Check reference for full text and notes.
1 Art appraisers
Does commodification corrupt? The central finding of my research is that putting prices on creative masterworks does not diminish appraisers’ ability to experience the transcendent values of art. Of the twenty assessors interviewed for this study, not one reported that market work disfigured their ability to enjoy the emotional, spiritual, and aesthetic qualities of artistic masterworks. In fact, most appraisers insisted they can easily and completely compartmentalize their professional duties from their private encounters with art. This finding challenges the panicked rhetoric of many anti-commodification theorists who continue to insist that commerce diminishes the meaning of sacred things.
Contrary to the predictions of market skeptics, the appraisers in this study spoke with joyful enthusiasm about their experiences viewing exceptional works of art. Even the most senior appraisers—those who have monetized thousands and thousands of objects—remain passionate consumers of art in their personal lives. The professionals I interviewed all reported visiting museums for pleasure, and many collect art to display in their homes. As a group, they described seeing beautiful pieces as “a charge,”164 “a rush,”165 “a thrill,”166 “fabulous,”167 “a giggle fest,”168 “exciting,”169 and “delight[ful].”170 Many of the respondents—twenty five percent—dubbed their experiences with great art as either “magic” or “magical.”171
Todd Sigety, a past president of the International Society of Appraisers, succinctly captured the dominant sentiment that emerged from the appraisers: “[i]t really is magic when you see a really good piece. When you see something special, that’s marvelous . . . . [Y]ou bounce.”172 Importantly, the respondents insisted that appraisal work had not dampened their appreciation of art’s non-instrumental virtues. Jane C.H. Jacob, an appraiser with thirty-five years of experience, explained, “[the appraisal work] does not corrode my enjoyment at all. I never get tired of looking at art. Never bored. I love art more now than I did 20 years ago.”173
She continued, “[f]or me, the joy is being able to experience it and inspect it. Listen, I don’t love art because of the price, but because of the way I respond to it. When I see [Monet’s] Water Lilies I never don’t get excited. A tear comes to my eye.”174
Edward Yee, arguably the nation’s top assessor of photographs, expressed a nearly identical opinion: “[w]hen I see a great photograph, I love that. The wow factor is still there . . . I can easily compartmentalize [my appraisal work]. If I’m in a museum as a tourist, I totally shut it off. I’m there for the enjoyment. I’m not thinking about value.”175
[...]
Brady, the foremost American appraiser of silver, recalled a comparable episode. While trying to inspect Benjamin Franklin’s silver spoon in a Philadelphia museum, Brady’s enthusiasm for the piece engulfed him—he bent over too close to the display and unwittingly triggered a museum security alarm. Brady said, “[w]hen I walk through a museum with a great silver collection I’m not thinking, ‘oh this thing is worth $65,000.’ I’m looking at what it is and trying to appreciate it. I’m the guy who gets down on his hands and knees to look under these things.”182
Even after twenty years of doing appraisals, Edward Yee could easily conjure examples of how art still inspires him. “I was at the Met for their Civil War photography show. And I saw this hand-painted albumen print. I’d seen my fair share, but this image was so good. It ruined albumen prints for me. The collections I see, they still move me.”183
For the appraisers in this study, it is clear that market work has not undermined their ability to enjoy the more sacred values of artistic masterpieces. In fact, the opposite appears true. A majority of the assessors stated that ascribing values to art actually increased their admiration for paintings, photographs, sculptures, and other creative work. But how could that be so? Given the widely reported dangers of commodification, how could non-instrumental values blossom in the hard soil of the marketplace? Anti-commodification scholars, it seems, have failed to appreciate that market work is a powerful educational agent that breaks the stale cake of ignorance, turns apathy into understanding, and nurtures new insights about the sacred. Imagine, for example, an appraiser confronted with attaching value to Mary Cassatt’s painting, Young Mother Sewing. Anyone attempting to price such an object must, at the outset, become well-versed in the artist’s career, the provenance of the work, and the ethos of the larger impressionist movement.184
Then, the appraiser must probe to explain whether the painting is a “good, better, or best” example of Cassatt’s work.185
Would it fetch more at auction than Child in a Straw Hat, Girl Arranging Her Hair, or The Boating Party? This is a challenge to the appraiser’s discernment and reason giving abilities.186
They must ascertain how the brushwork compares to the artist’s other efforts. Is it noticeably energetic? Is the color palette harmonious? Is the composition distinctive? Does the piece say anything about Gilded Age femininity? Finally, the appraiser must record all of this information—the entire basis for the valuation—in a written report prepared for the client.187 Market skeptics see little good in any of this. They argue that such pricing decisions fail to value artwork in the right way. Markets, so their argument goes, transform unique things into soulless commercial products.A rch-anticommodificationist Elizabeth Anderson even suggests that those who engage in ranking and valuation of art are “philistines, snobs, and prigs, precisely those least open to a free exploration and development of their aesthetic sensibilities.”188
But that is quite wrong. Commodification does not render these artworks flat and fungible. And it is not carried out by Philistines. Just the opposite. Putting an accurate price on sacred objects demands education, rigorous training, and cultivation of the eye.189
Appraisers must understand the objects on an intimate level in order to properly evaluate their quality and make suitable comparisons between seemingly disparate works.190
Such knowledge only enhances appreciation for the way that creative work can exhilarate, sooth, baffle, enlighten, and uplift.
The interviews are littered with examples of the educational power of markets. As one respondent explained, “[t]he training changed the way I thought about art. I learned about history and context, and my whole vision of what was ‘art’ changed. I became interested in regular items. And craft. It really opened my eyes to a whole new world.”191
Another appraiser, Deborah Force, described how her apprenticeship sharpened her eye and developed her connoisseurship of modern paintings. “I’ve learned so much about new areas,” she said, “[w]hen I was at Christie’s, my boss would quiz me all the time. Is this good? Is this good? It was often things I’d never seen, and artists I’d never seen. I had to try and articulate what I liked about it or why it failed. Sometimes I got it right. Sometimes wrong. But I looked at as much as I could.”192
Suzanne Smeaton, the foremost American appraiser of antique frames, related a similar experience that occurred at the beginning of her career. “The hardest thing to learn was whether gilded surfaces were original or restorations. When I started, I couldn’t tell the difference.”193
But, slowly, things changed. Smeaton recalled, “You learn by looking and seeing many, many objects and many surfaces. And seeing the finest examples of the type gives context. You start to see that gold leaf takes on this particular patina over time. It has a
richness and beauty . . . . I’m hyperaware of it.”194 Far from turning paintings into fungible commodities—as many anti-commodificationists warn—putting prices on artistic masterpieces forces appraisers to consider what makes them distinctive. As one interviewee explained, even the most renowned painters have good days and bad days in the studio.195
2 Sex
Background
The art world is not the only locus of the market skeptics’ worries. Among anti-commodification scholars, nothing causes more consternation than sex work and the status of prostitutes.208
In a sprawling literature, commentators have argued that exchanging sex for money “commodif[ies] sexuality,”209 degrades intimacy,210 “impedes human flourishing,”211 and foments attitudes that undermine the sacredness of the body.212 In short: market skeptics believe that prostitution corrupts the meaning of sex.213
Physical intimacy becomes something far grimmer and more transactional for both escorts and their customers. And, over time, market thinking can spread like a virus—seeping into the larger culture and driving out noncommodified understandings of physical love.214 Despite the sustained attention on commercial sex and its dangers, the same problem that plagued academic analysis of art appraisers reappears in the literature about escorts; scholars have gorged themselves on theoretical arguments but have largely failed to test their theories with any empirical rigor. The data on the private lives of escorts is “very limited.”215
In particular, the romantic relationships and sexual satisfaction of prostitutes, outside of work, have “not been studied extensively . . . .”216
As one research team noted, “[w]e are not aware of any research which explores how sex with paying customers is related to a prostitute’s private sex life . . . .”217
In the face of this scholarly lacuna, it appears that anticommodification scholars have uncritically accepted the prevailing view
that commercial sex work taints the sacredness of intimate acts. This exploratory study now erects an experimental scaffolding to test that assumption. Is sex work harmless? Or does exchanging sex for money corrupt important values and moral beliefs?
---
Methodology notes: Interviewing men offers one absolutely critical advantage: the market for male sex workers is more open, efficient, and well-developed than the market for female prostitutes. As a result of gendered norms among law enforcement officers, male prostitution “has received little intrusion from legal authorities.”225
Male escorts have more freedom to advertise aggressively, catalogue their prices, and openly list their contact information. Moreover, “unlike their female counterparts, male sex workers usually work independently.”226
In the male sex trade, individual escorts rather than pimps or traffickers remain broadly responsible for setting prices and developing marketing strategies. Thus, male sex workers are, on average, more directly enmeshed in the market than their female counterparts—a vital fact for a study about commodification.227
[Note 227 Centering male escorts provides another important benefit; it removes the stubbornly
perverse gender dynamics that accompany the typical transaction for sexual services
between a female escort and male client. For female prostitutes, the specter of rape and
patriarchal domination always looms. This ever-present threat of physical violence can
make it difficult to untangle and analyze prostitutes’ attitude toward the sexual act. Does
commodification affect their views about intimacy? Or have their ideas about sex been
shaped by the gendered violence they experience, the economic forces that push them into
the business, and the unfair cultural stigmas that attach to women who have casual
relationships with multiple partners? Focusing on male escorts eliminates some of these
exogenous variables. Although data about prostitution is always murky, when both buyer
and seller are men it allows a sharper focus on the role of markets and commodification in
shaping attitudes about sex.]
---
The experiences of male sex workers call into question some of the more harrowing predictions of the anti-commodification literature. As discussed above, market skeptics have long theorized that active sex markets would coarsen relationships, cheapen the meaning of sex,228 and undermine human flourishing.229
Yet, the escorts I interviewed insisted that selling physical intimacy did not corrupt their understanding of sex. While the physical demands of the job often left the interviewees feeling exhausted, each of the prostitutes revealed that they continued to experience the loving (and joyfully profane) virtues of the sexual act. Indeed, a majority of escorts confided that their market work positively impacted their private lives—commercial sex honed their sexual skills, boosted their confidence, and deepened their understanding of other men. Based on the data gathered here, it appears that anti-commodificationists have exaggerated the strength of their claims: sex is not some delicate crystal whose meaning shatters on impact with the market.
All of the prostitutes in this study insisted that they still derive real pleasure and intimacy from sleeping with men in non-commercial settings.
Jake, a married thirty-year-old from New Orleans, found that the paid sex work did little to dampen his enthusiasm for recreational sex. “I engage in different types of sexual activity,” he said, “just for my own fun and pleasure, whether that’s a dark room in a bar, or picking guys up on Grindr and having them over for the morning.”230
While the other interviewees may have lacked Jake’s zeal for causal encounters, they concurred that sex remained an affirming and welcome part of their relationships. Steve, a forty-four-year-old married Texan who supplements his family’s income with escort work, still relishes sleeping with his husband. “Oh, yes. I like to have sex. Absolutely. I mean, it’s a good thing . . . . [W]e still have a healthy sex life and [we’re] still kind of exploring and getting adventurous at home as well.”231
Oliver, who also has a long-term partner, agreed that it is “definitely” possible to engage in commercial sex while having a fulfilling private sex life. “Yeah,” he said, “I can’t really think of many ways which [commercial sex] might be negative.”232
Other respondents affirmed that they continued to value non-commercial sexual encounters, saying things like: “I do have good sex,”233 “[t]here’s definitely a passion [for sex],”234 and “[the work] hasn’t impacted my enjoyment.”235 A majority of the men also asserted that they could easily erect and maintain boundaries between their market roles and their private selves.236
Tyler summarized the views of many of the informants. “For me it is really easy to keep the two separate,” he said, “[w]ith [my partner] . . . it feels a lot more intimate.”237
Steve also had become adept at maintaining a separation between his work role and responsibilities at home. “I’m very good at compartmentalizing,” he insisted, “[t]here’s a difference between sex and love . . . . There’s a huge difference between going through the motion versus actually being in love with someone. That’s something that I feel internally . . . . “238
Harry, too, said that work sex is a “separate” hing.239 He elaborated: “[y]es, it is different, because there’s not, typically, emotional connection. It’s strictly business.”240 For these men, the boundary between personal sex and commercial sex seemed like a natural divide that required only light policing. This finding may surprise anti-commodificationists. How have escorts managed to so easily resist the pull of market thinking? The answers varied significantly between individuals. Some embraced the use of an escort pseudonym to help cement the distance between home and work spheres—a common practice among escorts around the globe.241
Another group manufactured a work identity fundamentally different from the persona they presented in private domains.242 Tyler, for instance, crafted a swashbuckling personality that he could slip into during work hours: “I put on at least a little bit of persona, a little extra bravado or something. I stay maybe a bit more active when I’m working. At that point I’m trying to really please the customer.”243 Alvin assumed a similarly assertive identity when escorting, “[i]t’s a lot of work,” he said, “and it’s a lot of acting.”244 Other men eschewed such performative masks, and focused instead on creating tactile, physical differences between their commercial and noncommercial encounters.245 Tyler, for instance, did not adopt an outrageous persona or stage name when at work. Instead, he only had unprotected sex with his private partner—his husband.246 The presence or absence of a condom marked a clear boundary between his nurturing relationship sex and his commercial endeavors.247 Similarly, Shawn, a twenty-nine year old from Oklahoma City, actively structured his personal sexual encounters to conform with social expectations of “normality.”248 “When I do decide to have sex in my private life,” he said, “it’s more so geared to the things that make me more comfortable . . . . I like a little bit of ambiance.”249 He continued, “[i]f I’m going to have sex in my private life, I don’t want to rush it. I don’t want to look at the clock and know how much time I have left . . . . You know, that sort of thing. I like for things to be a little bit more relaxed.”250
Vincent, a twenty-seven year old with two years of experience, employed the most radical strategy to demarcate work sex from personal sex. In his private life Vincent identified as heterosexual and only had sex with women. “I can keep them separate,” he said, “because I’m straight. With women, sex is a totally different thing.”251 Thus, it appears sex work is not the mere transference of personal sexual behaviors into the commercial setting, but rather, a type of sexual performance distinct from the norms and routines of the private bedroom.252 The two can be kept apart.
This negotiability of sexual meaning undermines one of the market skeptics’ core claims. Recall that much of the campaign against prostitution rests on the premise that commerce inescapably tarnishes the sacredness of sex. Yet, the data from this study show that corrosion is not inevitable.253 The interviewees stress that they successfully cordoned off their commercial activities and protected the intimacy of their private worlds. For these men, sex remained a joyful and cherished activity, even after years of selling their bodies. In truth, the lack of contamination should not entirely surprise anti-commodificationists. Decades of research from psychology and sociology have established that employees in many other industries “effectively separate [the] self from the role they play at work.”254
Doctors, entrepreneurs, and service workers all maintain psychological boundaries that distance the home sphere from occupational
pressures.255 The interviews compiled here provide evidence that escorts, too, effectively protect their inner worlds from the threatening effects of bargain and sale. Market skeptics, in their rush to promote the idea that commerce inevitably coarsens the good life, seem to have overlooked this nuance.
Anti-commodificationists have also ignored the possibility that prostitution might, on balance, have valuable long-term impacts on the inner-worlds and relationships of sex workers. On first blush, this may seem unlikely. Is it really possible that selling intimacy—getting naked with strangers in exchange for money—could bolster appreciation for fundamental values? The respondents in this study largely answered in the affirmative. A strong majority of the escorts reported that engaging in commercial sexual activities actually improved the quality of their private lives and their appreciation for sacred things.256 Just as appraisal work revealed new insights about the creative process, prostitution taught the interviewees about the complexity of desire, gave them a deeper understanding of the sexual act, and enhanced their ability to satisfy a private partner.257 The interviews are rich in significant details on this point. As Jake pithily explained, “I’m really good at [sex]. [I]t’s just like any skill. It takes practice.”258 He elaborated,
I’m a top, and it’s just like I’m a lot more in-tune with what
people want . . . . Different people want different things.
Picking up on different body language. Some people want it
really rough and hard, and other people want it a little more
delicately. I think one thing is . . . just having the confidence of
knowing, like, when you start to do the foreplay, when the
foreplay becomes heavy, and when you can transition into sex.
You know, it’s almost just like an experience thing.259
Shawn agreed that the commercial work had a positive impact on his understanding of sex. “I think having to be so many different things to so many different people— you know, when you’re working—I think that’s kind of made me better at sex overall.”260 Ken, too, argued that he benefited from the sexual knowledge he acquired during work. He said,“[y]ou definitely learn to do things that maybe you didn’t think about . . . .[Y]ou definitely learn what everyone’s flavor is.”261
Market skeptics may view these admissions through a rather dark prism, arguing that commodification simply turns all sex into a crass search for the most extreme carnal pleasures. The interviewees, however, resisted that outlook. They stressed that the knowledge gleaned through their work affirmed their private loving relationships. Steve, for example, felt that his escort work improved the companionate sex in his marriage. He enjoyed that he could share what he learned on the job with his husband. “[I]f anything, my work life has broadened my adventures in the bedroom at home,” he said, “I bring home a new skill, or a new method, or a new trick that I’ve learned, then my husband’s like, ‘[w]ell, that’s interesting. I kind of like that.’”262 Others, like Harry, reported that the communication skills they learned as prostitutes made them more open-minded and responsive in their personal sexual relationships.263
Alvin also felt that the commercial work taught him to focus more attentively on his partner’s needs during his personal sexual escapades: “so I’m feeling good. Is this person feeling good? What can I do to make them feel better? It’s that kind of interplay that still occurs in my head, even when I’m having casual sex [in my private life].”264 Thus, far from turning sex into a flat and interchangeable commodity, market work deepened the escorts’ understanding of physical intimacy. Sex work instilled the importance of honest communication between partners, revealed that men have many different (and often colorful) needs, and showed that not all fantasies can be met by working off the same script. On these points, the market is an exacting teacher.
Importantly, escort work did more than just bestow a greater appreciation for the joyous, open, and adventurous aspects of the sexual act. Many of the interviewees reported that sex work also bolstered their confidence and reaffirmed the sacredness of the bodies.265 The impact stemmed primarily from the market’s ability to make the escorts feel physically desirable. Alvin admitted that before engaging in escort activities he had a “series of insecurities.”266 Becoming a sex worker, however, rebuilt his self-esteem. “It’s . . . glamorous to be considered good looking enough or hot enough or sexually appealing enough to be in the sex industry,” he said, “and knowing that I’m literally being paid to have sex with this individual because they find me desirable, it kind of—it carries over [into my personal life].”267 Tyler told a very similar story. “I never really thought I looked that great or that I was that interesting,” he said, “[s]o, it was a little weird. I was like: ‘wow people give me money to talk to me, touch me for a second’ and I’m like ‘okay!’.”268 And no one stated more emphatically than Shawn that prostitution has the inherent capacity to re-kindle self-belief and improve body image:
It kind of gave me confidence, you know, when I was going
through all of this stuff with losing my job . . . and then going on
interviews and being told, “no, you’re not good enough,” at least
twice a week. Then, getting into the industry, as you kind of
learn the ropes, as you kind of learn how to navigate the
unfamiliar situations that you put yourself in, basically making
people’s weeks . . . giving them a good experience, them telling you
positive comments, telling you that you’re really attractive,
you’re fun to spend time with. It gives you this sense of
confidence that you never really had before.269
The experience of escorts like Shawn punches new holes in the armor that anti-commodificationists have constructed around their arguments. The respondents’ comments suggest that markets may do more to uplift and ennoble sacred things than corrupt or degrade them. But what about the downsides? Were there any costs to participating in the market for commercial sex? A few. One interviewee did seem to struggle with the border between commercial sex work and his personal
intimate encounters.270 Ken said, “when you start doing this sex work, you obviously get paid for your time. So, when you’re not on the clock . . . and just having sex in your spare time for fun, and the back of your mind, you’re always thinking, ‘damn, I wish I was getting paid for this.’”271 Yet, even Ken still expressed enthusiasm for engaging in sexual activity in his dating life. He said, “I don’t think [the sex work has] detracted. I tell people all the time that I love sex. If I could have sex every day, I would. I don’t think it could ever really detract from my private life.”272
A far more common complaint among the escorts was that work sex supplanted some of the playful casual sex they enjoyed in their personal lives. One interviewee admitted, “[i]t has actually admittedly replaced a lot of the time that I would spend trying to pursue or actually engage in casual sex.”273
Another concurred, “if I have some off-time now, I’m not necessarily looking for sex. I’m either resting, or I’m at the bar enjoying a drink, just because I like the taste of vodka, not because I’m trying to get laid.”274 This occurred for three reasons. First, the physical nature of the work coupled with the late hours often left the escorts too fatigued for
private erotic encounters. As Alvin explained, “it comes down to the fact that oh, well, I am exhausted physically.”275
Second, having sex three or four times a week with clients sapped the libidinous urges of many. Oliver said, “if I’m going in [and] performing for a client . . . then [I’m] not really feeling like being sexual again.”276
Third, the escorts sometimes refrained from private casual sex because it affected their ability to get an erection and ejaculate with their paying clients. Alvin made this point explicitly.277
...
These complaints, however, are not anchored in concerns about commodification. Being tired at the end of the day is not the same as being tired of sex. As Ty said, escort work interferes with “day-to-day life” just as much as a “night shift . . . job.”279 Moreover, reducing the frequency of sex does not inherently change the meaning attached to physical intimacy or spontaneously refashion moral commitments. Tyler perfectly captured the distinction. He summarized the effect of sex work on his life: “the rate at which I look for [sex] has gone down, but my enjoyment hasn’t.”280
Before moving on, it is worth thinking back one last time on the dominant narrative about commercial sex. Market skeptics posit that individuals who trade sex for money will gradually lose the ability to access the more spiritual virtues of the sexual act. Sex, so the argument goes, will inevitably become something bleak and mechanical. The prostitutes in this study provide a sturdy challenge to this worldview. Despite their immersion in the market for intimate services, the interviewees emphasized that they still found meaning in the sexual act. Their personal sex lives remained exciting, satisfying, and full of beauty. Moreover, the escorts indicated that they had little difficulty demarcating their professional personas from their personal identities. Negative views about commodified sex did not seep into their quotidian routines or imperil their non-commodified understandings of love and relationships. Rather, their market work seemed to impart new insights about desire and a deeper appreciation for the power of sex. Going forward, scholars should acknowledge that the mental barricades protecting sacred things like sex are stronger and less porous that anti-commodification scholars insist.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment