Camus on Art, Wealth, and Valuation

In Create Dangerously, Camus asks if art must either be "merely entertaining," trying to connect to the majority, or if it will get stuck expressing "nothing but negativity," trying to "blindly reject society."

As always with Camus, this is plenty to think about already. But he goes further, because he's fundamentally wondering how we value anything. Take a look at his remarks about consumer society which follow the above distinction:

"For nearly a century now, we have been living in a society that is not even the society of money (money and gold can arouse human passions); rather, it is a society full of the abstract symbols of money. Consumer society can be defined as a society in which objects disappear and are replaced by symbols. When the ruling class no longer measures its wealth in acres of of land or gold bars, but rather by how many digits ideally correspond to a certain number of financial transactions, then that society immediately links itself to a certain kind of trickery at the very heart of its experience and its world. A society based on symbols is, in its essence, an artificial society in which the physical truth of humankind becomes a hoax." (Camus 12)

I believe most of us, at this point, have had similar thoughts. A number of people find "influencers" harmful not just because they sell shady products, but because those products are, to use Camus' phrase, "full of the abstract symbols of money." Crypto is only the most obvious–it mostly is a play currency, less an investment and more a "greater fool" scheme. Another type of influencer, one who pretends to sell the secrets to their success, might speak of metrics such as impressions and conversions. To be sure, when you're serious about marketing, these numbers matter. But they are too easily weaponized as a hidden rulebook for success which overwhelms people who do not know any better. Again, Camus: "A society based on symbols is, in its essence, an artificial society in which the physical truth of humankind becomes a hoax." We take advantage of the hope and desperation of others by blinding them to the obvious.

However, I do think it is worth contemplating the opposite opinion. Plenty say we're too materialistic. We hear that people have spent too much on a car or restaurants and consequently failed to save anything. Camus' "digits," which "ideally correspond to a certain number of financial transactions," allow one to move in higher social classes. There are real, physical benefits to this: healthcare which actually works, for example. And there's what I believe to be the most thoughtful challenge to Camus' musing: Aren't there rich people who are basically Smaug? People who, even before Dave Ramsey told them to, gave each dollar bill they had a name?

Do we live in a world "full of the abstract symbols of money?" Or is this a world obsessed with the tangible, so much so it has elevated the intangible?

I can't help but think that one way to address the question is to spotlight everyone's favorite former President. My brother remembered the following story. Trump is walking around NYC with Ivanka, they see someone experiencing homelessness, and Trump remarks that person is richer than him because he's not loaded with debt.

So maybe Donald Trump is aware that the world is "full of the abstract symbols of money?" Of course not. He's literally feeling sorry for himself to the degree that he thinks he's worse off than a person who will struggle to find a bed to sleep in that night. He doesn't see what all the rest of us can see. It is impossible for Donald Trump to go broke, because once you get to a certain class that class makes it their prerogative you shall not want.

It does feel like we're swamped with Smaug-like monsters who only have one word for their behavior: "Mine." They need their name on everything–as Hopkins says, myself it speaks and spells–and their generosity is conditional. They are scared to death of anything that looks like loss. They do not want to believe loss is possible for people like them. I think that, more than anything else, expresses why "the abstract symbols of money" are so dominant. It is the hidden language of a mystical virtuous cycle, one where tragedy has been disallowed.

This brings us back to Camus' original concern. What of art? Why could it be trapped between being nothing but entertaining the majority or despair from rejecting the entirety of society? I believe the trap can emerge from an inability to meaningfully engage the pain of others. Sure, some rightfully turn their back on society, but careful attention to how others are suffering often requires seeing in specific ways how they are being deprived. I think about Brueghel's Landscape with the Fall of Icarus a lot, not least because of Auden's verse. Once you see everyone turn their back on a drowning boy, you can't unsee it.

References

Camus, Albert. Create Dangerously: The Power and Responsibility of the Artist. Translated by Sandra Smith. New York: Vintage International, 2019.