capitalism, art, and costco
Came across this article through my MFA seminar class focusing on national and international art markets, and decided to write a pseudo response to it…
How Capitalism Can Save Art: Camille Paglia on why a new generation has chosen iPhones and other glittering gadgets as its canvas
October 5, 2012; The Wall Street Journal, U.S. Edition
…the visual arts have been in slow decline for nearly 40 years. No major figure of profound influence has emerged in painting or sculpture since the waning of Pop Art and the birth of Minimalism in the early 1970s.”
I disagree! No, I do not in fact know much about the contemporary art scene. I do not have a significant background in art history, let alone contemporary art history. But I see media – be it mass/commercial/local/revolutionary – as replacing fine art.
Not to say the two are necessarily comparable beyond the fact that they are visual, they are a part of our culture, and they are created by humans.
Ok, I lied – I am saying to the two are comparable, whilst remaining different.
More arguments to come in thesis…
But there is a larger question: What do contemporary artists have to say, and to whom are they saying it? Unfortunately, too many artists have lost touch with the general audience and have retreated to an airless echo chamber. The art world, like humanities faculties, suffers from a monolithic political orthodoxy—an upper-middle-class liberalism far from the fiery antiestablishment leftism of the 1960s.”
Whoa. That last sentence is beautifully written… and while I agree, I also disagree. Perhaps that is the thing about this new generation of contemporary artists – the post-911 artists, if you will – we are not revolutionary. I often wonder if we ever will be. And I don’t just mean in art; I mean in everything.
For example, examples of sound artists from the 1950s/60s are still in a way creepy, weird and revolutionary to the point that a class of lower level art students will be all, ‘whhhaaaa?!’ in response.
…life-size nude statue of the crucified Christ sculpted from chocolate, intended for a street-level gallery window in Manhattan during Holy Week. However, museums and galleries would never tolerate equally satirical treatment of Judaism or Islam.”
I am a firm believer in, if you are going to mock something, you must mock all things equally. Go after all religions, all people, all cultures. MOCK ALL THE THINGS. Equally. It’s only fair.
For the arts to revive in the U.S., young artists must be rescued from their sanitized middle-class backgrounds. We need a revalorization of the trades that would allow students to enter those fields without social prejudice (which often emanates from parents eager for the false cachet of an Ivy League sticker on the car).”
This is interesting. Blame the parents. The baby-boomers. Or are they? My parents are baby boomers… but the parents of the young artists entering higher educational institutions are now… oh dear, gen-X’ers?! Lelaina Pierce and Troy Dyer, I will be teaching your kids pretty soon. WHOA.
The industrial designer is trained to be a clear-eyed observer of the commercial world—which, like it or not, is modern reality.”
Agreed. You can’t ignore commercialism. It is everywhere. Roadside advertising will probably always be in perpetuity. And sure, maybe magazine inserts and television commercials are said or assumed to be gone. But what about that app suggestion that just popped up on your iPad, or that suggested artist Spotify just told you to listen to. And the internet – don’t even get me started on the internet. It’s been said the internet is for porn. Nope, not true. The internet is for ADS.
But it is capitalism that ended the stranglehold of the hereditary aristocracies, raised the standard of living for most of the world and enabled the emancipation of women. The routine defamation of capitalism by armchair leftists in academe and the mainstream media has cut young artists and thinkers off from the authentic cultural energies of our time.”
Sure, yeah. Capitalism did that. No arguments there. But this is a different time, and now, in my opinion, capitalism is destroying us. But this is America, where we are greedy, individualistic bastards who are taught from day 1 we will become successful if we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.
Well I don’t know if anyone else noticed this, but – WE DO NOT HAVE BOOT STRAPS ANYMORE.
This is a 19th century term. Yes it is meant metaphorically, and yes I am interpreting it here literally. IDC. STFU. GTFO. <— See? That is the future. Epic facepalm. Because I really just did that.
But, I would also argue that abbv. are not necessarily the butchering of the English language, like oh say, O RLY (meme speak, can we call it?) or the use of “u” or “4ev” or whatever else those crazy kids are using these days for texting. Actually, no. I would and do argue “u” or the like is butchering the English language. And also just bloody annoying.
Young people today are avidly immersed in this hyper-technological environment, where their primary aesthetic experiences are derived from beautifully engineered industrial design. Personalized hand-held devices are their letters, diaries, telephones and newspapers, as well as their round-the-clock conduits for music, videos and movies. But there is no spiritual dimension to an iPhone, as there is to great works of art.”
Yes and no. Immersed in technology? Sure, totally. I often wonder how these young people can stand roaming around all day with headphones in their ears – how can they hear and experience the world around them? How do they not get almost hit by a car walking to class (when I totally do and I am not even wearing headphones…)?
Maybe I feel this way because I am in that awkward limbo. I’m young enough to be enamored by this technology, but I’m old enough to remember the days before it. I still write letters and mail physical cards. I still listen to records and cassettes. I still own a VCR and a ton of VHS tapes. But then again, I no longer keep a written journal, or a sketchbook (does that make me a ‘bad’ artist?) – but I do takes notes in class with pen(cil) and paper, and I keep a notebook (or four) filled with quotes and ideas and designs.
But what I really want to argue here, is this: the iPhone (or any other device in the category) can be what you make of it. Why say it has no spiritual dimension? What exactly is that supposed to mean?
I believe you can create a great work of art in a digital form. You can also display great works of art from previous generations ON THE iPHONE. Portable devices create accessibility.
But do they? Because when you don’t have one, and you visit a museum with QR codes – you lose out.
It’s a battle. Just like everything always is. I’m not even sure what point I was trying to make anymore.
Oh wait – let me just refer back to the article again –
Thus we live in a strange and contradictory culture, where the most talented college students are ideologically indoctrinated with contempt for the economic system that made their freedom, comforts and privileges possible.”
Because that is the point. We are freaking weird. And we are oh so very, very, super-duper contradictory.
The spiritual language even of major abstract artists like Piet Mondrian, Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko is ignored or suppressed.”
Also, I’m not really sure what this means… ‘spiritual language’ of an artwork? Like… the theme? Maybe this is the problem with my lack of undergraduate art upbringing…
—
Then, this article was sent in response, or commentary, or whatever, to the first…
Costco Returns to the Business of Selling Fine Art
October 5, 2012; The New York Times
At least I can honestly say, I have never once in my life, been to a Costco. (I grew up in a Sam’s Club family…) sigh.
Although, I have been to Sears, and apparently they sold works of art between 1962 and 1971.
I see this as strange, but not strange.
On the one hand, I don’t think it should matter where you sell your art; it could be in an upscale NYC gallery, a local gallery, online through your website, or Etsy, or some other retailer (is it PetaPixel for photographers?). I think as long as you sell what you would like to sell, and are able to make a living, then, hooray for you!
But I am sure, without a doubt, that my opinion is not shared by everyone in the art world, be they artist, collector, or aficionado.
But I can understand the issue of authenticity when dealing with works by famous and influential artists, like Picasso or Dali. From what I have learned in one of my seminar classes, part of the job of a gallerist (I think I might have just made that up…) is to ensure that a work is legit.
Is Costco now hiring art appraisers and art historians? I find that highly unlikely…
But this is also very interesting, considering that Walton lady, heir to the throne if you will, has opened up Bridges.
(Why did I just Google ‘Bridges’ and expect to get the result I was looking for?!)
Crystal Bridges: Museum of American Art, opened up sometime in the recent couple of years, and from what I learned in an art history class, to much disdain and controversy.
But here’s the thing: it’s commercialization of art. And if an artwork can be sold, it can be and is a commodity. I am struggling with that as an artist myself. There are some works that I absolutely would not and will not sell. Other works, I am all about trying to get some money for them to make a living.
We are, by nature, contradictory.