by Angelia Thomson
A question that has been debated for centuries is what defines good art. This question leads us to probe deeper and ask who has the credentials to determine the value of art and how the general public’s aesthetic taste is formed. Although participating in discussions about art was once limited to an elite group of artists, their aristocratic patrons, and associated intellectuals, salons of 18th–19th century France that were devoted to the exhibition of newly created paintings, sculpture, and engraving, opened up a door for the general public to participate in intellectual exchanges about art. Charles Baudelaire’s text, The Salon of 1859, provides his takeaways from a particularly famous Salon of the Académie des Beaux-Arts, where he critiques the emergence of photography and, as a matter of particular interest for this discussion, expresses his concerns about the future of art as the public becomes increasingly involved in the artistic process, influencing the artist to be “more inclined to paint not what he dreams, but what he sees.”[1] For Baudelaire, it is essential to consider how people form their opinions on art. When evaluating French art-salon culture, it becomes clear that social solidarity plays a role in shaping one’s aesthetic taste: in a room full of people with ideas and opinions, one “will inevitably be guided by a sense of what passes for the best view in the eyes of the majority.”[2] Baudelaire’s concerns regarding the public’s influence on the artist and art as a whole were valid.
Beginning with the exhibits of the French Royal Academy early in the 18th century, salons were one of the primary ways the public could contribute to discourse surrounding art, therefore holding a certain level of power over the artists who tried to fulfill their demands, and to the eventual commercialization of art as part of a growing public art market. If there were concerns in Baudelaire’s time about the public’s taste impacting art, then, when observing today’s day and age, these concerns are only amplified with social media and algorithms holding power over how people engage with many different art forms. This discussion will demonstrate how social media acts as the modern-day French salon and the impact algorithms have had on shaping public opinion, specifically analyzing how these social spaces and technological advancements have impacted the modern-day music industry, noting how the line between audience and artist has at times become almost non-existent, and how artists no longer have to cater to the preferences of the audience, but more importantly, to the algorithm that shapes those preferences.
Before the introduction of French art salons in the early 18th century, discussions about art were restricted to intellectuals who had dedicated many years of their lives to studying art. As salons emerged, people from all walks of life were allowed and even encouraged to participate in aesthetic discourse. It was evident from the eager interest the public displayed in these discussions that they had wanted to engage in this kind of activity but had never been given the chance. Opening up these discussions raised concerns about how the public’s ‘uneducated’ opinion could create a permanent disruption to how art was viewed and created. As Baudelaire makes clear, “obedient artists bow to the public’s taste,”[3] and if the opinions that were valued were expanded beyond people who had a wealth of experience in studying art, the demands of the public could become unimaginative, therefore leading to a decline in artistic value, and the progression of art would not only be stalled but could enter into a sharp decline for the worse. The French Royal Academy, who hosted the early salons, did not think that getting consensus from the public would harm the artist but instead carried the objective to “renew the ancient custom of exposing their works to the public in order to secure its judgment and maintain among themselves that praiseworthy emulation so necessary to the advancement of the fine arts.”[4] It was the belief of the Royal Academy that because the public was a “dynamic, anonymous, consensual voice, the public [had] no personal stake in its judgements and [was] hence quite literally impartial.”[5] What they failed to take into account is how the public’s taste would be formed and influenced by peers, and intellects; that the voice of the critics—going from being restricted to those who had acquired and maintained a certain level of credentials, and then shifting to a consensus of the public—would have consequential impacts on the type of art that would be produced in the proceeding years.
Salons provided a space for people to interpret art, make judgments, and share their thoughts about different works with peers, gaining insight from one another and furthering not only their own exploration but also that of society as a whole. Although salons intended to further artistic endeavour, and “encourage people to express themselves in public who otherwise might not have,”[6] another result appeared, which was “the social capital one could acquire by expressing one’s taste.”[7] The notion put forth by the Royal Academy that including the public in the discourse about art would provide an unbiased view begins to fade as the influence of how peers and intellectuals perceive them sways how they form and present their ideas. As we consider how taste is developed, it becomes apparent that it is not a “spontaneous expression of one’s particular character, but rather a reflex of social solidarity.”[8] This phenomenon is made clear on the account of Abbé Le Blanc, who describes a situation where one “hears something praised which he considered indifferent…looks carefully at the object, examines it, has feelings, and revises his judgement.”[9] Salons provided a space where these types of interactions ran rampant, often influenced most significantly by those who had clear, confident takes. Even though the public was technically developing their own ideas about art, “[t]he ‘natural’ to which individual taste aspires is defined by consensus values, as articulated by the most coherent voices.”[10] This relationship shows that even though the gates into the art world had been opened to the public, their opinion only amplified the voices of those who had always provided commentary. The taste conformity that seems to be innate to audiences further demonstrates that authentically individual taste was rarely practiced in the era of salons, and in modern times, it is essentially non-existent due to the introduction of social media and algorithms.
The phenomenon observed in salons, where the public’s aesthetic taste was predominantly determined by those who had a high level of expertise in art, is reflected at an even greater level when one evaluates how people’s taste is developed in the age of social media—more specifically, through the carefully tailored algorithms that keep users engaged. A near-subconscious process occurs in which we now carry around an “external mind”[11] in our pockets, where not only the “search and storage of information is handed over to, […] but we could also hypothesize that taste formation and creative inspiration, as well, happen more and more ‘out there’.”[12] The way we currently interact with music provides a strong example of how the algorithms of certain streaming platforms, along with social media, can influence our music taste. Spotify, one of the most widely used streaming services, holds considerable influence over the music preferences of today’s society through its algorithm, which suggests music for users to consume, particularly through its carefully curated Discover Weekly playlists. These playlists suggest music to listeners that Spotify thinks they will like, following a complex three-step process. First, there is “collaborative filtering, which analyzes both the user’s behaviour and the behaviours of other people”[13]; this tracks the number of ‘listens’ on a track, and actions users take while listening, such as saving the track to a playlist or visiting the artists’ profile. Next, there are Natural Language Processing (NLP) models, which analyze the “web constantly looking for written text about musical topics and identifying the ‘cultural vectors’ associated with specific artists and songs.”[14] Finally, there are the “audio models, which analyze the raw audio tracks themselves. […] Those models automatically rate the features of a song […] for instance, its ‘valence’, that is the emotional positivity or sadness conveyed by a track,”[15] and then add the assessed features to the user’s taste profiles. Discover Weekly playlists are just an example of how streaming services can manipulate the taste of users, but the algorithm’s influence over listeners’ taste is implemented in just about every action taken while using the app, from what music recommendations it makes when one first opens the app, to what is added to the queue to be played after their current song finishes. This relationship between the algorithm and listener is comparable across most streaming platforms and is not limited to Spotify. The idea that the general public conforms to whatever “those with some education”[16] preach rings truer today than ever, except for the fact that the voice of the intellectuals has been replaced with a quieter, more pervasive power—the voice of the algorithm.
The algorithm’s control over music listeners is arguably much more powerful, and it only brings society closer to Baudelaire’s concerns that the public’s taste can negatively impact artists’ creativity and imagination. The evolution of the algorithm wasn’t a two-step process from the traditions established in the 18th century by the Académie Royale—where intellectual taste makers determined the taste of the general public—to complex algorithms such as Spotify’s—manipulating what music is well received by listeners—but includes many intermediary steps, a notable one occurring during Baudelaire’s era. Baudelaire’s time marked a significant shift in how the public’s taste was formed, yet also served as a notable continuity in French cultural life between the Ancien Régime and post-Revolution France. By the time of Salon 1859, there were fewer concerns over an elite shaping the artistic opinions of the public, but rather a dilution of the aesthetic sensibility of those who had inadequate knowledge of art, and forming their own taste. During Baudelaire’s prime, one of his main contentions with discourse surrounding art was not so much that the public was perceiving art through the opinions of elites, but rather that the people contributing to discussion surrounding art lacked foundational knowledge of artistic traditions and therefore led to taste patterns that didn’t appreciate unique creative identities and imagination. It can be inferred that this deterioration of aesthetic sensibility that Baudelaire claimed to be occurring was a natural evolution from the dynamics of the early art salons of the 18th century: the confidence in how some people shaped their judgments, despite lacking indispensable knowledge of artistic traditions, allowed them to be easily swayed by social solidarity. This practice became so normalized that it was rarely questioned by the time of Baudelaire, allowing much artistic conversation to remain at a superficial level while promoting a progression in art that favoured replication and efficiency, which Baudelaire feared would only worsen.
Furthermore, Baudelaire raised concerns over the significant influence on art that the curators of the salons had by determining what art was even worth the public’s attention. It was the curators in 1859 who permitted the inclusion of photography, which was one of the primary catalysts that triggered Baudelaire’s reaction in his discussion of modern public and photography. The combination of the public being echo chambers of the elite in the 18th century, the dilution of aesthetic sensibility, and the power the salon curators held during these times has now been replaced by algorithms and social media. The looming influence of the algorithm has ulterior motives that are not just to “simply mirror our actual preferences” but, similarly to salon curators, to understand that “individual taste needs to be cultivated, curated, and expanded to maximize our engagement.”[17] However, the algorithm, unlike the intellectuals who carried influence in the discourse of salons, was created not only to have a more subconscious impact, but its predominant motives are in favour of increasing our engagement with an app, and competing with the limited attention economy that exists today, rather than the advancement of the arts.
A difference that can be observed between the effect of algorithms and other people’s opinions on shifting public taste is that algorithms and social media do not provide any escape from their influence, especially in the case of music. Currently, if a person wants to experience music, they will often listen to it through a streaming platform that, as we have seen, provides constant control over what music we like, even if we don’t acknowledge it. Although there are ways to listen to music in a more secluded manner, such as purchasing physical copies or attending a live show, it is still challenging to listen to music purely on one’s own. Even if one goes to a store to purchase a record or a CD, their decision to buy a physical copy of music is likely influenced because they already like listening to the music on a streaming platform or have seen advertisements and online discussions about it. In the era of salons, there were people, like Marc-Antoine Laugier, who believed they were resilient to the effect of others opinion stating, “[w]hen it comes to paintings, I do not let myself get captivated by the authority of others’ opinions; I interrogate my soul: its movements are the only experts that make-up my mind,”[18] while others “felt this pressure of the collective voice as a menace and attempted to distance themselves from the crowd,”[19] by literally avoiding “those turbulent quarter hours where one cannot view at one’s ease, and where the mind [is] distracted by the maelstrom of spectators.”[20] In terms of Baudelaire, one could perceive The Salon of 1859 as an attempt to distance himself from the coercive elements of the salon experience. Although it could be debated whether Laugier was truly autonomous in his interpretation of art, or if Baudelaire was successful in separating himself enough from the overbearing public opinion through his writing, avoiding “those turbulent quarter hours”[21] becomes nearly impossible in the era of 24-hour social media saturation.
In terms of Laugier’s claim that he would only listen to what his soul was speaking to him about art, in the modern day, even if one thinks they have naturally come across a song that speaks to them, it has likely been invisibly manipulated through algorithms to give them a song that they will statistically enjoy. Much algorithmic targeting and profiling has led to what is known as ‘corrupt personalization,’ “the process by which your attention is drawn to interests that are not your own.”[22] One could argue that the algorithm knows us better than we know ourselves, or more specifically, that our relationship with the algorithm determines what we even consider ourselves to be. On the other hand, the people who did acknowledge the hold that others’ opinions could have on them, and therefore developed strategies to avoid interaction with these influential beliefs, can be respected for these attempts; but in the present day, avoiding the effects of voices on social media and the ever-looming algorithm is near impossible. Even if one successfully removes comments and likes from their life, if they are still consuming music from a streaming platform, all of their music listening is, at least partially, determined by the algorithm. Due to the inescapable nature of algorithms today, autonomous taste formation is inconceivable, highlighting the downhill turn Baudelaire feared society could take in taste formation and art critique.
As Baudelaire suggests, the relationship between the audience and the artist must be treated with care. There is a reciprocal cycle in the sense that an artist provides work that the audience is satisfied with, and then the artist must continue to respond to these demands if they want to be ‘successful.’ In Baudelaire’s time, artists only had to worry that their work would appease the public; in current times, however, more importantly than impressing the public, artists must tailor their work to satisfy the algorithm. Ultimately, the algorithm determines what the public wants. Similar to how artists in Baudelaire’s era would attach “ridiculous titles”[23] to attract the eye, we can see modern-day artists manipulating their work to meet the demands of today’s music industry algorithms. Returning to Spotify’s algorithm as an example, “one listen is counted when 30 seconds of a song is played. This makes creating an incentive for an audience to repeatedly play the same piece of music much more of a priority.”[24] Statistics from the Billboard Top 100 between 2013 and 2018 show an increasing trend of songs starting with a chorus to grab the audience’s attention, and a decrease in the average song length of 20 seconds.[25] It is evident that musicians are manipulating their work to find an audience, and that what they are doing is working if their definition of success is based on the metrics of having as many streams as possible, rather than crafting unique aesthetics.
One reason music producers can be so successful in increasing their streams by trying to appease the algorithm is that there is no guessing game regarding what will work. Reflecting on times before the introduction of algorithms, although artists could adjust their work to do what they thought would perform best in the public eye, there were no statistics outlining exactly what would be well-received. Today, music producers “have access to an immense amount of data: they can know which songs are skipped after a few seconds, which are most listened to in a playlist, and which musical styles or rhythms are able to attract more attention.”[26] The detailed feedback artists receive on their work can help them further their careers, but it can also create a significant level of pressure to increase their streams and disregard their creative intuition. Catering your work to a series of calculations and statistics is exactly what Baudelaire feared: artists become machines in pursuit of perfection for consumer appeal, and, in doing so, lose all sense of creativity and imagination. The deluge of statistics and calculations that has poured the current foundation for music production is a prime example of artists no longer being allowed to create what they imagine, if they want their work to be appreciated by the general public.
Although the algorithm has the most power in determining what music will be successful in the public eye, the public has a new form of interaction with art, and that is, with the introduction of social media, not only can they provide feedback on music through likes, comments and shares, but they can actually have a direct creative voice in the production process. The concern that the salons provided a frightening opportunity for their attendees to feel that they had “the right to teach and guide artists, without having to go to the trouble of mastering arts,”[27] has been amplified tenfold when looking at the level of involvement music listeners can have in the creative process, and the current state of the music industry. An extreme example of the audience being involved in every step of the creative process is Charli XCX’s 2020 album how i’m feeling now, where she consulted her listeners, or in this case, her collaborators, on nearly every creative decision. The audience could send Charli beats, album artwork, music video concepts, lyrics, or any other element that goes into an album rollout, and she would then incorporate these ideas into her project. This unique, experimental way of creating an album entirely through connection with listeners through the internet “relies on making the material available before release and the creative process a public spectacle, from uploading pictures of lyric sheets to the final recorded product.”[28] It eliminates the idea of having to present a perfectly polished piece of work, and reshapes “the traditional creative process [which] was characterized by a phase of isolation and seclusion.”[29] Even though there have been concerns expressed since the early days of letting the general public contribute to discussion about art, and even more so today with the public’s taste being so intrinsically related to the algorithm, there can also be examples like how i’m feeling now that utilize these changes in a new, and creative way—advancing music to new heights.
Baudelaire’s anxieties, which emerged as the sphere of public influence on art grew during the salon era, would be at an all-time high if he could witness the extent of public involvement in art and the influence algorithms hold over artists’ creative exploration in the present day. With the public being able to contribute their opinions on art—and, in the case of this discussion, music—it has reached a concerning level of audience involvement, given how that involvement is currently being manipulated, at a depth far beyond what the curators of the salon of 1859 could hope to have achieved with their introduction of photography to art exhibition. With artists’ taste heavily influenced by an uncontrollable algorithm, tremendous pressure is being placed upon artists to produce mechanically, trying to achieve the correct design of a song to reach virality, rather than creating art as an expression of their dreams and imagination. There are many parallels between debates about letting the public into artistic discussions through salons and the level of audience involvement in current times. Outside of how the public can influence the artist, many argue that without a level of education in art, one can’t form valid judgments. In the salon era, it was common for most people to find social solidarity through taste and follow the lead of the ‘educated’ voices. Correspondingly, the modern-day general public is heavily influenced by what the algorithm subtly tells them is good music: it has created a vicious cycle of demand, where artists feed into the algorithm, the algorithm determines how ‘good’ the work is, and delivers it to those it thinks will appreciate it. Though there are elements of technological evolution that have allowed artists like Charli XCX to innovate new ways to create music—using it as a tool to advance the art form rather than to feed into a calculated algorithm—the shortening of song lengths, and the changes in melodic structure to gain listenership, should be a reminder to stay aware that how we interact with art can alter what is produced without us even realizing. To mitigate the negative impacts while maximizing the positives from modern-day technological advancements, it is essential to continue reflecting not only on the motives of the companies behind the algorithms, but also on the power they have over our music taste and the art that is and will be created.
Endnotes
[1] Baudelaire, “The Salon of 1859,” 297.
[2] Ray, “Talking About Art: the French Royal Academy Salons and the Formation of the Discursive Citizen,” 539.
[3] Baudelaire, “The Salon of 1859,” 297.
[4] Ray, “Talking About Art,” 532.
[5] Ray, “Talking About Art,” 532.
[6] Ray, “Talking About Art,” 537.
[7] Ray, “Talking About Art,” 537.
[8] Ray, “Talking About Art,” 539.
[9] Ray, “Talking About Art,” 539.
[10] Ray, “Talking About Art,” 539.
[11] Arielli, “Taste and the algorithm,” 78.
[12] Arielli, “Taste and the algorithm,” 78.
[13] Arielli, “Taste and the algorithm,” 84.
[14] Arielli, “Taste and the algorithm,” 84.
[15] Arielli, “Taste and the algorithm,” 84.
[16] Ray, “Talking About Art,” 539.
[17] Arielli, “Taste and the algorithm,” 87.
[18] Ray, “Talking About Art,” 536.
[19] Ray, “Talking About Art,” 540.
[20] Ray, “Talking About Art,” 540.
[21] Ray, “Talking About Art,” 540.
[22] Arielli, “Taste and the algorithm,” 89.
[23] Baudelaire, “The Salon of 1859,” 291.
[24] McConville, “The Artists as a Subscription: Patching music as an artistic device,” 355.
[25] McConville, “The Artists as a Subscription,” 355.
[26] Arielli, “Taste and the algorithm,” 90.
[27] Ray, “Talking About Art,” 532.
[28] McConville, “The Artists as a Subscription: Patching music as an artistic device,” 359.
[29] Arielli, “Taste and the algorithm,” 91.
Bibliography
Arielli, Emanuele. “Taste and the Algorithm.” Studi di estetica, no. 12 (2018). https://doi.org/10.7413/18258646062.
Baudelaire, Charles. “The Salon of 1859.” In Baudelaire: Selecting Writings on Art and Artists. Cambridge University Press, 1972.
McConville, Thomas. “The Artist as a Subscription: Patching Music as an Artistic Device.” Organised Sound 28, no. 3 (2023): 352–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771823000626.
Ray, William. “Talking About Art: the French Royal Academy Salons and the Formation of the Discursive Citizen.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 37, no. 4 (2004): 527-552. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ecs.2004.0047.