simple unknown artist based in Williamstown had produced these exact pieces whether they would’ve had any chance to land in the Clark.

The truth is, the Clark doesn’t have shows which feature local artists—I’ve asked the front desk and they laughed, informing me that the majority of the work they show is over a century old. It’s an institution reinforcing the hegemony of the art world, in that only a few artists ever “are discovered” (due to extreme branding and marketing), at which point their pieces are sold to economic elites (though those responsible for marketing and contracting the art get a fair share of the profit), then for centuries after the rise of the artist, economic elites display the pieces as a symbol of wealth and reinforce the brand of the artist in order to sell the pieces again for a larger profit (at this point the profits stay within the class of economic elites). In example, in 2006, Hollywood entertainment mogul David Geffen, currently worth $8.4 billion, sold Jackson Pollock’s “Number 17A” for $200 million to hedge fund manager Kenneth Griffin. At this point, Jackson Pollock had been dead and buried for 50 years, and the piece had lost its original meaning as the meticulous release of pain and suffering for Pollock and turned into a status symbol for elites. Meanwhile countless starving artists produce sharp, engaging, and provocative pieces which go largely unseen and receive little recognition in comparison to the works of a few over-glorified artists.

Though art is an expressive and potentially revolutionary medium, we often see those in power (socially and economically) like the Clark museum feed into the act of over-glorifying the pieces of dead, white men while passing over new pieces from lesser known artists. Collectors and museums and even art studio and art history professors have the opportunity to change this dynamic by seeking out new artists to feature rather than regurgitate what they’ve been taught is “valuable art”. With the rise of social media, we also see many artists overriding the known system of the art world by gaining online fan bases, though it is largely seen in small drawings and paintings. It remains difficult to represent the textures and in-person effects of larger paintings online, thus in the world of paintings, the hegemony of the art world reigns supreme.