An Incipient Vomitting

He was discussing the widespread response to Genet's work among the so-called gentlepeople of French society, but Jean-Paul Sartre's definition of "disgust" is one I've never forgotten. I can't find the exact quote (I think it might be in Saint Genet), but it went more or less like:

And yet what is disgust, but an incipient vomitting? And what you vomit must surely have already been inside you.

I've always taken that to mean that "disgust" is actually a bit of a pose, because it reveals a choice to be disgusted, not necessarily anything inherently disgusting about the object/action in question. If you're presented with something entirely new, for example, you can't feel disgust at it, you feel rather amazement or bemusement or pure curiosity, because you're literally forced to perceive it with an open mind. It's only by subsequently associating it with something you've already decided is "disgusting" that you lump it into that category.

Take eating brains for example. If you've never tried them, you're likely to approach the opportunity via one of two paths: some folks say they would hurl if presented with a dish of brains; others say they would happily dive in, having heard they're a delicacy. Unless you've eaten them, though, the first path is a pose. Why? Because there's nothing inherently disgusting about eating brains (you can't know if you'll like how they taste before trying them). Disgust at the idea of it is merely what you bring to the opportunity yourself.

This line of reasoning occurred to me while reading some recent texts that expressed disgust with the current state of the art market. I originally wrote this post with links to those texts, but have since decided to genericize my critique (one, because I like those writers, and two, because I don't want them to hate me).

But essentially my response to such texts is to note that IMO disgust with how "commercial" (i.e., how vacuous or anti-spiritual) everything art related is at the moment is a pose. If you accept the central premise of such complaints that art has never (historically) been this much about commerce (one I reject, but we've been over that), then the only honest response to this entirely new phenomenon is amazement or bemusement or curiosity. You can only be disgusted by it through association with something you've already decided is disgusting. In this case, greed or gluttony or whatever encapsulates the perceived excess.

This is not one of those "greed is good" lectures, despite how it might read, as much as a call for a more open mind about the current state of things. It's not likely to last (nothing does), but I find it somewhat disingenuous to proclaim disgust at an unprecedented phenomenon. Perhaps art is only reflecting the state of the world at large (something most would accept as its role in part) which has never been as wealthy as it is. Perhaps how "commercial" art seems at the moment is actually a reflection of something higher than greed or gluttony. Perhaps it's a reflection of a new paradigm. If it was an injustice for "starving artists" to be so neglected by society, perhaps the new era of millionaire artists is the appropriate correction. Perhaps it will change things for all artists across the board with time. There are those now arguing that we're entering the age of creative leadership, where capitalism must seek out and reward the most creative minds to survive. Perhaps all this money in the art market is simply a way to move toward a more symbiotic relationship between artists and businesses...one that permits artists to retain their artistic integrity while still earning as much as lawyers, doctors, and others with a similar number of post-graduate years under their belts. I don't know actually. Perhaps it's just greed and folks are right to be disgusted, but I'm not sure there's enough information at this point to know for sure, and it's best to keep an open mind about it all, no?